Last I checked people got into (some mild) trouble for negging out of the blue when other means would've sufficed. The fact that a feedback like this sparked a good chunk of this drama is ridiculous.
Posted under General
ANON_TOKYO said:
Last I checked people got into (some mild) trouble for negging out of the blue when other means would've sufficed. The fact that a feedback like this sparked a good chunk of this drama is ridiculous.
Correct.
Users need to learn to handle feedbacks and improve on their ends.
Provence said:
In addition to what Bionic said:
The Discord server is an official extension of the site, everything said there to an user counts as informing them about a certain issue. The fact that not all users use the Discord bears no meaning to this. It's way easier to reach out to a certain user, however.The circlejerking on the Discord server is a legit issue that is troubling the site.
Yep, when an approver starts putting their social circle above the established quality standards of the site, by approving visibly subpar posts from friends or otherwise, it should be obvious that they're doing something wrong.
That no user above purple has tried running defense for loom is another sign, and I doubt it's a case of being "late".
Provence said:
Correct.
Users need to learn to handle feedbacks and improve on their ends.
At this point if I felt like stirring some shit I could just hand out a few feedbacks over individual instances of inconsequential things that could've been resolved by just talking to the recipient. I could then proceed to gamble on whether they stay up or not, since it appears to be random at this point.
ANON_TOKYO said:
At this point if I felt like stirring some shit I could just hand out a few feedbacks over individual instances of inconsequential things that could've been resolved by just talking to the recipient. I could then proceed to gamble on whether they stay up or not, since it appears to be random at this point.
That's of course the risk with making the Discord an official extension. I think we still need to take the greater context into consideration for each case.
Provence said:
That's of course the risk with making the Discord an official extension. I think we still need to take the greater context into consideration for each case.
It would help if the greater context were made more widely available. On the rare occasion I send a feedback, especially a negative, I try to show evidence that this is a repeat problem the other user was informed about at one point. Without sufficient transparency behind the feedbacks, it just looks like the user sending it is overreacting.
I would prefer users post screenshots with the Discord links when discussing matters happening there in the forums and feedbacks. The links are a stronger form of evidence and should still be included, but the screenshots will allow users that don't use Discord to actually know what's going on.
Blank_User said:
I would prefer users post screenshots with the Discord links when discussing matters happening there in the forums and feedbacks. The links are a stronger form of evidence and should still be included, but the screenshots will allow users that don't use Discord to actually know what's going on.
Yeah, especially how we did have a recent discussion on the forum that blew up due to improper communication of related discourse in the server, referring to topic #31158 (forum #343404 and forum #343420 in specific), having some sort of standardized approach of communicating stuff from the server on-site would be good, if we're going to treat the Discord as an official extension.
Provence said:
In addition to what Bionic said:
The Discord server is an official extension of the site...
This is news to me. When @Red_Terror 's negative feedback for stalking a builder was removed I thought the Discord server was, in fact, not official business.
I look forward to all the coming site bans for casual racism that's had in the Discord server. Not.
I've frankly lost any and all motivation to continue using the website. Not because of my inability to take a negative feedback, but the feeling of being unfairly targeted and the atrociously inconsistent moderation. When we recently have two difficult users evading permabans, only three months later for both, and moderators covering up said ban evasion by telling other users who find out to keep it a secret, I think I it's understandable how I feel this way.
Edit: Only one of these permabanned users had mods covering it up, thank you @Damian0358 for the help.
loom said:
This is news to me. When @Red_Terror 's negative feedback for stalking a builder was removed I thought the Discord server was, in fact, not official business.
I look forward to all the coming site bans for casual racism that's had in the Discord server. Not.I've frankly lost any and all motivation to continue using the website. Not because of my inability to take a negative feedback, but the feeling of being unfairly targeted and the atrociously inconsistent moderation. When we recently have two difficult users evading permabans, only three months later for both, and moderators covering up said ban evasion by telling other users who find out to keep it a secret, I think I it's understandable how I feel this way.
Edit: Only one of these permabanned users had mods covering it up, thank you @Damian0358 for the help.
Are you referring to TrueKringe and KayakuShiningGate? And whose ban was covered up?
I thought TrueKringe was given a second chance. They named their sockpuppet SomehowKringeReturned at some point, so they definitely weren't hiding their identity then. In my opinion, their offense (adding a bunch of unnecessary wikis after being asked not to and throwing a fit in the forums threatening to reject their own BURs) is worthy of a harsh punishment, but is something that could be forgiven in the long run if they put in the effort to redeem themself. I assumed TrueKringe apologized, the admins let them back in, and everything was fine.
KayakuShiningGate's actions, on the other hand, were an existential threat to the site, and she kept trying to sneak back in after being permabanned (and at least one of her sockpuppets was banned some time ago before this). Others said her actions were due to mental issues and she wasn't really trying to get any posts banned, but that doesn't change the fact that she could've cost us thousands of images and that she could potentially repeat the same action if those issues pop up again. Sympathizing with her is okay, but letting her evade responsibility is not.
Who was being covered up is important here. If it was TrueKringe, then it may be justified if the mods were told by the admins to not draw attention to it because they decided to give TrueKringe a second chance. In other words, if TrueKringe was legitimately welcomed back. If it were KayaguShiningGate and/or they were trying to keep it a secret from other mods and admins to let the user evade responsibility, then I think some demotions are in order.
loom said:
This is news to me. When @Red_Terror 's negative feedback for stalking a builder was removed I thought the Discord server was, in fact, not official business.
I look forward to all the coming site bans for casual racism that's had in the Discord server. Not.
What are you talking about? It's still there.
And since you're trying to rule-lawyer yourself out of an undefendable position, your feedback was in fact initially deleted, and only undeleted after you started doubling down on approving garbage being the right thing to do, proving that the feedback was absolutely correct.
When we recently have two difficult users evading permabans, only three months later for both, and moderators covering up said ban evasion by telling other users who find out to keep it a secret
You're making mountains out of molehills and trying to turn this into some sort of conspiracy, when the answer is (as usual) just an unhealthy dose of apathy. I was away from the site for most of this, but here's what I know happened:
It seems some users are now passing this as a big conspiracy of the mod team "covering up" ban evasion and taking favorites, when in fact it's just yet another example of taking pity on retards combined with not caring about potential problems until they become actual problems. For what's worth, had I been active and not burned out when they returned I would've banned both immediately. I'll definitely be digging more into every person I promote from now on, to avoid another situation like this.
I didn't know anyone was keeping KSG's sock a secret, as I thought it was obvious who she was from her forum posts. If a mod really told someone to keep it a secret they definitely should not have done that.
Updated by nonamethanks
To add to what NNT said on Kringe, ANON TOKYO had already figured out that the account he had been using up to that point was him due to recognizeable patterns two weeks into him using it, and bringing it up in the server, including pinging mods about it. It was only in late January that Kringe himself became aware that everyone knew, at which point he rejoined the server with a sock and began talking with everyone the same way he had back before he had been banned. Throughout NNT's absence during Kringe's return, he periodically expressed how he was going to get banned any minute now by NNT even as others expressed how he was probably being given a 'second' chance (which, as it turns out, wasn't the case, as NNT explained), and then switching to boasting about not being banned, before flipping back to bemoaning his imminent banning, and so on.
When it was revealed that sinful was Shining, Kringe expressed how "if Shining is back that means I can get back every single time if I waited long enough". When the joke polls were made, he decided to peace out prematurely, recognizing where things were headed (hence why his ban is in absentia).
The explanation is much appreciated.
It sounds like this "covering up" by the mods was most likely just telling other users that the offenders were allowed back on the site and reporting their new accounts wouldn't be necessary. In other words, they were acting correctly under false assumptions. At worst, they failed to verify their status with an admin, which would be more difficult with one of the most active admins on break.
Damian0358 said:
When it was revealed that sinful was Shining, Kringe expressed how "if Shining is back that means I can get back every single time if I waited long enough". When the joke polls were made, he decided to peace out prematurely, recognizing where things were headed (hence why his ban is in absentia).
Again, if something from Discord is worth sharing in the forum, please provide a screenshot for the rest of us.
nonamethanks said:
And since you're trying to rule-lawyer yourself out of an undefendable position, your feedback was in fact initially deleted, and only undeleted after you started doubling down on approving garbage being the right thing to do, proving that the feedback was absolutely correct.
How is it a double down if the negative feedback was initially deleted?
Blank_User said:
Again, if something from Discord is worth sharing in the forum, please provide a screenshot for the rest of us.
Ah, I was just directly citing what he had said. The screenshot would've just shown him saying what I said he had said. Had it been part of a more serious discussion, I would've included screenshots to contextualize what he said, but as it wasn't, it didn't seem necessary in this specific circumstance. I could still include a screenshot if you would like.
loom said:
How is it a double down if the negative feedback was initially deleted?
Deleting a feedback doesn't mean you weren't guilty of what it claimed. If you get a negative and it was just a one-time mistake, learned your lesson, or the user didn't start through neutrals or DMails, it's reasonable to delete the feedback if the offense isn't too serious. Conversely, it's reasonable to restore a deleted feedback if you continue to engage in that behavior.
Damian0358 said:
Ah, I was just directly citing what he had said. The screenshot would've just shown him saying what I said he had said. Had it been part of a more serious discussion, I would've included screenshots to contextualize what he said, but as it wasn't, it didn't seem necessary in this specific circumstance. I could still include a screenshot if you would like.
I guess it doesn't really make much difference in this case, but the reason I want screenshots to be sent is not because it provides more information, but because it verifies that what you're saying is true. Even if you're not lying, there's a chance you may have misinterpreted the words, so having some proof is helpful even if it's just what you already mentioned.
Blank_User said:
I guess it doesn't really make much difference in this case, but the reason I want screenshots to be sent is not because it provides more information, but because it verifies that what you're saying is true. Even if you're not lying, there's a chance you may have misinterpreted the words, so having some proof is helpful even if it's just what you already mentioned.
I hope I can be forgiven for using Imgur as opposed to putting this screenshot in Media Assets, because I don't want it sitting in my Uploads, but here you go.
Damian0358 said:
I hope I can be forgiven for using Imgur as opposed to putting this screenshot in Media Assets, because I don't want it sitting in my Uploads, but here you go.
Imgur is okay with me. Thanks.
Blank_User said:
Deleting a feedback doesn't mean you weren't guilty of what it claimed. If you get a negative and it was just a one-time mistake, learned your lesson, or the user didn't start through neutrals or DMails, it's reasonable to delete the feedback if the offense isn't too serious. Conversely, it's reasonable to restore a deleted feedback if you continue to engage in that behavior.
I'm not saying that I'm not guilty, I've said as much in the thread earlier. I'm saying that I haven't done anything that four other approvers haven't also done, yet I'm the only one being punished.
Edit: I understand now why the feedback was initially deleted, but my point still stands. I've already explained why I didn't take the feedback seriously earlier.
Updated by loom
In regards to the negative feedback on nth color (user #1141717, I will refer to him as snale from now on), I don't believe there was sufficient communication between him and Provence. I've talked to snale on Discord and he said there was zero communication between him and Provence prior to these events. Snale has Provence blocked on Discord for a separate matter, so AFAIK they were not talking on the Discord server, but him nuking his messages makes this hard to verify. If Provence has sent a DM to snale prior to sending the feedback then I'd like to see it.
At the top of the feedback screen, there is text saying "Before giving a user negative feedback, you must communicate with them privately first to tell them what they're doing wrong and how to improve. A negative feedback should only be given after they've been warned first, unless the user is deliberately breaking the site rules, such as engaging in intentional vandalism or ban evasion." To my knowledge, snale hasn't been communicated first, or warned about the bad behaviour snale exhibited. The feedback mentioned to stop approving actual bad images but did not elaborate any further and if snale was warned on this. I have talked to Provence about sending feedback without DMing and he viewed it as a guideline and not a hard rule, which I disagree with.
People in this thread have talked about the Discord server is an official extension of the site, and talking on there counts as informing the issue. I am a little iffy on this because it is harder to prove if you've warned someone on Discord than a DM on a site, which cannot be deleted and is easily provable. I think for serious events, a DM should be sent even if they have been communicating on the Discord. But I am open to other people's opinions on this.
Snale has said he didn't believe the admins didn't want him around and were dismissive of this issue in private DMs. nonamethanks said post #9132677 was only approved as an inside joke even though snale has told him he approved it because he genuinely liked it, so snale felt ignored, and overall felt like none of his contributions mattered. Snale talked to another admin on his feedback who was also dismissive, but I won't be naming him. Taking all this into account, I can completely understand why he decided to leave the site.
Sorry if this comes off as a ramble. Snale deleting his account has been bothering me, and I really don't want to see another good contributor deleting their account over a completely preventable incident. But I don't see any serious effort to prevent this from happening again, so it will likely happen again.
HyphenSam said:
At the top of the feedback screen, there is text saying "Before giving a user negative feedback, you must communicate with them privately first to tell them what they're doing wrong and how to improve. A negative feedback should only be given after they've been warned first, unless the user is deliberately breaking the site rules, such as engaging in intentional vandalism or ban evasion." To my knowledge, snale hasn't been communicated first, or warned about the bad behaviour snale exhibited. The feedback mentioned to stop approving actual bad images but did not elaborate any further and if snale was warned on this. I have talked to Provence about sending feedback without DMing and he viewed it as a guideline and not a hard rule, which I disagree with.
I agree with you on this. I don't see how "should only" can be interpreted as anything other than a hard rule.
People in this thread have talked about the Discord server is an official extension of the site, and talking on there counts as informing the issue. I am a little iffy on this because it is harder to prove if you've warned someone on Discord than a DM on a site, which cannot be deleted and is easily provable. I think for serious events, a DM should be sent even if they have been communicating on the Discord. But I am open to other people's opinions on this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the main purpose of sending DMs is to inform them of the issue privately, not to leave evidence. Not that I think including them in feedbacks isn't a good idea. It absolutely is. But I think if communication of any kind occurred, whether in DMails, comments, or the Discord, a neutral would be acceptable. But maybe if the initial warning was on Discord, we should encourage the feedback giver to include links and screenshots.
Snale has said he didn't believe the admins didn't want him around and were dismissive of this issue in private DMs. nonamethanks said post #9132677 was only approved as an inside joke even though snale has told him he approved it because he genuinely liked it, so snale felt ignored, and overall felt like none of his contributions mattered. Snale talked to another admin on his feedback who was also dismissive, but I won't be naming him. Taking all this into account, I can completely understand why he decided to leave the site.
To be honest, this seems like a bit of an overreaction on snale's part. The "inside joke" comment wasn't singling out snale. The main point was that Approvers should have the judgment to see that a post like that doesn't meet quality standards. I know Approvers are encouraged to approve things they like, but there are limits. Just because you like something doesn't mean it belongs here.
On the other hand, only 44 out of 50197 posts he approved were deleted. With such a low amount of deleted posts, I don't see how a pattern of bad uploads can be established. We need to accept that Approvers aren't perfect and will make bad calls once in a while.
On the other other hand, snale shouldn't be hyperfixating on that post. He approved thousands of posts that are still active, as well as recently received a lot of positive feedbacks, and he thinks his contributions don't matter to anyone simply because of users' reactions to that one post that obviously did not meet quality standards? That is completely irrational.
