Regarding Recent Changes to the Forum

[Maolfunction]

You very well could be correct, which is why I didn't say this was something that is planned. At current, the only plan is to streamline the rules so that they are simple and understandable across the board when looking at the site and the forums.

I can be behind this as long as the streamlined rules make sense and are consistent between the two.

Which is also where you're going to run into problems as the forum and the main site seem to cater to two different age ranges in terms of content. This is where the inherent differences between the two communities kick in because the mainsite will want to talk about their sex while the forum community would like to keep the quality of discussion. And then drama because if you're going to have streamlined, consistent rules between the two, somebody is not going to be happy.

I don't envy you in this particular position.

 

[Butters Shikkon]

Well that's something to think on because that's kind of important.

Unless you're gonna make the mainsite PG-13, in which case HOO BOY I'd LOVE to see the result.

Hold on.



I felt a great disturbance in the force. As if a million furries cried out and were suddenly silenced. :v

 

[Willow]

I am not aware of any ideas to change of the Forum's rating. Streamlining the rules wouldn't affect this.

One site, one set of rules, etc.

So I guess you mean they'd be merged.

It's honestly a lot more trouble than it's worth though. I don't want to have to constantly turn my mature filter on and off just to browse between the two.

Edit: And it creates more work for the staff too because on top of trying to keep minors from being able to view mature content, they have to make sure they're not trying to sneak into adult rated sections on the forums.

Of course we could be like Gaia and just not give a hoot but Gaia's forums aren't the shining example of greatness and are more hostile than these forums are.

 

[Chase]

Lovely, FAF is going to become a fetish fodder website. I can't WAIT to see the delicious new threads that come with the reworked FAF. =)

Oh you.

Unless you're gonna make the mainsite PG-13, in which case HOO BOY I'd LOVE to see the result.

No one - well, not everyone would want to see that result.

I felt a great disturbance in the force. As if a million furries cried out and were suddenly silenced. :v

I know, right? :3

So I guess you mean they'd be merged.

It's honestly a lot more trouble than it's worth though. I don't want to have to constantly turn my mature filter on and off just to browse between the two.

If we are able to actually integrate the two in a meaningful way, I don't think it would be necessary to have to keep adjusting settings on the user's side of things.

I can be behind this as long as the streamlined rules make sense and are consistent between the two.

There is no rush job on this. I do want it to be consistent and make sense.

 

[Percy]

No one - well, not everyone would want to see that result.

Well, there is an SFW filter for a reason...

 

[Trpdwarf]

Streamlining the rules doesn't mean that suddenly this place will become fetish forums. It simply means we can look at the rule-sets for both sites and make necessary adjustments. If we have a rule against call outs for example on both sides, shouldn't the language of the rule be somewhat consistent on both forums and the main side? Not saying this is the case with that rule, but it's just an example. Things like that are something we'd like to look at.

 

[thoron]

For what its worth most of the rules are already fairly consistent as far as I can tell especially in regards to behavior. In terms of content allowed the two are very different so I fail to understand why things need streamlining beyond rules regarding behavior.

It will be impossible to completely stream line to the two sites rules. FAF will have to keep its PG-13 rules inregards to content allowed and FA will have to keep the rules regarding the Mature/Adult content and who can view it. If you want a forum thats intergrated into the site make a new one but leave this one alone.

 

[Armaetus]

Can't trust Chase because of his past actions and behavior, especially the dog wanking is OK statement made back then.

 

[Chase]

Well, there is an SFW filter for a reason...

There's also a setting in your account options so you never have to use that button and can enjoy the site free from any adult material; however, I believe that the button was put there for convenience, sort of like how some browsers have a "panic button" and hide all the things you don't want someone else to see who walked into the room - I could be wrong! :3

 

[Lobar]

Yeah, I'm sure moderator aggression is the reason M. Le Renard of all people got ousted.

This isn't answers, it's just more of the same pre-digested PR pap that gets regurgitated every time A Thing happens, and we're just expected to swallow.

 

[Batty Krueger]

I read the word fetish on here so many goddamn times a day its lost all meaning.

 

[Trpdwarf]

Yean, I'm sure moderator aggression is the reason M. Le Renard of all people got ousted.

This isn't answers, it's just more of the same pre-digested PR pap that gets regurgitated every time A Thing happens, and we're just expected to swallow.

I do seem to recall it having been said that the internal workings of why some people have been removed is considered a private matter, between staff. If people want to make assumptions they can do that on their own time. Don't drag it into here. It is not to be the topic of discussion. It's not that I or anyone else wants to "censor" anyone. This is a internal matter. We are not going to discuss it publicly.

 

[Runefox]

As far as I know, nobody has been infracted for petty reasons. (...) Nobody is, or has been banned for having opinions. However, if you act like an ass about it, action might be taken.

I can think of a good few who did... I myself got a completely unrelated thread hard-deleted (not even a deleted thread placeholder) and a warning over it, and at least one mod and several users warned me about the subject because they were worried I'd get banned. Regarding this issue, I've so far taken a very cautious approach for the most part and made a single snarky comment about our newly crowned Glorious Lord Chase, which was the closest I came so far to being banned.

Because I know that I can trust Chase.

You sure do forget a lot, don't you? Perhaps you've forgotten why Chase 'resigned' in 2011. What was it... What was the reason... Hmm... Oh! Right. Insulted your dying parents. But hey, he's trustworthy! And that's not even touching on animal cruelty and admissions of zoophilia.

Regarding these recent changes, it seems like we're experiencing a higher than normal volume of bans lately, and not the usual orange-tinted infrac-bans for shitposting but red manual admin bans. Along with threads being hard deleted (no evidence of their existence remains) and other crap. A lot of FA(F) regulars have jumped ship to Weasyl despite not really wanting to, and it's all over controversy surrounding the admin shakeup. Hell, most of them have jumped specifically because of this crackdown.

I get it. The admin thing was/is "private" info that you want to keep "private". But what has all the covert nonsense been for up til now? Where was it getting you? I have it on good authority that it's Chase who's behind this mess, both the admin shakeup that started it off and the crackdown campaign that's been sweeping the forums and mainsite (yes, even journals are being deleted). I think you said it best, Neer, when you said he rubs people as "... some power hungry cop/authority figure wanna be."

Not that it matters that I'm posting this - It'll most likely be deleted in spite of breaking no rules for "inciting drama", which I've already been warned over for something that had nothing to do with this (hilariously and as the interest in this thread proves, the drama is already very much there). Nobody will ever see it, and I'll get banned and nobody will know why.

And as long as that behaviour continues to happen, more threads will keep getting created and more people will keep getting banned because this is outrageous.

All of this could have been avoided if you'd just come out sooner with a thread like this (even if it's just PR and not actually the truth as in this case) instead of handing out bans left and right for whatever ass-backward "sweep it under the rug" reasoning and letting it fester. Like seriously, it took a fraction of the effort to make this thread than it did to forcibly silence everyone who was asking about it or otherwise directing attention to the problem and thus piss more people off as this comes to light. I don't even see why it's that big a deal to begin with that it had to be kept under wraps. But hey, run the site however you want. The long and the short of it is, this probably wasn't the best course of action.

And all of this is completely disregarding the separate shitstorm surrounding Zaush being put in charge of FA's redesign.

To the admins who are actually doing their jobs, I'm really sorry you're in the middle of this. It's been fun in a tragic way to watch this unfold since Christmas, but as most of the regulars have already jumped ship, I suppose I might, too. I take specific offence to having an axe hanging over my head for thinking the wrong things and knowing the wrong truths, and I also take offence to having someone like Chase holding that axe. Whatever happens from here, whether I'm banned or infracted or this post gets deleted or whatever, just remember that I'm not by any means the only one who feels this way. And since it'll take actual effort and concern for the community to prove that the "purges" are over, Chase is reformed, everything is wonderful and all of my concerns are without reason, I'm sure I'll be "helped along" like so many others were.

 

[Lobar]

I do seem to recall it having been said that the internal workings of why some people have been removed is considered a private matter, between staff. If people want to make assumptions they can do that on their own time. Don't drag it into here. It is not to be the topic of discussion. It's not that I or anyone else wants to "censor" anyone. This is a internal matter. We are not going to discuss it publicly.

We know MLR had no such concerns of his privacy, since he posted about the matter of his own accord before it was removed.

"Moderator aggression" continues to be the only explanation offered in this thread so far for the staff shake-up. If Dragoneer won't deign to give an honest answer in this thread, supposedly an answer to all our questions regarding the recent changes here, then I calls them as I sees them.

 

[Runefox]

We know MLR had no such concerns of his privacy, since he posted about the matter of his own accord before it was removed.

He did.

 

[Willow]

I do seem to recall it having been said that the internal workings of why some people have been removed is considered a private matter, between staff. If people want to make assumptions they can do that on their own time. Don't drag it into here. It is not to be the topic of discussion. It's not that I or anyone else wants to "censor" anyone. This is a internal matter. We are not going to discuss it publicly.

And like I said earlier, it's concerning that letting go of staff so suddenly is considered a private matter. I don't really care for the details and whatnot but this is the first time I'm especially hearing about it and I apparently missed the big thread this all went down in.

But of course people are going to make assumptions, jump to conclusions, and take up whatever opportunity they can get to press for answers about this because the vague reasoning isn't satisfactory.

Sorry but it kind of makes you guys look bad.

He did.

Is this real life?

 

[Butters Shikkon]

Well, it certainly would be an interesting demonstration of our new management's administration style and diplomatic demeanor to respond to Runefox's detailed post.

 

[Trpdwarf]

And like I said earlier, it's concerning that letting go of staff so suddenly is considered a private matter. I don't really care for the details and whatnot but this is the first time I'm especially hearing about it and I apparently missed the big thread this all went down in.

But of course people are going to make assumptions, jump to conclusions, and take up whatever opportunity they can get to press for answers about this because the vague reasoning isn't satisfactory.

Sorry but it kind of makes you guys look bad.

Suddenly? I can recall a few staff removed before and we didn't go into the thick of why they were removed then. So why suddenly would we change now? Lets be completely realistic here. There are a lot of places that are well established that do not do this. They do not sit there and after letting people go suddenly turn to the public and go "Oh well we removed X because of Y".

If you want to talk about assumptions, even if we were to sit and go "Here is why" people will still make assumptions, jump to conclusions, and press for information that they really don't need. I see this all the time as an Admin. When you start ticket work this becomes common. People not associated with the entire situation demand information that is not theirs to have. They will go out of their way to demand it too.

I"m sorry if people think it makes us look bad. When there is an issue between staff and user, it is private. When there is an issue between staff and staff it is private. This is not new.

 

[Lobar]

We must protect our staff members' privacy, even from themselves. Move along, citizen.

 

[Willow]

Suddenly? I can recall a few staff removed before and we didn't go into the thick of why they were removed then. So why suddenly would we change now? Lets be completely realistic here. There are a lot of places that are well established that do not do this. They do not sit there and after letting people go suddenly turn to the public and go "Oh well we removed X because of Y".

Then why make the information that you're changing staff public if you don't what people to question that?

If you want to talk about assumptions, even if we were to sit and go "Here is why" people will still make assumptions, jump to conclusions, and press for information that they really don't need. I see this all the time as an Admin. When you start ticket work this becomes common. People not associated with the entire situation demand information that is not theirs to have. They will go out of their way to demand it too.

Oh, but given the circumstances, I think we deserve to know even the basics. And not the vague reasoning that apparently went down in the other thread.
This is coming from someone who had been gone for several days only to come back to this heaping mess.

I"m sorry if people think it makes us look bad. When there is an issue between staff and user, it is private. When there is an issue between staff and staff it is private. This is not new.

I am way too tired for this.

 

[Runefox]

I"m sorry if people think it makes us look bad. When there is an issue between staff and user, it is private. When there is an issue between staff and staff it is private. This is not new.

The problem with this is that this was a sweeping purge and restructuring, not simply "issues" with one or two staff members. You may still see it as private, but as you've seen it seriously upsets the general perception of the upper staff. It's one thing to say that people won't believe you, but compared to the number of people who see a very insidious cloud hanging over this whole thing and are all coming to the same conclusions, that's nothing. Even an announcement saying "We're restructuring our administrative staff to streamline" would have shut most of it up. Instead, we got bans and thread deletions.

You can't crap in our hands and tell us it's always been there. Anyone with half a brain can see this is an extraordinary occurrence and not business as usual.

 

[Lobar]

Then why make the information that you're changing staff public if you don't what people to question that?

They actually didn't. They'd hoped to simply slide a quiet little purge by us, but people tend to notice when active members of the community get demodded. There's a link to a page with a list of all current staff members up top, so once people knew something was up it was easy to see what all had changed.

 

[Willow]

They actually didn't. They'd hoped to simply slide a quiet little purge by us, but people tend to notice when active members of the community get demodded. There's a link to a page with a list of all current staff members up top, so once people knew something was up it was easy to see what all had changed.

The plot thickens.

Edit: This situation just keeps getting worse and worse.

 

[Mentova]

They actually didn't. They'd hoped to simply slide a quiet little purge by us, but people tend to notice when active members of the community get demodded. There's a link to a page with a list of all current staff members up top, so once people knew something was up it was easy to see what all had changed.

Nobody was trying to hide it man :/

 

[thoron]

They actually didn't. They'd hoped to simply slide a quiet little purge by us, but people tend to notice when active members of the community get demodded. There's a link to a page with a list of all current staff members up top, so once people knew something was up it was easy to see what all had changed.

Where is this link? I'm having a hard time finding it.

Edit: Found it in quick links under view site leaders.