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.
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.
-
@ftxcommando said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:
@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.
What "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 "logic" you're saying I didn't defend is that somehow I'm power grabbing; yet all the FAF time I've spent this year on—outside of utterly needless debates with you— has been setting up the association and facilitating a transfer of the IP to a group of people.
I did not feel like I needed to explain that.
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're not familiar with Danish law; I'm familiar enough to know that this is not something the association should put into writing, or it might risk losing it's association status. Is your egoistic need for retributtal signature of what you're derogating to be "just a pledge dude" so important that you're willing to risk the legal structure of FAF?
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.
The board will work with and collaborate with anyone who shares the objectives enshrined into the statutes; which you helped write.
It's more than sufficient.
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.
Contradicting myself how?
You can be removed as President of the Board.
That's not what I was referring to.
But you still hold essentially total legal rights of FAF.
Who gave you that idea?
So we remove you and then what? Can we remove you as Admin Councillor? No, we cannot.
You could, if you'd opted to become a part of the association and have voting rights at the general assembly. Instead you opted to leave because you didn't get your way.
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.
I said that under the current ownership and legal structure that wouldn't be possible.
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.
I don't think I'm the only admin of the zulip. I certainly didn't set it up.
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.
It's not baseless.
You have been making power-grabbing moves for a long time and refusing to accept when a group of peers disagree with your views; to the point of reacting quite wildly. If anything this is another proof of that.
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!
Yes; another reason why I didn't feel like promoting it further until the association legal structure was setup so we didn't have to absurdly high taxes on it. You were present on that call so how is this ex-post facto justification?
You've been pestering me about payment and donations all year despite knowing that the tax situation wasn't resolved and yet you went out of your way to order a payout in my name regardless. Come on.
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.
You've mentioned one councilor and I've never refused him access.
This is why I had to talk to Swkoll about whether we need to create a new Patreon.
You never thought to chat with me about this as well? Or ask for a bigger tournament budget?
A logical place to go to regarding a new patreon or other source of income would be me.
This is a part of the reason why we have FAFLive.
And you did go to me for this. You had me sign the tax paperwork and consider it an official source of FAF funds.
Then you went ahead and withdrew it to your personal paypal without noticing or discussing it with me or anyone in the council.
While knowing that the tax situation wasn't resolved and while I had explicitly asked you to await with any payouts until the association bank accounts were up.
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 it. 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?
The bank accounts are setup and in due time you'll have all this information. The board is going to discuss how that's going to work.
You said you would set this up for the Council by the way. That never happened.
I last gave an overview at the association meeting, which you attended. Anyone else who's asked in the council has received the information; and I have given statements before to the entire council on calls.
-
I have thoughts -
Not gonna get into the nine/tatsu business, gonna focus down.
FAF had a toxicity problem from the top to the bottom, and it has had it for nearly a decade. The toxicity and lack of dealing with it has left a long trail of casualties in the community, myself included.
I am not going to be naming any names, but here are the thoughts.
If someone is toxic/trolling/irresponsible, their contributions should not be considered when weighing removal or censorship. It doesn't matter if they have made 35 commits, or done a bunch of mod work.... Toxic is toxic, and that crap needs to be cut out of the community.
Opening the client should not be a trauma risk. There have been occasions where I regretted opening FAF on stream, whether it's users named for genital diseases discussing the merits of slavery in the main chat, or strings of slurs as game titles hosted in the multiplayer tab, or getting into a game and being abused continually until the offending player throws the game and some slurs on the way out. Why. Is. There. Not. A. Word. Blacklist. In. The. Client. This is incredibly basic stuff in community management, but for some reason FAF doesn't have it and the people in charge of community/moderation do little to reign it in with permanent/decisive actions.
The councilors should not hold their positions if they cannot conduct themselves professionally. Period. Name-calling, derision, inappropriate gossip/public appeals, mistreatment in any way of a player or community member who approaches them.... If they can't conduct themselves decently, they can't hold a position where they affect FAF.
Maybe this time around something will come of this discussion, but I don't hold out much hope. I got tired of trying a long time ago, and at this point I basically don't interact at all with the main FAF community. It just isn't worth it.
-
@nine2
I think its pretty damn simple to be honest.
This is from a regular players point of view.Not someone from past council, not someone who is dumb, someone who keeps up to date and keeps informed.
From a players view point.
It would appear that members of the council are "abusing" their powers.
PURE AND SIMPLE.FTX is the only councillor minus Biass and a few others that actually play or chat to people regarding FAF.
We as players are not even aloud to know who is on the board. Despite being told one of the reasons for the bloody board was transparency.
To a player based on this thread it would honestly appear you care more about protecting yourself, slandering someone during an election, and trying to protect your game in development than you do care about your responsibilities as a FAF councillor.
Using the little work around oh its not the official discord so it does not break the rules.
Im putting this pure and fucking simple.
If you want to stop toxicity in councillors and discussions.
EVERYONE, I MEAN EVERYONE is held to the exact same standard and rules regardless of their rank/position or "Job" title.There needs to be transparency between everyone.
ALL THE TIME.I want to see this game develop more and becomes greater than it ever has.
But from a players view point. We have not seen half the council actually do anything.Sheeo the patreon page was last updated in 2017 - why is this not updated?
Gyle updates more.Nine2 - I want it publicly stated whether the Russian Discord has the same rules applied to it as the official discord.
I then want it publicly stated whether a councillor broke the official rules in relation to postings in the discord.The rest of you shut up and learn to work together.
Is it really that difficult.From players point of view this place is run like scam call center.
-
@brnkoinsanity said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:
I have thoughts -
Not gonna get into the nine/tatsu business, gonna focus down.
FAF had a toxicity problem from the top to the bottom, and it has had it for nearly a decade. The toxicity and lack of dealing with it has left a long trail of casualties in the community, myself included.
I am not going to be naming any names, but here are the thoughts.
If someone is toxic/trolling/irresponsible, their contributions should not be considered when weighing removal or censorship. It doesn't matter if they have made 35 commits, or done a bunch of mod work.... Toxic is toxic, and that crap needs to be cut out of the community.
Opening the client should not be a trauma risk. There have been occasions where I regretted opening FAF on stream, whether it's users named for genital diseases discussing the merits of slavery in the main chat, or strings of slurs as game titles hosted in the multiplayer tab, or getting into a game and being abused continually until the offending player throws the game and some slurs on the way out. Why. Is. There. Not. A. Word. Blacklist. In. The. Client. This is incredibly basic stuff in community management, but for some reason FAF doesn't have it and the people in charge of community/moderation do little to reign it in with permanent/decisive actions.
The councilors should not hold their positions if they cannot conduct themselves professionally. Period. Name-calling, derision, inappropriate gossip/public appeals, mistreatment in any way of a player or community member who approaches them.... If they can't conduct themselves decently, they can't hold a position where they affect FAF.
Maybe this time around something will come of this discussion, but I don't hold out much hope. I got tired of trying a long time ago, and at this point I basically don't interact at all with the main FAF community. It just isn't worth it.
Honestly:
Brink if you believe this you should name names. -
@noonecares said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:
FTX is the only councillor minus Biass and a few others that actually play or chat to people regarding FAF.
I play occasionally; but very rarely. The toxic environment is a big reason why I don't.
We as players are not even aloud to know who is on the board. Despite being told one of the reasons for the bloody board was transparency.
The board isn't managing day-to-day things so why do you need to know who's on it? You can contact me or anyone from the council about any concerns you might have and they will bring it to the board eventually if it needs to go there.
I'm not against having the list be public but precisely because of toxicity I want board members to have the option to remain private; so they don't get hate-mail from random players.
If you want to engage you have the full right to attend the general assembly and be present to vote on the members and know who are elected.
There needs to be transparency between everyone.
ALL THE TIME.There just can't.
The moderators need to be able to discuss moderation things in private. The exact financial transactions need to remain private to protect personal information. We have to comply with various legislation and can't just make everything completely transparent.
Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to informing everyone as much as we can; and that's always been a consistent point of failure of the council.
I want to see this game develop more and becomes greater than it ever has.
But from a players view point. We have not seen half the council actually do anything.I agree the council as currently structured hasn't been very effective. It has eroded over time.
If you want to provide input on how you think this can be improved, I for one am all ears — and this is on the agenda of the board to discuss.
Sheeo the patreon page was last updated in 2017 -
why is this not updated?I explained this above in my responses to FtX. But the short story is:
- We don't have an explicit need for more money, so promoting it or maintaining it has not been a priority. That being said, I'm not against starting to do that.
- Until the tax situation was resolved with the formation of the association; spending money from the patreon incurred undesirable income taxes.
The rest of you shut up and learn to work together.
Is it really that difficult.It's difficult working with someone who constantly attacks your person when there's any form of disagreement.
From players point of view this place is run like scam call center.
At least those have nice people who respond to your phone calls. They go out of your way to not be toxic
-
Honestly:
Brink if you believe this you should name names.Naming names turns it into a brawl. If we can't agree that problems exist, and that they should be solved in a certain way, then the names do not matter.
-
Disagree Brink, if you don't name names, it becomes a generalistic 'community' problem. If its same 3-4 people in Aeolus doing this? Why shouldn't we call them out. I can say "I feel Aeolus is generally toxic as everytime I log in I see the promotion of assault and murder of people in my hometown". But in doing so gives those people cover and makes it a generalist "avoid Aeolus solution" and in doing so avoid the problems and doesn't solve it.
Like I don't think there is toxicity Brink. But I feel there are individuals within Aeolus, Silly_Noob and others that are toxic. Them promoting the views that caused the death of 5 people where I live, whom do make it Toxic.
