Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1

To be frank this is just unacceptable way of managing an organization.

Few members of the council can't stand eachother, ok. So instead of resolving the conflict internally and finding a way to work together, you (and i mean all councillors ...) choose to make this some kind of public showdown, and no less that at the time of the PC election ...

What are we suppose to do as players ??? Judge this childish conflict and say who's wrong who's right ?? Are we supposed to vote for team 1 or team 2 depending on who throws the more text and revelations ?
The common player like me has NO IDEA of what your little conflict are, and we don't care, are we supposed to catch up on years of drama to vote appropriatly ??

Seriously, i want to vote for some concrete stuff like how we will manage tourneys and ladder. This bullcrap is just turning this election into a joke, it's annoying to witness, and completly uniteresting ... And it's taking so much space that i can't find the will to read the PC election thread anymore, even though i'm interested into what the candidates are offering for the game.

Can't you just collectively get your shit together and act like adults ? Or are you going to feed us hundreds more pages of pointless talk ?

@auricocorico said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

What are we suppose to do as players ??? Judge this childish conflict and say who's wrong who's right ?? Are we supposed to vote for team 1 or team 2 depending on who throws the more text and revelations ?
The common player like me has NO IDEA of what your little conflict are, and we don't care, are we supposed to catch up on years of drama to vote appropriatly ??

Seriously, i want to vote for some concrete stuff like how we will manage tourneys and ladder. This bullcrap is just turning this election into a joke, it's annoying to witness, and completly uniteresting ... And it's taking so much space that i can't find the will to read the PC election thread anymore, even though i'm interested into what the candidates are offering for the game.

100%. It has turned into a circus and it’s annoying. Utterly impossible for people not already privy to all of this information and the context behind it to make an informed decision. This is just pointless politicking from current FAF leadership and those trying to enter it.

@auricocorico said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

To be frank this is just unacceptable way of managing an organization.

Few members of the council can't stand eachother, ok. So instead of resolving the conflict internally and finding a way to work together, you (and i mean all councillors ...) choose to make this some kind of public showdown, and no less that at the time of the PC election ...

What are we suppose to do as players ??? Judge this childish conflict and say who's wrong who's right ?? Are we supposed to vote for team 1 or team 2 depending on who throws the more text and revelations ?
The common player like me has NO IDEA of what your little conflict are, and we don't care, are we supposed to catch up on years of drama to vote appropriatly ??

Seriously, i want to vote for some concrete stuff like how we will manage tourneys and ladder. This bullcrap is just turning this election into a joke, it's annoying to witness, and completly uniteresting ... And it's taking so much space that i can't find the will to read the PC election thread anymore, even though i'm interested into what the candidates are offering for the game.

Outside of the paradise-hotel level of dramatic title, the notion of asking for non-toxic behavior from the community and especially core contributors should be welcome.

Can't you just collectively get your shit together and act like adults ? Or are you going to feed us hundreds more pages of pointless talk ?

This whole thing is the first point of order on the agenda for the next association board meeting.

@biass said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

It carries FAF branding

you keep using terms that don't apply to faf :

2. the promotion of a particular product or company by means of advertising and distinctive design.
   "the process of branding should be considered in global terms"

FAF, by way of it's non-profit-ness, is not a company, nor does it own a product.

FAF has a logo

FAF does not have "branding"

To be frank this is just unacceptable way of managing an organization.

I also entirely agree with this point. I've not acted strongly enough in time and instead tried avoiding dealing properly with this for too long, which has left us here.

@biass said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

I’m of course happy for anyone to air out their issues either now, or when it actually appeared. My pms are open or you can forward it anonymously through a middleman.

However, for the interests of making an informed opinion about the topic, you need to be aware of the following:

Exotic_Retard
speed2
Tatsu
nine2

Have both:

A financial incentive to reply here - all part of a team developing a game that tatsu/nine2 co manage
A career incentive to post here (nine2 pays or organised the payment of their salary for the financial incentive)
They were directly asked to post here through private message.

Your opinions are your own about the topic, however I don’t think choosing to omit this information is particularly acceptable.

Are we gonna get any kind of proof or insights to this, other than your ridiculous claims?

FAF LLC owns the client and server services. Non profit companies can hold brands.

that doesn't mean the board shouldn't have representation or be present in the council chat. But you have, almost single-handedly, made that impossible with your constant toxicity throughout the year.

The only person who suggested that the board be put in a chat with us was me. At no point during any council conversation was the idea of the board or association being included ever discussed or shot down. You have no proof of this not being the case.

@speed2 says:

Are we gonna get any kind of proof or insights to this, other than your ridiculous claims?

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/519425924874371094/848289761911111751/image0.png

When a conflict of interest is place, the best course of action is to disclose it. Not doing so has serious implications and actively choosing to lie about it? Even further.

It’s 6 in the morning. I’ll go over everything point by point later.

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

This is so incredibly misleading. Let's get the facts straight here.

Yes.

There's no point in the admin councillor position any more indeed; that doesn't mean the board shouldn't have representation or be present in the council chat. But you have, almost single-handedly, made that impossible with your constant toxicity throughout the year.

No, it does not mean the board should have representation. If you aren't a Councillor you do not get a vote in Council matters. You can go ahead and veto whatever the Council votes on but you should have no equal say since you do not manage anything day-to-day on FAF.

You can be present and privy to conversation sure, but in the end you are not voting on matters.

I introduced those rules more or less only because of your behavior. What you're doing right now is very much the same; misrepresenting facts and lying to make your perspective seem better; and constantly disparaging and attacking others personally.

That you did. Doesn't mean you didn't attempt to diverge conversation about how I wanted the Board and the Council to pledge to work on mutually agreed goals. Because in the end, that's how you are going to keep a fluid workspace on FAF. And the point of a pledge is to establish the "optimal" way for conduct to work. You wanted said optimal way to be the Council pledging to do what the Board deems to be FAF's interest. I wanted it to involve collaboration between both parties.

You then shitposted about me using this as a "power-grabbing" move and I responded that if I wanted to power-grab I could've done it in the past since you aren't around enough to notice.

So that refers to you breaking the point about "making disparaging comments"

The second related to lying I think you are already familiar with. You explained it wasn't your fault that the FAF Patreon has had zero signs of life for 3+ years because if a Councillor REALLY cared they could simply ask and you would let them operate on it. But this isn't true because that is what I did in 2018 when I first got the seat and worked with Dogfather to gain access to as many social media accounts as possible since the last Promotions Councillor left us with zero login information.

You did not let Dogfather utilize the Patreon. The failure of it fails on you. Not on Councillors being uncaring or inactive. That was you.

So yes, don't mind the rules existing and me being held accountable to them. If you are present, however, then you need to be held to the same rules.

The very moment you were added back in the council chat you immediately continued your behavior and broke the rules. Instead of enforcing them unilaterally I left it up to the rest of the councillors.

Whole conversation between me and you from adding me back to you leaving.

I must be blind, but I still dont see any proof that Im getting paid for posting here or that I got pmed to post here. Only nine saying Im helping with his project.

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

Some of the best people we've had around in this community left because of toxicity in the past.

Want to get into the toxicity between you and Downlord, Sheeo?

@ftxcommando said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

This is so incredibly misleading. Let's get the facts straight here.

Yes.

There's no point in the admin councillor position any more indeed; that doesn't mean the board shouldn't have representation or be present in the council chat. But you have, almost single-handedly, made that impossible with your constant toxicity throughout the year.

No, it does not mean the board should have representation. If you aren't a Councillor you do not get a vote in Council matters. You can go ahead and veto whatever the Council votes on but you should have no equal say since you do not manage anything day-to-day on FAF.

You can be present and privy to conversation sure, but in the end you are not voting on matters.

Let's keep this in mind for later when you argue that you are not power-grabbing.

Asserting that I have no voting right is, if anything, a significant power grab.

I introduced those rules more or less only because of your behavior. What you're doing right now is very much the same; misrepresenting facts and lying to make your perspective seem better; and constantly disparaging and attacking others personally.

That you did. Doesn't mean you didn't attempt to diverge conversation about how I wanted the Board and the Council to pledge to work on mutually agreed goals.

And I responded; the board has already pledged to a compatible code of conduct by virtue of agreeing to the statutes. Your motion was abundant and the only conclusion is that you are not willing to allow anyone to "rule" you or have veto-right on your ever expanding set of responsibilities.

Because in the end, that's how you are going to keep a fluid workspace on FAF. And the point of a pledge is to establish the "optimal" way for conduct to work. You wanted said optimal way to be the Council pledging to do what the Board deems to be FAF's interest. I wanted it to involve collaboration between both parties.

As explained, the association and the board defines the council. Of course there's got to be collaboration. Your constant toxic behavior makes that very hard; a trivial rewording of some pledge is not what's going to make any difference.

You then shitposted about me using this as a "power-grabbing" move and I responded that if I wanted to power-grab I could've done it in the past since you aren't around enough to notice.

What kind of argument is this?

So that refers to you breaking the point about "making disparaging comments"

The second related to lying I think you are already familiar with. You explained it wasn't your fault that the FAF Patreon has had zero signs of life for 3+ years because if a Councillor REALLY cared they could simply ask and you would let them operate on it.

No, I explained way more than that. On many contributor conference calls it was discussed time and time again. It was actively decided not to promote it too much because we didn't have a use for the funds. Some of our patreon supporters have explicitly asked for their donations to not be used for tournaments.

But this isn't true because that is what I did in 2018 when I first got the seat and worked with Dogfather to gain access to as many social media accounts as possible since the last Promotions Councillor left us with zero login information.

You did not let Dogfather utilize the Patreon. The failure of it fails on you. Not on Councillors being uncaring or inactive. That was you.

I've never refused that.

So yes, don't mind the rules existing and me being held accountable to them. If you are present, however, then you need to be held to the same rules.

Of course.

@ftxcommando said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

Some of the best people we've had around in this community left because of toxicity in the past.

Want to get into the toxicity between you and Downlord, Sheeo?

Are you saying Downlord left because of me? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

Let's keep this in mind for later when you argue that you are not power-grabbing.

Asserting that I have no voting right is, if anything, a significant power grab.

Explain to me how demanding that a person with no duty to manage FAF's day-to-day operations (literally was the explicit divide between Board and Council and you represent the Board) not having a right to vote on discussions between a Council which is intended to manage the day-to-day operations of FAF is a power grab move.

Is the power-grab not you demanding to have influence in a body in which you have zero relevant responsibilities and can simply state your opinion with no basis on helping any contributive group on FAF?

"But I represent the legal and financial authority" Ok great, that's why you can veto a decision. You have no basis to give weighed in input on what decision we reach.

And I responded; the board has already pledged to a compatible code of conduct by virtue of agreeing to the statutes. Your motion was abundant and the only conclusion is that you are not willing to allow anyone to "rule" you or have veto-right on your ever expanding set of responsibilities.

So the Board already agreed to work with the Council on mutually agreed upon goals to accomplish FAF objectives? Great! Why did you spend 10,000 words (read: 40 hours) telling me we can't just do that pledge together then? It sounds like you already agreed in the past and are now being difficult because you actually enjoy disagreeing with me.

Literally the whole situation would have been solved by "alright FtX, we'll just get some screenshots of the board members pledging it and screenshots of the Council members agreeing to it and keep it in a FAF diary" doesn't even require people taking the time out of their day to do some giant voice call.

As explained, the association and the board defines the council. Of course there's got to be collaboration. Your constant toxic behavior makes that very hard; a trivial rewording of some pledge is not what's going to make any difference.

Great. So make that collaboration self-evident through a pledge that both parties (including me) explicitly acknowledge by taking the pledge. Remove me when I fail my pledge.

What kind of argument is this?

The argument is that you exploited your unilateral authority to remove me by baiting me into "disparaging remarks" by using your own disparaging remarks. Of course, you can't be punished because no one can remove Sheeo.

No, I explained way more than that. On many contributor conference calls it was discussed time and time again. It was actively decided not to promote it too much because we didn't have a use for the funds. Some of our patreon supporters have explicitly asked for their donations to not be used for tournaments.

Yes Sheeo, you thought the optimal management of the Patreon was not to manage it. I do not consider this justification but instead rationalization. I don't even feel the need to address it as anyone in the thread can see how nuts it is. Could have increased funds and done second-price auctions on Google. Could have sponsored a "Let's Look at" series on FAF from a variety of RTS or variety game streamer/youtubers. Could have paid people to make solid promotional trailers or great fan art that we could then plaster across the Internet.

It does not take much thought to think of the boundless benefits further funds can bring FAF.

How does this private conversation between you and me prove that you did not immediately break the rules in the council chat after you were let back in?

Private? Was in Council Chambers. This whole thread has Council talk in it.

I don't know, you said I was a troll because I presented these scenarios:
A) Sheeo leaves, do not need to address the flaw in the code.
B) Sheeo stays, need to address the flaw in the code.

You called that trolling and left, I'll let other people decide if I trolled you.

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

Are you saying Downlord left because of me? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

I know for a fact that Downlord had been quite sick of you even going back to just the simple introduction of 2 DevOps seats on the Council. He felt that the reason you did it was just to be able to act as the final decisionmaker in any development argument even though you gave up your DevOps seat to become Admin Councillor.

Now I won't go so far as to say a power-grab situation had developed, but, that's the narrative I was told.

@ftxcommando said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

Let's keep this in mind for later when you argue that you are not power-grabbing.

Asserting that I have no voting right is, if anything, a significant power grab.

Explain to me how demanding that a person with no duty to manage FAF's day-to-day operations (literally was the explicit divide between Board and Council and you represent the Board) has a right to vote on discussions between a Council which is intended to manage the day-to-day operations of FAF is a power grab move.

I have not been removed as councilor and the council hasn't been restructured; so for all practical purposes, I'm still administrative councillor and will remain so until a restructure has been decided on. That means I'm involved in day to day operations.

Is the power-grab not you demanding to have influence in a body in which you have zero relevant responsibilities and can simply state your opinion with no basis on helping any contributive group on FAF?

Another great example of your trolling argumentative style; attack personally instead of actually considering the subject matter.

And I responded; the board has already pledged to a compatible code of conduct by virtue of agreeing to the statutes. Your motion was abundant and the only conclusion is that you are not willing to allow anyone to "rule" you or have veto-right on your ever expanding set of responsibilities.

So the Board already agreed to work with the Council on mutually agreed upon goals to accomplish FAF objectives? Great! Why did you spend 10,000 words (read: 40 hours) telling me we can't just do that pledge together then? It sounds like you already agreed in the past and are now being difficult because you actually enjoy disagreeing with me.

The board cannot and should not "pledge" anything further than they already have. They are not bound specifically to the council structure and legally cannot permanently delegate away control to non-association members. We've had this discussion.

Pretty sure any sane person agrees to work with the current structure and any other structure that he/she is responsible for setting up.

Literally the whole situation would have been solved by "alright FtX, we'll just get some screenshots of the board members pledging it and screenshots of the Council members agreeing to it and keep it in a FAF diary" doesn't even require people taking the time out of their day to do some giant voice call.

As explained above.

As explained, the association and the board defines the council. Of course there's got to be collaboration. Your constant toxic behavior makes that very hard; a trivial rewording of some pledge is not what's going to make any difference.

Great. So make that collaboration self-evident through a pledge that both parties (including me) explicitly acknowledge by taking the pledge.

What kind of argument is this?

The argument is that you exploited your unilateral authority to remove me by baiting me into "disparaging remarks" by using your own disparaging remarks. Of course, you can't be punished because no one can remove Sheeo.

I can be removed. Are you really saying that I "baited" you into making disparaging remarks? How exactly did I do that?

No, I explained way more than that. On many contributor conference calls it was discussed time and time again. It was actively decided not to promote it too much because we didn't have a use for the funds. Some of our patreon supporters have explicitly asked for their donations to not be used for tournaments.

Yes Sheeo, you thought the optimal management of the Patreon was not to manage it.

That's not what that means.

It means that until there's a use for the money; there's no reason to go out there and promote it and ask for more than we need. I did not make these decisions unilaterally. This was made in collaboration until you came along and decided it wasn't enough and wanted to spend more on tournaments, all by yourself, without asking or including anyone in a discussion about it first.

I do not consider this justification but instead rationalization. I don't even feel the need to address it as anyone in the thread can see how nuts it is. Could have increased funds and done second-price auctions on Google. Could have sponsored a "Let's Look at" series on FAF from a variety of RTS or variety game streamer/youtubers. Could have paid people to make solid promotional trailers or great fan art that we could then plaster across the Internet.

It does not take much thought to think of the boundless benefits further funds can bring FAF.

That's great; why didn't you bring any of this up to the council? Why didn't you come up with actual uses before complaining that there aren't enough funds?

There are still plenty of funds that can be used but no way in hell are you getting the right to spend them without discussing with the rest of the council, which quite clearly appears to be what you want — and what you have been doing with FAFLive.

How does this private conversation between you and me prove that you did not immediately break the rules in the council chat after you were let back in?

Private? Was in Council Chambers. This whole thread has Council talk in it.

Yeah I didn't really read and thought it was from a private conversation. Removed my comment later.

I don't know, you said I was a troll because I presented these scenarios:
A) Sheeo leaves, do not need to address the flaw in the code.
B) Sheeo stays, need to address the flaw in the code.

You called that trolling and left, I'll let other people decide if I trolled you.

Certainly.

@ftxcommando said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

Are you saying Downlord left because of me? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

I know for a fact that Downlord had been quite sick of you even going back to just the simple introduction of 2 DevOps seats on the Council. He felt that the reason you did it was just to be able to act as the final decisionmaker in any development argument even though you gave up your DevOps seat to become Admin Councillor.

Okay well all due respect to Downlord and I don't think you can speak for him.

Objectively the seat was split because — and I talked about that for a long time — I wanted more developers on the council because they happen to be the people who are able to make the most change and have the most practical influence.

I don't believe I ever made any final decisions on development side things after I became administrative councilor.

Now I won't go so far as to say a power-grab situation had developed, but, that's the narrative I was told.

A lot of "stories" are told around here. It seems nobody cares to hear both perspectives before they make their own conclusions; pretty sure that's conducive to a very toxic environment in and of itself.

Can a moderator please lock this thread? The gossip newspaper approach and timing is completely uncalled for.

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

I have not been removed as councilor and the council hasn't been restructured; so for all practical purposes, I'm still administrative councillor and will remain so until a restructure has been decided on. That means I'm involved in day to day operations.

Great, feel free to come into the Council now and give input on votes we do now. I'm talking about the long term future beyond the transition period and I respect your intelligence enough to know you also are aware of that. No point in trying to deflect the crux of this paragraph with pedantic timeline arguments.

Another great example of your trolling argumentative style; attack personally instead of actually considering the subject matter.

Throwing an accusation back at a person when it logically fits them better is not trolling. The logic is above and sound. You have not addressed any aspect of the logic. Just attempted to avoid it through a timeline technicality that would be irrelevant in the long term.

The board cannot and should not "pledge" anything further than they already have. They are not bound specifically to the council structure and legally cannot permanently delegate away control to non-association members. We've had this discussion.

It's a pledge dude. The point is that the Board has total legal control but they need the Council to accomplish anything they actually want to do. If the contributors aren't on the side of the Board, then it's dead in the water. Same as when the Board isn't on the same page with the Council and just flat out say you can't do something like remove SteamLink.

You cannot accuse me of power-grabbing and creating an environment where I do not work with anyone when I've literally been arguing to create said environment and this pledge is the literal evidence of it.

The Board is not LEGALLY bound to anything. Doesn't mean that it doesn't have PRACTICAL limitations.

I can be removed. Are you really saying that I "baited" you into making disparaging remarks? How exactly did I do that?

No you are confusing the issue again and in fact contradicting yourself. You can be removed as President of the Board. But you still hold essentially total legal rights of FAF. So we remove you and then what? Can we remove you as Admin Councillor? No, we cannot. I know you cannot because we had a discussion on having Admin Councillor voted upon by the rest of the Council to be a "project manager" back when I was moving to make Council seats accountable by who they are meant to represent and you said that would essentially never be possible.

You said you were still Admin Councillor in the first response, so you know that you cannot be removed currently.

And in any case, this was all irrelevant to the point. You cannot be removed from the Council room by anyone in the Council room. You are the admin of the Zulip. That is what I mean by you not being able to be removed.

Yes, you did bait me into the response that finally resulted in me being removed for disparaging remarks. I intended to have a discussion about the reality between the total legal control of the Board and the actual day-to-day power held by Councillors and their contributive teams. You instead decided to paint it as a power-grab move by me and the accusation was so baseless that I responded in kind.

That's not what that means.

It means that until there's a use for the money; there's no reason to go out there and promote it and ask for more than we need. I did not make these decisions unilaterally. This was made in collaboration until you came along and decided it wasn't enough and wanted to spend more on tournaments, all by yourself, without asking or including anyone in a discussion about it first.

This was never said anywhere and is just ex-post facto justification. It's my fault that I didn't recognize this? Man, it was like a year ago when the Council even realized how much money was in the Patreon and that we lose like half of it due to income taxes! This literally shocked half the Council to total silence in the voice call!

That's great; why didn't you bring any of this up to the council? Why didn't you come up with actual uses before complaining that there aren't enough funds?

Because I had worked with Promotion Councillors in the past and they had failed to gain access to the Patreon. I considered the move a waste of time and instead went to consider other solutions.

This is why I had to talk to Swkoll about whether we need to create a new Patreon. This is a part of the reason why we have FAFLive.

There are still plenty of funds that can be used but no way in hell are you getting the right to spend them without discussing with the rest of the council, which quite clearly appears to be what you want — and what you have been doing with FAFLive.

Don't mind talking to the Council about the FAF Patreon funds. We don't even have an actual balance sheet of what funds are in the Patreon, where they have been spent, and how much goes into what expenditures. How am I supposed to discuss where to spend money when I don't even know what I'm working with?

You said you would set this up for the Council by the way. That never happened.

FAFLive funds are:
A - Gained by a team of TDs and casters willing to spend their time on gathering funds to fund more events
B - Fund distribution organized by said team in a channel open to all people contributing to FAFLive currently
C - I don't have any problem informing Brutus (the actual FAF Treasurer not you) about the fund spending and have also given him access to the account to see where the money comes from.

But yes, I fail to see why I would consult the Council on FAFLive spending.

Does anyone have an opinion about that we should stop toxicity from councilors?

To those that asked me questions I thought some of them were pretty good points. I write up a proper response soon.