[Gabe]

-snip-

[quote pid="140288" dateline="1672876037"]
-snip-
I messed up the snip but my responses are in black.

What determines the usefulness of a thread? Then why not close all threads after a certain period of time? Your response and what typically happens contradicts one another.

There's no set metric for determining the usefulness of a thread. Threads autolock after a month, so they do close after a certain period of time. Neither me, web mods, or any other admins have typically closed threads unless there was a reason too (i.e. issue was resolved completely such as donor abuse threads, the thread was devolving to the point where locking it was a neccessitiy(but, we have typically reopened them after allowing some time to cool off. Batton's resignation thread is a good example. It was temporarily closed for a quick breather then it was reopened). So I don't typically close threads unless it is neccessary.

As for why that thread was closed specifically, I determined it was not neccessary to be open any longer because I was the one who made the announcement and allowed for it to be open specifically for feedback on the proposed changes that were being worked on. I got feedback from that and implemented it. I also made this category specifically for suggestions, feedback, etc. So any further feedback or suggestions could be made here and they can have their own space for discussion. I hope that helps answer this part.

Clearly the issues with trusting certain people in this community are not fixed.  When there's a repeated cycle of gaining and breaking trust, you can't expect people to forget the past. Hence sayings like forgive but never forget.  Those past actions may have been forgiven, but they will never be forgotten, which is why it's critical to have those actions accounted for when doing a closed off promotion like this. There was no reason given as to why people should trust Laced again, and no amount of staffing can change that.

Yes, there will never be full trust. I don't expect people to forget the past. I haven't and I've said that. I fully recognize the past. My focus is on the "forgive" aspect. Not the forgotten aspect. As I said before, it was accounted for. It was not forgotten or brushed over. I'll refer back to what I said before in previous replies

Anyone can put on a face and pretend to be something they're not, and act completely different when staff aren't watching. I've seen in myself in game, and that's why I feel as strong as I do about what I say. That's why I've always said, community feedback is and will always be vital when making decisions like this. Now you have more broken trust, not just between the community and Laced, but the community and the admin team responsible for this decision.

Sure, that's true. But again, I believe it's genuine. I agree community feedback is important, I've always been a fan of that. I want to say again too that laced is my responsibility. I'll also reiterate that I don't see Web Mod as a traditional "moderator." So I wasn't thinking in terms of "moderator" promotion. It's the only rank that exists within web staff. But yes, it is a community-wide position because the forums incorporate all aspects of the community. I agree community feedback is important, I've always been a fan of that. I do still think we all need to give it time to see how it plays out than making immediate conclusions about how it'll turn out.

You're also missing a keyword in your argument. A person CAN change, doesn't mean they HAVE changed.
In the context of calling people stupid, light hearted or not, that just adds to an already unprofessional feel for the community. Regardless of what the intention behind the comment was and whether you think  it was harmless, a position like that is meant to represent the overall community and should be professional when discussing matters like this with members of the community. This comment comes off as rude and ignoring people's thoughts on the matter, which puts this community and the staff in a bad light.

I think the intent and context of it matter for that comment still. He said he "loves you guys" too so that made it clear to be that it wasn't mean to come across as hostile and more of a lighthearted way of telling people not to shitpost in a rather serious conversation. He was referring to the comments he deleted for shitposting, not that people said substance wise on this thread or people that gave thoughts on the matter. I know people can't see deleted comments, but they were genuine shitposts. I get why that may not be clear, but he said it was referring to the shitpost comments. We shouldn't jump to conclusions for that either in terms of it intending to be rude, ignoring people's thoughts, etc. But going forward I'm sure being mindful of how something comes across can be improved. 

I get the argument of a person can change, but doesn't mean they have. Yes, that is true. But in this case I felt like they have actually shown signs of change and continued gradual improvement and did not/still don't think they will cause any issues that were problematic in the past or 'recent'. 


Since this was missed, I'll ask again:
Since when could someone close out their own ban request without any admin oversight on the thread and archive it (since a Web mod does that but isn't a high enough ttt staff to archive ban requests unless that changed)? Feels like a step was missed in that whole process too.

I'm not sure I know what this is referring to. Could you elaborate? If you're talking about laced commenting on this one, it was his first ban request from 2018. He just wanted(and asked me) if he could comment on it as a quick joke. I didn't see the harm in it because it doesn't show up on recent threads and it clearly says 2018 on it, so I allowed it. But to address the actual question, that would never happen and if it did happen it would be a seriously issue that I would take care of.

[/quote]

dear god i'm just snipping this whole thing

Still not commenting directly on Laced being moderator, but people have posted recent examples of reasonable concerns, it's not just past issues that people are talking about.

Also, the powers currently given to forum moderators are still very relevant to the concerns raised against him.

I've been trying to address concerns where appropriate, I may have missed some. Past = "recent" too. The past can mean yesterday. so I just say past.
I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say in the last part, but yes any staff position makes valid concerns relevant.