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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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. :)

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 deadname. Thanks!

And then that user instigated more drama…

Either take responsibility or don’t respond.

Just like to note real quick, what happened to leaving the community and your messages a few nights ago?

Stop deflecting. Take responsibility for your actions, apologize to the community and move on. Grow a spine will you.

I allowed a community member to say don't deadname me? We have already apologised for the incident of not being in DMs. I have no reason to apologise for letting a community member know she was being publicly deadnamed. We have no other reason to apologise. This is childish and the fact you take issue with what Mavis said and not the issue of deadnaming says a lot about you. Sorry!

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 deadname. Thanks!

And then that user instigated more drama…

Either take responsibility or don’t respond.

Just like to note real quick, what happened to leaving the community and your messages a few nights ago?

Stop deflecting. Take responsibility for your actions, apologize to the community and move on. Grow a spine will you.

I'm gonna add my 2 cents into this conversation. I actually really appreciate that this was handled publicly because this was an unknown issue for some/most and with it being handled how it was, a post was made talking about the issue and warning users not to do it in the future. It also educates others on the issue which is important. Stuff did get out of hand but I feel that the moderation team did a good job in not instigating anything and only took action where it was needed.

Mavis did get included because the discussion was about her. She got deadnamed and had a right to join and see what was going on.

Regardless I think how the moderators handled the situation was quite well, with it being public people know to follow the rule now and why it is such an issue. It's a moderator's job to make sure this community is safe and welcoming for everyone, regardless if you believe in it or not, they did their job by protecting Mavis and all other people who may get deadnamed.

In the future I hope they keep it up, I want this community to be a safe place for all and it's getting much better as time goes on.

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 deadname. Thanks!

And then that user instigated more drama…

Either take responsibility or don’t respond.

I know the history, you and Mavis are good friends. Also furthermore Mavis has a history of instigating with me.

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!

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 user 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.

Let me put it this way, when my thoughts match with several people that I generally do not agree with on things like this, you know there's something more wrong than just "it's the community's fault" -- this is an issue with the team itself, so either correct it or stand aside.

If you dislike what I have to say, you can ban me

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

This just showed up to me, so I apologize for voicing this late. Had I been aware of this post or response before, I may have issued it privately. But for the sake of those who aren't willing to share their opinions because of my forementioned take on this, I will do it publicly.

The education bit as to why it is a problem is greatly appreciated (I did know a good amount of this before, but hearing even more info on it is good to know) and I think that even those members of the community who voiced frustration initially can at least understand why it may affect a decent amount of trans individuals. And if they're a decent human being, they'll use that knowledge and avoid any issues in the future.

While I understand why it is offensive to deadname and wouldn't do it myself, I feel like your response, while it acknowledges the issue at hand doesn't actually take accountability. The education bit here is what is important for preventative measures moving forward, but to reduce the reaction from staff into two or three sentences does not fully show what the problem here is.

I also believe that staff has a clear mischaracterization at the attempted effort to explain this situation by that person. That does not greenlight them to do or say whatever they want with information that may be harmful, however it could have been discussed with said person in private or at least give a reason without sending a demanding and potentially hostile message publicly.

The problem from the subset of community member's who are upset with Donut Team isn't that they think deadnaming is okay, rather its that reaction from staff has been subpar for a long time. I can even take accountability for my part in that as well during my tenure.

This is what needs to be improved on from DT's side and does not reflect my opinion on the situation at hand, but the greater community's opinion on all moderation dealings.

Without actually going into the situation, I feel like this response is more aiming to educate the issue rather than accept any responsibility for the issue growing more out of control. That includes the fact that someone in staff notified the person being discussed and they joined and escalated the issue.

Not every staff member did wrong. I've read the messages about a 100 times and I've talked with many people involved and not involved in this situation. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, and if there's any irony in that, its because I, myself, have many knee-jerk reactions.

The world is changing, these things weren't something we talked about 10-20 years ago. And even now there's a debate on whether we can use things for historical purposes or not. If you head over to Caitlyn Jenner's wikipedia page, you can see this debated and if you dig into Wikipedia's manual, you can see this discussed further.

I have a feeling this response will get me into hotwater, but I felt like voicing this was important. This isn't to say I completely disagree with you or anyone else. Everyone needs to do better.

---

EDIT: Oh wow, what a surprise. Being downvoted for sharing a differing opinion on the matter. I've made it very clear the community members involved were wrong for its part and so were the staff. Bite my ass with your inclusivity bulls***.

EDIT 2: By simply downvoting my message of basically saying that both sides of the coin need to be fixed, you ultimately sit an echo chamber where you think everything is alright. The fact is, a large amount of people disagree with how staff handled this situation, among others.

To add to this, deadnaming is a serious issue. Simply making the effort to use someone's name and avoiding a deadname can literally save people, so please, in the future refrain from using a deadname when referring to any trans person. It might not seem like a big deal, but from experience with friends, it isn't just an "old name", it's an identity they had to fake for years, and saying it can throw away their progress. Trans rights are human rights! We should have DMd the person in question, but we should also remember that this is a simple message edit. If you have issues with this, then you may need to rethink how you view the world.