Profile image
Active 2 hours ago
Unsubscribe
Forum Activity Play History Mods (8) Badges (15)
not coming back, stop asking me to.
  • jake replied to Tuesday Topics #9: New Moderation Staff and Forum Integrity Changes
    Downvote my post while you still have the chance guys. Can this post get -100 likes?!

    EDIT: You failed me.
  • jake voted on Donut Team's topic: Tuesday Topics #8: The Borb Special II
    Profile Image
    3 likes
    142 views
    0 replies
  • jake replied to My Response to the October 1st Incident
    I'm done here. I've made the point I wanted to. If its not going to be treated seriously and that people are going to jump to "Jake is condoning bigotry", they clearly do not understand the actual issue here.

    If you'd like to talk about this with me privately, be my guest. Done checking this thread. Have a good day everyone.
  • jake 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.

    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.
  • jake replied 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?
  • jake 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?
  • jake replied 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
  • jake replied 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.
  • jake replied 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.
  • jake replied to My Response to the October 1st Incident
    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