Open Chat Forum - Forum - Virtual Popstar

Sinister
Streetmusician

sinister wrote:

Hypoxic wrote:

Deimos wrote:

Deimos wrote:
Really? Then who else saw it, besides the people who contributed?

And if other people did see it, why does it matter? It's not like it was being spread around or written like a burn book, which is apparently why she got banned in the first place. And this information is more or less common knowledge that anyone could've found out simply by asking the right people. So i'm not sure what rules this document broke.

@Hypoxic

In regards to your first question, i don't know. However just from reading in prior forums it's rather clear more than just Kim had access to it. And since I don't know everyone involved I am unaware of who wrote it and who simply viewed it. As regards to Solitudes banishment she was released from her last one on special grounds that were agreed upon with Kim and she herself knew that what she was doing risked her being banned. She did say so herself in her forum where references to the document were made. Another user who chose to do a similar thing received the same form of punishment.

okay well if you don't know for sure please don't say you do
and simply saying how and why she thought the mods were incompetent is grounds for a ban? good to know.

even if she had "special grounds" valid complaints against the mods shouldn't get you banned

Callum
World Famous

callum wrote:

Chandelier wrote:

Krystle wrote:
Even after seeing the document some of the information on this thread by the mods was irrelevant and some issues/ the real issues were not even addressed. (some of the things might have been talked about but because there was so much to read I could've forgotten after reading it. In such a case I apologize)
There was a lot on that document and I read it all but then closed it on my phone thinking I'd open it later on my laptop but I can't do that now due to permission needed so I don't remember everything I wanted to say.
But anyways..

@Chandelier @legohouse (I always confuse you with savage but I assume you're the older mod while savage is newer)
1. Biased - You let shadowjess get away with sharing accounts while other users receive warnings and time-outs for the same.
(I'm not blindly going by what was said in the document, I personally remember seeing them post a few times on the forums that they would claim a code or have claimed it for Draizor and if I remember correctly about buying shop updates on that account too)
Update: proof from heathens

2. I don't remember whether this was mentioned in the document or not but since this is a general discussion might as well bring this up. When the mod bootcamp was announced and people questioned why Tezzica got the badge before the others someone mentioned how you guys would ask her for help with mod issues even when she was not a mod. Why are you still a mod if you're not capable of solving problems and need others (non-mods) to help you out?

As I said before there was a lot more that I can't remember and this post is already too long so I'l end it here. Hoping to get some answers from you guys.

I took out the picture and what was addressed to Hypoxic, but it is still in the original post. This was just a long message.

1. Claire and Jess are a couple and they live together. Jess and other users that live together (such as those with siblings on VP) often explain and ask permission ahead of time since they know their IP will show a connection. Users who get warnings or TO for it haven't asked. I don't know how the other mods perceive it, but II perceive the TO as a way to protect their account from being accessed further. There's been cases where people gave out their password and had their accounts abused, one case even to the detriment to this person's safety where their father had to contact the admins out of concern for them.
2. Tess was a mod on VP long before I even made it to the site. I asked for help because I know that there can be glitches within our IP system and I wanted more information about how to approach it. Both she and her fiance have more experience running sites than I have or ever hope to have. I also consider her more of a mentor since I did not have that coming into being a mod myself and it helps to have a more experienced perspective.

Eli gave permission to Josten though, however, they were both given a time out.

Private
World Famous

Chandelier wrote:

heathens wrote:

Chandelier wrote:

Krystle wrote:
Even after seeing the document some of the information on this thread by the mods was irrelevant and some issues/ the real issues were not even addressed. (some of the things might have been talked about but because there was so much to read I could've forgotten after reading it. In such a case I apologize)
There was a lot on that document and I read it all but then closed it on my phone thinking I'd open it later on my laptop but I can't do that now due to permission needed so I don't remember everything I wanted to say.
But anyways..

@Chandelier @legohouse (I always confuse you with savage but I assume you're the older mod while savage is newer)
1. Biased - You let shadowjess get away with sharing accounts while other users receive warnings and time-outs for the same.
(I'm not blindly going by what was said in the document, I personally remember seeing them post a few times on the forums that they would claim a code or have claimed it for Draizor and if I remember correctly about buying shop updates on that account too)
Update: proof from heathens

2. I don't remember whether this was mentioned in the document or not but since this is a general discussion might as well bring this up. When the mod bootcamp was announced and people questioned why Tezzica got the badge before the others someone mentioned how you guys would ask her for help with mod issues even when she was not a mod. Why are you still a mod if you're not capable of solving problems and need others (non-mods) to help you out?

As I said before there was a lot more that I can't remember and this post is already too long so I'l end it here. Hoping to get some answers from you guys.

I took out the picture and what was addressed to Hypoxic, but it is still in the original post. This was just a long message.

1. Claire and Jess are a couple and they live together. Jess and other users that live together (such as those with siblings on VP) often explain and ask permission ahead of time since they know their IP will show a connection. Users who get warnings or TO for it haven't asked. I don't know how the other mods perceive it, but II perceive the TO as a way to protect their account from being accessed further. There's been cases where people gave out their password and had their accounts abused, one case even to the detriment to this person's safety where their father had to contact the admins out of concern for them.
2. Tess was a mod on VP long before I even made it to the site. I asked for help because I know that there can be glitches within our IP system and I wanted more information about how to approach it. Both she and her fiance have more experience running sites than I have or ever hope to have. I also consider her more of a mentor since I did not have that coming into being a mod myself and it helps to have a more experienced perspective.

Eli gave permission to Josten though, however, they were both given a time out.

I meant, they ask the mods or admin for permission ahead of time. For example, Kim and Jess can add something to an account that allows siblings to both be able to claim codes, but they have to be told in advance that they are siblings for this permission to be given.

MissLondon
Queen of Queens

MissLondon wrote:
If people are really all about Kim being involved, strictly enforcing rules and such, why isn't anyone addressing allowing people back who've been banned in the past? Since some are allowed back, is she "biased" too? Does this rule not apply to all?
Just wondering since people have mentioned feeling "unsafe". And no, not solely speaking on solitude but in general.

Callum
World Famous

callum wrote:

RoloLolo wrote:
If people are really all about Kim being involved, strictly enforcing rules and such, why isn't anyone addressing allowing people back who've been banned in the past? Since some are allowed back, is she "biased" too? Does this rule not apply to all?
Just wondering since people have mentioned feeling "unsafe". And no, not solely speaking on solitude but in general.

personally i dont think kim should be removing bans without addressing it to the mods

Krystle
Popstar

Krystle wrote:

Hypoxic wrote:
@Krystle
thought I'd reply quickly but when I get a chance to write it out I'll cover your questions better.
In regards to Ali, yes I openly admit to putting friendship first in the moment. Based off of the fiasco that occurred around Legohouse's account (which I think was either one or two days prior). What that defence was based off of was an account linked to Ali's. Which someone on the first page has the screenshot of when Ali claimed to have been hacked. After that however I began to keep a closer eye and then came the second time she was linked to a leaker account which was when I confronted her. (Sabrina also provided proof of another connection on the day I confronted her as I didn't have it screenshotted).

As for Eli, I didn't allow her on the mod account. She came to me telling me that she'd accessed it and felt kinda bad or said something along the lines of "I know I shouldn't of". I said sonwthing like it's okay did you do anything on it? And don't reaccess it. That same day the account details were changed and she wasn't allowed back on. So no one let her use it, she did so behind our backs and then came forward to me about using it. At that point I also let the others know.

(as for your bracketed part I'll hopefully make sense of things when I can type it all out for you all but hope that helps for now)

Which was wrong and shows how you may not be competent for the mod position since you can't look beyond your friendship and judge the situation without being biased.

About eli that's what I read in the document so I don't know who to trust in this matter but it should not have been okay to get into the account when she was not a mod?

Krystle
Popstar

Krystle wrote:

Chandelier wrote:

Krystle wrote:
Even after seeing the document some of the information on this thread by the mods was irrelevant and some issues/ the real issues were not even addressed. (some of the things might have been talked about but because there was so much to read I could've forgotten after reading it. In such a case I apologize)
There was a lot on that document and I read it all but then closed it on my phone thinking I'd open it later on my laptop but I can't do that now due to permission needed so I don't remember everything I wanted to say.
But anyways..

@Chandelier @legohouse (I always confuse you with savage but I assume you're the older mod while savage is newer)
1. Biased - You let shadowjess get away with sharing accounts while other users receive warnings and time-outs for the same.
(I'm not blindly going by what was said in the document, I personally remember seeing them post a few times on the forums that they would claim a code or have claimed it for Draizor and if I remember correctly about buying shop updates on that account too)
Update: proof from heathens

2. I don't remember whether this was mentioned in the document or not but since this is a general discussion might as well bring this up. When the mod bootcamp was announced and people questioned why Tezzica got the badge before the others someone mentioned how you guys would ask her for help with mod issues even when she was not a mod. Why are you still a mod if you're not capable of solving problems and need others (non-mods) to help you out?

As I said before there was a lot more that I can't remember and this post is already too long so I'l end it here. Hoping to get some answers from you guys.

I took out the picture and what was addressed to Hypoxic, but it is still in the original post. This was just a long message.

1. Claire and Jess are a couple and they live together. Jess and other users that live together (such as those with siblings on VP) often explain and ask permission ahead of time since they know their IP will show a connection. Users who get warnings or TO for it haven't asked. I don't know how the other mods perceive it, but II perceive the TO as a way to protect their account from being accessed further. There's been cases where people gave out their password and had their accounts abused, one case even to the detriment to this person's safety where their father had to contact the admins out of concern for them.

2. Tess was a mod on VP long before I even made it to the site. I asked for help because I know that there can be glitches within our IP system and I wanted more information about how to approach it. Both she and her fiance have more experience running sites than I have or ever hope to have. I also consider her more of a mentor since I did not have that coming into being a mod myself and it helps to have a more experienced perspective.

1. You mean Jess had already informed you guys that she would be logging into Draizor's account? And as heathens said why were eli and josten given timeouts when eli had permitted josten to log into her account? At this point it seems like when questioned you say a different thing but you do something different.

2. If the help was related to the system then that makes sense but if it's like "X scammed Y of this item. What do I do? What punishment do they deserve" for example, then my point still stands-
Why are you still a mod if you're not capable of solving problems and need others (non-mods) to help you out?.

Obliviate
Queen of Pop

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.

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.

, I would like to see your side of this.
It's about the call out of Ceylin and when it got changed.

Private
World Famous

Chandelier wrote:

Obliviate 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.

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.

@Chandelier , I would like to see your side of this.

I have already said that I wrote this offline and was under the impression the documents were going to all be there. So I did not block out the names, since I didn't see the need if her document was going to be placed in the post too.

It's not that we didn't notice anything. We've seen it time and time again, but it's a double edged sword to respond to it. Some people get upset when we don't respond, and then when we do respond, there are those that say we are being unprofessional by engaging with people in the forums about the drama. One of the things I was told when I was first added to the team is that we are not to take the bait when these threads are made but lock the threads and request the OP message us to discuss it further if they'd like. It's this: if I had a problem with something you did, would you rather me message you first to talk about it or post a thread calling you out for it? That's usually what happens, things are presented in a thread first and no message is given. I hope I'm understanding your question correctly, if not can you ask it in another way?

Obliviate
Queen of Pop

Obliviate wrote:

Chandelier wrote:

Obliviate wrote:

Obliviate wrote:
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.

@Chandelier , I would like to see your side of this.

I have already said that I wrote this offline and was under the impression the documents were going to all be there. So I did not block out the names, since I didn't see the need if her document was going to be placed in the post too.

It's not that we didn't notice anything. We've seen it time and time again, but it's a double edged sword to respond to it. Some people get upset when we don't respond, and then when we do respond, there are those that say we are being unprofessional by engaging with people in the forums about the drama. One of the things I was told when I was first added to the team is that we are not to take the bait when these threads are made but lock the threads and request the OP message us to discuss it further if they'd like. It's this: if I had a problem with something you did, would you rather me message you first to talk about it or post a thread calling you out for it? That's usually what happens, things are presented in a thread first and no message is given. I hope I'm understanding your question correctly, if not can you ask it in another way?

I rather meant the bias between mods. As of this example you called out Ceylin with name and links and everything in you're post. And if it were to be a regular member this person would probably have gotten a warning or something for calling someone out. While in this case Ceylins name and some links were only to be erased in the text, nothing else happened and in my perspective a rule got broken but nothing was really done. I kind of get the feeling like mods are above the rules.
What are your thoughts about it?
(It's might be a little blurry since I'm tired)

Again, I wrote this thinking their documents would be posted where my username was called out and screens to my conversations were provided as well. I was told to share my side of story and have everything out in the open. This wasn't my personal decision to have a thread here and I would not have made one otherwise unless I was requested/given permission to do so.

Obliviate
Queen of Pop

Obliviate wrote:

Private
World Famous

Chandelier wrote:

computer crashed so I'm on my phone and can't quote you with it.
1. She has asked permission before a long time ago, and it's only Draizor ( Claire) account as they live together and are a couple. Eli did not ask mods permission. If she had, then maybe it would have been different since she was leaving anyway. But she let multiple people besides that user on the account. Usually people are given TO if they know it's against the rules and choose to do so anyway.

2. It is almost always about the system, the fancy technological terms that I didn't understand and if it was possible for it to glitch. Sometimes I did ask if things were done differently than when she was a mod that we could try to apply again, but from what she told me most things are exactly the same. When I became a mod, we were not given the guidelines Tess set up or any detailed help at all. So she did sometimes tell me about past experiences and what was done there.

Krystle
Popstar

Krystle wrote:

Chandelier wrote:
@Krystle
computer crashed so I'm on my phone and can't quote you with it.
1. She has asked permission before a long time ago, and it's only Draizor ( Claire) account as they live together and are a couple. Eli did not ask mods permission. If she had, then maybe it would have been different since she was leaving anyway. But she let multiple people besides that user on the account. Usually people are given TO if they know it's against the rules and choose to do so anyway.

2. It is almost always about the system, the fancy technological terms that I didn't understand and if it was possible for it to glitch. Sometimes I did ask if things were done differently than when she was a mod that we could try to apply again, but from what she told me most things are exactly the same. When I became a mod, we were not given the guidelines Tess set up or any detailed help at all. So she did sometimes tell me about past experiences and what was done there.

1. If she had permission why is she trying to defend herself pretending she only talked about logging into that account once which too she later decided against?

Also is it mentioned somewhere in the rules that if you want someone to log into your account you need to ask for permission from before and in that case it will be allowed?

Earlier you said you see a t-o as a way to protect the account from further unauthorised access. Now if Eli gave her password to multiple people by herself then the timeout really wasn't needed?

2. Ah I see, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up!

Private
World Famous

Shadowjess wrote:

Krystle wrote:

Chandelier wrote:
@Krystle
computer crashed so I'm on my phone and can't quote you with it.
1. She has asked permission before a long time ago, and it's only Draizor ( Claire) account as they live together and are a couple. Eli did not ask mods permission. If she had, then maybe it would have been different since she was leaving anyway. But she let multiple people besides that user on the account. Usually people are given TO if they know it's against the rules and choose to do so anyway.

2. It is almost always about the system, the fancy technological terms that I didn't understand and if it was possible for it to glitch. Sometimes I did ask if things were done differently than when she was a mod that we could try to apply again, but from what she told me most things are exactly the same. When I became a mod, we were not given the guidelines Tess set up or any detailed help at all. So she did sometimes tell me about past experiences and what was done there.

1. If she had permission why is she trying to defend herself pretending she only talked about logging into that account once which too she later decided against?

Also is it mentioned somewhere in the rules that if you want someone to log into your account you need to ask for permission from before and in that case it will be allowed?

Earlier you said you see a t-o as a way to protect the account from further unauthorised access. Now if Eli gave her password to multiple people by herself then the timeout really wasn't needed?

2. Ah I see, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up!

I'm pretty sure those questions should be targeted to me rather then the mods.
Kim is aware that we live together as a couple. When that certain code was released she was doing a lot of overtime athe work and physically wouldn't of been able to out of hours. She texted me after I had posted that saying she was on break so I got her your do it then rather than me doing it this.
The password itself I don't directly know, she tends to save passwords on her personal laptop. Just like she doesn't know mine (and has no access to mine as I don't save password).

I was defending myself because the accusation sounded like
1: she has access to my account
2: I go on her account. I haven't directly been on her account when she hasn't been with me for at least a year now. This would of been the only occurance.

Krystle
Popstar

Krystle wrote:

Shadowjess wrote:

Krystle wrote:

Chandelier wrote:
@Krystle
computer crashed so I'm on my phone and can't quote you with it.
1. She has asked permission before a long time ago, and it's only Draizor ( Claire) account as they live together and are a couple. Eli did not ask mods permission. If she had, then maybe it would have been different since she was leaving anyway. But she let multiple people besides that user on the account. Usually people are given TO if they know it's against the rules and choose to do so anyway.

2. It is almost always about the system, the fancy technological terms that I didn't understand and if it was possible for it to glitch. Sometimes I did ask if things were done differently than when she was a mod that we could try to apply again, but from what she told me most things are exactly the same. When I became a mod, we were not given the guidelines Tess set up or any detailed help at all. So she did sometimes tell me about past experiences and what was done there.

1. If she had permission why is she trying to defend herself pretending she only talked about logging into that account once which too she later decided against?

Also is it mentioned somewhere in the rules that if you want someone to log into your account you need to ask for permission from before and in that case it will be allowed?

Earlier you said you see a t-o as a way to protect the account from further unauthorised access. Now if Eli gave her password to multiple people by herself then the timeout really wasn't needed?

2. Ah I see, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up!

I'm pretty sure those questions should be targeted to me rather then the mods.
Kim is aware that we live together as a couple. When that certain code was released she was doing a lot of overtime athe work and physically wouldn't of been able to out of hours. She texted me after I had posted that saying she was on break so I got her your do it then rather than me doing it this.
The password itself I don't directly know, she tends to save passwords on her personal laptop. Just like she doesn't know mine (and has no access to mine as I don't save password).

I was defending myself because the accusation sounded like
1: she has access to my account
2: I go on her account. I haven't directly been on her account when she hasn't been with me for at least a year now. This would of been the only occurance.

It was asked to the mods because if it's a rule that you cannot share accounts then they should've given you a warning / t-o but they didn't so I wanted to hear from them why it's like that.

I mentioned before that I'm pretty sure I've seen you say that you had/were going to claim a code on her account (and buy a shop update too if I'm not mistaken) quite a few times before.
Also this screenshot provided by heathens proves that you had been on her account more than that one time