Open Chat Forum - Forum - Virtual Popstar

Account deleted

wrote:

Obliviate wrote:

Tezzica wrote:
It can't be answered simply because there are other conditions that are involved in a warning, timeout or message about it. However if all other conditions that play into the issue were removed then it could be a warning depending on their account history.

One of the things I want to happen is equality between members and mods, I do get a feeling like you mods are sometimes "above the law" like this example. How should I feel confortable if a mod gives me a warning about something they can't follow either and they didn't even get punished?

@Tezzica

You can't see the log to really know what is done. We've given warnings and timeouts to moderators before. We aren't telling you to trust every moderator out there because that wouldn't make sense. This is to literally provide our side on the matter based off questioning. If we are vague everyone deems us as not having sufficient proof. If we are specific about the material to provide clarity, we are faced with breaking confidentiality which is clearly the extent of how everyone wants the full details on our side to be. Well, you have it.

Obliviate
Queen of Pop

Obliviate wrote:

Tezzica wrote:

Obliviate wrote:

Obliviate wrote:
One of the things I want to happen is equality between members and mods, I do get a feeling like you mods are sometimes "above the law" like this example. How should I feel confortable if a mod gives me a warning about something they can't follow either and they didn't even get punished?

@Tezzica

You can't see the log to really know what is done. We've given warnings and timeouts to moderators before. We aren't telling you to trust every moderator out there because that wouldn't make sense. This is to literally provide our side on the matter based off questioning. If we are vague everyone deems us as not having sufficient proof. If we are specific about the material to provide clarity, we are faced with breaking confidentiality which is clearly the extent of how everyone wants the full details on our side to be. Well, you have it.

So I don't really understand. You're saying we shouldn't trust you all?
But that was clearly unnecessary with the call out of Ceylin when you could just have writen X or something. This is the reason people find mods biased, some of you stand over the rules or how to put it. I know I know, your proof should be displayed so everyone can see it so mods can have their source but it was still a rule which was broken which could have been avoided. And so I find that it would be treated with a punishment which everyone else who call someone out gets. It was mild but she still broke the rules, she should be treated like anyone else.

I would like to add that she is in fact a mod and her common sense should be better than that..

And also the fact that none of the mods noticed anything until people started to complain?
That's kind of strange in my opinion.

Account deleted

wrote:
hi so like savage timed me out for ten whole days because i posted a harmless photograph of a woman who wasnt wearing a shirt and clearly this is a huge overreaction and i would like a million popdollars in compensation immediately else im taking the matter to court

Account deleted

wrote:

Obliviate wrote:

Tezzica wrote:

Obliviate wrote:
@Tezzica

You can't see the log to really know what is done. We've given warnings and timeouts to moderators before. We aren't telling you to trust every moderator out there because that wouldn't make sense. This is to literally provide our side on the matter based off questioning. If we are vague everyone deems us as not having sufficient proof. If we are specific about the material to provide clarity, we are faced with breaking confidentiality which is clearly the extent of how everyone wants the full details on our side to be. Well, you have it.

So I don't really understand. You're saying we shouldn't trust you all?
But that was clearly unnecessary with the call out of Ceylin when you could just have writen X or something. This is the reason people find mods biased, some of you stand over the rules or how to put it. I know I know, your proof should be displayed so everyone can see it so mods can have their source but it was still a rule which was broken which could have been avoided. And so I find that it would be treated with a punishment which everyone else who call someone out gets. It was mild but she still broke the rules, she should be treated like anyone else.

Account deleted

wrote:

Wheatley wrote:
last thing i'm gonna say because this is obviously not going to go anywhere anytime soon

what rule did solitude break that the mods are not breaking right now by making this thread? shadowjess' response is the only one so far that references the incident without citing the document, making sure that the users are given a clear answer without using information that they aren't barred from seeing, while the rest rely on throwing "an unnamed smt member" and "a former admin" under the bus to make themselves look like the victim. If we're going to share screenshots and make callouts, at least unban Solitude since the rules banning those before apparently aren't in place anymore.

Obliviate
Queen of Pop

Obliviate wrote:
Crap, forgot again that I have to tagg you
@Tezzica

Obliviate
Queen of Pop

Obliviate wrote:
Oh damn it's almost 3 AM, need to get some sleep.
Good night y'all

Callum
World Famous

callum wrote:

sugar666 wrote:
hi so like savage timed me out for ten whole days because i posted a harmless photograph of a woman who wasnt wearing a shirt and clearly this is a huge overreaction and i would like a million popdollars in compensation immediately else im taking the matter to court

#thatpart

Account deleted

wrote:

Ainsley wrote:
wtf is even going?? what document?? why is emily still banned?? why are mods explaining so many irrelevant events?? im so confused omg

since mods don't know how to keep things short and sweet

Private
International Star

Ainsley wrote:
hahah thanks^^ i just commented on it a few seconds before you did : ^ )

Account deleted

wrote:

RoloLolo wrote:
Man, this whole thing is hypocritical and comical.
People get explanations that they've asked for and still aren't satisfied.
Now it's moved on to "show documents" and opportunities to defend themselves lol
I'm over this clusterfuck.

^^

this is ridiculous
and most of the people won't read it and they'll just dismiss peoples feelings as irrelevant... but i'm sure they'll read solitude's big document no matter how long it is!

Private
World Famous

Myrcella wrote:

Felicity wrote:

RoloLolo wrote:
Man, this whole thing is hypocritical and comical.
People get explanations that they've asked for and still aren't satisfied.
Now it's moved on to "show documents" and opportunities to defend themselves lol
I'm over this clusterfuck.

^^

this is ridiculous
and most of the people won't read it and they'll just dismiss peoples feelings as irrelevant... but i'm sure they'll read solitude's big document no matter how long it is!

i feel like the majority of the people here 1. skim through actively looking for errors or things that can me misinterpreted or 2. read wheatley's biased 'summary'

Account deleted

wrote:

Myrcella wrote:

Felicity wrote:

RoloLolo wrote:
Man, this whole thing is hypocritical and comical.
People get explanations that they've asked for and still aren't satisfied.
Now it's moved on to "show documents" and opportunities to defend themselves lol
I'm over this clusterfuck.

^^

this is ridiculous
and most of the people won't read it and they'll just dismiss peoples feelings as irrelevant... but i'm sure they'll read solitude's big document no matter how long it is!

i feel like the majority of the people here 1. skim through actively looking for errors or things that can me misinterpreted or 2. read wheatley's biased 'summary'

glad we are on the same page Xx

Sinful
Youtube Star

Sinful wrote:

Myrcella wrote:

Felicity wrote:

RoloLolo wrote:
Man, this whole thing is hypocritical and comical.
People get explanations that they've asked for and still aren't satisfied.
Now it's moved on to "show documents" and opportunities to defend themselves lol
I'm over this clusterfuck.

^^

this is ridiculous
and most of the people won't read it and they'll just dismiss peoples feelings as irrelevant... but i'm sure they'll read solitude's big document no matter how long it is!

i feel like the majority of the people here 1. skim through actively looking for errors or things that can me misinterpreted or 2. read wheatley's biased 'summary'

^

Private
World Famous

Myrcella wrote:

Felicity wrote:

Myrcella wrote:

Felicity wrote:
^^

this is ridiculous
and most of the people won't read it and they'll just dismiss peoples feelings as irrelevant... but i'm sure they'll read solitude's big document no matter how long it is!

i feel like the majority of the people here 1. skim through actively looking for errors or things that can me misinterpreted or 2. read wheatley's biased 'summary'

glad we are on the same page Xx

i think a lot of people are really. its just about letting those with not that harsh opinions be able to speak up too : ^ ) and then maybe not make everything so dramatic. things are easier to solve when not over-dramatized

edit; im sure calling the situation 'over-dramatized' is gonna hurt some peoples feelings but i just wanna underline the fact that i mean no harm and all i want is for this community to be able to be a peaceful, fun place for all of us. i do not mean to portray your experiences and opinions as unvalid or unnecessary, i simply mean that the discussion could be done more quiet with less hearsay and rumours and upbringing of events in the past.