oath2order
#Porygon2024
I'd still like a response to this from the other users.
The Official Feedback Thread
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
- Status
Plainbluetees
vienna waits for you
My point was less so about how the "how long is your dock" thread is "middle school humor" and more so about how the forum and its staff seems to be avoiding saying anything about the comments made by a member of the staff team (who is still a member despite not being listed on the official staff log). Sorry if I didn't make this clear to everyone.
By using the dock thread as an example, they are disregarding the bigger issue. Sure, maybe we don't need to talk like people have talked in the dock thread, but that thread is much less of a concern than a staff member openly sharing details about their sex life and the ages of their partners.
And no, I would not ask middle schoolers that. Why would you ask that? I don't feel like my post made suggested that in any way. I'm sorry you interpreted it as such.
This is what I meant exactly.
The reasoning for the original one week ban was provided to seliph for "rude behavior", but so far in this thread staff have only come in to say that the ban wasn't provided due to an issue with seliph's tone, and many of us who have read the ban message are struggling to see how they arrived at rude behavior without interpreting his tone that way so we're looking for clarification there. Staff also provided reasons for the ban extension to seliph but they're either things that seliph doesn't really have control over (people telling staff they felt uncomfortable posting in the feedback thread because of him or seliph's posts apparently having a tendency to encourage other people to post their views leading to a dog-piling effect) or things in which other users do not seem to be held to the same standard (a history of warnings, many of which date back to a decade ago), so we would also like to know why these things warrant an indefinite ban for seliph specifically.
To answer your other question, for me personally (not speaking for anyone else here!) I'll be honest and say no. Having seen the context for the ban, all of the ban messages, and many of the prior warnings that seliph has received, I just don't believe this was a fair punishment. I'm still interested in hearing more about the staff's point of view, though, since Jeremy said it would be addressed at some point and seliph himself hasn't gotten many answers yet through his attempts at communicating with the staff. I hope that will change and they'll be able to have a productive conversation.
alright, i'll act like you genuinely want an answer, oath, tiger; because at the very least, the duration of the ban is disproportionate to the impact of the users behavior. pages upon pages demonstrated examples of inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of the rules, which led to feedback on the handling of those examples as individual incidents themselves for a while, in which some users and staff were essentially implying they had been using their um i guess executive discretion much more flexibly than they did with seliph. i'm just going to say his name. because uncomfortable or not, a significant amount of people on this forum either A) greatly respect him and find that they feel represented in a community that includes him because he was very concerned with the voice of the socially vulnerable B) are actual friends or C) people that could have never seen them at all and recognized the reasons provided for the ban to be some variation of basic, lame, unprofessional or idk, could read some element of a vendetta or pettiness in the statement.
it turned out that the documentation, peer review, and users speaking out came on so quickly that the staff required a delay to parse a level of investment that they haven't really had to deal with publicly in recent memory (i don't think i have seen that much community effort to referendum management in the 13 some years i been here) and it doesn't even have to be a malicious backhand to point that out, it's certainly an objective observation that they were overwhelmed. but whether the staff are cliqued up meanies or noble and are trying to do the best thing actually is just a personal feeling individuals have or don't. i personally will outright tell you i've known "the banned user" (insert ssb64 announcer effect here) a long time, and no, about the only ban i would have been remotely sold on with would have a much shorter one. it's just that possibly it's too little too late.
the subtext of engaging the community about site policy and moderation is a double edged sword of an attempt to address ... something and an indirect admission: because hopefully they could sell enough rule rigidity and clarification to like retroactively get acceptance for the ban. i get the strategy, i've been on forum staffs before , but a real way to sell their taking accountability would be to simply say "okay we never really had a need for this level of safeguard, a lot of incidents may have been better handled, so we'll include the idea that perhaps some recent staff actions were made not on behalf of the users safety, but an attempt to resolve problems for management in an environment of changing demographics in the fanbase and millennial culture at large we were not informed enough about or viewed protecting said groups of people as favorable optics to a misidentified site majory--a small handful of members not fit for engaging in controversial discussions or the risk that comes with expressing or covertly pandering to center-right fear values in a community whose fanbase is welcoming to people directly affected by how politicians justify their oppression--that kind of disdain or apathy for civil rights or the outfalse false equivocating of discontent with abusive language as if severe tone and it's effect on all groups of people is proportionate. in this environment of reflection and improvement, we will consider the user banned on the unequipped old policy that sparked the momentum that branched off into so many concerns in the first place, maybe we can grandfather seliph back in immediately or in a reasonable timeline based on we haven't exactly been consistent because we are actually humans with passions too."
a lot of people have probably totally lost all trust in the staff, a lot of people are still going to pester the staff for support and victim complexes every time they got laughed out a discussion or called creepy or play on the staff's empathy so it's difficult to want to no tolerance certain things because i'm sure it probably does feel to staff like we can't be nice to everyone for even 5 minutes. but there is no real westside story going on: it boils down to tone policing and curt bad faith posts. if i was generally uncomfortable with policing political and social rhetoric, and this was a site i owned i'd probably just pull my hands. if everyone being heated and making users feel sad they can't dismiss neopronouns or have bizarre meltdowns about their niche forum clout hitting the negatives due to their choices, or flippybooboo said she is okay with a trans friend as long as she can acknowledge they're kinda an abomination is the problem, sure, let people express their problematic takes.
i'd accept that if i can deconstruct and objectively dispel the harmful babbling, i could handle. i honestly like to argue and i don't mind repeating the same ones over and over to repeat offenders but... i'm mentally unstable and can't work. but it's quite mega obvious the community doesn't have my queen of arrested development and darkness backstory. it seems people would like to enjoy their niche community minus the doomscroll of bigotry and apologism that asks victims to respect the same narcissists that infests everything and know that the community that profits from our existence has our back in community policy full stop. i don't think there is anything to lose in this situation. i don't see the site rebelling if the ban was lifted.
the rules are currently subject to change; if anything, it would be the ultimate display of user feedback in a time of site reconstruction, and if we're conducting a survey, clearly we value some user assumption of responsibility consensus for their own safety. the reality is this is a niche, the line between staff and user is already blurred offsite BECAUSE it's a niche community. so there is no real ethical line to cross if the majority of site users don't even notice, most of the active (now indefinitely exodused) veterans feel safer with seliph's wisdom spoken, and several of the people who's input the ban was predicated on had intended a more nuanced opinion on seliph's behavior in the first place and have judged the severity of the discipline as excessive, what is left but maximum sentencing on a contested site standard that is the source of conflict seliph is one of the most recognizable critics of the people who benefit from the handwringing of the whole attitude is the platitude; don't be rude, you'll kill the mood; i'm saddened bc i got flattened; can you be quieter, you're making people feel like they should feel guilty for being wrong their entire life, mods are cool parents application of policy whose proponents included several users blogging on every thread and a handful of users unequipped to handle the concept of reputation permanence for saying unpopular and backwards stuff, and all of them feel that you're owed validation for having a thought. which, if this forum was by design an anti-social list board, i guess that would be one thing, but probably needs a memo because a lot of us are dumb. staff runs a beloved site by invested users. as long as they create a safe environment, there is a safe environment.
in general the bans of the last years were not really contested, i don't think the argument was ever "don't ban people i like" but, "if banning decisions protect the community, then why don't i feel protected and where is the community gain banishing someone who only conflicts with users that lack acceptance or perpetuate things you wouldn't say around your girlfriend if you want to keep her, or in public not behind other bigger people who share your misguided reality. people that will eventually need to be warned anyway." as far as i'm concerned, you can either micromanage peoples's tone to calm people down every few months, or be proactive in discouraging the resentment that creates an environment that forces vulnerable people to build a wall of barbs knowing the site has no solid policy of cutting off the source of the reason the only time some of us ever become no-nonsense and critical. some users just don't do southern hospitality and social theatre, but no one is obligated to present themselves as little red riding hood to wolfs in grandma pajamas. it's hardly some great offense to withhold the picnic basket from the maneater and expose them to on behalf of your sisters if that makes sense
embarrassing yourself by getting ridiculed for your repeated toxicity for example someone is constantly reading as a sex-pest, willfully ignorant, or not that smart so that you don't feel welcome is just social ineptness or apathetic and malicious narcissim. and sure, there are very real disorders that make tact and social awareness very difficult to grasp at no fault of the patient, and learning to adapt is very hard, but this is why they need that much more guidance. influences that lead us neurodivergent beauties (<3) to perpetuate toxic behaviors and beliefs being dispelled are better off pointed out, personally, if i was spouting like some goofy, or being used as PR, i hope i get corrected or woken up. if you don't give the tools for people to adapt, maybe they aren't culpable and don't know better, but those who do know better are perfectly capable of forecasting intervention instead of waiting until a well respected member gets annoyed at obstinance and uncorrected behavior, and watch people that need extra effort decay . now that is apparently verifiable bad optics, and the longtime backbones of the community took dem bones home. anyway, the need for re-evaluation of the ban isn't just some smoke, so it's kinda pedantic to be like "they technically responded, what is the bellyache i'm just so smackledorfed i can't even" and why i'm answering you, because the people you're actually asking are probably just too bored of repeating the first 30 pages to people that have no intention of acknowledging their well presented and entire case of receipts and fundamentally tire everyone. wouldn't it be better to build on the conversation than reload the save state, like come on lad
i'm not trying to ignore the umm...progress, though lacking in some areas at this time, it's not like feedback thread has been ignored. i'm caught up with the current change in course, i just felt like i needed to take oath in the tardis to catch him up with history and all. so pretend i'm in weeks ago and trying to avoid any anachronisms for my companions gradual absorption of ancient history.
though at present i basically share daringreds take, i just can't objectively deny things did indeed get Do-ed, but idk the original catalyst for this long feedback loop has really been addressed. by addressed i think we mean "are you really sticking to your decision on the off chance you guys can possibly convince me to stay in the community? is feedback a referendum in which users have some influence on decisions made supposedly on their behalf or more a compartmentalization for hot button site concerns that keep people feeling the illusion long enough newer problems more easily addressed pop up and eclipse the ticking time bomb. when you don't really know what to do to make your decision palatable, it's a very common management strategy that isn't necessarily some malicious action by default, but optics. it's just that it doesn't really sell well to consumers who cared about the product who would prefer a straight answer so they can decide to pull their business; that's all i think people mean by addressed. there's a better argument against a stiff ban than there is for the preserving of the sacred timeline regardless of the intent just in raw data alone
anyway yea, back to current events hopefully i've brought you, with a friendly adorable face i might add, to speed.
edit: yeah er, i look late but i swear i started pinky typing this thing out earlier but i have floppy dystrophy hands
it turned out that the documentation, peer review, and users speaking out came on so quickly that the staff required a delay to parse a level of investment that they haven't really had to deal with publicly in recent memory (i don't think i have seen that much community effort to referendum management in the 13 some years i been here) and it doesn't even have to be a malicious backhand to point that out, it's certainly an objective observation that they were overwhelmed. but whether the staff are cliqued up meanies or noble and are trying to do the best thing actually is just a personal feeling individuals have or don't. i personally will outright tell you i've known "the banned user" (insert ssb64 announcer effect here) a long time, and no, about the only ban i would have been remotely sold on with would have a much shorter one. it's just that possibly it's too little too late.
the subtext of engaging the community about site policy and moderation is a double edged sword of an attempt to address ... something and an indirect admission: because hopefully they could sell enough rule rigidity and clarification to like retroactively get acceptance for the ban. i get the strategy, i've been on forum staffs before , but a real way to sell their taking accountability would be to simply say "okay we never really had a need for this level of safeguard, a lot of incidents may have been better handled, so we'll include the idea that perhaps some recent staff actions were made not on behalf of the users safety, but an attempt to resolve problems for management in an environment of changing demographics in the fanbase and millennial culture at large we were not informed enough about or viewed protecting said groups of people as favorable optics to a misidentified site majory--a small handful of members not fit for engaging in controversial discussions or the risk that comes with expressing or covertly pandering to center-right fear values in a community whose fanbase is welcoming to people directly affected by how politicians justify their oppression--that kind of disdain or apathy for civil rights or the outfalse false equivocating of discontent with abusive language as if severe tone and it's effect on all groups of people is proportionate. in this environment of reflection and improvement, we will consider the user banned on the unequipped old policy that sparked the momentum that branched off into so many concerns in the first place, maybe we can grandfather seliph back in immediately or in a reasonable timeline based on we haven't exactly been consistent because we are actually humans with passions too."
a lot of people have probably totally lost all trust in the staff, a lot of people are still going to pester the staff for support and victim complexes every time they got laughed out a discussion or called creepy or play on the staff's empathy so it's difficult to want to no tolerance certain things because i'm sure it probably does feel to staff like we can't be nice to everyone for even 5 minutes. but there is no real westside story going on: it boils down to tone policing and curt bad faith posts. if i was generally uncomfortable with policing political and social rhetoric, and this was a site i owned i'd probably just pull my hands. if everyone being heated and making users feel sad they can't dismiss neopronouns or have bizarre meltdowns about their niche forum clout hitting the negatives due to their choices, or flippybooboo said she is okay with a trans friend as long as she can acknowledge they're kinda an abomination is the problem, sure, let people express their problematic takes.
i'd accept that if i can deconstruct and objectively dispel the harmful babbling, i could handle. i honestly like to argue and i don't mind repeating the same ones over and over to repeat offenders but... i'm mentally unstable and can't work. but it's quite mega obvious the community doesn't have my queen of arrested development and darkness backstory. it seems people would like to enjoy their niche community minus the doomscroll of bigotry and apologism that asks victims to respect the same narcissists that infests everything and know that the community that profits from our existence has our back in community policy full stop. i don't think there is anything to lose in this situation. i don't see the site rebelling if the ban was lifted.
the rules are currently subject to change; if anything, it would be the ultimate display of user feedback in a time of site reconstruction, and if we're conducting a survey, clearly we value some user assumption of responsibility consensus for their own safety. the reality is this is a niche, the line between staff and user is already blurred offsite BECAUSE it's a niche community. so there is no real ethical line to cross if the majority of site users don't even notice, most of the active (now indefinitely exodused) veterans feel safer with seliph's wisdom spoken, and several of the people who's input the ban was predicated on had intended a more nuanced opinion on seliph's behavior in the first place and have judged the severity of the discipline as excessive, what is left but maximum sentencing on a contested site standard that is the source of conflict seliph is one of the most recognizable critics of the people who benefit from the handwringing of the whole attitude is the platitude; don't be rude, you'll kill the mood; i'm saddened bc i got flattened; can you be quieter, you're making people feel like they should feel guilty for being wrong their entire life, mods are cool parents application of policy whose proponents included several users blogging on every thread and a handful of users unequipped to handle the concept of reputation permanence for saying unpopular and backwards stuff, and all of them feel that you're owed validation for having a thought. which, if this forum was by design an anti-social list board, i guess that would be one thing, but probably needs a memo because a lot of us are dumb. staff runs a beloved site by invested users. as long as they create a safe environment, there is a safe environment.
in general the bans of the last years were not really contested, i don't think the argument was ever "don't ban people i like" but, "if banning decisions protect the community, then why don't i feel protected and where is the community gain banishing someone who only conflicts with users that lack acceptance or perpetuate things you wouldn't say around your girlfriend if you want to keep her, or in public not behind other bigger people who share your misguided reality. people that will eventually need to be warned anyway." as far as i'm concerned, you can either micromanage peoples's tone to calm people down every few months, or be proactive in discouraging the resentment that creates an environment that forces vulnerable people to build a wall of barbs knowing the site has no solid policy of cutting off the source of the reason the only time some of us ever become no-nonsense and critical. some users just don't do southern hospitality and social theatre, but no one is obligated to present themselves as little red riding hood to wolfs in grandma pajamas. it's hardly some great offense to withhold the picnic basket from the maneater and expose them to on behalf of your sisters if that makes sense
embarrassing yourself by getting ridiculed for your repeated toxicity for example someone is constantly reading as a sex-pest, willfully ignorant, or not that smart so that you don't feel welcome is just social ineptness or apathetic and malicious narcissim. and sure, there are very real disorders that make tact and social awareness very difficult to grasp at no fault of the patient, and learning to adapt is very hard, but this is why they need that much more guidance. influences that lead us neurodivergent beauties (<3) to perpetuate toxic behaviors and beliefs being dispelled are better off pointed out, personally, if i was spouting like some goofy, or being used as PR, i hope i get corrected or woken up. if you don't give the tools for people to adapt, maybe they aren't culpable and don't know better, but those who do know better are perfectly capable of forecasting intervention instead of waiting until a well respected member gets annoyed at obstinance and uncorrected behavior, and watch people that need extra effort decay . now that is apparently verifiable bad optics, and the longtime backbones of the community took dem bones home. anyway, the need for re-evaluation of the ban isn't just some smoke, so it's kinda pedantic to be like "they technically responded, what is the bellyache i'm just so smackledorfed i can't even" and why i'm answering you, because the people you're actually asking are probably just too bored of repeating the first 30 pages to people that have no intention of acknowledging their well presented and entire case of receipts and fundamentally tire everyone. wouldn't it be better to build on the conversation than reload the save state, like come on lad
i'm not trying to ignore the umm...progress, though lacking in some areas at this time, it's not like feedback thread has been ignored. i'm caught up with the current change in course, i just felt like i needed to take oath in the tardis to catch him up with history and all. so pretend i'm in weeks ago and trying to avoid any anachronisms for my companions gradual absorption of ancient history.
though at present i basically share daringreds take, i just can't objectively deny things did indeed get Do-ed, but idk the original catalyst for this long feedback loop has really been addressed. by addressed i think we mean "are you really sticking to your decision on the off chance you guys can possibly convince me to stay in the community? is feedback a referendum in which users have some influence on decisions made supposedly on their behalf or more a compartmentalization for hot button site concerns that keep people feeling the illusion long enough newer problems more easily addressed pop up and eclipse the ticking time bomb. when you don't really know what to do to make your decision palatable, it's a very common management strategy that isn't necessarily some malicious action by default, but optics. it's just that it doesn't really sell well to consumers who cared about the product who would prefer a straight answer so they can decide to pull their business; that's all i think people mean by addressed. there's a better argument against a stiff ban than there is for the preserving of the sacred timeline regardless of the intent just in raw data alone
anyway yea, back to current events hopefully i've brought you, with a friendly adorable face i might add, to speed.
edit: yeah er, i look late but i swear i started pinky typing this thing out earlier but i have floppy dystrophy hands
Last edited:
That makes sense. I didn't read it that way.
I still find the example to be poor. Personally, I feel like that question is only there because of the concerns raised in this thread. And correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think people were concerned about whether innuendos should be allowed on TBT but rather how far can people go when talking about sex, fetishes and other mature topics.
If the intent was to gauge the threshold, I dont think it's fair to use only one example to cover the spectrum. I think there should be more examples, including the threads Jeremy mentioned earlier - the ones advocating for more mature topics during the New Leaf Era.
Unless the "How long is your dock?" thread IS the limit of what TBT will accept. If that makes any sense. I can't write rn
Anyway, it's dawning on me that I'm focusing on the wrong things cause it doesnt really matter in the end. And that maybe I missed the point of the discussion earlier about "what is sexual material". So take this ramble however you like haha
Last edited:
Captain Jigglypuff
Leader of the Jigglypuff Army
I never lost any trust or faith in the staff. I didn’t even know that someone was even banned and others weren’t too happy with the ban. I understand that the staff are just doing their job and I’m not going to argue with any of their decisions. I only asked my question because I was genuinely confused as to why some posts get deleted for censorship but others with the same content weren’t and I just wanted some clarification so that I can know what counts as bypassing censorship on the site and what isn’t. I’m satisfied with the answer I received.
Reginald Fairfield
Senior Member
I hope these changes aren't expensive. I don't like the ads we already have.
Captain Jigglypuff
Leader of the Jigglypuff Army
I mostly ignore the ads. At least we have had any of the intrusive ads that automatically puts up some border and forces you to interact with the ad before it allows you to even scroll down the page you want to see
It’s most likely entirely things that staff can control, so no, you don’t have to worry about anything.
GooseyGuos
Senior Member
Please be careful for using very small text font or making normal size and very small text font. It is becoming as a very much difficult to read when my English is still learning. This meaning staff post because I must have to read those to understand rules. Other users it is up for you I am saying this for staff only. Apologise for this it is catastrophe. Translate English to German and then it is to translate to native language from German. It blows all my mind off!
You can change the size on your end by adjusting the size of your page, or text on your phone depending on what you're using if you're having an issue. It def helps. I've had to do it on my phone.
GooseyGuos
Senior Member
I can do it but it is become make already difficult task most more difficult than even this, so it is just this my feedback for staff.
Some of the times it is even hard of abbreviation use and even translation tool cannot make it. But I would not want this to make me a greedy unreasonable man in such ways of this.
No worries! I just wanted to offer advice to help you out <3
GooseyGuos
Senior Member
I did it the survey and I hope it came to you. Sorry for English!
I don’t know if this can actually be controlled, but I accidentally fat fingered an ad and it took me to an obvious scam site. One of those “YOUR IPHONE IS AT RISK!!” sites. That definitely shouldn’t be on here. Again, I’m not sure if anything can be done about that but it’s probably pretty dangerous so it’s probably worth mentioning
That definitely shouldn't be happening, so I'll inform the site's ad provider. If you happen to remember anything about it, such as the URL it was directing to, or if you happen to see it again, please send me a DM!
I just clicked on someone’s profile and got sent to the same link. I don’t think I clicked an ad, but I was redirected to the scam link again. Unless the site is being really buggy or something similar, I didn’t have to click on an ad to be redirected to this scam
Yeah, it was popping up for me randomly while scrolling a thread on mobile. I made sure I wasn't near an ad.
I got redirected to it earlier when I was trying to get to new posts . I know I wasn’t near the ads. So was confused why it brought me there.
- Status
