Profile image
Active 2 weeks ago
Unsubscribe
Forum Activity Play History Mods (3) Badges (13)
I do stuff lazily here. If you wish you made some of the stuff listed here, too bad. Make your own stuff.

Mission Mods Created


Mission Mods Helped Develop

  • Annoy Squidward; Joined late into Level 2's development. Did too many things to list here.
  • A Long Long Night; Joined mid-development. Revamped the entire mod. Did way more than Annoy Squidward.

Trying my best to take a hiatus from making bigger SHAR mods that take over a week (at least ones where I work solo).
  • Surreal Bot voted on jake's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Two of said people came back, one even going out of their way to reactivate an account, to downvote and/or create drama. I wouldn't say that's leaving
    Ever considered they didn't voice their opinion and feelings because staff clearly doesn't give a f*** what the community has to say on any matter? Maybe they came back to join in with the fact that someone who at one point had a higher stature here is siding with them for how bulls*** this has been handled?

    EXACTLY.

    I initially re-activated my account to have my say on this, but seeing how so many of you are too self-righteous to accept any form of criticism, I don't why I should even bother. It's funny, because Jake's first message before he edited it was the most neutral of this argument.

    I was trying to be neutral because I think there's clear issues that this staff doesn't understand and wanted to approach it from an "arms open" point of view. Instead, they brigaded a post, downvoted it and then I decided f*** it.

    These people are essentially claiming I'm on the wrong side of this when I have done several things to advocate for LGBTQ+ in this community. I'm not saying bigotry by any form is acceptable, I'm saying the staff in this community don't know d*** about what they're doing.

    Whether or not I agree with each and every community member, not having to be in the position of staff has allowed me to look at this with a new perspective. Fact is, there are many community members who do not voice frustration anymore because staff hasn't taken it seriously in the past. And as someone who may have contributed to that culture, I find it important now to try and voice that perspective from the people who find it either frightening or pointless to do so. If you can take anything away from my message, it would be the fact that staff needs to change how it responds to issues. And the proof is literally right here. Missing the entire point, vote brigading and the fact there is upset community members over how this was handled and will continue to be handled. Just today, it appears another micro version of this propped up in #shar-general.
  • Surreal Bot voted on EnAppelsin's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    The first response accepted criticism that it should have been a DM and tried to explain the reasoning behind why the action taken came off as quite severe.
    I have reemphasised it a few times.

    What then is the problem? Spell it out for me. What is the criticism that has not been accepted here?
  • Surreal Bot replied to My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Two of said people came back, one even going out of their way to reactivate an account, to downvote and/or create drama. I wouldn't say that's leaving
    Ever considered they didn't voice their opinion and feelings because staff clearly doesn't give a f*** what the community has to say on any matter? Maybe they came back to join in with the fact that someone who at one point had a higher stature here is siding with them for how bulls*** this has been handled?

    EXACTLY.

    I initially re-activated my account to have my say on this, but seeing how so many of you are too self-righteous to accept any form of criticism, I don't why I should even bother. It's funny, because Jake's first message before he edited it was the most neutral of this argument.
  • Surreal Bot voted on jake's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    This thread is honestly laughable because you all think I'm condoning bigotry, when I've repeatedly explained the side doesn't have anything to do with one situation or another. I'm tired of this s***. There's a clear take away here, staff doesn't learn. Now give me my -2 points so you guys can then claim you're being vote manipulated.

    Transphobia wasn't the issue being argued. So shut the f*** u*. If someone defending their point is allowed to talk like this, I guess I am to? Or am I not because then it violates one of the rules when its not the side you're taking?
  • Surreal Bot voted on jake's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Two of said people came back, one even going out of their way to reactivate an account, to downvote and/or create drama. I wouldn't say that's leaving
    Ever considered they didn't voice their opinion and feelings because staff clearly doesn't give a f*** what the community has to say on any matter? Maybe they came back to join in with the fact that someone who at one point had a higher stature here is siding with them for how bulls*** this has been handled?
  • Surreal Bot voted on Sparrow's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Jake’s response echoes my thoughts. If you wanna downvote my comment feel free. But I am one of many concerned about the conduct of the moderation team. I have also reached out to them privately and came to an understanding. But yes Mavis was invited by a moderator and instigated more drama.

    -Thomas Donofri

    Honestly you say you have came to an understanding yet you come here to jump on accusing the moderators of inviting Mavis to harass you and that their actions were completely unsatisfied. Which is it?

    It's already been accepted that in calm hindsight a DM would have been more appropriate but the message was left 8 hours without any reaction and the offence caused by deadnaming caused a frustrated reaction after that. So what else is the problem? Again deadnaming is *serious* and actively causes stress and harm in the individual. In the mind of Borb they were given a warning and didn't respond for 8 hours, hence the rather brash reaction. Follow up responses minimising the problem (there was no "I didn't realise it was against the rules" admission, in fact the claim was it wasn't deadnaming or a big deal, if the vocal complaints were about that maybe things would've come out differently) didn't help things either.

    There's been a lot of calls from certain vocal people about moderators "accepting responsibility", even though the first post actually did accept mistakes. I've yet to see any reflection from the other side, or any indication they actually regret deadnaming, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

    Also a reminder about the community guidelines, deadnaming violates rule 1 warranting an immediate permanent ban (although this was never proposed) as well as rules 3 and 4.

    Also rule 2 forbids vote manipulation, but I'd hope nobody here would be doing that. :)

    My post directly says its wrong, the other people involved have either left the community or are not interested in this pursuit when that was not the problem to begin with because this isn't the problem that these people have.


    Two of said people came back, one even going out of their way to reactivate an account, to downvote and/or create drama. I wouldn't say that's leaving
  • Surreal Bot voted on jake's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    I allowed a community member to say don't deadname me?

    Yet, moderation allowed, encouraged and happily stood by the 3 comments that made the situation escalate further.

    Looks like allowing, encouraging and happily standing by someone escalating a situation.

    EDIT: Lot of brigading happening in this thread, eh? Keep chippin' away at my karma gang, still got a lot left
  • Surreal Bot voted on jake's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Jake’s response echoes my thoughts. If you wanna downvote my comment feel free. But I am one of many concerned about the conduct of the moderation team. I have also reached out to them privately and came to an understanding. But yes Mavis was invited by a moderator and instigated more drama.

    -Thomas Donofri

    Honestly you say you have came to an understanding yet you come here to jump on accusing the moderators of inviting Mavis to harass you and that their actions were completely unsatisfied. Which is it?

    It's already been accepted that in calm hindsight a DM would have been more appropriate but the message was left 8 hours without any reaction and the offence caused by deadnaming caused a frustrated reaction after that. So what else is the problem? Again deadnaming is *serious* and actively causes stress and harm in the individual. In the mind of Borb they were given a warning and didn't respond for 8 hours, hence the rather brash reaction. Follow up responses minimising the problem (there was no "I didn't realise it was against the rules" admission, in fact the claim was it wasn't deadnaming or a big deal, if the vocal complaints were about that maybe things would've come out differently) didn't help things either.

    There's been a lot of calls from certain vocal people about moderators "accepting responsibility", even though the first post actually did accept mistakes. I've yet to see any reflection from the other side, or any indication they actually regret deadnaming, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

    Also a reminder about the community guidelines, deadnaming violates rule 1 warranting an immediate permanent ban (although this was never proposed) as well as rules 3 and 4.

    Also rule 2 forbids vote manipulation, but I'd hope nobody here would be doing that. :)

    My post directly says its wrong, the other people involved have either left the community or are not interested in this pursuit when that was not the problem to begin with because this isn't the problem that these people have.
  • Surreal Bot voted on jake's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Also for the record the issue community members have is that an issue that should have been handled discretely was public. We have a moderator who invited a community with the intent of instigating other users. The fact this person is still a moderator is amazing. I was axed from the moderation team in 2018 for not even half this nonsense. If the team wants to continue to paint community members leaving around this time as transphobic go ahead, it’s nonsense. If you want to slander me just know it’s slander. I removed ALLN from this site because I simply did not like the conduct of the moderation staff.


    Hi,

    I would like to note for the record she was not invited, she was just informed that she was being deadnamed. Thanks!

    Yet, moderation allowed, encouraged and happily stood by the 3 comments that made the situation escalate further.
  • Surreal Bot voted on EnAppelsin's reply to: My Response to the October 1st Incident
    Jake’s response echoes my thoughts. If you wanna downvote my comment feel free. But I am one of many concerned about the conduct of the moderation team. I have also reached out to them privately and came to an understanding. But yes Mavis was invited by a moderator and instigated more drama.

    -Thomas Donofri

    Honestly you say you have came to an understanding yet you come here to jump on accusing the moderators of inviting Mavis to harass you and that their actions were completely unsatisfied. Which is it?

    It's already been accepted that in calm hindsight a DM would have been more appropriate but the message was left 8 hours without any reaction and the offence caused by deadnaming caused a frustrated reaction after that. So what else is the problem? Again deadnaming is *serious* and actively causes stress and harm in the individual. In the mind of Borb they were given a warning and didn't respond for 8 hours, hence the rather brash reaction. Follow up responses minimising the problem (there was no "I didn't realise it was against the rules" admission, in fact the claim was it wasn't deadnaming or a big deal, if the vocal complaints were about that maybe things would've come out differently) didn't help things either.

    There's been a lot of calls from certain vocal people about moderators "accepting responsibility", even though the first post actually did accept mistakes. I've yet to see any reflection from the other side, or any indication they actually regret deadnaming, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

    Also a reminder about the community guidelines, deadnaming violates rule 1 warranting an immediate permanent ban (although this was never proposed) as well as rules 3 and 4.

    Also rule 2 forbids vote manipulation, but I'd hope nobody here would be doing that. :)