Okay. I've been avoiding this thread. I really, really have. As it goes on I've been getting more and more passionate and frankly it's gotten to a point where I feel I need to place my two cents in for the sake of posterity and my own peace of mind, if nothing else.
(03-23-2013, 12:56 PM)Grakor456 Wrote: [ -> ]Right. I'm going to ask that people kindly avoid sensationalist or overly dramatic dialogue or word choice. CotH is not "Orwellian" (and if you believe that, I would suggest that you actually read 1984 so you know what the word actually means.)
I said it and I stand by it. To those who have said I worded it poorly, I partially agree but I said it outside of this thread and while I would've chosen my words better to imply it, the sentiment remains the same.
The largest argument against transparency thus far has been that if we told everyone their records, it
could cause drama or could embarrass or cause harassment of someone. To the effect of avoiding that, it's gotten to the point in the past and has been pushing back towards it recently that you can't really say anything bad about anyone without it going on your record and having the powers that be “gunning for you” because you caused a disturbance since.
I really do want to believe that I can trust the GM team, but because of this lack of transparency, because of how every argument, every discussion and every offense is kept so secret from us, we have no reason to trust the team. I'll put up with them. I'll follow the rules to the best of my ability and I'll operate under the assumption that they aren't outright sinister and corrupt, even, but trust them? You're joking if you expect me to trust them given their record.
(03-23-2013, 12:56 PM)Grakor456 Wrote: [ -> ]Post threads like this, it's pointless and just incites drama. Don't ever post threads like this, we don't let the community have a say in anything. Oi vey.
See, this is what I always take issue with. This is the “fear of drama” popping up that I've always taken issue with in regards to discourse on any topic. It's the buzzword that has, on CotH been used to quash opposition before. Now it's entirely fair to want to avoid drama, but being drama doesn't completely disqualify its merit and that's always been a massive problem with the disciplinary process, because
anything can be taken as drama and from there it's not hard to exacerbate it into a “disrespect” issue or any other of the more open-to-interpretation rules. Threads have been closed down for “drama” or lines are drawn in the sand and we act like the other side has no actual merit because they're being “dramatic and silly” or whatnot.
Xigo Wrote:These are such extreme and unrealistic examples that only one with absolutely zero faith in the GM team would have. Are they a bit broad, sure. But seriously, we don't ban people for that stuff. Otherwise I would have been banned long before I became a GM. I don't think anyone's been banned for anything like these existing examples in my time.
Has that happened in the past? Yes
Has it happened in the past two or three years? I really don't think so.
That's a fallacy right there, though. The examples are hardly unrealistic if exactly those examples have been used before and I do assure you they have been used to lead to bans before. I've been almost banned (or at least it was an implied factor) because of at least the latter example, though that was a long time ago and I acknowledge that my perception may have been skewed.
My point in all of this is that the team in '09 wasn't exactly sterling in how they ran things, and while there are a few notable changes the current team and most teams since have been so swathed in secrecy that to expect us to trust them is like telling me to trust a complete stranger to arbitrate my case for crimes I wasn't told I committed in a courtroom I'm not allowed to be present in.
We deserve to know what we stand accused of. Even if you hide the proof, hide the exact logs, hide anything in relation to the
why we're being accused of any anything, we deserve to know it's on record.
As an aside, if you're so worried about protecting identities, why not just add that to part of the query process?
“Hey, X wanted to see the logs you sent us related to that thing he did. Mind if we share them? No? Okay then! Sorry X, but Y wishes to remain anonymous so for their safety we have to keep the logs under wraps.”
“We can't share those logs with you because we received them anonymously but they were an example of when you broke this rule.”
Telling us to trust you when you won't even tell us that much is disrespectful to the community. It's downright insulting, really. I'm willing to believe you're doing your jobs to the best of your ability. I'm willing to have that much faith.