Eternity RPC Board
10-17-2019, 04:02 AM
Thank you, Zab.
Well, I was writing while Hahk was too, apparently. Oh well, I’ll just scrap most of what I wrote and add my side of it all, and fill in some holes.
"I want to see everything!"
![[Image: KYDaRA8.png]](https://i.imgur.com/KYDaRA8.png)
No, seriously. Think a bit: you used to be a mod, you know the kinds of stuff people come to us with which we discuss under oath of privacy and secrecy, and other sensitive topics, and you know we’re not going to fling open the cellar like that.
"Why was Lom banned?"
Rule violations.
No, really.
I have nothing new to say on this subject, and it has been spelled out pretty clearly: Lom has a long and "sordid" history of inflammatory action, the latest of which was a long list of unactionable aggravation over the last year, topped with an unapologetic defense of the n-word incident; where Nents immediately recognized a line had been crossed, Lom used the flawless legal defence of “it’s a joke, bro,” which we all know absolves anyone of accountability.
That is the official line.
I don't agree with many points in the official line as stated by Ikarius and Hahk, and while I’ve voiced my dissent to a couple people privately, this is the first time anyone in the admin team will even know, unequivocally, that I flat out don’t agree with certain statements and decisions, but these are matters of opinion.
Regardless, as Hahk mentioned, the decision to uphold a ban was not challenged either in the original instance or the final actual banning three weeks ago. However it's somewhat vague whether to count the result as unanimous, or whether both Hahk's and my own comments count as abstentions...I’m fairly certain Hahk’s was a yes, and I clearly never said no. Regardless, no one voiced dissent to the action.
The rub is we've been down this road before. I made it clear back in the Great Bitchslap of 2017 (which gave me my own admin action) that I would stop falling on my sword to defend Lom’s behaviors; since then I’ve practically abstained unless other admins were involved in the incident, mainly concerning myself with ensuring any infractions were met with a proper and rational response. Hahk, it must be said, took much longer, lasting until 26 August of 2019 with the N-word incident.
This is all something I'll come back to later, when I give my account of events.
Christ, it's already been three weeks...
"If we’re going to dive into technicalities..."
Yes, let’s dive into technicalities, because technically the word of admins are law when it comes to rule enforcement (6D). I also know that, technically, if we really want to follow the letter, that 6E states that problems with the staff (such as feeling you’re being lied to about forum bans, perhaps) should follow the recommended order of escalation for interpersonal issues as shown in 6C.
I’m noticing a distinct lack of messages in my PMs, and a lot of messages trying to play Sherlock with half-truths; rather disappointing, but it does transition nicely into:
"I only said something to X, so why did Y mention it?"
Believe it or not, you're not the only person discussing things, drawing conclusions, and mentioning those conclusions. I know, it was unbelievable to me as well when I first learned it!
When discussing matters of potential rule violations, it is an admin's duty to go forth and collect facts and testimony, and if something needs addressed in any reply or official capacity, then it will be. There is no rule saying that anything has to be discussed and nothing saying everything must be kept quiet, but generally we have this strange view that not discussing these kinds of things with other admins in order to get their input, and instead taking secretive and unilateral action to ban someone, feels rather scummy and dictatorial.
I know, we're terrible at wielding absolute power in undemocratic fashion. We fail Lord Emperor Lines quite regularly in this. It's a problem, and I assure you I'm working on it.
As for my own name suddenly popping up in conversations with attributed falsehoods? There is only one person from whom I received any questions, and to whom I gave any answers.
![[Image: uAzZVek.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/uAzZVek.jpg)
So let's not make accusations with evidence gained through games of Telephone.
If you want my honest opinion, and I think Rommy hit the nail on the head, this entire problem of admin mistrust has arisen because of a lack of communication in far too many ways to list, which fueled a huge mess of assumptions, and when proper communication was finally established so many questions and so many bad coincidences had happened that it wasn't to be believed.
"Okay, but the rules say admins must do this, and they didn’t."
When Brum was banned in May, admins skipped step 2 in the Hierarchy of Actions in issuing a ban; never had a true formal warning been given, as it was ruled that the fifty instances of various admins trying to explain to him how his constant state of being actions were bad constituted a fair bit more effort than the one required. This meant skipping to step 3, as it was also determined that a one day removal may not even register with him if he didn’t log in, that it wouldn’t give enough time away to answer his inevitable questions or enough time to let anything sink in that anything he ever did was ever wrong at all.
This was done back when the steps made more sense, before I changed them to silly lengths because I thought, well surely, we would never need to go beyond, say, a step 3? As I understand it, the 1-month step was an error of the issuer, no one realizing that I had made the change to something less intuitive than the original. Even I had forgotten the change, until I went reviewing them on the 30th. Compare:
![[Image: yzAbUvf.png]](https://i.imgur.com/yzAbUvf.png)
That said, the Hierarchy was always intended as a guideline, not a rule, which would make for a conflict between rules as intended, and rules as written, if admins weren’t the final authority on rule interpretation. This entire mess, however, is why I champion sticking with the plan as written, regardless.
As for the two year ban, there was no plan for it. It was late when Blac implemented the ban, and I was headed to bed. Blac told us the ban was in place, but apparently it didn’t click with anyone that it was for two years, until I brought it up after Lom asked me about it and showed me the ban length. The length was apparently supposed to be a placeholder, as the mobile theme did not allow Blac to edit the ban length.
"What happened with Flo's departures?"
Flo left the discord some time on or before 6 Sept, and this was directly related to Lom being on the board. I'll let him speak for himself:
![[Image: mx0jPsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/mx0jPsy.png)
The end result is that Flo came back for a short time when he was told that Lom was gone, but with all the other fuck-ups around this and the timing of his return, it gave the impression that the sole reason for the ban was to draw Flo back. Flo pretty much immediately understood how bad it looked, and specifically stated that the ban shouldn’t be permanent. When I began my inquiry on the ban length and the duration was brought down from the Two-McGoddamn-Years to one month, Flo made it expressly clear that, if the ban was temporary, then, “I can't stay here. please please do not let that influence the decision, but I gotta do what I gotta do.”
Sure enough, he did what he gotta do, and left.
![[Image: fKwS4ZI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/fKwS4ZI.png)
“whether he is a detriment to the community is a matter of opinion, but he is most definitely a detriment to me, and I have to take care of me.”
After Flo left the second time, Lines removed his staff permissions.
"Why did Blac resign? Why is Blac gone?"
Blac implemented the ban; I don’t remember what Ikarius was doing, but I was headed to bed at the time, and regardless didn’t have admin permissions enabled on the Discord to ban anyone since June. When I went back on the 27th and did my inquiry on why the ban was 2 years, Blac admitted that his personal bias had prevented an impartial response...or any response at all, for that matter, prompting Ikarius to write the response. After the ban was moved down to a month, he stated multiple times that he was willing to accept losing his adminship for it, and falling on his sword.
Eventually, Lines came online to fulfill his request and remove him from the admin team.
A couple days later Nents decided smear his leaky asshole across the discord about this event again, playing like he’d cracked a great caper with his half-truths and incomplete facts. Blac, tired of it all, left the board after the two had a notably uncivil discussion.
You would think some people might be able to relate to having someone out to literally destroy you over a misunderstanding given some past circumstances, but I suppose some things get forgotten.
That's all for now.
Anyway, I had more, I think but it’s almost midnight, I deprived myself of enough sleep this week already, and I just don’t remember what these other things might be. I’ll work on the timeline of events and my official dissent tomorrow. Or Friday. Or maybe later, it doesn’t matter, the ban’s not coming down for another week.
Well, I was writing while Hahk was too, apparently. Oh well, I’ll just scrap most of what I wrote and add my side of it all, and fill in some holes.
"I want to see everything!"
No, seriously. Think a bit: you used to be a mod, you know the kinds of stuff people come to us with which we discuss under oath of privacy and secrecy, and other sensitive topics, and you know we’re not going to fling open the cellar like that.
"Why was Lom banned?"
Rule violations.
No, really.
I have nothing new to say on this subject, and it has been spelled out pretty clearly: Lom has a long and "sordid" history of inflammatory action, the latest of which was a long list of unactionable aggravation over the last year, topped with an unapologetic defense of the n-word incident; where Nents immediately recognized a line had been crossed, Lom used the flawless legal defence of “it’s a joke, bro,” which we all know absolves anyone of accountability.
That is the official line.
I don't agree with many points in the official line as stated by Ikarius and Hahk, and while I’ve voiced my dissent to a couple people privately, this is the first time anyone in the admin team will even know, unequivocally, that I flat out don’t agree with certain statements and decisions, but these are matters of opinion.
Regardless, as Hahk mentioned, the decision to uphold a ban was not challenged either in the original instance or the final actual banning three weeks ago. However it's somewhat vague whether to count the result as unanimous, or whether both Hahk's and my own comments count as abstentions...I’m fairly certain Hahk’s was a yes, and I clearly never said no. Regardless, no one voiced dissent to the action.
The rub is we've been down this road before. I made it clear back in the Great Bitchslap of 2017 (which gave me my own admin action) that I would stop falling on my sword to defend Lom’s behaviors; since then I’ve practically abstained unless other admins were involved in the incident, mainly concerning myself with ensuring any infractions were met with a proper and rational response. Hahk, it must be said, took much longer, lasting until 26 August of 2019 with the N-word incident.
This is all something I'll come back to later, when I give my account of events.
Christ, it's already been three weeks...
"If we’re going to dive into technicalities..."
Yes, let’s dive into technicalities, because technically the word of admins are law when it comes to rule enforcement (6D). I also know that, technically, if we really want to follow the letter, that 6E states that problems with the staff (such as feeling you’re being lied to about forum bans, perhaps) should follow the recommended order of escalation for interpersonal issues as shown in 6C.
I’m noticing a distinct lack of messages in my PMs, and a lot of messages trying to play Sherlock with half-truths; rather disappointing, but it does transition nicely into:
"I only said something to X, so why did Y mention it?"
Believe it or not, you're not the only person discussing things, drawing conclusions, and mentioning those conclusions. I know, it was unbelievable to me as well when I first learned it!
When discussing matters of potential rule violations, it is an admin's duty to go forth and collect facts and testimony, and if something needs addressed in any reply or official capacity, then it will be. There is no rule saying that anything has to be discussed and nothing saying everything must be kept quiet, but generally we have this strange view that not discussing these kinds of things with other admins in order to get their input, and instead taking secretive and unilateral action to ban someone, feels rather scummy and dictatorial.
I know, we're terrible at wielding absolute power in undemocratic fashion. We fail Lord Emperor Lines quite regularly in this. It's a problem, and I assure you I'm working on it.
As for my own name suddenly popping up in conversations with attributed falsehoods? There is only one person from whom I received any questions, and to whom I gave any answers.
So let's not make accusations with evidence gained through games of Telephone.
If you want my honest opinion, and I think Rommy hit the nail on the head, this entire problem of admin mistrust has arisen because of a lack of communication in far too many ways to list, which fueled a huge mess of assumptions, and when proper communication was finally established so many questions and so many bad coincidences had happened that it wasn't to be believed.
"Okay, but the rules say admins must do this, and they didn’t."
When Brum was banned in May, admins skipped step 2 in the Hierarchy of Actions in issuing a ban; never had a true formal warning been given, as it was ruled that the fifty instances of various admins trying to explain to him how his constant state of being actions were bad constituted a fair bit more effort than the one required. This meant skipping to step 3, as it was also determined that a one day removal may not even register with him if he didn’t log in, that it wouldn’t give enough time away to answer his inevitable questions or enough time to let anything sink in that anything he ever did was ever wrong at all.
This was done back when the steps made more sense, before I changed them to silly lengths because I thought, well surely, we would never need to go beyond, say, a step 3? As I understand it, the 1-month step was an error of the issuer, no one realizing that I had made the change to something less intuitive than the original. Even I had forgotten the change, until I went reviewing them on the 30th. Compare:
That said, the Hierarchy was always intended as a guideline, not a rule, which would make for a conflict between rules as intended, and rules as written, if admins weren’t the final authority on rule interpretation. This entire mess, however, is why I champion sticking with the plan as written, regardless.
As for the two year ban, there was no plan for it. It was late when Blac implemented the ban, and I was headed to bed. Blac told us the ban was in place, but apparently it didn’t click with anyone that it was for two years, until I brought it up after Lom asked me about it and showed me the ban length. The length was apparently supposed to be a placeholder, as the mobile theme did not allow Blac to edit the ban length.
"What happened with Flo's departures?"
Flo left the discord some time on or before 6 Sept, and this was directly related to Lom being on the board. I'll let him speak for himself:
The end result is that Flo came back for a short time when he was told that Lom was gone, but with all the other fuck-ups around this and the timing of his return, it gave the impression that the sole reason for the ban was to draw Flo back. Flo pretty much immediately understood how bad it looked, and specifically stated that the ban shouldn’t be permanent. When I began my inquiry on the ban length and the duration was brought down from the Two-McGoddamn-Years to one month, Flo made it expressly clear that, if the ban was temporary, then, “I can't stay here. please please do not let that influence the decision, but I gotta do what I gotta do.”
Sure enough, he did what he gotta do, and left.
“whether he is a detriment to the community is a matter of opinion, but he is most definitely a detriment to me, and I have to take care of me.”
After Flo left the second time, Lines removed his staff permissions.
"Why did Blac resign? Why is Blac gone?"
Blac implemented the ban; I don’t remember what Ikarius was doing, but I was headed to bed at the time, and regardless didn’t have admin permissions enabled on the Discord to ban anyone since June. When I went back on the 27th and did my inquiry on why the ban was 2 years, Blac admitted that his personal bias had prevented an impartial response...or any response at all, for that matter, prompting Ikarius to write the response. After the ban was moved down to a month, he stated multiple times that he was willing to accept losing his adminship for it, and falling on his sword.
Eventually, Lines came online to fulfill his request and remove him from the admin team.
A couple days later Nents decided smear his leaky asshole across the discord about this event again, playing like he’d cracked a great caper with his half-truths and incomplete facts. Blac, tired of it all, left the board after the two had a notably uncivil discussion.
You would think some people might be able to relate to having someone out to literally destroy you over a misunderstanding given some past circumstances, but I suppose some things get forgotten.
That's all for now.
Anyway, I had more, I think but it’s almost midnight, I deprived myself of enough sleep this week already, and I just don’t remember what these other things might be. I’ll work on the timeline of events and my official dissent tomorrow. Or Friday. Or maybe later, it doesn’t matter, the ban’s not coming down for another week.