Open Chat Forum - Forum - Virtual Popstar

Private
Queen of Queens

Adore 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.

why there is mods working rn who shouldnt be trusted? i dont fucking understand.

Private
International Star

Troublemaker wrote:

Adore 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.

why there is mods working rn who shouldnt be trusted? i dont fucking understand.

^

the fact that you say that it wouldn't make sense is just absurd. you need to have mods that you can trust, on a somewhat understandable amount. and that includes mods. but if not, then the fault is at the mods side.

Private
Queen of Queens

Adore wrote:

Troublemaker wrote:

Adore wrote:

Tezzica wrote:
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.

why there is mods working rn who shouldnt be trusted? i dont fucking understand.

^

the fact that you say that it wouldn't make sense is just absurd. you need to have mods that you can trust, on a somewhat understandable amount. and that includes mods. but if not, then the fault is at the mods side.

yes exactly and if there is someone who shouldnt be trusted - they should lose their badges and mods should be looking for new ppl who ppl can trust while needing help from mods.

Private
International Star

Troublemaker wrote:

Adore wrote:

Troublemaker wrote:

Adore wrote:
why there is mods working rn who shouldnt be trusted? i dont fucking understand.

^

the fact that you say that it wouldn't make sense is just absurd. you need to have mods that you can trust, on a somewhat understandable amount. and that includes mods. but if not, then the fault is at the mods side.

yes exactly and if there is someone who shouldnt be trusted - they should lose their badges and mods should be looking for new ppl who ppl can trust while needing help from mods.

!!! i agree to 100%
its the mods job to be trustful (?) and always there to help (unless afk)

Private
Queen of Queens

Adore wrote:

Troublemaker wrote:

Adore wrote:

Troublemaker wrote:
^

the fact that you say that it wouldn't make sense is just absurd. you need to have mods that you can trust, on a somewhat understandable amount. and that includes mods. but if not, then the fault is at the mods side.

yes exactly and if there is someone who shouldnt be trusted - they should lose their badges and mods should be looking for new ppl who ppl can trust while needing help from mods.

!!! i agree to 100%
its the mods job to be trustful (?) and always there to help (unless afk)

YEss

Helia
Queen of Pop

Helia wrote:

Adore 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.

why there is mods working rn who shouldnt be trusted? i dont fucking understand.

Don't say that you as a person trust everyone cause that's what it sounds like. I don't think she means that you shouldn't trust some mods cause they are "bad" at their work, I think it's more like people won't allowed themself to trust everyone in the world.

Account deleted

wrote:

Helia wrote:

Adore wrote:

Tezzica wrote:
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.

why there is mods working rn who shouldnt be trusted? i dont fucking understand.

Don't say that you as a person trust everyone cause that's what it sounds like. I don't think she means that you shouldn't trust some mods cause they are "bad" at their work, I think it's more like people won't allowed themself to trust everyone in the world.

yup, i interpreted it the same way.
you can never fully "trust" someone online

Account deleted

wrote:
Alright, I'm just going to point out a few things now that I've read everything.

-I think the mods should have only talked about the Solitude situation only. That's what everyone is most upset about. Now, I haven't seen the document so I don't know if the mods are talking about these things because they were brought up in the document. I understand if that's the reason they talk about this other stuff, but most of us haven't seen the document so that's why it seems really irrelevant.

-One thing I have to bring up is, communication. The mods need to communicate more with the users and with eachothers. From what I've read, it seemed like the mods have had some rough time with eachothers. I don't know how much the mods have communicated with each others but it seems that there has been a lot of misunderstanding or something like that.

-From what I've seen, people usually make threads when a conflict happens between a mod. But I can see why, since many people are scared that if they bring up the issue through PM, they get banned or something because they disagree with the mods.

I haven't seen mods commenting on threads that much and it kind of gives that 'stigma' that makes it seems like mods think they are 'better than the rest of us' or something. That they only tune in when someone is doing something wrong. And it seems like that mods are just really shy and I get that. It's just the situation that happens a lot with shy people, the shy person usually comes of as '' Oh they don't want to talk to us, they think they are above us '' or something.

-What comes to Chandeliers situation, I think you should have informed people that you weren't available to become Admin. I can't really say much since I didn't really go around forums that time. I'm sorry people have been really rude towards you but you should have stepped down earlier from the Admin position. (Though this really isn't that relevant anymore in my opinion...)

---

The Solitude situation wasn't discussed that well, which was why people wanted this thread. Even if you are explaining the things in the document, only a few have seen it so that's why people are mad because it seems like you are just ignoring the Solitude situation.

It would also help if you would've formatted the posts like this:

The topic you're discussing first

*Explanation*

Different topic you're discussing secondly

*Explanation*

---

I can see why people haven't read the posts fully (Even if they should)

Most of the posts don't mention Solitude, at least until the end. At first I was really mad because it seemed like you had made some excuses and screamed: '' I have a hard life so that's why this is okay! Pity me!! ''

At least that's what I thought at first when I started reading the posts. I'm not sure how easy my post is to read since I'm usually really bad when it comes to talking with this kind of stuff but I hope my opinion came across. I have to say, the mods and the other vp users have some good points while having some flaws. I really do hope things get cleared up. I could write more and more but I don't think a really long post that can be kind of hard to read would be good for anyone.

---

Oh wow that's a lot of text from me but yeah, please ask if you want me to clarify something since I'm afraid some stuff came out the wrong way!

Private
International Star

Troublemaker wrote:

Felicity wrote:

Helia wrote:

Adore wrote:
why there is mods working rn who shouldnt be trusted? i dont fucking understand.

Don't say that you as a person trust everyone cause that's what it sounds like. I don't think she means that you shouldn't trust some mods cause they are "bad" at their work, I think it's more like people won't allowed themself to trust everyone in the world.

yup, i interpreted it the same way.
you can never fully "trust" someone online

now that is understandable
but i don't think adore means fully either (neither do i)

Obliviate
Queen of Pop

Obliviate wrote:
I have a question about Kim, why do she never state her opinion about anything?
All I have seen her doing when she does a post is either Mega creditset week or something like the auction function.
Shouldn't the owner which is also one of the Admins of the site actually participate in debates and such?
I just feels like she is trying to avoid statements and all forms of it, ignore it when it becomes complicated or smth.

I understand the fact that her english isn't the best, but you can use someone to translate her texts, like Ceylin did before.

Account deleted

wrote:

Obliviate wrote:
I have a question about Kim, why do she never state her opinion about anything?
All I have seen her doing when she does a post is either Mega creditset week or something like the auction function.
Shouldn't the owner which is also one of the Admins of the site actually participate in debates and such?
I just feels like she is trying to avoid statements and all forms of it, ignore it when it becomes complicated or smth.

I understand the fact that her english isn't the best, but you can use someone to translate her texts, like Ceylin did before.
@Kim

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'

i made an unbiased summary here lmao

and the reason people aren't reading it/are reading it and don't understand is because they keep referencing something that we're not allowed to see

it's like someone trying to study for a test but the professor won't even let them look at the textbook

Private
World Famous

Myrcella wrote:

Wheatley 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'

i made an unbiased summary here lmao

and the reason people aren't reading it/are reading it and don't understand is because they keep referencing something that we're not allowed to see

it's like someone trying to study for a test but the professor won't even let them look at the textbook

yeah i know, i was referring to the biased version.

and i completely get that, im just trying to say that forming an opinion based on what others that dont really have anything to do with the matter wont be accurate.

Obliviate
Queen of Pop

Obliviate wrote:

Tezzica wrote:

Obliviate wrote:

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.

@Tezzica

Just as a reminder when you come online again

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.