I love you guys, and BTV, you made me laugh so hard. xD It's so true! And it's really why we should probably close Feedback. So many reasons!
I love you guys, and BTV, you made me laugh so hard. xD It's so true! And it's really why we should probably close Feedback. So many reasons!
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Pretty soon you'll forget about all this anyway, and we always get newbies and they won't even know anything about it. It happens every time. You might as well start accepting reality.
No one told you the Staff Forum is invisible to non-staff members? 'Cause it is.Originally Posted by nik0tine
Good night and take care all.
Except that one time when someone screwed up!
There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Korilian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out life on this miserable planet. The only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they. Do. Not. Know about it.
SEXY McAWESOME TO YOU, MISTER
Peter was Peter, but he was still banned.
I think, that at the very least, this proves that the policy of insta-banning needs to come under a certain amount of scrutiny.
Signature by rubah. I think.
Was it Big D!?
no, see you didn't know about that either.
Well, there's always someone looking in when they shouldn't.
Then they tell us that we can't ban them because they know stuff.
And then we ban them.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Give us back our freedom, you tyrants!
HOOTERS, formerly Hootenanny, was another 'shining pinnacle of EoFF awesomeness'. He made me laugh like a drain on so many occasions. He made one 'slip up' and was banned outright.
Kishi, a veteran staffer who knows the rules better than anyone else, deliberately posted that picture, and the staff reacted accordingly. Equal treatment for everyone, and all that. Last time I checked, we didn't second-guess and undo each others' decisions, behind each others' backs. How is it 'best for EoFF' if blatantly biased and unfair decisions get made this way?That's nice, but does that mean you'll re-mod them without consulting the rest of staff? Maybe you'll let them get the same leeway that Kishi has been allowed.We should 'accept' that staff truly are above the rules, and completely untouchable, provided they've earned enough 'coolness points'? What if I think HOOTERS was the coolest, most important person ever in EoFF history? Perhaps 'oldbie staff' opinions are worth more than n00b material such as myself.Choice number two, make a big fuss over one member that doesn't really have anything to do with YOUR EoFF experience in any way whatsoever, and only make things worse for yourself and everyone else. I know it's not always what you want to hear, but sometimes you have to accept things and move along.It already was a big deal. Way to make it seem like my fault, too. Who was it that posted the tentacle hentai again?if Big D hadn't posted, if nobody oustide Staff ever knew about this, nobody would have made a big dealThat really is a scary thought, Daniel. If the staff can just 'do whatever they want', even when regulars are banned for less, what reason do members have to trust and respect their staff?They don't have to like the rules but they respected them. That includes the rule that we can do whatever we want."What's going on" is quite simple - a few people have taken it upon themselves to abandon the just principles they're supposed to be upholding. Even though they say "it's still being discussed", they've gone ahead and acted against the direct wishes of their peers, also undermining one of the oldest and most important principles in this "family-friendly forum".everyone disregard Raist's version of the story and wait patiently while the staff discusses the matter, at which time we'll be sure to take the time to let everyone know what's going on.
Will there be a new rule on who's allowed to post unsuitable images? Will there be a heirarcy drawn up, showing which staffers' opinions take precedence? That is the issue here. It's not about Kishi - I think the guy is great - but it's about what he did and what's been done in response. The rule is clear - post porn, get banned. It's always been that way. We enforce the rules, we debate them in Feedback, we argue vehemently to convince our members that these rules are justifiable and equitable... then this happens. Where's the line drawn? Is there a line? Does ShlupQuack's mood determine policy from one day to the next?
I'm very fond of Amanda; her forthright and emphatic decision-making have been a great help to EoFF's staff... but this just isn't right. I can't tolerate being part of a group that makes a decision, the only option available, but then is simply told to 'get over it' when our actions are relegated to meaninglessness. I couldn't do so much as close another thread now, without questioning whether it'll get re-opened because a different staffer has a different opinion of the person who posted.
For that reason, I don't feel like I have any option but to leave EoFF staff forthwith. I've spent the last two years developing new self-esteem and confidence; I'm not going to allow an internet message board of all things to undermine that.
By the time I get back from San Francisco Cid is going to be knightless ;(
This is more important than you're letting on.
By whatever standard you want to use, I was not a very good moderator. I hardly ever took any kind of disciplinary action, and to the limited extent that I contributed to the discussions on the public boards during most of my tenure, my posts tended to steer conversations off on ridiculous tangents. What I regret most about my ‘service’ is not, however, the disappointing farce that was my public persona as a Knight, but, rather, that I utterly failed to use my office to motivate changes in the institutional policy of the boards. The root of the problem, as I understand it now, was not wholly invisible to me then, and yet I offered neither my general impression of the need for change nor any practical solutions for carrying out such a transformation. I’m still lacking when it comes to the details of policy proposals, but I feel an obligation to share my thoughts on the cause of this latest crisis.
The problem with EoFF as an institution is that it is an institution. It is not this fact alone, of course: a corporation, for example, is an institution, but it can generally function without the kind of difficulty we see before us now. This is because the purpose of a corporation, to make money for its investors, is not at odds with its impersonal institutional nature. On the other hand, the purpose of EoFF has always been, in my view (and I like to think in most everyone else’s), to create a community of friends. This goal of community, the goal of friendship, is not well served by a hierarchical structure and a fixed code of law, but the nature of the medium and the expanding number of participants necessitate some degree of institutional order. Because of the fundamental friction resulting from the combination of the institutional impulse and the communal impulse in a single entity (and their ambiguous relationship to each other), we occasionally find ourselves left as participants in a true Hegelian tragedy, a conflict between two goods.
The virtue of an institution is order; it is a set of rules and the equality of all its members under those rules. The institution values efficiency in working toward a single purpose. It is profoundly impersonal, and all members who violate the rules are treated exactly the same by those given the power to execute the fixed penalties. The virtue of a community is goodwill among all its members; it is a shared sense of understanding and respect. The community of friends does not have a fixed structure or set of rules, but the standards of acceptable conduct are generally understood. Everyone is an equal participant, and those friends who act inappropriately are not automatically separated from the community.
Many in this thread argue that our friend ‘Kishi should be banned forever for the sake of justice, for equality under the law. The dedication to this kind of institutional justice appears to most here an admirable quality, but I ask you to consider whether it is truly just to instantly and permanently reject a friend, to cast him out of your community for as long as it should last. What do you really gain from forsaking one of your own? Ultimately, this raises the question of whether the institutional standard of justice is appropriate for our community.
You can say (and you have said) that it would only be fair, that if one member is banned for breaking a rule, then all members who break it should be banned. You can say (and you have said) that many members have met the same punishment for breaking the rule. You are not wrong to say these things. To the extent that EoFF is an institution, this is the ideal it should be striving for. However, if you, like I do, agree that the ideal of friendship should be the true spirit of EoFF and should always have supremacy over the institutional principle here, then you will vehemently oppose the action to ban ‘Kishi. Furthermore, you will challenge every instantaneous and permanent ban that is imposed on any one of our friends.
I am not passing judgment on the actions of our friend ‘Kishi that allegedly warranted so severe a punishment, for I lack sufficient unbiased information. I am, however, passing judgment on the policy that permits and demands this punishment. For a member who has been with us so long and who has given us so much, an action would have to be many orders of magnitude more destructive to our sense of community than the worst of the accusations leveled against him in this case in order for the thought of permanent banishment to enter our consciousness. I say this not out of support for some kind of aristocratic privilege, whereby only certain veterans or staff members are exempt from sanctions for their actions, but I believe rather that any member who demonstrates in good faith his or her interest in being a part of our community and maintaining our friendship deserves to be treated as a friend and not as an enemy of the institution. Those who would wish to hack the site or otherwise severely disrupt our community in their first days here should not simply be forgiven, of course, but we should always exercise the utmost caution when it comes to executing any extreme measures.
We now find ourselves with an opportunity to fairly evaluate our goal and the path we are on. From where I stand, the boards have been drifting away from the ideal of community for a long time; it is only natural that so many here would cry out for the strict, impersonal severity that the institutional structure offers. It is comforting, in a way, to know that the most well-liked and influential members can suffer the same cruel fate as anyone else. I warn you, though, that the glee this sentiment provides is fleeting, that it pales in comparison with the joys of forgiving your friends their errors of judgment and retaining the benefits of their company. I can only hope that the present crisis opens your eyes to the true extent of the problems that have been accumulating for years, and that you will come to embrace the path of friendship.
Though I have for some time been largely absent from the day-to-day events of the boards, I have not abandoned you, and I have not forgotten what it means to be a member of this community. I solemnly pledge that I will do everything in my power to improve our condition and help us live up to our best ideals. If we act wisely on the matter before us, this can be the first day of a new era. It will be simultaneously a renaissance and a revolution; a return to our beginnings and a new course to a better future.
[turkey noises]
Big D is gone from the staff too? This truly is a sad day. People which every last one of us respects are resigning from the staff. It's unfortunate that this whole thing had to happen. So much negativity came from it, and we ended up losing at least three respectable members from the staff.
Posting Permissions
