Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Antvasima]

Schnee and Wright:

Okay. That is appreciated, but it is still preferably to talk in private for problems between staff members. It is even written in our rules.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ant I believe Wright/Schnee's comments come from more of a knowledge of Eficiente's history, rather than just this one comment.

I also don't share your worry about attacks, especially with how civil but stern Wright/Schnee's comments there have been. But I do see why you'd rather this happen over PMs.

I was responding to Potato.

 

[Schnee_One]

I need to get rid of that rule because it gets nothing done, but I am still keeping that post

 

[Antvasima]

You say that in response to a man being given a job, and the power with it, and not doing the job.

Look. I am under a massive amount of consistent stress nowadays, and still try to stay professional as well as I can, but not everybody have my ability to compartmentalise and enter some kind of work trance detached from increasing personal panic over the state of the world at large. So if a few otherwise productive staff members are occasionally in an annoyed mood, I try to remain reasonably tolerant.

 

[Antvasima]

I need to get rid of that rule because it gets nothing done, but I am still keeping that post

We should definitely keep the rule. It keeps antagonism between staff members along with public humiliation to a minimum.

 

[Schnee_One]

Schnee:

It is much better if you take it to private PMs instead of several members attacking him publicly at the same time. He is much more likely to respond well to that kind of approach.

Once they actually "Attack" Him, I will remove it. Nobody has right now.

 

[Antvasima]

It is still inappropriate. If you take it private, he is far more likely to respond well and shape up.

 

[Schnee_One]

It is not inappropriate to warn somebody when we literally do that to every single person on the wiki when they violate a rule.

We are not giving staff special treatment over normal members. This has gone on for far too long, lets drop this for now.

 

[Antvasima]

I definitely do not want us to initiate prolonged ongoing hostility between many staff members to be started for the slightest reason. It is an extremely bad idea, and would destroy a lot of community cohesion and organisation.

We handle warnings and prolonged arguments in private, period, and if they are serious enough, we involve the Human Resources group. It is not up to you to decide to suddenly overturn our working standards.

Anyway, I need to go to bed now. I would greatly appreciate if nobody causes any drama while I am asleep.

 

[ElixirBlue]

...

 

[Schnee_One]

I am not Overturning working standards by doing what we have done for everybody else. Somebody violates the rules, we warn them, simple. If we outright don't do this for staff under the guise of "Public humiliation and drama" then why is it okay to do this on normal members?

Nobody is attacking or destroying wiki cohesion.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein

Some help would be appreciated here.

 

[Antvasima]

Schnee:

If we are causing longterm hostility between staff members via public humiliation for very slight offenses, we will inevitably cause alienation and bad blood that gradually destroy the trust and cohesion within the staff.

These types of policies are up to the bureaucrats to decide, not to be suddenly overturned via public drama.

I would greatly appreciate if you drop this topic. Thank you.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Staff on message wall: Please don’t cause discord in threads.

Eficiente: Yes, so sorry. I apologize for my behavior. I’ll work to improve myself.

Everyone: Ok. Let’s move on.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, again, I am very tired, and have to go to sleep now. I would appreciate if nobody detonates any volatile situation while I am gone. Thank you.

 

[Antvasima]

Staff on message: Please don’t cause discord in threads.

Eficiente: Yes, so sorry. I apologize with my behavior. I’ll work to improve myself.

Everyone: Ok. Let’s move on.

Okay. Thank you. This issue seems to have been solved then.

 

[Schnee_One]

"If we are causing longterm hostility between staff members via public humiliation for very slightoffenses, we will inevitably cause alienation and bad blood that gradually destroy the trust and cohesion within the staff."

For goodness sakes warning somebody is not public humiliation, we literally warn people on their walls all the time. Hell, I have been warned over this in the past as well.

 

[Tllmbrg]

I think it wasn't Ef actually doing that but Blue saying what he should do

 

[Schnee_One]

Okay. Thank you. This issue seems to have been solved them.

Eficiente didn't actually do this (On his wall), Elixir is just saying how this situation could have been resolved.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is unfortunate. I hope that he will be reasonable then.

 

[Schnee_One]

Likewise, have a good nights rest

 

[Promestein]

A public warning works fine. Warn and move on. If there's a more pervasive issue you can contact HR about it.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I trust Promestein's sense of judgement, but am worried that it will risk to alienate and cause productive staff members to quit.

 

[Schnee_One]

I know of basically zero staff members who consistently act like this without punishment, I assure you this is not alienating any other staff members and not even alienating to Eficente himself.

Regardless, this is settled, you should get some rest as I imagine its late in your area

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Good night.

 

[Promestein]

Good staff won't quit in response to punishment.

 

[Bobsican]

I'm just going to mention that being more transparent on the procedures that are done would be nice. Even if we're going to remain with the "in private" staff warning stuff and so on, the discussion over it should be made public at a later date at least, rather than only the outcome, if any.

 

[Schnee_One]

Eficiente has given a formal apology on his wall, seems this is settled

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Let's drop the topic now

 

[AKM sama]

Welp

Guess I am late to this. But if this was a recurring issue, you should have brought it up with the HR group instead of starting drama here. We even have a rule for situations exactly like this and that's why we have HR group members. I am surprised nobody even mentioned it except for Prom.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with AKM.

 

[The_Wright_Way]

I mean, having abuse of power dealt with in private by a handful of staff doesn't exactly inspire much confidence. If the problem is that staff aren't doing their job, why should people trust that these specific staff members are doing their job to investigate? Especially sense, as far as I'm aware, no one else on the site is privy to those conversations.

Like, it's one thing to not have a say in those things, it's another to not even be able to view the discussion. Especially in light of much bigger staff related fiascos in the past.

 

[Agnaa]

In some cases HR group will have to deal with somewhat sensitive information, so I think their role is a lot more justified there. You wouldn't wanna post proof of someone doxxing you on the RVT; since that kinda defeats the point of keeping that information private.

 

[The_Wright_Way]

Then keep cases where private info would need to be shared private and let us view the other ones.

 

[The_Wright_Way]

Going to bed. Will continue this tomorrow.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Basically, I believe what Wright is saying, Eficiente's attitude on the threads doesn't warrant a private discussion with HR, since it wasn't that big of a deal. Just Eficiente being rude, but not anything more.

The current discussion has now moved from, Eficiente's attitude, to, will staff always be treated with privacy for their actions, no matter what they do, while regular members continue get public executions on threads like we are on now?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I suppose that this case could be handled via a simple reprimand, but I definitely do not want far more potentially explosive and sensitive situations handled in public. Among other things, it would force us to do extremely stressed out and rushed decisions, and be criticised at every turn for them.

 

[Antvasima]

For example, if a group of people are systematically destabilising the wiki, and/or something serious needs time to be investigated in peace and quiet, it is definitely not a good idea to try to force us to rush things with constant interference from anybody who feels like it, regardless of lack of qualifications.

 

[AKM sama]

If the problem is that staff aren't doing their job, why should people trust that these specific staff members are doing their job to investigate?

I am sure nobody here thinks that the entire staff team is not doing their jobs. HR group consists of highly level-headed and fair-minded admins who have a good sense of judgment.

Like, it's one thing to not have a say in those things, it's another to not even be able to view the discussion.

Having these discussions out in the public causes more of a problem in that everybody who has some bias against someone start a witch-hunt against the person who they want to see gone or demoted. People are much much more likely to listen if they are talked with in private by a higher-ranked authority in a calm manner, not like this where everybody is trying to publicly humiliate someone which just serves to stoke the fire. Or in worse cases where they are given specific warnings publicly, some people go out of their way to provoke a reaction to get them in trouble.

Eficiente's attitude on threads doesn't warrant a private discussion with HR, since it was(N'T) not that big of a deal.

The matter for which he was initially reported wasn't even report-worthy when it was already handled in the thread. Staff members are humans too and they can be volatile too. This is a debate forum where people need to have a thicker skin and not make a mountain out of a molehill as Agnaa previously said. But later, people brought the issue of this being an ongoing problem and yes, in that case, it does warrant a discussion with HR. That's the whole point of them being there.

will staff always be treated with privacy for their actions, no matter what they do, while regular members continue get public executions on threads like we are on now?

I already covered this in my response to Wright. Additionally, cases involving staff members almost always attract a lot more unnecessary controversy that tends to cause more drama than needed. Eventually, such cases were decided to be handled privately so that they could be dealt with in a fair and more efficient manner overall.

Anyway, the matter was resolved so we probably should stop this discussion.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

The word “reprimand” is beginning to irk me, because what does it even mean at this point? If it’s what was done in the BlazBlue thread, then that’s absolutely not anything that’s gonna leave an imprint for said person to shape up. That’s just a slap on the wrist, that honestly ends with the offender more satisfied. That doesn’t help anyone.

A reprimand should be something akin to what Schnee did, or at least someone of “high status”, because ultimately a bunch of normal members are not going to seem like it’s actually going anywhere. It should not in under any circumstances be a bunch of people apologizing for them, saying their reputation is why they should go off scott free, that’s not a reprimand.