Open Site Blathering (formerly Advice from iridium ITT)

[Azrael]

I think admin's current approach to lower staff putting you in a fairly awkward and impractical position.

Democracy, input, dialogue, back-and-forth - all of these are good things, from an idealistic stand point and a practical one. Giving lower staff a voice in the site's affairs, is a good thing by any of these measures.

However, the ideal of a direct-democratic staff with diffused authority runs into a number of problems on implementation. The chief among them being that a number of the lower staff members often don't bother to engage in a back-and-forth with the people they critique, and don't always care to fully inform themselves about the situations they're weighing in on. Many do. Many don't. But all of them are considered to have equal say, under this system, despite many of them not having the same pulse on the situation as the people who choose to go out into the field.

Then there's the simple fact of
why we have leaders to begin with. We believe that the people at the top (or on their way up) are the best suited to guide us through contentious and difficult decisions. Making decisions in an insular system isn't good practice. But inevitably, not everyone is equally suited to help make decisions for the group. There are people who are more knowledgeable, smarter, better informed, more far-seeing, more wise - whatever the case may be. We're not all equally gifted as decision-makers on every given subject, not by a long-shot. A good leader will take the input of his subordinates into account, and be guided by it, and they ignore feedback at their peril. But the other part of their job is persuading people to adopt a more informed viewpoint, to get people to follow where they lead, to inspire trust in their judgment.

I would be perfectly content with a structure in which everyone who wants to vote on the bannings is required to read the full dossier and engage in actual back and forth with the people
they're evaluating. That would bring people up to a minimum level of competency to make the decision. But one of the reasons we have leaders is so that they can wield that knowledge and responsibility without making everyone take the time to become an expert on the subject, and trudge through interminable debates.

Sometimes it feels more like you and maybe Sene are more comfortable being mediators than leaders, Nai. It's a similar skill-set, but not always identical. It occasionally feels like you're being trying to be too democratic - which may sound off-color, but is entirely possible to do. We've gone from an autocracy all the way to the articles of confederation, when what we need is a federalist system.

[Checkbox]

<3 you so much

[Thrillho]

Best way to do that is to make an appeal. It's the best way to show this in detail to the mods who will be making the decision. Include a link to this thread if you like, starting at the relevant posts. That gives them a ballpark of 'hey, this is where we can see what's changed'. But it's also a place where you can talk to them without them having to feel alienated or ganged up on. If they want to come here to talk, they will.

I do need to reiterate that the appeal thread is definitely a thing here. There's already people upset that the admins are even coming here to talk to you about this, as, to them, it shows that the 'treat these folks as if they are different' (previously known as 'because Gutter') is still live and well. Us skipping the appeals
process, posting your appeal for you, etc., would actually be this.

The last time I did that, I posted for IIRC 4 pages to 12-18 total responses, several hundred views without comment, and many posts made in my thread were, in short, "Wait a bit for it." And I did, for close to a month, for nothing.

Your initial posts said you were here, Nai. I have been working with you to this point, but the people responsible for 800-odd views have not come here to apologize for ignoring me, if they even think that they hold any fault for making a not-dialog drag on for so long. They probably don't, and I can't blame them entirely, but it's also not going to give me the good faith necessary to put my head back in a shark tank and just wait to see whether or not I get mauled.

I'm not going to ever claim we're special. We're just more users and the only caveat to that is many of us also happen to have been very active in the community, and many of us have also been staff for a not-
insignificant amount of time. I think our circumstance -- collectively having been on staff, having this all happen because of one section of the forum that removes us from the greater userbase (defining us by Gutter membership), that we were holders and gatekeepers to important information the very people claiming we are not exceptional didn't themselves have. Those are exceptional things. That is not to say we are exceptional people, but the circumstances we were in -- some thrust upon us, some by choice -- are all exceptional ones. To not see that is incredibly short-sighted and shows that I would not be walking into a group of people looking to move on, as that sort of mentality is based in the axe-grinder sort of headspace. I'm not here to grind axes, I'm here to go for a new career choice that doesn't have me lopping down trees. I would like to include MTGS as a part of that, as I have a history of building there even if part of that building history is marred by some level of destruction.

Edit:
I reiterate a lot of things Scumbag touches on in his post; I hadn't gotten that far into this thread when I responded to it. My bad.

[Nai]

Get back to work.

Oh, you mean your job for you? Very well.

Hey, Nai, if you were in Kaitscralt's position what would you do?

That's a good question, actually.

In the (somewhat) recent past, I was actually banned from a community I liked for bad reasons. It was done directly by the owner of the community, so there was no room for appeal. I attempted to anyways, was denied, was made fun of (this had been a continual thing for some time, so that was nothing new), and that was it. I got nothing else out of him. I had to meet with my friends at another
location, and I lost some friends in the process because I could no longer reach them. It was not fun.

So I do know where these folks are coming from. I'm sure that the owner of that community had good reasons, in his own mind, for banning me. I feel that I was wrongfully banned, and I was burned when I tried to do anything about it.

That said, if the owner of that site came to me and went 'you know, I still think you were wrongfully banned, but I'd take you back if you showed me that you're not going to be a problem', I'd probably take him up on that. Not for the sake of proving I wasn't wrongfully banned. He'd made it clear that he didn't think he was mistaken. But to simply be back with my community.

So I'd appeal. I'd put everything I could into it to show that 'whatever you believe about the previous ban, that's not who I am, let me be part of the community I care about'.

[Thrillho]

Also, Nai and Scumbag, you're building off of each other and it's going to keep escalating. Scumbag raises some good arguments about why, Nai, your posting here doesn't seem as progressive as you billed it as when you came back to the talking table. Your posting here is a good first step, but it's only a first step. Saying, "Make an appeals thread and appeal to the people who aren't talking here" doesn't go a very long way, because if those people were interested in talking, they would be talking already. These were the same people who weren't interested in talking to me about my last appeal -- they were content to make jabs in a safe zone where I couldn't even defend against what was being raised against me while I danced for the for pages and responses upon pages and responses. To reiterate, that's not progressive. That's merely passive-aggression. That doesn't help anyone. Maybe it is a fault of the appeals process
overall, as Az attempts to point out, but it's something that has worn me thin. Waiting a month for nothing is the definition of trying, and trying wears patience. While I first raised I should be more patient with people, having me sit in a cave for a month and chant matras to myself is only useful in Kung-Fu movies and prayer.

[Col. Khaddafi]

That said, if the owner of that site came to me and went 'you know, I still think you were wrongfully banned, but I'd take you back if you showed me that you're not going to be a problem', I'd probably take him up on that. Not for the sake of proving I wasn't wrongfully banned. He'd made it clear that he didn't think he was mistaken. But to simply be back with my community.

That's a good point actually.

What does the owner thinks about the situation? Boubs, as someone who was not involved in the original bannings, what is your own take/opinion on this?

Do you need more information about something/anything in order to form an opinion on this matter? Feel free to ask here or by PM if you need so.

Thank you in advance for your time.

[Nai]

The last time I did that, I posted for IIRC 4 pages to 12-18 total responses, several hundred views without comment, and many posts made in my thread were, in short, "Wait a bit for it." And I did, for close to a month, for nothing.

Your initial posts said you were here, Nai. I have been working with you to this point, but the people responsible for 800-odd views have not come here to apologize for ignoring me, if they even think that they hold any fault for making a not-dialog drag on for so long. They probably don't, and I can't blame them entirely, but it's also not going to give me the good faith necessary to put my head back in a shark tank and just wait to see whether or not I get mauled.

I'm not going to ever claim we're special. We'
re just more users and the only caveat to that is many of us also happen to have been very active in the community, and many of us have also been staff for a not-insignificant amount of time. I think our circumstance -- collectively having been on staff, having this all happen because of one section of the forum that removes us from the greater userbase (defining us by Gutter membership), that we were holders and gatekeepers to important information the very people claiming we are not exceptional didn't themselves have. Those are exceptional things. That is not to say we are exceptional people, but the circumstances we were in -- some thrust upon us, some by choice -- are all exceptional ones. To not see that is incredibly short-sighted and shows that I would not be walking into a group of people looking to move on, as that sort of mentality is based in the axe-grinder sort of headspace. I'm not here to grind axes, I'm here to go for a new career choice that doesn't have me lopping down trees. I would
like to include MTGS as a part of that, as I have a history of building there even if part of that building history is marred by some level of destruction.

Edit: I reiterate a lot of things Scumbag touches on in his post; I hadn't gotten that far into this thread when I responded to it. My bad.

And we made mistakes doing that. Your appeal last time wasn't good. I don't mean that it wasn't good on your side. The actual handling of the appeal was bad. It's something we need to work on as a staff; putting more communication in the actual appeals threads. It's a juggle for us, to give enough information to you to know that 'this is going on, this is the arguments for and against' without violating the confidentiality of those saying it. It's difficult for us to give more than 'Here's a few questions for you. Okay, we got answers, we'll get back to you when we make a choice." We've been working on it, and I've been trying to make an effort on the appeals I handle to
actually give a thorough conclusion of "This is why you were banned/suspended, this is the arguments for your ban, this is the arguments against your ban. This is where the staff is at, this is the conclusion." At the very least to make sure you're more of a part of it.

That appeal was handled badly, and I think I had said as much in the Doghouse thread (or whatever it was) in the Gutter. We're working on making the appeals system better so it does what you're interested in. Which is getting you the responses you need to make sure the appeal is successful.

As for the 'exceptional' bit, I have mods who believe what I'm doing here, right now, is specialized treatment. Coming to you on your turf to try to guide you to a successful appeal. I'd prefer this to be the standard operating procedure for us, and I continue to act that way towards cases I know. But, understand, to the staff, this is basically out of the ordinary.

[Col. Khaddafi]

But, understand, to the staff, this is basically out of the ordinary.

Well Nai, do understand that our bannings are basically out of the ordinary since we were all discretionary banned.

So, how do we fix this exceptional situation in a non-standard way? Can we work out something better than the standard appeal process?

[Kaitscralt]

Since I am the only one here who has not been dragged through the appeal process mud in the past, I am willing to be a sacrificial lamb to the appeal gods. Nai, I cannot stress this enough that I expect my appeal to be handled swiftly. I feel I am owed that courtesy after being forced to write up a document that has already been written ten times over in these conversations. If at any time I feel my appeal is being ignored or used to rake me over the coals for staff amusement, I will ask it be dismissed and accept my ban. I won't be subjected to a kangaroo court, as kpaca calls it.

[Nai]

I think admin's current approach to lower staff putting you in a fairly awkward and impractical position.

Democracy, input, dialogue, back-and-forth - all of these are good things, from an idealistic stand point and a practical one. Giving lower staff a voice in the site's affairs, is a good thing by any of these measures.

However, the ideal of a direct-democratic staff with diffused authority runs into a number of problems on implementation. The chief among them being that a number of the lower staff members often don't bother to engage in a back-and-forth with the people they critique, and don't always care to fully inform themselves about the situations they're weighing in on. Many do. Many don't. But all of them are considered to have equal say,
under this system, despite many of them not having the same pulse on the situation as the people who choose to go out into the field.

Then there's the simple fact of why we have leaders to begin with. We believe that the people at the top (or on their way up) are the best suited to guide us through contentious and difficult decisions. Making decisions in an insular system isn't good practice. But inevitably, not everyone is equally suited to help make decisions for the group. There are people who are more knowledgeable, smarter, better informed, more far-seeing, more wise - whatever the case may be. We're not all equally gifted as decision-makers on every given subject, not by a long-shot. A good leader will take the input of his subordinates into account, and be guided by it, and they ignore feedback at their peril. But the other part of their job is persuading people to adopt a more informed viewpoint, to get people to follow where they lead, to inspire trust in their judgment.

I would be
perfectly content with a structure in which everyone who wants to vote on the bannings is required to read the full dossier and engage in actual back and forth with the people they're evaluating. That would bring people up to a minimum level of competency to make the decision. But one of the reasons we have leaders is so that they can wield that knowledge and responsibility without making everyone take the time to become an expert on the subject, and trudge through interminable debates.

Sometimes it feels more like you and maybe Sene are more comfortable being mediators than leaders, Nai. It's a similar skill-set, but not always identical. It occasionally feels like you're being trying to be too democratic - which may sound off-color, but is entirely possible to do. We've gone from an autocracy all the way to the articles of confederation, when what we need is a federalist system.

Some of these are decent points. But there's also the reason we actually make it democratic: having
a number of minds on the situation gives us multiple viewpoints and helps to ensure that we're getting it right.

There's five admins. If we are the ones dealing with the unbannings, not only is it going to take a long time for all of us to get our information together, but there's also the question of bias. There's the question of getting the conclusion wrong. There's the question of 'if they screw it up, who do I appeal to? There's the question of fairness there.

It helps a little to work with other people and have them vote in on it. That way we can say 'three dozen people looked over the facts and 90% of us agree that...'

It's not a perfect system. It needs work. But right now, it's the system we're working with.

[Nai]

Since I am the only one here who has not been dragged through the appeal process mud in the past, I am willing to be a sacrificial lamb to the appeal gods. Nai, I cannot stress this enough that I expect my appeal to be handled swiftly. I feel I am owed that courtesy after being forced to write up a document that has already been written ten times over in these conversations. If at any time I feel my appeal is being ignored or used to rake me over the coals for staff amusement, I will ask it be dismissed and accept my ban. I won't be subjected to a kangaroo court, as kpaca calls it.

Thread's already updated, Sene's assembling the information you already posted to him. Just keep in mind it takes a bit for everyone to get in and post, and
people do discuss over the application of the rules. That's usually what takes so long. We go back, investigate the issue. Then people will make their various stances known. People will talk back and forth to show 'this is how I see it, this is why they should be unbanned/banned'. And we make the final statement when the discussion has ended and we can see the definite spots of everyone.

So please, be patient. We're not ignoring anyone. Some of these, and especially when we're talking situations that get heated, take time for all of us to get together.

[Thrillho]

Clearing out an entire subforum whose permissions once gave a normal user access to Administrator control is not an ordinary thing. I know I have the bias of being a part of it, but we were involved in an exceptional thing. It's not every day entire subforums get put up on the chopping block and cause a huge struggle on the main forums (testing grounds/extendos were the only other example of this IIRC).

I see you're going post-by post in response, so these posts I'm making are going to drag that whole activity out. I'll cut myself off here. Thanks for taking the time to respond to us.

[Nai]

Clearing out an entire subforum whose permissions once gave a normal user access to Administrator control is not an ordinary thing. I know I have the bias of being a part of it, but we were involved in an exceptional thing. It's not every day entire subforums get put up on the chopping block and cause a huge struggle on the main forums (testing grounds/extendos were the only other example of this IIRC).

I see you're going post-by post in response, so these posts I'm making are going to drag that whole activity out. I'll cut myself off here. Thanks for taking the time to respond to us.

I'm aware. What I'm saying is that it's not ordinary for an admin to go -to- a banned user and say 'okay, let's work together to get you unbanned'
either. As-is, usually when someone's banned and appeal denied, that's it. End of story. So having appeals re-opened, and coming in to guide and coach as to 'this needs to stop, this would be okay, this needs to be on MTGC' is already out of the ordinary.

I know it doesn't sound like much. But understand, on our end, this -is- a huge thing.

[Col. Khaddafi]

But, understand, to the staff, this is basically out of the ordinary.

Well Nai, do understand that our bannings are basically out of the ordinary since we were all discretionary banned.

So, how do we fix this exceptional situation in a non-standard way? Can we work out something better than the standard appeal process?

Are you planning on answering this post Nai?

[Kaitscralt]

What happened to Boubs plan for a mass unban?

[Col. Khaddafi]

What happened to Boubs

also this

[Thrillho]

Posting on a website that isn't MTGS isn't an exceptional thing, nor is saying, "You should make an appeal thread to appeal your ban." I believe Pendulum asked as much earlier in this thread. While I'm sure Pendulum in his wildest fantasies believes he holds as much sway over MTGS as you do, you are the one with Administrator access and the aura that comes with a bold tag and username.

If posting on an internet site that isn't MTGS is a big thing to these users, do none of them discuss Magic or websites they visit on Facebook? Or Twitter? Or anywhere that isn't MTGS, for that matter?

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, I'm trying to relay how deeply ingrained these thought processes are and how they are harmful (and sort of based on a very twisted non-logic if you stop and think about it) just generally, not even specifically to this dialog.

After all, Sene didn't parade around that no one wanted
him to post here when he would post page after page for neutral, positive, or aggressive in this very thread. Boubs didn't either. You're the person making that matter in this discussion, and I'm trying to raise that it didn't to this point. If the goal is to move past, why are we regressing here?

[Col. Khaddafi]

But, understand, to the staff, this is basically out of the ordinary.

Well Nai, do understand that our bannings are basically out of the ordinary since we were all discretionary banned.

So, how do we fix this exceptional situation in a non-standard way? Can we work out something better than the standard appeal process?

Are you planning on answering this post Nai?

Guess
not. That's a shame.

[Col. Khaddafi]

So Nai, here are the statistics of kpaca's appeal:

Appeal start: 21st September
Current status: 58 posts and 780+ views

Is this the kind of appeals we can expect from your "generous" offer?

Also, is it mandatory that the appeals need to be private? What if the person appealing wants them to be public?

Last but not least:

But, understand, to the staff, this is basically out of the ordinary.

Well Nai, do understand that our bannings are basically out of the ordinary since we were
all discretionary banned.

So, how do we fix this exceptional situation in a non-standard way? Can we work out something better than the standard appeal process?

[Galspanic]

( N_S ), what are you trying to accomplish here? That's a question that I know comes with a certain paternal tone a lot of the time, but I really want to know since I don't understand why you are approaching this with a somewhat hostile front. I know for me, each appeal will be handled individually and I won't "because Gutter" the individuals in there. Not all appeals are equal either - some people are helpful and make their case and others just say "Well, at least I get laid you fuck." If you would like us to make a blanket generalization about how they are handled it's not going to be accurate or fair.

[Mogadishu Jones]

Thats somewhat unfair to mtgstaff as two months of stall in that appeal are related to me being busy or whatnot.

[Col. Khaddafi]

( N_S ), what are you trying to accomplish here? That's a question that I know comes with a certain paternal tone a lot of the time, but I really want to know since I don't understand why you are approaching this with a somewhat hostile front. I know for me, each appeal will be handled individually and I won't "because Gutter" the individuals in there. Not all appeals are equal either - some people are helpful and make their case and others just say "Well, at least I get laid you fuck." If you would like us to make a blanket generalization about how they are handled it's not going to be accurate or fair.

I have firsthand experience of appeals and it has been basically negative insofar. And the accounts from other
former Gutter members point to the same conclusion mostly. The fact that you won't "because Gutter" is reassuring, but Nai essentially told us that you guys will only reach an agreement by consensus, and it would be naïve to think any appeal handled on those grounds would be anything else than an exhausting experience given that you will inevitably find quite a few "because Gutter" staff members. I fear it would devolve quickly in a collective lecturing session instead of an honest discussion where we can start mending rifts. kpaca's still ongoing appeal is proof of this, also taking into account what he was banned for. Plus there's the private setting where it is easy for portions of the staff to gang up on the single member appealing.

Again, I would love if we could explore alternatives in order to reach something more of a B) case scenario. As opposed to private individual appeals on MTGS, do you think something else could be worked out? Maybe we could strike an agreement if some
new ideas are brought to the table?

[Thrillho]

On one hand, I trust that the admins have been following our "progress" on this site intently and can make an earnest assessment about which of us have grown or moved on from our troubling experiences. On the other, Senori joined this discussion two weeks after Harkius admitted that Senori fed him knowingly false information for what would appear to be just to drive drama and discord among hotheaded members of MTGS who are likely to get themselves in hot water once their tempers flare.

Between that and Scumbag's more level-headed post above, I hope this better illustrates the misgivings I have about approaching a silent majority of a tribunal in discussing an appeal when I seem to be discussing it perfectly well, openly, and without issue here.

[Col. Khaddafi]

Also, we are already having an honest discussion on how to mend things, so I don't see why we need to move elsewhere to discuss this?
I mean, people trolling for the sake of trolling ITT have already been taken care of so what's the problem?

And this way we have more input from good people like Azrael, which would be an invaluable thing also?

Why do you guys need to pick us one by one in some cave? Aren't we discussing already?

[Galspanic]

I have firsthand experience of appeals going really well too. Please understand that your perspective is playing a part in this. Appeals might not go your way but they do work for a fair number of people and more importantly they've done a lot of restructure the site rules. Hell, just this month there have been some huge changes that all came from people making good cases in their bans.

I don't know if there is ever a true consensus, but you guys have to understand that we aren't dealing with you in appeals nearly as much as we are dealing with ourselves. The 5 admins can all be sitting there saying "hey yeah, this is a great idea. Let's unban him" and the staff and a number of more involved users would rise up. Do we just say "fuck you I am right you peons?" Or do we talk about stuff to make sure we don't miss anything? I prefer the latter, but apparently getting input and gauging where people
are at makes us corrupt when you don't agree with it I mean, I am really trying but the fact that you still come at MTGS with the hostility from the last page or so is not making my job any easier. Nai wants to go to bat for you way more than you give him credit for, Sene has done a huge amount of actual work in the last 2 months, they are here talking to you, and you act like an asshole. I get that we are in your house and all that - I respect that - but please understand that at the core of each and every appeal is not "were we corrupt for banning this guy?" but "did we ban this user based on the rules and will the site be worse off unbanning this guy." Nobody should appeal to the first part even if yelling at people online is fun. It's not nearly as productive as the last line of logic.

I don't think appeals will ever be public. I can't see any real reason to be. I do like new ideas though.

[Galspanic]

Why do you guys need to pick us one by one in some cave? Aren't we discussing already?

Who is moving this to a cave?

[Thrillho]

Maybe Onar can offer us a neutral third-party place for us to discuss things like one of his forums he would probably say. (Onar I am making a joke because you do that every time we are about to enter one of these discussions while we are already discussing things and it's funny that you're trying to divert dialog from where it is already taking place. I mean no offense by this and I know my sarcasm goes over your head a lot so I apologize if this joke primer comes across as condescending)

[Thrillho]

Why do you guys need to pick us one by one in some cave? Aren't we discussing already?

Who is moving this to a cave?

Nai has requested multiple times that we take this ongoing discussion to individualized hidey holes in the MTGS appeals subforum instead of outside in a public space.

[Col. Khaddafi]

I mean, I am really trying but the fact that you still come at MTGS with the hostility from the last page or so is not making my job any easier. Nai wants to go to bat for you way more than you give him credit for, Sene has done a huge amount of actual work in the last 2 months, they are here talking to you, and you act like an asshole.

I'm hostile to the staff because I was told that there was a plan to ban me, because I was discretionarily banned, and because my community at MTGS was nuked by you guys. Do we work on fixing the reasons for my (and the iridium) hostility or do we keep calling ourselves on being hostile one against each other?

I get that we are in your house and all that - I respect that - but please understand that at the core of each and every appeal is not "were we corrupt for banning this guy?" but "did we ban this user based on the rules and will the site be worse off unbanning this guy." Nobody should appeal to the first part even if yelling at people online is fun. It's not nearly as productive as the last line of logic.

I don't think appeals will ever be public. I can't see any real reason to be. I do like new ideas though.

I've told you this before. This is everyone's house, not just my house. If you feel some post is over the line you can report it. We don't punish people but we have deleted a few posts that derailed the discussion. If you feel someone is out of line, just report the post, it works exactly like in MTGS.

[Galspanic]

Okay. Individual appeals would go there I assume, but more "group" stuff seems fine here. To me at least.

[Col. Khaddafi]

OK that's progress, finally. How do you suggest we proceed, Galspanic?

[Azrael]

Some of these are decent points. But there's also the reason we actually make it democratic: having a number of minds on the situation gives us multiple viewpoints and helps to ensure that we're getting it right.

There's five admins. If we are the ones dealing with the unbannings, not only is it going to take a long time for all of us to get our information together, but there's also the question of bias. There's the question of getting the conclusion wrong. There's the question of 'if they screw it up, who do I appeal to? There's the question of fairness there.

All important issues to consider. And I would never tell you not to consult with lower staff.

But at the end of the day, you guys are in charge of
this. You're the admin, it's your province, and you've put in the time and effort to become better informed than most of the staff on these issues.

They don't have cause to bicker with you about special treatment - you have discretion to deviate from normal measures as you see fit, so long as your objective is the benefit of the site. You're the leaders - you write the rules of procedure for yourselves in line with your overall duties and objectives.

It's not the province of the lower moderation crew to joggle your elbow and dictate what methods you can or cannot choose to carry out the best interests of the site. It's not mine, either, for that matter. All that any of us can do is to attempt to advise you/talk your ears off.

But at the end of the day, no one but admin and owner have the power to dictate your methods, your procedures, or your scope of responsibility, and you have exactly as much power as you choose to assert. If you think this is the right way to handle the situation,
explain that, have a conversation about it, but don't let social or political pressure from me, them, or anyone else get in the way of exercising your best judgment.

I mean clearly, you're still having the conversation despite the grumbling, but there's been a series of suggestions that lower staff have stymied despite admin having contrary ideas about what was the best way to handle it. And I think in a number of those situations, admin had a more intelligent view of what was best for the site that they allowed lower staff to veto for political reasons. But the balance of power has swung too far on the scale between autocracy and weak central leadership. Lower staff are exerting more influence upon policy than they should be allowed - you've ceded a great deal of your own authority to these people, to the point that you're crippling yourself from making politically controversial decisions that may nevertheless be necessary, in your own best judgment, for the good of the site.

Don't let others
stop you from voting your conscience. I know you're each capable of making courageous and tough decisions in the face of adversity, you've demonstrated that plenty of times. But it seems like you conceive of your leadership role or leadership style as more limited and more restrained and low-key than it is in truth - or ought to be.

The 5 admins can all be sitting there saying "hey yeah, this is a great idea. Let's unban him" and the staff and a number of more involved users would rise up. Do we just say "fuck you I am right you peons?" Or do we talk about stuff to make sure we don't miss anything? I prefer the latter, but apparently getting input and gauging where people are at makes us corrupt when you don't agree with it

You never stop talking and seeking to improve your information - but you also have a duty as the person in charge to take the best action that you, not the group, determines is available. If you're
uncertain or ambivalent, it's fine to delegate. But if you let subordinates run rampant over you when you're more capable of making the decision than they are, you're no longer acting as a leader. You're just a mediator in a room of disorganized people.

Part of the job of a leader is persuading others. If the five admins get together and decide something is a good idea - then the next logical step is to convince the rest of the staff/users, or to be convinced by the staff/users after talking it over. But it's not to cave in to a decision that you don't believe is good for the site, against your own good judgment.

[Kaitscralt]

It's called summit for the sake of summit, Azrael.

[Shalako]

Guys, if you ever go for the appeal process, just say "Scumbag made me do it" in case people call you out on something. You have my blessing.

That happened to me and the Process that Nai is proclaiming lead to me being screwed.

For God's sake Nai you guys didn't even have the courtesy to let me know my appeal had been denied in the APPEAL THREAD , People refused to answer my questions and it was obvious from the First Post that they didn't give a shit about me.

I highly doubt anyone will go through that waste of time and effort but if they want to try it's on them.

[Galspanic]

I mean, I am really trying but the fact that you still come at MTGS with the hostility from the last page or so is not making my job any easier. Nai wants to go to bat for you way more than you give him credit for, Sene has done a huge amount of actual work in the last 2 months, they are here talking to you, and you act like an asshole.

I'm hostile to the staff because I was told that there was a plan to ban me, because I was discretionarily banned, and because my community at MTGS was nuked by you guys. Do we work on fixing the reasons for my (and the iridium)
hostility or do we keep calling ourselves on being hostile one against each other?

First, what are the reasons as you see them?

I get that we are in your house and all that - I respect that - but please understand that at the core of each and every appeal is not "were we corrupt for banning this guy?" but "did we ban this user based on the rules and will the site be worse off unbanning this guy." Nobody should appeal to the first part even if yelling at people online is fun. It's not nearly as productive as the last line of logic.

I don't think appeals will ever be public. I can't see any real reason to be. I do like
new ideas though.

I've told you this before. This is everyone's house, not just my house. If you feel some post is over the line you can report it. We don't punish people but we have deleted a few posts that derailed the discussion. If you feel someone is out of line, just report the post, it works exactly like in MTGS.

No, this really is your site. I am a guest here and will abide by the rules and norms. I am also very aware of the fact that because I've banned half the people here that I am in hostile territory so to speak. But, I respect what this place is and see potential value in this venue.

[Galspanic]

OK that's progress, finally. How do you suggest we proceed, Galspanic?

You tell me.

[Shalako]

You lied to my face once Nai, why would I trust you enough to go through the Appeal crockery again?

[Col. Khaddafi]

Well first things first I would have to apologize to you by overreacting last time in the wake of the failure when we tried to meet to discuss the fate of the Zombie Gutter.

After the account we made for discussing this on whichever grounds you guys saw fit on MTGS was banned without further notice, I just assumed that we were being lied and deceived again, and getting words put on our mouths. I think the bottom of my argument (that we should discuss issues face to face instead of by third-party) was sound, however I had an inappropriate way of expressing my disappointment. I think I called you stuff like incompetent, corrupt, and passive-agressive and/or some other niceties, and I was out of line. For this you are owed a formal apology and I will only add in my defense that I blowed too much steam in the wake of a frustrating experience at trying to build bridges with you guys (well and the sql dumps experience which was
utterly frustrating too).

In short please accept my most sincere apologies for my past behavior.

Now regarding your question,

First, what are the reasons as you see them?

do you mean about the reasons for my hostility to iridium?

[Azrael]

Guys, if you ever go for the appeal process, just say "Scumbag made me do it" in case people call you out on something. You have my blessing.

That happened to me and the Process that Nai is proclaiming lead to me being screwed.

For God's sake Nai you guys didn't even have the courtesy to let me know my appeal had been denied in the APPEAL THREAD , People refused to answer my questions and it was obvious from the First Post that they didn't give a shit about me.

I highly doubt anyone will go through that waste of time and effort
but if they want to try it's on them.

*nods*

When *everyone* is responsible for making these decisions and interacting with others - the end result is that *no one* will do it.

It sounds like people are beginning to become aware of that now, though, so perhaps we can expect a different result (or at least a different method) moving forward.

[Col. Khaddafi]

OK that's progress, finally. How do you suggest we proceed, Galspanic?

You tell me.

These events occurred collectively. Maybe we could collectively recap them in chronological order, providing our different points of view? I remember Sene made a solid post providing his view of the events. That's where I would start the dialogue if my opinion is requested.