Conquer Club

yeti_c wrote:

suggs wrote:Lets face it, reading between the lines, Wicked got kicked out because Twill didnt like someone with credibiltiy and authority disagreeing with him. Thats not how this site should be run.

Surely that depends on whose lines you are reading between?

C.

Fair point, Twill barely said anything of substance.
Until he quite clearly and openly reveals the EXACT nature of why wicked was fired, I'm afraid he is guilty.
He must go.

KoolBak wrote:Amazing. Qeee-ster...it is wonderful to see you back

Wicked got fired; From a JOB. Most places, one wouldn't have the luxury of remaining at said job and stirring the pot. That person, for whatever reason, is GONE. Wicked.....be nice

This is LACK'S site people; he OWNS it. We pay to play a game....THAT'S ALL. He improves this site continually (except for the fubar dice), and provides this venue for you to bitch aboot it. Be happy. Play a risk-based game. STFU and quit whining aboot your perceived injustices.....but DO...for petes sake......keep exercising your lack-given democratic rights! lol

Ah. I think you meant to post that in the free site down the road.
Once money changes hands, its a business.
Lack isn't a "mate", or " a generous benefactor" he's running this site off our money.
Remember taxation and representation? I'm sure youy guys had something to do with that...

nah that won't happen. he's the queen of being just vague enough to not say anything and let you interpret from it what you want to hear.

wicked wrote:nah that won't happen. he's the queen of being just vague enough to not say anything and let you interpret from it what you want to hear.

Sorry, you say you'll strip naked and let me ravage you until the next millenia?
Or was just what i wanted to hear?

suggs wrote:Fair point, Twill barely said anything of substance.
Until he quite clearly and openly reveals the EXACT nature of why wicked was fired, I'm afraid he is guilty.
He must go.

And you're assuming that the disgruntled ex employee told you exactly what happened to the letter and without a single lie?!

C.

Can someone please lock and/or delete this retarded thread?

yeti_c wrote:

suggs wrote:Fair point, Twill barely said anything of substance.
Until he quite clearly and openly reveals the EXACT nature of why wicked was fired, I'm afraid he is guilty.
He must go.

And you're assuming that the disgruntled ex employee told you exactly what happened to the letter and without a single lie?!

C.

No. I am assuming that Twill has something to hide, as he is being so coy.

dm puhlease, whether a paraphrase of likely dialogue or a reconstruction of past dialogue, it's irrelevant, as it's still wrong.

I made 2 points,
1. that claiming democratic rights is wrong - this you acknowledged
2. that claiming that the site could be improved through democratic consultation prior to mods being fired is silly- this you ignored

could you guys outline exactly what it is you want aside from to rage?

Also stop saying mean things, that really hurts.

The point is Twill seems to be acting in a way that makes him totally unaccountable to the rest of the community.
If we have no "democratic rights", then why all this "Community Manager" nonsense?
Look Qee1 - i think people are upset that a well loved member of the community has been, to put it bluntly, shafted.
And we're expressing our respect and fondness for her, and our anger and disappointment with the way CC is being run.

If there's an explanation, I'm sure they'll mention my attitude and that some were put off or intimidated by me in the mod forum. Well the attitude stemmed from frustration from working within an inefficient system, supressed by those running it. I lost all temperance when lymed/medicated, so that frustration was close to the surface. After I got better, realizing what had happened, I went back through and read some of what I'd written and was actually embarrassed by it. For example, I was unduly harsh on another mod and if I didn't apologize enough back then, then know I truly am sorry and that wasn't me speaking.

We were told in the midst of restructuring, that if "a mod can't handle themselves being talked about by other mods" then they shouldn't be in the mod forum. That's just an FYI for the current and future mods.

qeee1 wrote: whether a paraphrase of likely dialogue or a reconstruction of past dialogue, it's irrelevant, as it's still wrong.

Well that's not what you said the first time you replied to it; but sure, why not change your stance now?

qeee1 wrote:I made 2 points, 1. that claiming democratic rights is wrong - this you acknowledged

Claiming we have them now is wrong (as you say), claiming we should have them in the future is right (as Suggs says).

Easy stuff; do pay attention 007.

qeee1 wrote:2. that claiming that the site could be improved through democratic consultation prior to mods being fired is silly- this you ignored

Oh "Puhlease".

Smug though you may feel about your pedantic insistence on having people paraphrase you in tedious detail; nobody was ever seriously arguing against you on that point, so your making it was (1) irrelevant, and (2) self-evident. Indeed, your bringing it up now only reinforces my original proposition that you and Suggs were talking at cross-purposes.

What people are after here (if you're still having trouble figuring it out) is greater accountability of admins and a more democratic process in making deciscions around the site. This isn't some bizarre "Mass vote before a sacking" proposal, it's a re-statement of the perpetual issue of "CC doesn't listen to users, and always fobs them off with PR bullshit when something controversial happens", which is what people seem to want changed.

qeee1 wrote:could you guys outline exactly what it is you want aside from to rage?

Well right now I have this incredible yearning for a certain ego with pretensions of intellect to stop posting tedious, irrelevant and pedantic drivel at me...

No but seriously, see above.

qeee1 wrote:Also stop saying mean things, that really hurts.

I can assure you that I too am cut deeply by such things. So don't worry, we can suffer together.

wicked wrote:If there's an explanation, I'm sure they'll mention my attitude and that some were put off or intimidated by me in the mod forum. Well the attitude stemmed from frustration from working within an inefficient system, supressed by those running it. I lost all temperance when lymed/medicated, so that frustration was close to the surface. After I got better, realizing what had happened, I went back through and read some of what I'd written and was actually embarrassed by it. For example, I was unduly harsh on another mod and if I didn't apologize enough back then, then know I truly am sorry and that wasn't me speaking.

We were told in the midst of restructuring, that if "a mod can't handle themselves being talked about by other mods" then they shouldn't be in the mod forum. That's just an FYI for the current and future mods.

Comments like this are a good way to state your case...

Some of your other comments have seemed very childish - which really is beneath you Wicked.

C.

Huh. It's hard to sort through all the bullshit (and inane chatter) to make a decision on a side to pick, if a side should even be picked. I can't say I've ever been over-modded at any point (I did get a warning for something once; I can't remember for what though. I probably deserved it. I do remember trying to start a spam uprising once, but that was more curiosity to see if it would work, and I think that thread just got locked), and it's hard to discern which of the complaints against wicked were sound and which were childish bitching (of which we have no shortage of on the site. I contribute my share surely). Probably the thing that bothered me the most about wicked was the complete, unabashed sucking up that seemed to follow her in whatever forum she seemed to appear in. But whatever, that's unimportant.

I suppose my perspective (I'm sure all of you are captivated) is that I'd like to see the "behind-the-scenes" reasoning for the termination. I won't "call for" the information or otherwise demand to know (hell, I'm not even a paying member), but it seems like a matter of respect to the game-base that when a decision that shakes the community as much as this has the potential to occurs, that you would want the community to be in the know. And we can't be blamed for wanting to know. There is always the potential for mudslinging (who doesn't like mudslinging anyhow), but an official announcement (locked, perhaps?) with a few more details would surely be appreciated. Without this, I will probably be taking the Mustard stance on this issue. He's just so damn well-written.

In the meantime, I will be changing my avatar to something suitable to fitting in with the more neotenous (what else?) uproar and pretend that I've actually picked a side (the side that will be more fun to argue from).

Perhaps some type of community-voted/driven group (board of directors for lack of better term?) would be beneficial? They could be the voice of the community and hold twill accountable, since lack rarely has the time (or desire) to police him. But more importantly, they could be the voice of the community here and a liason for communications purposes. I dunno, just thinking off the top of my head here.

My 2 cents again, maybe I come off a bit harsh, but that might be the malaria-induced fever talking.

Frop wrote:I never spotted any differences in her behaviour over the past year and she didn't have any trouble at all vocalizing her thoughts as she still managed to spam an 'impressive' 20+ posts each day. She was probably reprimanded for being biased and inapproachable and felt it necessary to fabricate some illness to hopefully avoid getting demoted. Now that she did get the boot she just wants to take down the site with her... my problem is that I just don't like to be reminded that these kind of people exist.

yeti_c wrote:Comments like this are a good way to state your case...

Some of your other comments have seemed very childish - which really is beneath you Wicked.

C.

<mod edit>that's confidential<mod edit>

Everything I've said has been the truth, in the interest of getting the information out there.

More of a talking out of me arse man meself.

Sounds a good idea though.

@ suggs, I appreciate your anger and emotion, but from my eyes you're raging and making a lot of assumptions based on little info. You're entitled to express emotion, but in doing so you give me the entitlement to comment on it.

As regards community consultation, (this was typed prior to the board suggestion, but probably still holds)
Community consultation prior to mod dismissal is unfeasible as I already pointed out. Community consultation about reinstating wicked at this point is pointless as she's said she doesn't want to work with them, and lets face it, bridges have been burnt. Besides, community consultation over moderators is a bad idea in general as mods aren't meant to be liked. Community consultation is important for things like ratings vs feedback (BTW feedback should be reinstated admins, take note).

@Dm, stop making long posts, I'll get to that one in a minute.

wicked wrote:You do have rights and as a collective you have power ... this is a community-driven website. Take it from twilldon't himself:

Mr Ego wrote:I do agree with Wicked that you, as a community, are indeed responsible for keeping me and the admins accountable

Perhaps that is why Wicked was asked to step down ?

Yeah, but what i dislike Qee1 is your apathetic "thers nothing we can do, whats the point, lets suck up YET MORE NONSENSE from Twill" approach.
There has to be a better way. She got fired for speaking her mind once too often, i think thats pretty clear - and it ain't right.

qeee1 wrote:@ suggs, I appreciate your anger and emotion, but from my eyes you're raging and making a lot of assumptions based on little info. You're entitled to express emotion, but in doing so you give me the entitlement to comment on it.

As regards community consultation, (this was typed prior to the board suggestion, but probably still holds)
Community consultation prior to mod dismissal is unfeasible as I already pointed out. Community consultation about reinstating wicked at this point is pointless as she's said she doesn't want to work with them, and lets face it, bridges have been burnt. Besides, community consultation over moderators is a bad idea in general as mods aren't meant to be liked. Community consultation is important for things like ratings vs feedback (BTW feedback should be reinstated admins, take note).

@Dm, stop making long posts, I'll get to that one in a minute.

Not much faith in humanity, eh?

suggs wrote:Yeah, but what i dislike Qee1 is your apathetic "thers nothing we can do, whats the point, lets suck up YET MORE NONSENSE from Twill" approach.
There has to be a better way. She got fired for speaking her mind once too often, i think thats pretty clear - and it ain't right.

It seems you're advocating for the same thing-- if indeed that's the reason, the admins listened to the demands of the community. And now- you're saying it [ain't right]. Surely you can't ride both sides of the fence?

Scott-Land wrote:
Surely you can't ride both sides of the fence?

heheh i am really hoping Suggsy can't resist a double intender.

quee, I wasn't talking specifically about mod dismissal, but in general.

re: the feedback. I posted a thread awhile back asking for community input about what they wanted out of a feedback system. The purpose was to get input as we worked on redesigning the system. At the time, I oversaw the feedback dept. and handled escalated/appealed feedback complaints, so I saw no problem in starting the discussion to gather input since it was my area (It would be like gimil starting a discussion about maps). After all, we were redesigning it for you all so you all should be involved in the process. So I made a thread, organized it, stickied it, and compiled the info as it came in. Lack thanked me for starting the thread, but Twill threw a hissy fit being the control freak that he is because it didn't go "through him". Twill's idea was to come up with a new system first, w/o any input from you guys, and only then throw it out for comments (I found this out after I made the thread). While that may have worked, I find it's more efficient for some things to get input at the beginning of the planning stages, rather than at the end.

jiminski wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:
Surely you can't ride both sides of the fence?

heheh i am really hoping Suggsy can't resist a double intender.

I am too gay.