ResetEra Moderation Staff is Fucking Up Beyond Belief on LGBT+ Issues

fanboi

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,106
Sweden
I think it would make sense if one were added.
Yes, but I think the % of userbase is quite small that identifies like that (or isn't known) and you would need a capable one at that since "with power comes responsibility" which is a general guide for all mods I assume and not just for the sake of diversity in that sense.
 

crazyfunster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,856
Random idea:

For the major communities of ResetEra, members with semi-regular participation and some duration of 'citizenship' of said community (6 months+ to avoid an influx of saboteurs) should elect representatives to enter into the discussions with the ResetEra staff. This way representatives are not picked by the staff themselves which could lead to accusations of picking cronies or less oppositional members.

Then staff and the representatives have an open discussion on the important topics, where all of ResetEra can view (but not participate). Closed doors sessions would likely be necessary to avoid everyone needing to "perform" and to have more candid conversations, but at the end of these conversations, agreed upon summaries would be released with the endorsement of all who participated.

Clearly a lot of work, and not infallible, but clearly more representative and of redress than the current system.
I like this idea- though admins should be allowed to veto folks.

I'd also give these representatives the abiiity to suggest overturn or reduction of bans. For short bans this would have little effect, but in cases of long or permas it might if the ban was excessive or incorrect. Multiple other boards use this system, and it mostly works well.
 

Hecht

Arizona shrimp horny
Administrator
Oct 24, 2017
4,871
Ehh, the cult around moderation and "banhammers" is part of what shit up neogaf.
Apart from Bronson, who we thought had a good head on his shoulders (and he did!), we wanted to move away from the “celebrity” mods that GAF had. There are a few members who could potentially be good mods on Era, but the existence of a “cult of personality” around them somewhat differentiates them from one of the major things we wanted to get away from.

When we look for mods, we first most definitely look for those that can fill any sort of gap we may have (e.g., some sort of marginalized group...I know you may have the perception that this hasn’t been a thing, but good god that’s one of the first things we consider and has been since the site went live), but we also consider other things - being on staff requires one to post in a different manner than a user: for instance, I’m totally an asshole despite what people I know on this site may say (love you guuyyys), but I know I have to provide information to the user base at large in a certain manner.

Don’t get me wrong, I still post things in a rather personal manner, but I won’t be as argumentative, nor will I post in a manner that will elicit certain responses - I can’t show that I’m “baiting” someone into saying something terrible. If they are awful they will do it on their own.

I know people may have preferences as to whom they would like as mods, and I totally get that. But becoming a member of staff carries certain responsibilities and restrictions. You also have to accept that the user base will see you as part of the “staff” and not as an individual. I don’t blame that assumption, it makes sense, but it’s definitely something to consider.
 

BassForever

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,673
CT
Most of the bigger communities I interact with have a mod or admin who is a regular participant. I think once a community gets to a certain size (able to have monthly ot’s) then someone from that community should become a mod just to help police such a large ot. It would help keep the bigger threads from getting out of control, and would help give a voice to said community.
 

Nida

Member
Aug 31, 2019
1,019
Lynnwood, Washington
Yes, but I think the % of userbase is quite small that identifies like that (or isn't known) and you would need a capable one at that since "with power comes responsibility" which is a general guide for all mods I assume and not just for the sake of diversity in that sense.
That makes sense. I'm relatively new here, but I know it's incredibly diverse. Wasn't sure if there were many people who are asexual and are well known and trusted.
 

Hecht

Arizona shrimp horny
Administrator
Oct 24, 2017
4,871
Most of the bigger communities I interact with have a mod or admin who is a regular participant. I think once a community gets to a certain size (able to have monthly ot’s) then someone from that community should become a mod just to help police such a large ot. It would help keep the bigger threads from getting out of control, and would help give a voice to said community.
There’s this weird balance that we’re still trying to figure out. We want to be “members of the community” but we are always seen as “staff.” Many of us are fairly prominent members of several communities (I am in one, for instance), but there is still this divide between users and staff. We want to be part of communities, but we also cannot escape that fact - despite being a member of my community for years, I still get lumped in as “part of the staff” if they dislike any decision.

It’s a really difficult balance to maintain, and not one that staffers can do on their own.
 

Nida

Member
Aug 31, 2019
1,019
Lynnwood, Washington
There’s this weird balance that we’re still trying to figure out. We want to be “members of the community” but we are always seen as “staff.” Many of us are fairly prominent members of several communities (I am in one, for instance), but there is still this divide between users and staff. We want to be part of communities, but we also cannot escape that fact - despite being a member of my community for years, I still get lumped in as “part of the staff” if they dislike any decision.

It’s a really difficult balance to maintain, and not one that staffers can do on their own.
Unfortunately you can't please everyone. Some people don't see another person when it comes to anyone with power. They just see the fact you sometimes have to punish those that break the rules, no matter how you normally act when not doling out discipline.

They wouldn't be happy unless there were no mods, and then this place would first be an unreadable nightmare, and eventually totally abandoned because people don't tend to want to hang out around a place that is actively on fire with people spouting heinous shit.

I was made an Admin for a board that was basically the wild west and tasked with cleaning it up. It isn't easy, but it must be done if you want a healthy environment.

There's no reason mods and admins can't be themselves and active members of communities. As long as they aren't breaking the rules, they are entitled to some pleasure from an often thankless position. People who look at and treat them differently are just missing out on worthwhile conversation due to their distrust for figures of authority.

You be you. Unless you want to be mean, then bite your tongue.
 

Primethius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,089
There’s this weird balance that we’re still trying to figure out. We want to be “members of the community” but we are always seen as “staff.” Many of us are fairly prominent members of several communities (I am in one, for instance), but there is still this divide between users and staff. We want to be part of communities, but we also cannot escape that fact - despite being a member of my community for years, I still get lumped in as “part of the staff” if they dislike any decision.

It’s a really difficult balance to maintain, and not one that staffers can do on their own.
Here's an idea but I don't know how possible it is with the software infrastructure:

Thread creators of larger communities be given the power to moderate their own threads, and in turn escalate certain issues to site moderators. Banned folks would have a route of appeal to site moderators but this would still cut down on a significant portion of the active moderation required by the volunteer staff.

I'm thinking of how in some states magister courts are setup to alleviate the burden of a large amount of lawsuits in district courts.
 

Hecht

Arizona shrimp horny
Administrator
Oct 24, 2017
4,871
Here's an idea but I don't know how possible it is with the software infrastructure:

Thread creators of larger communities be given the power to moderate their own threads, and in turn escalate certain issues to site moderators. Banned folks would have a route of appeal to site moderators but this would still cut down on a significant portion of the active moderation required by the volunteer staff.

I'm thinking of how in some states magister courts are setup to alleviate the burden of a large amount of lawsuits in district courts.
While in theory I get your proposal, the point of an overarching staff is to be able to be relatively objective regardless of the thread topic. If this were to be implemented - and I’ll just use gaming side as an example here - the OP could ban people for not saying something positive about the game in the topic. Even if an overarching staff handles disputes, that’s just extra work to handle these things.

Federal vs States is an interesting premise but doesn’t really work in this instance, because “federal” powers in this case are limited by manpower. Having people dedicated to certain areas only serves to reinforce certain positive aspects of those areas. I’m a PlayStation, PC, and Switch player, for instance, but I’m not so much of a fanboy that I cannot criticize things I dislike.

There are plenty of communities that we trust to self-police, though. For instance, I’m a regular in the Mafia community and they are fantastic at weeding out negative actors, or at the very least bringing them to our attention.

Look, there are legitimate arguments to be made about the current state of moderation. I, personally, know that we can always be better. But our entire existence is predicated on having a community. We are not trying to work *against* you.
 

Primethius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,089
While in theory I get your proposal, the point of an overarching staff is to be able to be relatively objective regardless of the thread topic. If this were to be implemented - and I’ll just use gaming side as an example here - the OP could ban people for not saying something positive about the game in the topic. Even if an overarching staff handles disputes, that’s just extra work to handle these things.

Federal vs States is an interesting premise but doesn’t really work in this instance, because “federal” powers in this case are limited by manpower. Having people dedicated to certain areas only serves to reinforce certain positive aspects of those areas. I’m a PlayStation, PC, and Switch player, for instance, but I’m not so much of a fanboy that I cannot criticize things I dislike.

There are plenty of communities that we trust to self-police, though. For instance, I’m a regular in the Mafia community and they are fantastic at weeding out negative actors, or at the very least bringing them to our attention.

Look, there are legitimate arguments to be made about the current state of moderation. I, personally, know that we can always be better. But our entire existence is predicated on having a community. We are not trying to work *against* you.
Oh no, I understand. My proposal was more from the perspective of lessening the burden on current moderation staff, not lines of division.

E. G. Certain community thread makers get this privilege, they have these powers only over their own thread. If someone is actioned against, they can appeal it to site-wide staff (where as the thread creator is only thread level). In this way, the ultimate power rests in site staff and there's a cohesive effort on a singular moderation policy.

But I see what your saying as well. Appreciate the reply.
 

Hecht

Arizona shrimp horny
Administrator
Oct 24, 2017
4,871
Oh no, I understand. My proposal was more from the perspective of lessening the burden on current moderation staff, not lines of division.

E. G. Certain community thread makers get this privilege, they have these powers only over their own thread. If someone is actioned against, they can appeal it to site-wide staff (where as the thread creator is only thread level). In this way, the ultimate power rests in site staff and there's a cohesive effort on a singular moderation policy.

But I see what your saying as well. Appreciate the reply.
Well like I said it makes a bit of sense, but that there are some logistical considerations:
A) we would have to present some sort of delineation as to who/what OPs fall under that umbrella
B) one of the benefits of having a main, “centralized” staff is that we are all on the same page and can enforce rules in a standardized fashion

I know there have been some posts in this thread and the other related threads regarding these bans - but I will just promise that any decision that is made is made with the consent of multiple members of staff, including those on staff that may be a part of whatever minority group is affected. We would never, ever, EVER ban someone simply because they are part of a marginalized group. If we ever did that I would be the first to resign.
 

Primethius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,089
Well like I said it makes a bit of sense, but that there are some logistical considerations:
A) we would have to present some sort of delineation as to who/what OPs fall under that umbrella
B) one of the benefits of having a main, “centralized” staff is that we are all on the same page and can enforce rules in a standardized fashion

I know there have been some posts in this thread and the other related threads regarding these bans - but I will just promise that any decision that is made is made with the consent of multiple members of staff, including those on staff that may be a part of whatever minority group is affected. We would never, ever, EVER ban someone simply because they are part of a marginalized group. If we ever did that I would be the first to resign.
I understand. It was a thought that worked in my head but I totally understand your points and the goal you are pushing for.

I appreciate the response!
 

ody

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,378
There’s this weird balance that we’re still trying to figure out. We want to be “members of the community” but we are always seen as “staff.” Many of us are fairly prominent members of several communities (I am in one, for instance), but there is still this divide between users and staff. We want to be part of communities, but we also cannot escape that fact - despite being a member of my community for years, I still get lumped in as “part of the staff” if they dislike any decision.

It’s a really difficult balance to maintain, and not one that staffers can do on their own.
Would probably help if the admins/mods first instinct wasn't to run defense for each other and instead own up to their mistakes before having community tensions boil over. And of course have the ToS and guidelines apply to mods as well.
 

SweetNicole

The Old Guard
Member
Oct 24, 2017
5,778
Most of the bigger communities I interact with have a mod or admin who is a regular participant. I think once a community gets to a certain size (able to have monthly ot’s) then someone from that community should become a mod just to help police such a large ot. It would help keep the bigger threads from getting out of control, and would help give a voice to said community.
This used to be part of the moderation decision making process early on. When we were identifying mods at the very start, we definitely tried to make sure we had a great composition of members from across every community, particularly on gaming side where console warring was certain to be a problem. There's never been a formal requirement for it though, and it generally was rule of thumb based on how difficult or lack thereof the community was to manage normally without a staff member who knew the ins and outs. In recent time, I'm pretty sure this practice has been put on hold or diminished in favor of best for the position, but the historically it factored in quite heavily in the moderation selection process. This isn't to say that the practice was good one way or another, but I wanted to provide some context that it already was an unofficial policy for staff selection process earlier on. So, if it feels like there is a staff member in most every community that is because it was very much intentional.

Thanks to staff for being on point with these issues and being active in this thread now. I hope this is a sign of things to come and hopefully a new status quo that is far less stressful for everyone involved. Also, congrats to the new promotions. It's probably the hardest, most stressful position you'll ever be in, but I know y'all will perform admirably.
 

Hecht

Arizona shrimp horny
Administrator
Oct 24, 2017
4,871
Would probably help if the admins/mods first instinct wasn't to run defense for each other and instead own up to their mistakes before having community tensions boil over. And of course have the ToS and guidelines apply to mods as well.
As for the last part, fair enough. With respect to Royalan, we had determined that the things that were said in the past were not representative of who was there in the present. I’ll stand by that, as he had been an effective moderator in many LGBT+ situations, including those involving asexual persons.

As for defense, we are fine with admitting fault (although yes, I will say that there will be some internal discussions on how to address it because we know that users will pick apart anything that is said), but we will come to the defense of people if we feel that the response to things that are unearthed seems disproportionate.

I’ll say this about myself - until about 2005, I was a Republican. I was raised in a military household - not super religious, but enough to know that god hated certain people - and in 2005-6, I met someone, a gay man, on a gaming news site I started working on that clued me in to the fact that I was a fucking moron. He taught me so much about what else was out there. I will never be able to thank him enough.

Anyway. The point is that “circling the wagons” wasn’t any sort of attempt to gaslight the community. We had learned that he had changed.

If you’re referring to some other member, I believe Ketkat made a statement to that effect, and I trust what she said regarding the “incident.”

The TOS, etc., apply to everyone, including staff. That’s never been in doubt.
 

LebGuns

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,188
Wow, absolutely horrible. Truth is I’ve felt this forum drift closer to GAF with us going back to celebrity mods, insiders allowed to shitpost and tease because they’re admins, and bans coming inside threads just because some people have opposing ideas.

We need to do better, or else what was the whole point of this?
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,042
Wow, absolutely horrible. Truth is I’ve felt this forum drift closer to GAF with us going back to celebrity mods, insiders allowed to shitpost and tease because they’re admins, and bans coming inside threads just because some people have opposing ideas.

We need to do better, or else what was the whole point of this?
Lol you say absolutely terrible as if speaking to the topic at hand but then immediately argue for changes that would enable the topic at hand.

Classic

I don't buy that anyone at this point can think in good faith that this topic is about is too many bans.
 
Last edited:

LebGuns

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,188
Lol you say absolutely terrible as if speaking to the topic at hand but then immediately argue for changes that would enable the topic at hand.

Classic

I don't buy that anyone at this point can think in good faith that this topic is about is too many bans.
Let me be clear, I’m not saying not to ban people with intolerant views; ABSOLUTELY ban them if repeat offenders. Everyone has a chance to learn and grow, and if they review to do so they should not be a part of this forum in my opinion. That being said, having an opposing idea should not equal a ban if it’s not intolerant.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,042
Let me be clear, I’m not saying not to ban people with intolerant views; ABSOLUTELY ban them if repeat offenders. Everyone has a chance to learn and grow, and if they review to do so they should not be a part of this forum in my opinion. That being said, having an opposing idea should not equal a ban if it’s not intolerant.
There is not some epidemic of people getting banned for "an opposing idea"
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,045
Nottingham, UK
Let me be clear, I’m not saying not to ban people with intolerant views; ABSOLUTELY ban them if repeat offenders. Everyone has a chance to learn and grow, and if they review to do so they should not be a part of this forum in my opinion. That being said, having an opposing idea should not equal a ban if it’s not intolerant.
Why should people have to read through ignorant shit that calls into question their very identity?

What "opposing ideas" actually get hit with bans that aren't born of intolerance and ignorance?
 

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,000
Madrid
Forcing Royalan, a gay black mod, to step down, because of a pretty inoccuous comment made years ago in a different forum; a comment I could have probably made myself at some point in time, is some grade A bullshit. I fail to see how this makes Era a more inclusive place, like, at all.

"Witch hunt" is a term I hate, but I can't not see it being perfectly applicable here. I'm extremely disappointed with the bloodlust at display and the generalized thankless fuckery directed at the mod team.
 

BDS

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,998
Forcing Royalan, a gay black mod, to step down, because of a pretty inoccuous comment made years ago in a different forum; a comment I could have probably made myself at some point in time, is some grade A bullshit. I fail to see how this makes Era a more inclusive place, like, at all.

"Witch hunt" is a term I hate, but I can't not see it being perfectly applicable here. I'm extremely disappointed with the bloodlust at display and the generalized thankless fuckery directed at the mod team.
I wasn't aware being a minority made it impossible to be a bigot
 

MilesQ

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,465
I wasn't aware being a minority made it impossible to be a bigot
That's an unfair reading of the post and not at all what the poster is saying. Some people see it as a loss that Royalan decided/felt compelled to step down, especially when he made it clear that his opinions had evolved. The initial post bringing his past comment to light was also cropped, which only made the dogpile/anger towards him worse, but I can't speak to if that was a maliciously done or if the poster who posted it received it as such.
 

BDS

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,998
That's an unfair reading of the post and not at all what the poster is saying. Some people see it as a loss that Royalan decided/felt compelled to step down, especially when he made it clear that his opinions had evolved. The initial post bringing his past comment to light was also cropped, which only made the dogpile/anger towards him worse, but I can't speak to if that was a maliciously done or if the poster who posted it received it as such.
No, that's exactly what he's saying, that being a minority shields you from your actions and that criticizing them for being a bigot is in some way bigoted itself.

Royalan stepping down was the right choice, his comment was stupid and hurtful, it was only two years ago, nobody is entitled to being a moderator on an internet forum and he's still around to show us he's learned from his mistakes if he has. We're not re-litigating this in here so go whine about cancel culture somewhere else.
 

Lonewulfeus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,829
Royalan wasn’t even the allegedly acephobic mod according to robin. Seems like he just took a bullet for a different mod after someone played internet detective.
 

Order

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
566
Losing Royalan sucks, especially since he was one of the few mods who actually cared about the black community on here
 

Khrn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
356
As for the last part, fair enough. With respect to Royalan, we had determined that the things that were said in the past were not representative of who was there in the present. I’ll stand by that, as he had been an effective moderator in many LGBT+ situations, including those involving asexual persons.

As for defense, we are fine with admitting fault (although yes, I will say that there will be some internal discussions on how to address it because we know that users will pick apart anything that is said), but we will come to the defense of people if we feel that the response to things that are unearthed seems disproportionate.

I’ll say this about myself - until about 2005, I was a Republican. I was raised in a military household - not super religious, but enough to know that god hated certain people - and in 2005-6, I met someone, a gay man, on a gaming news site I started working on that clued me in to the fact that I was a fucking moron. He taught me so much about what else was out there. I will never be able to thank him enough.

Anyway. The point is that “circling the wagons” wasn’t any sort of attempt to gaslight the community. We had learned that he had changed.

If you’re referring to some other member, I believe Ketkat made a statement to that effect, and I trust what she said regarding the “incident.”

The TOS, etc., apply to everyone, including staff. That’s never been in doubt.
With all due respect, but notice how there's a lot of "we" in your message. On an earlier post, you say the staff struggles with being considered members of the community, but here you talk about how you determined, you know users will pick apart, if you feel the response is disproportionate, you had learned someone had changed...

My point is that it shows there's a lot more power into what you see. I don't know the full story here, but from what you say, the community was never given a chance to see his changes before he became a moderator. They were asked to trust what you saw in him. And I think there's a huge difference in there: moderators should be people the community (especially marginalized ones) know they can trust, not someone that might prove to them that they're trustworthy. If it's the latter, it will always be imbalanced, because they were already in power in the first place.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,653
Royalan asked to be held accountable, and so the community did. People can grow and I don't hold it against him what he said years ago. What I'm not thrilled about is how communication by him and Morrigan was handled after the banning, though Morrigan states her posts were made on behalf of the team. The fact that the team as a whole decided the below message was acceptable is still fucked up to me:

This is being posted on behalf of the team:

Ketkat has been banned for violating a safe space for minorities in a private channel on a staff server, a channel that has very limited access and the expectation of privacy. We have investigated this thoroughly over the past few days, and that she did this is not in dispute. In fact, it confirms a pattern that had been suspected for a long time.

There is no question that Ketkat understood the importance of privacy in safe spaces, as she has championed this herself, a fact that makes this breach all the more frustrating and sad.

The entire staff was given an opportunity to weigh in on this case over the past few days. In light of the violation of their privacy, many expressed that they would not feel comfortable or safe volunteering here if such intrusions were tolerated. For this reason, the ban has been made permanent. This decision was not and could not have been made without careful consideration and large consensus.

Fighting transphobia is an entirely separate issue that we care about deeply. We spend a lot of time and energy on this and are always working to improve our moderation on this subject, including through sincere feedback from our community. This is something that will never change. We would like to thank the many of you in the trans community who have reached out to offer your understanding and support.

Certain individuals have been persistently trying to hijack this thread to fight a ban. Despite the pain it has caused our volunteers, we have been more than patient with the animosity in some of those posts. The decision is now final and it's time to move on. Not everyone is going to be happy with that, and that's okay. Excessive vitriol, however, will be moderated.

Please return to the important topic of trans awareness week.
 

MilesQ

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,465
No, that's exactly what he's saying, that being a minority shields you from your actions and that criticizing them for being a bigot is in some way bigoted itself.

Royalan stepping down was the right choice, his comment was stupid and hurtful, it was only two years ago, nobody is entitled to being a moderator on an internet forum and he's still around to show us he's learned from his mistakes if he has. We're not re-litigating this in here so go whine about cancel culture somewhere else.
No-one mentioned 'cancel culture' and no-one is whining either, I'm not sure why you'd attempt to frame a potential discussion about Royalan and what happened as such.
 

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,000
Madrid
I wasn't aware being a minority made it impossible to be a bigot
Worthless witticism and generalization. If you think Royalan is a bigot because he pointed out (three years ago, in a different forum) that asexuals do not face the level of violence gay or transgender people do, then I literally don't have anything else to say to you.
 

BDS

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,998
Worthless witticism and generalization. If you think Royalan is a bigot because he pointed out (three years ago, in a different forum) that asexuals do not face the level of violence gay or transgender people do, then I literally don't have anything else to say to you.
It was two years ago and that wasn't what he said.
 

Robin

Restless Insomniac
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,112
Royalan's post sucked but he does not deserve to be harassed, and frankly I'm embarrassed to see my name parallel to some of the more outrageous reactions I've seen. It's not a great way to convince staff to ever give a shit about the community again. We can expect better from moderation and not doxx anyone or jump to assuming the absolute worst of an individual when we've seen how much he has done for the community otherwise, and I feel like it's unproductive to continue kicking someone when they're down.

Also, I want to be clear that I'm not rebuking "cancel culture", I'm all for it. But I do believe it's important to not let this become a mess and instead to focus on holding staff accountable for making ace and trans users feel protected going forward.

Did Staff create this mess? Yes. But if you question where all the Year 1 staff went it explains itself.

Edit: Published this post a little early and have been editing it a little
 
Last edited:

Leo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,986
It was two years ago and that wasn't what he said.
It seems to me that was pretty much what he said.

I understand that he should face scrutiny because of that post, but straight out calling someone a bigot for expressing his feelings on a matter that is sensible for him AND that he is entitled to talk about since it's his experience as a minority is very disrespectful.

It's not that he can't be a bigot because he is a minority as you interpreted the post above, is that he was speaking about his experience as a minority at that moment, and one that was related to the subject. You can't just silence someone like that when they are in their place of speech. You could argue, debate and disagree, and that would be far more constructive for everybody. That would be a very different case if it was a straight person talking about asexuals and the dynamics of belonging in the LGBT+ community.
 

Rover

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,471
Royalan's post sucked but he does not deserve to be harassed, and frankly I'm embarrassed to see my name parallel to some of the more outrageous reactions I've seen. It's not a great way to convince staff to ever give a shit about the community again. We can expect better from moderation and not doxx anyone, and I feel like it's unproductive to continue kicking someone when they're down.
I'm not under any part of the LGBT+ umbrella, so ultimately it's not up to me to say what Royalan's apology or resignation means. But as an onlooker, I did find his apology and recourse to be sincere, and people with a stake in it did seem to respond well. So with that said, I just wonder why the other moderator implicated in this hasn't come forward with an apology.
 

Robin

Restless Insomniac
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,112
I'm not under any part of the LGBT+ umbrella, so ultimately it's not up to me to say what Royalan's apology or resignation means. But as an onlooker, I did find his apology and recourse to be sincere, and people with a stake in it did seem to respond well. So with that said, I just wonder why the other moderator implicated in this hasn't come forward with an apology.
Well for what it's worth we don't even know for sure there is an acephobic mod as Kat's information was secondhand, so we may just have to take staff's word that there was a misunderstanding.

What we do know though is that the mod who caught flak for saying transphobic things (who I am intentionally not naming, becuase let's not continue to harrass) doesn't appear on the staff list anymore. So it does appear changes are being made and we will just have to see where things go from here.
 

Servbot24

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
21,095
Definitely.
There's a user that's been banned at least 3 times for toxicity, once for harassing someone via PM so his toxicity would be hidden. He gets banned almost every few months and at most it's for a few days
Asked a mod why he hasn't faced a more serious suspension and was basically told it's because he loses his temper from time to time and contributes to the community a lot.
What sort of "toxicity" was it? These days "toxic" just means "thing I don't like" so I think it's helpful to call out specifics.
 

Rover

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,471
Well for what it's worth we don't even know for sure there is an acephobic mod as Kat's information was secondhand, so we may just have to take staff's word that there was a misunderstanding.

What we do know though is that the mod who caught flak for saying transphobic things (who I am intentionally not naming, becuase let's not continue to harrass) doesn't appear on the staff list anymore. So it does appear changes are being made and we will just have to see where things go from here.
That mod resigned, it didn't appear to be some kind of correction by the admins. You have an admin in this thread standing by that moderator. That doesn't tell me that "changes are being made". It's a confusing message.
 

Robin

Restless Insomniac
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,112
That mod resigned, it didn't appear to be some kind of correction by the admins. You have an admin in this thread standing by that moderator. That doesn't tell me that "changes are being made". It's a confusing message.
I'm not sure who you think I'm referring to but the moderator in question has not been mentioned by name in this thread.
 

Leo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,986
I really don't like how you're saying this as if it's fact. It's not. Many asexuals are victims of correctional rape and domestic violence as a result of their (lack of) sexuality.
It's really not constructive to get into a "I suffer more than you" kinda debate, so I think we should treat it as apples and oranges, not comparable. They shouldn't be put in the same bag, each group has their own individuality and knows exactly what their struggles are, and I think that is ultimately what compelled Royalan to say what he said, although his choice of words was very poor.

Even when people say "gay and trans people's struggles" it irks me because I know they are two VERY different things and I would never intend to be accepted as equal by the trans community or pretend to know what they go through.
 

Oreiller

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,102
It seems to me that was pretty much what he said.

I understand that he should face scrutiny because of that post, but straight out calling someone a bigot for expressing his feelings on a matter that is sensible for him AND that he is entitled to talk about since it's his experience as a minority is very disrespectful.

It's not that he can't be a bigot because he is a minority as you interpreted the post above, is that he was speaking about his experience as a minority at that moment, and one that was related to the subject. You can't just silence someone like that when they are in their place of speech. You could argue, debate and disagree, and that would be far more constructive for everybody. That would be a very different case if it was a straight person talking about asexuals and the dynamics of belonging in the LGBT+ community.
His post is the kind of stuff other folks in the LGBT community use all the time to exclude asexuals from the LGBT community.
He may not be an acephobe and his views may have changed since then but his comment absolutely was acephobic.