Criticism: Let It Flow

[Forest 309]

Before I go on with this thread, let me assure you that the title has no reference to the "toxicity reform" that was posted yesterday (it is in relation to it, but not directly affiliated with it). I would also like to say ahead of time that this will be yet another rant that will most likely run quite a lengthy page. In fact, just looking back, it is one hell of a read.

 

WARNING: This is an extremely long passage that may not interest many. It is in regards to "toxicity" or other forms of "harassment". I ask that if you will not read the whole passage, skip to the bottom bolded text.

 

So. I couldn't help but notice this on-going "problem" of toxicity within xG. Seems to me that people are getting the idea that it's something that can simply be monitored and thereby eliminated easily. I'd just like to say that to accomplish a feat like that is ludicrous in its own right. To say "we're going to put a stop to toxicity" would be like saying "we're going to put a stop to [for example] Christianity." What I mean is that toxic or salty behaviour isn't something that can be suppressed over night, in a week, hell, in a year. It's like trying to suppress or eliminate an idea, or something else that is intangible. It just can't be done without re-writing everything and starting from the beginning.

 

The fact of the matter is that once the toxicity has spread, it has been spread. There is no stopping it, xG is already permeating with it. Now I can see how this in itself looks terrible, and I can see why anyone in their right mind would want to stop it, but to throw down a law that tries to "eliminate" it is physically impossible.

 

What constitutes toxicity? Is it when I say "fuck you, no one loves you", or is it the simple matter of commenting "scrub" on someone's post? The shit is immeasurable. At this point in time, the line between disliking someone to the point of trying to get them banned and actually banning those who rightfully deserve it has been spread so thin that there is no clear distinction anymore, it's all grey. I can get why there is this sudden desire to want to weed out the "bad eggs" in xG, but I honestly don't think this is the proper way to do it. Laying down sanctions will only result in a stronger segregation among Members and will ultimately deliver even more reports of "toxicity", and I'm talking about any sort of "harassment" or "instigations".

 

For Christ's sake, this is the internet. We're a gaming community that has over 10,000 Members with someone new making a new account almost every day. The internet isn't a pretty place, we're all maskless figures that can say or project whatever we want without fear of prosecution or judgement. The fact is, it is a shitty, toxic, salty, hateful online world. We all [should] know the risks of getting involved in an online community, we all [should] know there will be plenty of sarcasm, trolls, people whose sole purpose is to see the world burn. Now, I'm not saying that everyone should just take a chill pill and ignore everything, that would just be irresponsible. All I'm saying is this:

 

Moderation.

 

Whether that be in monitoring behaviour to prevent shit storms, or whether it be tolerating a certain amount of bullshit. By the end of the day, we will have all been subjected to (or have witnessed) some form of "online hate", and I'll bet that 90% of that hate can't even be recalled. You know why? Because chances are, you weren't bothered enough for it to have any sort of ill-effect on you. If that's the case, why are the forums any different? Someone rated your post "Boring"? Who the hell cares, it's their opinion. Someone commented on your post saying that you're stupid for having that opinion? Tough shit, because chances are that person has expressed an opinion that someone else had thought the same thing.

 

Opinions, anything and everything said by someone is merely an opinion. It isn't a state of fact. The choice is yours to react to what someone says about you or what they say about your opinion. This is one of the many commonly misunderstood things that goes on in the online world. An opinion is not toxicity. Nor is it grounds for a punishment. If you see acts of verbal abuse between two people, would you label them as being "toxic" to each other? The answer is no. They're having conflicting interests and opinions. They are arguing. The appropriate course of action will be to address what the problem is and see if a solution can be worked out that will satisfy both ends. This is important.

 

However, your over-the-top harassment is on a whole 'nother level. This is the kind of stuff that falls under the category of "toxicity". When one Member (or even a group) are maliciously and intentionally harassing several other people, then it becomes a problem. In this situation, it isn't a case of arguing, it's a case of "our group's beliefs are better than yours, and therefore you're wrong and are scum of the earth". This is where things get skewed around here. Things start to de-rail and the wrong values are then enforced. It becomes difficult to determine what side is right from wrong. When it gets to this point, it is almost too late to address the problem because it has so deeply rooted itself within the minds of few too many Members.

 

Almost every problem that ever surfaces will have arisen from a conflict between two people. Remember when I mentioned the whole "conflicting interests and opinions"? This is what it stems from. If left untreated, it will grow like a cancer. Soon friends of Person A will back Person A's beliefs, then friends of Person B will back Person B's beliefs, or worse when a group will back one and no one is there to back the other.

 

I'm going to wrap this up, because this is one long-arse looking post. All I'm getting at is that things aren't so black/white in terms of "toxicity". You can't expect to just throw down punishments for it and be done with it, that just simply won't work out.

 

To finish up, I'm going to open the floor to any open criticisms at all within this thread. If there is any sort of problem/beef/hate that you would like to vent at all, let it out, and I guarantee and promise that I will not react hostile, I will respect your opinion, and maybe even consider changes within myself in reflection of it. I welcome any and all things @Tsuchikure ;)

 

I would also like to make this thread one that anyone may feel free to express any opinion or criticism of anyone else who posts. Again, anyone who posts in this thread opens the door to possible criticisms (from others) and should expect it.With that said, do not post with the intention of verbally abusing or harassing someone, constructive criticism is the best kind of criticism.

- Dat guy, Forest

[Dethman 191]

WOW, our only CL is doing something. @Community Leader

[ChickenPanda 66]

WOW, our only CL is doing something.

thank you based eternal co-leader forest

 

please sip from your tea now pls

[Tomahawk 156]

I guess I could ask something first!

So why exactly grave-digging a punishment in the first place? I mean doesn't it just give you an alert that you've posted on an older thread. and you can simply ignore it if it is a grave-digging? (Btw I'm just wondering I'm not salty over my day ban (I was S-A-L-T-Y during my Day ban though)) I mean, I don't see any real repercussions from grave-digging.

[Dethman 191]

OK, here we go.

 

ChickenPanda: He looks like a poop butt

Hachi: Weeaboo

Kypari: Weaboo

Tekage: Name changing weeaboo

Liekos: Loveable Mexican

Bach: Fat and Smelly hobo

Kbraszzz: I dont want to be demoted so i wont say anything

Scootaloo: Smelly

Chrono: Smellier

Nomulous: Should be banned 9 more times.

Rhododendron: Literally worst person ever <3

Bleed: Procrastinating Bitch

Bach: You are so bad that you are here twice

Forest: If i say something you will use your powers to perm me

Bello: German

Tunder: Missing in action, idfc.

Dan: Fuck you

Hina: The fuck are you?

Ohstopyou: I really cant say anything he too lovable

Tomahawk: Dumbass

Insane: Deserved to be freekilled

Liekos: Cunt

[Hidingmaster 19]

Alright, some general things that really just push my buttons:

 

1) People that can't take serious threads seriously. It's been <20 min since this thread was posted and I already had to delete an unnecessary post. This has been an ever increasing problem, where people think every thread is their own playground, usually in the manner that its going to be a poopstorm and think "Yeah, why not edge it forward".

 

2) People that make threads poopstorms. Seriously? Are some of us not mature enough?

 

3) A lot of people seem to think they know what its like to be a DL/CL. Let me tell you all something, it aint anywhere close to as easy as you think.. and why is my number 4.

 

4) The fear of being demoted. The amount of times I've had to personally deal with someone either bullying, trolling, or general server rule breaking and have been unable to issue a ban or something longer than a day is unreal. I've been the only person on at night many times where a poopstorm has started, either in shoutbox or on a thread, and I can basically do nothing. Why? Either there won't be enough proof in the morning, its been an ongoing thing (so if someone looks why they were banned they only see one small instance, not tons of small ones), and because in the end there is a very high chance that I will get in trouble for banning/punishing them.

 

4a) The bureaucracy. One of the causes for problem #4. If anybody bans someone, mostly perm, the first question you get is "Did you ask the other CLs?". IT WAS 3 AM, NO I DIDNT FUDGING WAIT FOR ONE OF THEM TO GET ON. I would have loved to consult them in certain situations, but I can't sit there and do nothing when I am personally being attacked by someone.

 

4b) The lies and doing stuff behind people's back. Mostly reserved for the higher ups, but when did everything become so secret? When we started as CLs we agreed that everything needed a 3/5ths vote and that everyone had to see and approve the promo demo list. I haven't seen anything really happen that required a vote, but I also haven't seen a promo demo list since the last big demotion of TF2. Partly my fault, I should have contacted the other CLs. But I think we need to get together again on these things. Although there really is no need for most of us to see the Promo demo list, it was one of the more important things we did together. Kinda off on a tanget there, but lets get back to lies and doing stuff behind people's back. Since when was it cool to reverse someone's ban without discussing with the person who issued it? Never that I remember. I've permed someone, i'll leave names out (although he knows who it was), and he got his ban removed within 24 hours. That was some bulllllllpoop. Absolutely not a cool thing to do.

 

 

TL: DR

 

Let's think before we post.

Poopstorms are not funny anymore.

It's tough being a thug.

Stop reporting abuse on higherups who are just trying to lay the hammer down sometimes (but please report if it really is a serious power problem)

I can make some decisions on my own.

Don't go behind my back and let people off. (#favoritism?)

[Insane 2]

ChickenPanda: scrub lord

Hachi: weird person

Kypari: scrub 3

Tekage: scrub 2

Liekos: corner whore

Bach: canadian

Kbraszzz: rabbits

Scootaloo: scrub4

Chrono: hai

Nomulous: please try again in a few mins

Rhododendron: prob doesnt even know me cause he never accepted my friend request

Bleed: bad at CSGO

Bello: 3 German 5 Me

Tunder: scrub

Dan: hai

Hina: The frick are you?8

Tomahawk: hai

Insane: should be DL

[ChickenPanda 66]

It's tough being a thug.

HIDING'S GONNA POP SOME TAGS

ONLY GOT $20 IN HIS POCKET

[Chrono 372]

I publicly do not support any of those bans in "toxicity"

 

Before the weeaboos and furries and bronies and mexicans get at me for again stating my disapproval let it be known it is not just because I am chill with vector I protest his ban. Hell other than the recent perm you gave him, I probably have the most ban time given out vs. him. I do not support any of the bans, here is my reason.

 

1. they are all retroactive bans (taken from things that have happened much in the past.)
   
2. they are all double jeopardy bans (they are banned now for things they were previously tried for, and either acquitted or banned at their individual times)
   
3. none of them compare to other trolls (no major offense towards rabid) but people like rabid and neteX were much worse than any of them ever could dream of. you know what happened to neteX? he got banned from servers and forums. it wasn't until he DoS'd xg that he got teamspeak banned. why are these people banned on TS? it's meant as a public grounds for all people to just talk and relax, very rarely is anyone ever banned on there. it's saved for special offenders (cont.)
   
4. They aren't special offenders, they are light BMers. they dont actually troll (by definition target a person or group and go out of their way to harass them.) they have some salty attitudes and get angry quick, not actually troll. they don't do anything worthy of real bans especially from TS. the only real ban on the list i saw was @Bach for the hacking thing, while i disagree that he wasn't banned based on our rules that he shouldn't have, i see the good intention behind it. (note: batman has good intentions about being a vigilante but the police hunted him/technically are supposed to arrest him even in current comics where he works with commisioner gordon; they don't because he helps a lot)
   
5. the "higher ups" involved in the conversation already have very very strong biased opinions towards the individuals in question. there was no way in hell you were going to receive a fair punishment when they are your only source of discussion.
   

I feel as if the CL system was a good idea, take individuals from higher ups in different divisions, mix them together and get differing opinions, require votes etc. however when you take the opinions of only a select sample that all share common interest/ground, it will be very very very very very very very very very biased when situations like that arise, you should be looking to a real jury. and outside source of opinion who is not effected by it (i.e. if you want to "discuss" perming someone from TF2 because he BMs tf2 staff, you should look to individuals from CS:S CS:GO etc. who don't give a rats ass about tf2 to look over any real evidence instead of testimonials/opinions and then take action on a real jury and their thoughts)

 

that's my thoughts on the recent development, i tried talking to a couple CLs earlier, and they thought i was saying bans are for pussies blah blah blah, instead of listening.

[Hidingmaster 19]

I publicly do not support any of those bans in "toxicity"

 

Before the weeaboos and furries and bronies and mexicans get at me for again stating my disapproval let it be known it is not just because I am chill with vector I protest his ban. Hell other than the recent perm you gave him, I probably have the most ban time given out vs. him. I do not support any of the bans, here is my reason.

 

1. they are all retroactive bans (taken from things that have happened much in the past.)
   
2. they are all double jeopardy bans (they are banned now for things they were previously tried for, and either acquitted or banned at their individual times)
   
3. none of them compare to other trolls (no major offense towards rabid) but people like rabid and neteX were much worse than any of them ever could dream of. you know what happened to neteX? he got banned from servers and forums. it wasn't until he DoS'd xg that he got teamspeak banned. why are these people banned on TS? it's meant as a public grounds for all people to just talk and relax, very rarely is anyone ever banned on there. it's saved for special offenders (cont.)
   
4. They aren't special offenders, they are light BMers. they dont actually troll (by definition target a person or group and go out of their way to harass them.) they have some salty attitudes and get angry quick, not actually troll. they don't do anything worthy of real bans especially from TS. the only real ban on the list i saw was @Bach for the hacking thing, while i disagree that he wasn't banned based on our rules that he shouldn't have, i see the good intention behind it. (note: batman has good intentions about being a vigilante but the police hunted him/technically are supposed to arrest him even in current comics where he works with commisioner gordon; they don't because he helps a lot)
   
5. the "higher ups" involved in the conversation already have very very strong biased opinions towards the individuals in question. there was no way in hell you were going to receive a fair punishment when they are your only source of discussion.
   

I feel as if the CL system was a good idea, take individuals from higher ups in different divisions, mix them together and get differing opinions, require votes etc. however when you take the opinions of only a select sample that all share common interest/ground, it will be very very very very very very very very very biased when situations like that arise, you should be looking to a real jury. and outside source of opinion who is not effected by it (i.e. if you want to "discuss" perming someone from TF2 because he BMs tf2 staff, you should look to individuals from CS:S CS:GO etc. who don't give a rats butt about tf2 to look over any real evidence instead of testimonials/opinions and then take action on a real jury and their thoughts)

 

that's my thoughts on the recent development, i tried talking to a couple CLs earlier, and they thought i was saying bans are for pussies blah blah blah, instead of listening.

 

 

You need to understand that all the higher ups don't share common interest/ground. There were 12 people in the conversation. That's an awful lot of people to be on the same page wanting the same bans. Don't pull the favoritism card here.

[xGShadowSpy 108]

I publicly do not support any of those bans in "toxicity"

 

Before the weeaboos and furries and bronies and mexicans get at me for again stating my disapproval let it be known it is not just because I am chill with vector I protest his ban. Hell other than the recent perm you gave him, I probably have the most ban time given out vs. him. I do not support any of the bans, here is my reason.

 

1. they are all retroactive bans (taken from things that have happened much in the past.)
   
2. they are all double jeopardy bans (they are banned now for things they were previously tried for, and either acquitted or banned at their individual times)
   
3. none of them compare to other trolls (no major offense towards rabid) but people like rabid and neteX were much worse than any of them ever could dream of. you know what happened to neteX? he got banned from servers and forums. it wasn't until he DoS'd xg that he got teamspeak banned. why are these people banned on TS? it's meant as a public grounds for all people to just talk and relax, very rarely is anyone ever banned on there. it's saved for special offenders (cont.)
   
4. They aren't special offenders, they are light BMers. they dont actually troll (by definition target a person or group and go out of their way to harass them.) they have some salty attitudes and get angry quick, not actually troll. they don't do anything worthy of real bans especially from TS. the only real ban on the list i saw was @Bach for the hacking thing, while i disagree that he wasn't banned based on our rules that he shouldn't have, i see the good intention behind it. (note: batman has good intentions about being a vigilante but the police hunted him/technically are supposed to arrest him even in current comics where he works with commisioner gordon; they don't because he helps a lot)
   
5. the "higher ups" involved in the conversation already have very very strong biased opinions towards the individuals in question. there was no way in hell you were going to receive a fair punishment when they are your only source of discussion.
   

I feel as if the CL system was a good idea, take individuals from higher ups in different divisions, mix them together and get differing opinions, require votes etc. however when you take the opinions of only a select sample that all share common interest/ground, it will be very very very very very very very very very biased when situations like that arise, you should be looking to a real jury. and outside source of opinion who is not effected by it (i.e. if you want to "discuss" perming someone from TF2 because he BMs tf2 staff, you should look to individuals from CS:S CS:GO etc. who don't give a rats butt about tf2 to look over any real evidence instead of testimonials/opinions and then take action on a real jury and their thoughts)

 

that's my thoughts on the recent development, i tried talking to a couple CLs earlier, and they thought i was saying bans are for pussies blah blah blah, instead of listening.

 

I like your idea of only allowing other division members to vouch, but they may still be friends if they know each other outside of the division, either through TS or Forums, and looking into could take a lot of work.

 

I see the reason they only PM'd people about it, they wanted to keep it anonymous, so no shitstorm was started, the problem with that is that it leaves no room for discussion between members(or those involved with punishment).

 

As for the Favoritism, each person asked(the 200+ people or w.e it was) may have a bias towards someone so they intentionally didn't bring their name up, or made what someone did seem worse.

 

1+2:, of everyone PM'd(the 200+), im sure very few, if any, had provided any evidence so that's likely all they had to go off of, which is stupid.

 

3. Also let's not forget how many chances neteX got and how many times he was unpermabanned

 

4. Although I think some genuinely try to troll, it isn't as bad as some make it out to be in the case of a lot of those in trouble with the toxic list

 

5. Not very surprising, of the 12 higher ups involved I'm sure at least one had some sort of bias, even if small, though im sure it wasn't to the extent of "hey everyone else I'm putting him here since I don't like him".

[Chrono 372]

You need to understand that all the higher ups don't share common interest/ground. There were 12 people in the conversation. That's an awful lot of people to be on the same page wanting the same bans. Don't pull the favoritism card here.

still only highlighting the 1 part that semi-directly involves you. ;)

atleast i can count on one of the CLs to be consistent.

Go back to the parts about double jeopardy, retroactive bans, and that according to my trusted anonymous vigilante source, the involved parties in the convo were "CLs, Nomulous, TF2 DMs/DLs, and Dethman" which most notably comprises people who don't play tf2 much but have been known to have some issues with people (vector, iggy) in a one on one state, and TF2 staff that get "trolled by vector all the time" please show me how there is no bias at all in the party that was discussing banning him along with others who lightly bm compared to what you make it out to be.

 

Note: jurors are cross-interviewed, just check out the people you want to give an un-biased opinion first. go to sources outside the immediate confines of xG, ask old co leaders to give some god damn god opinions instead of people that are salty over some bm they get when another feels they could do the job better.

 

Note2: this is an open criticism thread, dont take it like a personal attack and get defensive when i state CLs in general are going about something wrong IMO instead look at it and give feedback on all the points

[Forest 309]

Note2: this is an open criticism thread, dont take it like a personal attack and get defensive when i state CLs in general are going about something wrong IMO instead look at it and give feedback on all the points

[Hidingmaster 19]

still only highlighting the 1 part that semi-directly involves you. ;)

atleast i can count on one of the CLs to be consistent.

Go back to the parts about double jeopardy, retroactive bans, and that according to my trusted anonymous vigilante source, the involved parties in the convo were "CLs, Nomulous, TF2 DMs/DLs, and Dethman" which most notably comprises people who don't play tf2 much but have been known to have some issues with people (vector, iggy) in a one on one state, and TF2 staff that get "trolled by vector all the time" please show me how there is no bias at all in the party that was discussing banning him along with others who lightly bm compared to what you make it out to be.

 

Note: jurors are cross-interviewed, just check out the people you want to give an un-biased opinion first. go to sources outside the immediate confines of xG, ask old co leaders to give some god damn god opinions instead of people that are salty over some bm they get when another feels they could do the job better.

 

Note2: this is an open criticism thread, dont take it like a personal attack and get defensive when i state CLs in general are going about something wrong IMO instead look at it and give feedback on all the points

 

List of who was in the convo (forum names):

 

Hidingmaster

Dr. Lee

Penguino

Diabeetus

Dethman

kbraszzz

metalslug

Moosty

Nom

Rejects

Ohstopyou

Silence

 

Still not a bad mix.

 

Also if you really think you're on to something with the biasness, by all means lay it out for us; show us who was biased towards who.

 

Double Jeopardy issue I can agree with you, but I also see how some people were let continue on well past when they should of.

[Waimalu 1]

I wanna believe that you guys can stop the toxicity but I just can't see that happening with the fact that some people hate others and they can't just ignore them cuz the other person will bring up shit and then you have whole fucking storm of hate which is why I had to leave ts twice Saturday...