ERPAqHpD

1Geosearchef: I hope I didn't forget anyone
2
3Geosearchef: As you might know, I've gotten a message from FTX. If you are indeed aware of that, then first of all, this either confirms my suspicion that councillors let FTX just push this through on his own or I don't know what's going on anymore.
4
5Having the very person that is accused of overstepping responsibilities and accuses others of doing the same deliver the judgement is a very bad choice. (this goes against so many ethical values of most western legal systems)
6
7The first part will be replying to the messages I got as I feel most of it is wrong and don't want to leave it standing that way, if you're not interested, skip to the first "-------------".
8
9well for one, council decided to warn you and rack about overstepping the boundaries of the server admin role
10This is an intransparent decision which makes the same mistake again that you were trying to fix. I'm imagining you in voice with FTX complaining and everyone else either not caring or not knowing the situation. Additionally it doesn't give any justification for what overstepping means, especially when it comes to overstepping on FTX' side. Just him being the player councillor doesn't change that a bit. It might mean he's responsible for the rules, but not that he doesn't have to follow them.
11
12the argument was made that considering yourself an oversight on the council is a breach of the contract you signed to not hold faf data access as a sort of leverage against others
13I consider myself as an oversight of the council when a councillor violates rules that apply for all other users as well. If there are rules allowing that, we can debate them, but just being a councillor doesn't mean you're allowed to violate rules. You're presenting yourself like the government of FAF, which you aren't. This is not a country or company, this is an open source project. It lives from people contributing. I agree that we might need people responsible for certain areas. At the point you're currently making, presenting a councillor as invulnerable, we have a completely different problem though at which it's hurting FAF. I have so far ignored the council as it's not contributing anything but trying to regulate. It's becoming a burden of bureaucracy that's annoying contributors, costing their time and driving them out of FAF. This project spends so much time just talking instead of acting.
14
15"a breach of the contract": 
16a) I didn't sign a contract.
17b) at the time you start talking about a contract, the council becomes absolutely irrelevant, it's not your job to decide about a legal agreement between 2 other people, if sheeo has anything to say he should tell it to me personally
18c) I am a data processor according to GDPR, that's a data protection regulation, the data manipulated during the removal of the avatar is not personally identifying, therefore this is irrelevant
19d) I have actually refused requests from councillors due to GDPR and will continue to be an "oversight of the council" GDPR wise as I am legally required to do so
20e) i am not holding data access as a leverage against others
21f) this is subjective, define leverage, this is not defined in any contract and is actually what each moderator does on a daily basis
22
23This sounds like you're just trying to make this sound like an official, founded statement/decision which it isn't.
24
25but you guys are valued coders and contributors and so it was agreed to just tell you guys that if you operate under that notion, it will likely just lead to trouble down the road which will require a more stringent response
26So, we are valued coders, as long as we stay in line. Euhm, again, this is not a company with human resources you can manage. This is either a huge disrespect from FTX or the council treating us not as humans but as a value.
27
28"So it was agreed" - not going to honor anything that starts with the "the council has agreed". There's a reason parliamentary sessions are open. To me this sentence means 1 person wanted sth, 1 person agreed and the rest just nodded.
29
30"guys that if you operate under that notion" - we aren't guys, also, I will continue to operate under the notion of blocking everything that I think is injust, violates rules or law, everything else is just stupid
31
32"likely just lead to trouble down the road which will require a more stringent response" - I feel deeply offended and hope I don't have to translate this very formal expression to its century old meaning.
33
34rather than take any actual action
35You have taken an action. A devastating one. You have devalued and driven two major contributors to the point where they aren't sure anymore what the f they are doing here. All this council has brought so far from what I've seen has been wasting peoples' time and annoying them so much that they left FAF. I really envy Zep that he doesn't have to put up with this anymore.
36
37HOWEVER, it was also agreed that you are correct that we can be more transparent about why we make certain decisions
38Yes I know, the council agrees, and nothing ever happens. As can be seen from the transparency from this "decision".
39
40but if you expect that of us, we expect you to reciprocate the trust and ask the council before taking action that might affect the people on the council or that the council represents
41Euhm, "you get a treat for doing what we want, but don't you ever dare questioning the immortal council", did you even read what you were saying there?
42
43About Louvegarde:
44
45(She just sent me a screenshot of the message she received)
46
47That is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time. She has been investing hell a lot of work in this project. What happened here has exactly 0 to do with her role as a moderator. If you use that to push through a polticial agenda you basically 1) shout into here face that you don't value anything she's done for faf and 2) remove one of the most engaged moderators from FAF. FAF is always missing those and there are not a lot of people who are capable of putting up with the daily shit thrown around in aeolus and discord. 
48By allowing her to keep the server admin role, given one assumes your job is to regulate FAF, you're not regulating but reexpressing your trust. (which is actually also not your job but the task of the administration councillor)
49
50That means removing her moderation job for a non moderation related incident is a punishment for stepping out of line and not obeying the council. It's in no way beneficial to FAF as a regulation, heck, it didn't even affect a single FAF user, but only serves a poltical and personal revenge. Additionally, that decision was made behind closed doors by the people accusing her, that would be a nightmare for every western constitutional system.
51
52If a competant moderator would be removed from FAF due to this, the council would have finally turned into the community harming institution that I feared it could be due to the broken, non-democratic election/appointement process it uses.
53
54(to explain the non-democratic aspect, councillors are elected by a biased minority of faf players. Most players aren't even aware of the elections)
55
56In my opinion FAF should be an open community that allows volunteers to work together to build something great. Where lots of ideas are, discussions will arise. There is the need for someone stepping in when opinions conflict. What you're doing here is not that though. What you're doing is playing political games which is hurting everyone involved, especially the FAF players. At that point, you either were too disinterested to stop FTX from using his power to push his personal revenge (which would make him unsuited for the job) or you actually supported him which disgusts me as it would mean you are not doing this for the community but to increase your own power. (which is the entire point presented here, we are councillors, don't you dare touching any of us, even if we abuse our power, cause otherwise you will face consequences). By removing Louve as moderator while still leaving her server admin job, you are not distrusting her, you trust her but use the moderator role as a punishment for not respecting your power (all while keeping her dev "value"). This directly hurts the community, the contributors involved and makes me so sick that I'm questioning whether I want to be part of this community anymore.
57
58FAF is not an open community anymore.
59
60And yes, I intended this to be more than just a statement about the situation, I'm starting to question wether the council benefits or hurts FAF at all. We don't need a single authority trying to make decisions for a company.
61
62I also cannot imagine how FTX can still be capable of filling his councilor duties anymore, after witnessing him abusing of his privileges to insert a harmful avatar into the database, and then abusing his power again to prosecute the people who tried to prevent him from doing that.
63
64sheeo: Hi Geo,
65
66Yes. We're aware of this and you can take this message as representing the opinion of the council. In general, if someone from the council says they're speaking on behalf of it; they are and shouldn't be distrusted for doing so. I understand you've built up a different default view.
67
68This is an intransparent decision which makes the same mistake again that you were trying to fix. I'm imagining you in voice with FTX complaining and everyone else either not caring or not knowing the situation. Additionally it doesn't give any justification for what overstepping means, especially when it comes to overstepping on FTX' side. Just him being the player councillor doesn't change that a bit. It might mean he's responsible for the rules, but not that he doesn't have to follow them
69
70From my understanding of the situation, FtX was testing an avatar, you guys removed it and his powers from him under pretense of him exploiting his privileges. Is that incorrect?
71
72Whenever you refuse requests under the GDPR, please inform me as well as the person you are refusing. This is not the same as holding FAF hostage with data access.
73
74So, we are valued coders, as long as we stay in line. Euhm, again, this is not a company with human resources you can manage. This is either a huge disrespect from FTX or the council treating us not as humans but as a value.
75
76I'm sure FtX meant no disrespect, I rather read it as a compliment on his part to your massive contributions to the project.
77
78"So it was agreed" - not going to honor anything that starts with the "the council has agreed". There's a reason parliamentary sessions are open. To me this sentence means 1 person wanted sth, 1 person agreed and the rest just nodded.
79
80The council is not a parliament and our sessions are not open. If you disagree with this we should have a discussion about that particular axiom; but this has not been the case and while I understand it goes against your beliefs of how it should be, you must respect that currently this is not the case.
81
82"guys that if you operate under that notion" - we aren't guys
83
84In English using the term "guys" is a valid informal way of saying "people of either sex".
85
86also, I will continue to operate under the notion of blocking everything that I think is injust
87
88This is seriously problematic and incompatible with what I was expecting you to do given server access.
89
90violates rules or law, everything else is just stupid
91
92This is fine and nobody can ever tell you otherwise. If they do please inform me directly as requested above.
93
94"likely just lead to trouble down the road which will require a more stringent response" - I feel deeply offended and hope I don't have to translate this very formal expression to its century old meaning.
95
96I'm not sure how this offends you. Can you elaborate?
97
98You have taken an action. A devastating one. You have devalued and driven two major contributors to the point where they aren't sure anymore what the f they are doing here. All this council has brought so far from what I've seen has been wasting peoples' time and annoying them so much that they left FAF. I really envy Zep that he doesn't have to put up with this anymore.
99
100I'm sorry you feel this way.
101
102Yes I know, the council agrees, and nothing ever happens. As can be seen from the transparency from this "decision".
103
104How we communicate can very well be improved, everybody agrees here. But your statement isn't fair to the rest of us who, still dedicate our time for free to the project, like yourself.
105
106I'll not respond to the paragraph about Louvre. If she has complaints she can send her own message.
107
108In my opinion FAF should be an open community that allows volunteers to work together to build something great. Where lots of ideas are, discussions will arise. There is the need for someone stepping in when opinions conflict. What you're doing here is not that though. What you're doing is playing political games which is hurting everyone involved, especially the FAF players. At that point, you either were too disinterested to stop FTX from using his power to push his personal revenge (which would make him unsuited for the job) or you actually supported him which disgusts me as it would mean you are not doing this for the community but to increase your own power. (which is the entire point presented here, we are councillors, don't you dare touching any of us, even if we abuse our power, cause otherwise you will face consequences). By removing Louve as moderator while still leaving her server admin job, you are not distrusting her, you trust her but use the moderator role as a punishment for not respecting your power (all while keeping her dev "value"). This directly hurts the community, the contributors involved and makes me so sick that I'm questioning whether I want to be part of this community anymore.
109
110There is someone supposed to step in when opinions conflict: That's me, and I haven't had the time to do it in this case early enough. I'm sorry.
111
112I think you're incorrect in your analysis that FtX is acting on his own accord, and as explained above, you should at least yield him the benefit of the doubt and trust that he is acting on behalf of the council when he says so. Please do ask me or other councilors if you have doubts, but that's a far cry from outright asserting what you are.
113
114FAF is not an open community anymore.
115
116It's not open in what sense?
117
118And yes, I intended this to be more than just a statement about the situation, I'm starting to question wether the council benefits or hurts FAF at all. We don't need a single authority trying to make decisions for a company.
119
120It doesn't help your case to mix a complaint and a direct disagreement with the political structure. I understand that you do not like how the council is structured, but it's difficult to discern from where you are coming in your various responses.
121
122I also cannot imagine how FTX can still be capable of filling his councilor duties anymore, after witnessing him abusing of his privileges to insert a harmful avatar into the database, and then abusing his power again to prosecute the people who tried to prevent him from doing that.
123
124Harmful avatar? Harmful how?
125
126Geosearchef:
127also, I will continue to operate under the notion of blocking everything that I think is injust(, violates rules or law, everything else is just stupid)
128
129This is seriously problematic and incompatible with what I was expecting you to do given server access.
130
131I agree on that one, was expecting this sentence to get problematic, so let me clarify, as I've stated already when this avatar debate came up, I'm not going to judge what I'm doing as a server admin, so e.g. in moderation requests I tend to try to not get involved in decisions, what I mean by this though, is that when I see a councillor clearly violating rules, I will do sth against it
132
133Louvegarde: I'm still finding it extremely weird that when someone's case is discussed, they cannot in any way come and explain themselves in their own terms (nor even know that their case is being put in discussion) at all. In moderation most of the time there is a clear rule violation, but when there is not, I make sure to ask around people on the IRC / discord via PM to get more context.
134I'm pointing that out specifically because some of your answers show clearly that there has been some misinformation going on about that avatar story, which 1) I thought was solved since a long time 2) I still don't see how has anything to do with moderation at all
135I would redirect you back to the moderation request channel to read about it, but since the messages are now dispersed I would rather like to explain myself again about it. It's a shame I wasn't contacted about it at all, given how partial the trial must have been with the accusee off the room.
136
137Geosearchef: how do you quote on zulip?
138
139Louvegarde: In short, yes that avatar was harmful, no it didn't need to be uploaded for testing (as it has been for ages, exactly this way), no it didn't come from me but from messages I've received on discord because FtX was showing off on aeolus with his brand new meme avatar, and when I freezed his rights I pinged two councilors immediatly and told me to contact me back with new information so that normal activity could be resumed
140
141Louvegarde: I have a hard time picturing how badly this must have been bent and spinned to end up in such extremes
142
143sheeo: Triple backtick sections with the word quote immediately following them
144
145FtXCommando: i had done the same thing with two other avatars
146
147FtXCommando: gorton knew of the system as i asked him if it was ok and he agreed
148
149sheeo: Following the initial triple backticks*
150
151Geosearchef:
152From my understanding of the situation, FtX was testing an avatar, you guys removed it and his powers from him under pretense of him exploiting his privileges. Is that incorrect?
153
154This is the situation as FTX presents it. YOu need to know though, that avatar represents a Meme used by a part of the FAF community, that is in now way associated with FAF and definetly harmful to it
155
156Geosearchef: apart from the fact that testing an avatar on prod is bogus
157
158Geosearchef: what do you do if you don't want it, you ask a server admin to delete it?
159
160Louvegarde: @FtXCommando Would have he (or any other councilor) confirmed me that the situation was normal immediatly, I would've done exactly what you expected of me. I took that action as a measure of precaution as I described in when I took it.
161I will also add that this action was taken after consulting another server admin (Geo) to make sure I was impartial.
162
163Geosearchef: why not just send the image via discord
164
165Louvegarde: The link with moderation is still, to this day, unclear.
166
167FtXCommando: it’s not a “test” lol, it’s getting a chance to see if it looks bad in aeolus
168
169FtXCommando: again, gorton and i talked about this and he was fine with me doing this
170
171Geosearchef: you told us that you used it to show it to gorton if he's fine with it
172
173sheeo: "Getting a chance to see if it looks bad in aeolus" sounds like a test FtX :P
174
175FtXCommando: we are the only relevant parties on avatars, you overstepped your boundaries by not inquiring with one of us
176
177Louvegarde: It is indeed
178
179FtXCommando: end of discussion
180
181Geosearchef:
182we are the only relevant parties on avatars
183
184why?
185
186Louvegarde: You do seem to want that discussion to end up rather quickly, Ftx. I cannot agree.
187
188FtXCommando: because that’s how the faf rules define avatar authority
189
190FtXCommando: im quick because it’s a simple point
191
192sheeo: FtX, I'll take this from here, okay?
193
194Geosearchef: you are defining yourself to be right by saying you're right
195
196FtXCommando: ok
197
198sheeo: Let's split this discussion a bit. Quite a few things are going on.
199
200Ze Dogfather: Well why is it that in regards to transparency, there was no initial effort to at least contact the person in question (ftx) if what he was doing was right? Should there not have been an effort to question what he was doing before immediately assuming he was up to no good?
201
202Geosearchef: to every new person joining in here, did you actually see the avatar?
203
204Geosearchef: cause I got the same message from brutus
205
206Ze Dogfather: Yes
207
208sheeo: Firstly; Geo, the _only_ time under which your server access privileges overrule anything a councilor asks in good faith is iff they are either advertently or inadvertently breaking the GDPR or other applicable _laws_ of which you are aware and need to comply with.
209
210Geosearchef: till I told him to look at the avatar
211
212Ze Dogfather: But frankly considering all the imagery used in a variety of different events and usages, I'm seriously not understanding how this "represents the whole of FAF" with a meme
213
214Louvegarde: @Ze Dogfather Since FtX himself was suspected of abusing his authority, asking him directly "are you abusing of anything" would have been pretty irrelevant - it was also not my job at all as a server admin. I rather pinged two authorities of the council and froze his rights until the situation was solved, which is a sound thing to do when you do not know what is going on and someone is harming the community.
215But as I said earlier, I agree that I may have acted a bit quickly. I do not think however that the action was out of place.
216
217sheeo: Not _rules_, even if they were set forth by FAF. If you believe there's a rule break, you're well in your realm to bring this up to whoever is responsible and to go above -- but you are well _out of_ your way to refuse the action you're being asked.
218
219Ze Dogfather: There's Voodoo's frog photo that exists, and many others, so really not sure how his is actually so harmful
220
221Ze Dogfather: And so not asking anyone else either?
222
223Louvegarde: I've asked someone else before taking action, and notified two more.
224
225Ze Dogfather: This just seems hypocritical
226
227Louvegarde: Once again, it's a shame I wasn't asked why I deemed this to be harmful in the first place.
228
229Geosearchef: to clarify this a bit more, the avatar wasn't just removed, FTX access was removed and then 2 councillors were immediately pinged on how to resume with the situation
230
231sheeo: You do the action, then notify that you thought injustice/harm happened
232
233sheeo: The order of operations is important.
234
235Louvegarde: I did not do the action immediatly, I first consulted another server admin to make sure I wasn't doing wrong.
236
237sheeo: That's okay-- but that's not the same as withholding due to worries about harmfulness of the action
238
239Louvegarde: Plus the action wasn't taken neither with moderation powers nor with moderators nor in the field of moderation. I still do not see what is the link with moderation that you guys are making here.
240
241Geosearchef: to add some more context, this came directly after another situation with a moderator trying to insert a personal avatar into the db
242
243sheeo: Moderation traditionally manages avatars
244
245FtXCommando: you consulted server admins, not moderators
246
247Louvegarde: I did not manage the avatars using the moderation tool, I merely used mordor to verify that the avatar existed.
248
249sheeo: Perhaps you weren't familiar with this?
250
251Geosearchef:
252Moderation traditionally manages avatars
253
254we now have a perms system, this is in the process of being changed
255
256FtXCommando: if you were acting as a server admin, you would have contacted either gorton or a team of moderators to see if the action was justified or not and what action to take
257
258Louvegarde: As a moderator I've never added a new avatar into the game, and it was pretty obvious that since I consulted a sysadmin and not a moderator I wasn't doing this "as a moderator".
259
260Geosearchef: she was taking a server adminstative action, that's why she asked another server admin
261
262Louvegarde: I've also explained this in length multiple times already.
263
264sheeo: The perms system doesn't really change who's ultimately granted it; and I'm certainly not aware of any structural shift in responsibility from one area of responsibility to another (councilor -> councilor)
265
266FtXCommando: you decided the action was bad with zero consultation or oversight from relevant parties (moderation, me)
267
268FtXCommando: that is moderation abuse
269
270sheeo: FtX, please.
271
272Louvegarde: That is a rather heavy spin you're doing here. None of that had to do anything with moderation, and repeating "moderation traditionally manages avatars" is not going to help. I've used the server terminal directly and consulted another server admin (and even contacted a third one).
273Since I wasn't a moderator in the action, I've pinged the moderation councilor so that he could look into the action himself.
274
275Louvegarde: This being an affair of both the council and avatars, Gorton was the best person placed to judge of the situation - certainly not the moderator me.
276
277Louvegarde: Brutus on the other hand was pinged not only because he's part of the council, but because we notify him when taking a server action.
278If I didn't want to notify moderators as a server admin, why would I have used the moderation-request channel ?
279
280Louvegarde: I would've simply used the #moderators channel otherwise - this souded rather evident to me, but maybe it was not.
281
282Morax: guys, can we have a more cordial discussion via voice rather this lengthy amount of text? I can barely keep up with this...
283
284sheeo: In full disclosure I haven't read the full chat history and I'm a bit confused about the order.
285
286Brutus5000: Just regarding the discussion I think I made it pretty clear that I was not okay with your actions, but I stopped the discussion there as I tried to contact Gorton which seems to have completely vanished since the incident (or even longer). That does not mean I approved it in any way.
287
288sheeo: I'd like to invite to a voice chat as well, but I'm aware that not all parties would want to engage in that.
289
290Louvegarde: I did not say nor imply that Brutus approved this in any way (as he did not).
291
292Brutus5000: I am just clarifying.
293
294sheeo: Either way, Louvregarde: As I wrote above. I believe it's perfectly fine for you to notify moderators if you felt moderation rules were broken as part of your server admin actions which you were asked to perform by a councilor. No problem there. Clearly, you'd have to accuse yourself as a moderator by reason of being the executor.
295
296But withholding the action until you've received response isn't acceptable unless it's regarding breaking actual law.
297
298Louvegarde: and yes, the absence of Gorton is concerning. I had other matters to solve with him and I was waiting for him to come back but no idea where he is. Probably has stuff keeping him busy in real life (to be honest, me too).
299
300Ze Dogfather: You weren't a moderator in the action, and yet there was action taken as the initiative and informing Gorton after the fact of whether or not what you did was correct? I get that informing another server admin would be fine, though this again seems like jumping the gun than taking precaution
301
302sheeo: We need to operate under the assumption of good faith and trust between contributors.
303
304Louvegarde: I do not understand that statement :
305@sheeo  But withholding the action until you've received response isn't acceptable unless it's regarding breaking actual law.
306
307Louvegarde: Can you please rephrase it differently ?
308
309sheeo: If you ruspect rule breaking/harm/foul/anything when running action as a server admin:
310
311if action breaks law: cancel and immediately notify me
312else: action(); notify relevant parties
313
314Louvegarde: @Ze Dogfather I'm not sure I understand your initial sentence, but as I said earlier I pinged gorton precisely because this is a council issue, which is why I immediatly asked for clarification.
315
316Louvegarde: @sheeo I understand, but when did I withhold action regarding that ?
317
318sheeo: I'm not clear on that. I'm just making sure we all agree on that premise.
319
320Louvegarde: Yes, I agree.
321
322Morax: If a councilor acts out of line, the best course of action is the council discuss it, correct? And if someone outside that council sees so, they file a complaint, yet? That is what we did with myself and Louv, and it worked out well.
323
324Louvegarde: Did it ?
325
326Ze Dogfather: Did it not?
327
328Morax: You did accept the apology, no?
329
330Louvegarde: Yes I did
331
332Morax: I wrote that out of belief that you will honor what was discussed and stay lowkey
333
334Morax: so i say it worked for us.
335
336Louvegarde: I've waited for weeks full of stress for a black box to give out an approximative and ambivalent answer. This was insanely slow and intricate, and so opaque that it was impossible for me to understand which process was behind it.
337
338sheeo: I think it worked as well as it could given our lack of time. There's room for improvement in terms of latency and the channels themselves though.
339
340Louvegarde: In the end it worked
341
342Louvegarde: and I do not consider myself in bad terms with Morax as of now
343
344Geosearchef: the issue here is the black box
345
346Louvegarde: But gosh. I've had one hell of a stress out of it. And really, I shouldn't have to.
347
348Geosearchef: nobody has any idea what you do and why
349
350Geosearchef: in this case, you just came out with "You are no longer moderator" without any option for debtate or justification for the decision
351
352sheeo: I think you're misattributing the reason for this as being malice as opposed to a simple lack of time
353
354Morax: Louv, we are all stressed and i think the bottom line is to keep to our own duties, and if an issue arises, to be more patient and wait for a larger panel to discuss matters.
355
356Louvegarde: The thing with the morax process taking time, I do not think it was malice
357
358Ze Dogfather: Well if we had any consistent timing with getting feedback ourselves it would feel a lot different, but sometimes situations like having Gorton disappear or never getting a hold of sheeo (wink) in a timely manner is troublesome
359
360Geosearchef: @sheeo you assumed that I shouldn't be concerned with Louvegarde moderation role, I am due to the fact that I believe this unnecessarily removes a capable moderator from FAF which is still trusted as they are still a server admin anyways
361
362Louvegarde: I do not think either that as a moderator I've done anything that would justify either a warning or a demotion, as of now.
363
364sheeo: Understood Geo, but that's quite a lof of things to process at once. Let's try and focus on one thing at a time
365
366Geosearchef: yes
367
368Louvegarde: Since the story with Morax in particular I've paid a particular attention to staying low and taking more distance with FAF, which itself had nothing to do with moderation aswell. So that's double the interrogation for me.
369
370Morax: Louv, but then why get involved with councilor decisions so soon?
371
372Morax: That is not very low key. I personally would have stuck to reports of player issues in game, devolopment, and lighter tasks that don't spark as much discussion among us.
373
374Morax: and sheeo, if you want me to step away let me know, but geo did write this message to all of us.
375
376Louvegarde: I'm not going to stop functioning. Going lowkey means going forward less, it does not mean stopping to fulfill your duties entirely. I understand your train of thought, but what I did as a server admin was an action that seemed reasonable and right on the moment - and because I wanted to make sure this wouldn't be a fuck up, I asked for confirmation of the action by another admin before doing anything.
377
378Geosearchef: I wrote it to the council as FTX was (as has been confirmed) talking for the council and I was wanting to address those points
379
380Louvegarde: Obviously, I did not expect this to spark any huge controversy as I put two councilors on the matter to get back to me with information.
381
382sheeo: I think everyone should have a chance to respond; but please take your time and try to maintain brevity: As brutus mentioned none of us have time to read walls of text.
383
384Ze Dogfather: In regards to the moderation being related to this incident, this should have some kind of impact since there was a discussion about the manner of handling the responsibility of moderation. There were key issues brought up in the former discussion, and while yes it was simply to do with that subject, it doesn't seem too far out of place with this situation that there was a consistent issue of mishandling powers and responsibility. Simply saying that "that was a moderation issue, this is a server admin issue" doesn't reassure anyone here that perhaps there is an underlying problem with trying to correctly administer both roles, and we treated it in similar spirit.
385
386FtXCommando: IMG_4932.PNG
387
388
389FtXCommando: if you didnt know who was responsible for tourney avatars, should have asked council itself or anyone on it to point you in the correct direction
390
391Geosearchef: Capture.PNG
392
393
394Louvegarde: I've been accused at few occasions to mishandle powers, and each time the matter was either dismissed as it was false, or it was true and resulted in a change in my behavior to adapt to the new standards. All of you can witness that I change continually (as I've changed since I've first been here) precisely with that intent.
395
396FtXCommando: gorton has read and agreed to it
397
398FtXCommando: specifically because it used to be exotic in charge of avatars
399
400Ze Dogfather: I cannot say I share the same sentiment, but small steps are steps.
401
402FtXCommando: but he left mod team and gorton told me to put him in charge of it
403
404Morax: Geo that is about as valid a concern as me writing the maps and modification rules for the community
405
406FtXCommando: him = gorton
407
408Geosearchef: to add onto that, my main complaint was not about the avatar situation, it was about how you (the council) reacted
409
410sheeo: Can you elaborate on this complaint Geo, how did he react wrongly?
411
412Geosearchef: this entire avatar thing is peanuts
413
414Geosearchef: it's sad we even spent our time debating about thing like that
415
416sheeo: Your cutout of FtX authoring the post tells me we're not at the bottom of the axiomatic thing.
417
418Geosearchef: What I'm complaining about is the fact the the council judged somebody without giving them the possibility to defend themselves, then announced a black box decision and let the person that was accusing somebody else deliver the judgement
419
420sheeo: The council functions as it does currently; if you have suggestions for how to change it, you're more than welcome to present them to us. But please do so in a coherent, single suggestion/request -- not in a series of responses and counter productive reactions to how it currently works.
421
422Louvegarde: @Ze Dogfather I think it is not too much of an overstatement to say that while I'm no more perfect than the other moderators, and that there could probably be some things that I could change to be overall smoother, there are also some people who definitely just _want me gone_ without any regard for the community at all.
423
424Geosearchef: Can somebody please give me a reason why you are trying to reduce the moderator count in FAF by one?
425
426Morax: Geo, this is not the first time the council has discussed. i think that is what you are missing here.
427
428Geosearchef: it's not like you are distrusting her, as she still has the capability due to being a server admin
429
430Geosearchef: so to me this seems like a "you overstepped a boundary" punishment
431
432Louvegarde: (This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that some people put a lot of effort in wanting me gone from he moderator role. Before I even started, this was already the case, and I'm sure all of you can remember.)
433
434Geosearchef: which in this case hurts the faf community
435
436Geosearchef: and the main reason I debate this is not me wanting to defend louve, it's me not wanting this community to loose a moderator, which we don't have a lot of to begin with
437
438sheeo: Can we please discuss one thing at a time. It's unfortunate that Gorton isn't here to help discuss the moderator issue and we've not had his input before dealing with this.
439
440Louvegarde: Well, yeah.
441
442Louvegarde: It would have probably been more civil to send Gorton to exchange with me on this subject precisely before taking any action.
443
444Geosearchef: that's the same as I feel about the server admin thing + @sheeo (not blaming, but if there is some server admin related issue, please talk to me sheeo)
445
446FtXCommando: i waited 3 days for gorton to resolve this with me before approaching council
447
448Morax: That is kind of the problem in a nut shell, is that we have had to ask Gorton to discuss how you take actions many times, Louv.
449
450Louvegarde: As taking actions without consulting or talking to the proper people in the first place is precisely what you believe to be where I abused, it's rather unfortunate that you did the exact same thing
451
452FtXCommando: i went through all channels and exhausted all resources
453
454sheeo: Unfortunately Louvre; Gorton is gone. I've reached out to him on multiple channels and not heard anything. Frankly I'm getting quite worried
455
456Louvegarde: (But I'm not going to throw the stone at you or anything, because I understand how hard it must be to organize yourselves in the council)
457
458FtXCommando: we gave gorton 10 days to give input and then voted on what action to take
459
460sheeo: I agree it would've been better to await his response, but as you said earlier: A full council process takes too long and something needed to happen in this case.
461
462That doesn't mean it cannot be undone and appealed.
463
464Ze Dogfather: Sure, and you would not be the first person to have that sentiment with people wanting you out of the community (it's like it's an internet culture out here), and that sucks. But as far as what's on the line here: nobody here wants you out of the community, nobody is trying to oust you from contributing. More importantly I do think even with past conflicts that people can change. However there are times that there should be a foot in the sand on certain problems, and I think that is what we are trying to establish here on certain grounds.
465
466Morax: You have a good heart and passion to do things well, but it often comes to a fault. If you need to be consulted on how to act this frequently, that is the problem I see. I think others would agree.
467
468Ze Dogfather: (I hate how fast this conversation goes :( )
469
470Morax: As far as the council goes, I think we are all getting along great. I have had zero debacles with ANY of the councils spare moderation to this point in my job.
471
472Morax: I have enjoyed working on FAF more then ever since I got this M&M thing and everyone has been quite supportive. There was some bad friction at the start like all things, but lately it seems quite pleasing to work on things.
473
474Louvegarde: Seeing my activity, even if it decreased by a bit, it seems normal that you guys get a hear from me from time to time. If I was sleeping on the job, we wouldn't be having this discussion - but again, I'm not a moderator for the emblem. Considering some people want me gone (and that isn't really just a sentiment), i could not call the sole number of accusations a good metric for measuring anything.
475
476Morax: But back on topic, I think Gorton needs to get back asap and at least say "hi, i am aware there is an issue but i am quite overwhelmed."
477
478Morax: why can he not at least say this?
479
480Louvegarde: If I've managed to change up to this day to conform to your standards and still push forward, I do not believe today is any different than any other. I will simply notify the council without taking any action next time, and that's about it.
481
482sheeo: That's why I'm getting concerned Morax; this is very uncharacteristic of him.
483
484Morax: only he knows what he discussed with Louv so it's a complete mystery to me as to what kind of words he may share on the topic.
485
486Louvegarde: I will also note that this issue happened not with my moderation powers, but with my production server access. What I did that you accuse me of having done, is something that I could only do with my server admin access - that's why it seems to obvious to me that it's a server admin thing.
487I've never, and will never, use the server admin power to apply moderation (this has never been part of the deal)
488
489Morax: I agree , Sheeo, and just like myself telling the mod/map gurus how to handle matters with people, gorton needs to be here too for guidance.
490
491Louvegarde: As of such, if you believe there has been a power abuse, the server access should be on the table - not the moderation.
492
493FtXCommando: both were on the table
494
495Morax: Louv, we are already past the point. the council unanimously voted and discussed we think you acted wrong. do you understand? The only missing vote was sheeo and gorton, but based on Sheeo's reply above he pretty much agreed with us.
496
497Louvegarde: Not really on the same _part_ of the table. There's no point in playing on words.
498
499Louvegarde: @Morax I am not past that point, no. I've requested this discussion to appeal/contest this decision, so there in no point in tagging it as past. I'm here to discuss it, not to review it.
500
501Louvegarde: (But the story is a bit clearer to me now that I've had the chance to hear your part of the story. It also appears, following that discussion, that the chain of event wasn't clear for everyone.)
502
503Brutus5000: The server admins duty is nothing but to keep the server running, deploy software, fix security issues and help on moderation inquiries. It is not a role to take action against any rule violation on your own in a server admin role.
504That's why I personally say you cannot just say "I did this in my server admin role not in my moderator role".
505
506sheeo: Louvregarde: So, basing on the premise from earlier on which we agree.
507
508Who asked you to remove the avatar?
509
510Ze Dogfather: Well as I relayed before, I believe that the issue of mismanaging the powers and responsibility is kindred to what is going now was what we felt then. I do not believe that you can dodge the issue of moderation in question when you do something problematic and "moderation-like"
511
512Louvegarde: @sheeo I was not asked to remove the avatar. I was simply sent screenshots of aeolus and notified that this was going on. I've then went directly to the moderation-request channel, to notify others and asked Geo (the only online server admin at the time i wrote the message) for confirmation.
513
514Louvegarde: The action to freeze FTX's rights until clarification was from me, and I took it in my name. I did not take it alone, of course. But I did take it.
515
516sheeo: Yes, that's rather problematic and deserves a consequence in and of itself.
517
518Geosearchef: Capture.PNG
519
520
521Louvegarde: Then if you think that is problematic, that means it requires either a more thoughtful discussion about my role as a server admin (if you still think I can fulfill that purpose) or a removal of the server administration role entirely if you decide that I am unfit.
522
523sheeo: Which the rest of the council voted on and indeed did unanimously agree to strip you of your powers for. This stands until we bring it up in the council again which _of course_ is on the table. Especially when Gorton comes back to weigh in.
524
525sheeo: No, I believe the problem is from a moderation standpoint: You took it upon yourself to be the judge and executioner of this without involving other moderators prior to execution.
526
527Louvegarde: That's because, as I did not make use of any moderation power to apply that action nor judge the situation, this was not a moderation action
528
529sheeo: Your server admin roles, while you violated what we discussed earlier; are irrelevant since it's effectively from your own request
530
531Louvegarde: It may have seemed "moderation-like", but if in the exact same situation I had not been moderator, I would have been able to do the same and would have probably done the same.
532
533Geosearchef: I wouldn't say she was the judge and the executioner
534
535Geosearchef: if you take a look at the screenshot, all she did was freeze FTX powers till the siutation was resolved by the council
536
537sheeo: You could've done the same thing using mordor, no?
538
539Ze Dogfather: Wouldn't you? You keep referring to this premise of "overseeing" the council?
540
541Geosearchef: no
542
543sheeo: I do not believe the tool you used is relevant.
544
545Louvegarde: No, I couldn't (or at least I have no idea how to do)
546
547Geosearchef: api route was broken
548
549Louvegarde: I cannot remove avatars via mordor as far as I know
550
551Louvegarde: and I did not intend to
552
553Geosearchef: (since years)
554
555sheeo: So, a fault in the tool meant it couldn't be done, but under normal operation it could?
556
557Geosearchef: no
558
559Geosearchef: it wasn't possible for ages
560
561Geosearchef: the upload being fixed is also new
562
563Geosearchef: before that I would manually upload avatars when requested by mods
564
565Louvegarde: The tool is relevant as it informs on what state of mind I had in the action. I was making use of the database access, not of the mordor, to take action - that says long on what that action was.
566
567Louvegarde: If we're talking of what I've done wrong, the _why_ and _how_ are at least as important if not more than the _what_ - at least if you're striving for that thing not to happen again, and not for some kind of punishment.
568
569Louvegarde: I'm glad geo posted the messages again because I couldn't fidn them in the history for some reason. I invite you to read them again and ask yourself if this looks like a moderation log.
570
571sheeo: To me the why and what are the only relevant details. How does not really matter in this case.
572
573Ze Dogfather: The one in the moderation request channel?
574
575Louvegarde: Yes, the screenshot above
576
577Geosearchef: this one https://faforever.zulipchat.com/#narrow/pm-with/229523,229531,229588,229617,229619,229629,229678,229693,229778-group/near/182500310
578
579sheeo: It does seem like a moderation log -- infact it seems like a super moderation log where you're acting as superintendents deciding what the council should do without awaiting a response first
580
581Ze Dogfather: Yes I know, the intended point of asking was to reiterate the topic of the channel with the subject
582
583Geosearchef: we have our opinions, yes, but if we ask the council we're not telling the council what to do
584
585Ze Dogfather: "This isn't a moderation log" sure, but it does seem to vividly depict moderation engagement
586
587Geosearchef: this is the moderation request channel
588
589Geosearchef: ofc people small talk in there
590
591Louvegarde: That consider the action moderation-like is pretty irrelevant, because I took the action with server admin powers/access and as a server admin (even if you felt like this was the wrong state of mind). That's why putting moderation on the table is so alien to me - if I hadn't been moderator at the time, I would have done the same thing. On the other hand, as a moderator I would've probably just furiously pinged Gorton and that's about it.
592
593Louvegarde: Because, again, as a moderator, this is not my field and is not up to me to regulate what avatars FtX should or should not have.
594
595sheeo: It's not your field as a server admin either, though.
596
597Ze Dogfather: Perhaps because the line between the server administration and moderation roles and actions has become blurred?
598
599Geosearchef: to be fair, it's no one's field
600
601Geosearchef: so the action was, freeze so no community member is disturbed and contact council
602
603Louvegarde: I'm more inclined to discuss that it's probably not my field as a server admin either, but again, that's what checks are for. The only other server admin in the room nodded.
604
605Louvegarde: We have 3 active server admins in total - brutus, geo and me. That means 2 of them, out of 3, had apparently a very wrong understanding of their function according to you. That's the majority of them
606
607Louvegarde: That does sound very weird
608
609Ze Dogfather: And one of them is among the council
610
611FtXCommando: yes
612
613FtXCommando: and it’s why you got a warning
614
615Louvegarde: Yes - but also, the moderation powers vanished, although as you can see they were never a part of that precise situation.
616
617Louvegarde: Geosearchef is not a moderator. If he had been, would his moderators right have been stripped to ?
618
619FtXCommando: he wasnt the party to contact
620
621FtXCommando: so irrelevant
622
623Geosearchef: one of the server admins being on the council is irrelevant as he is there as devops councillor
624
625sheeo: It's not no-one's field, no.
626
627Ze Dogfather: Which is very weird that you seem to blatantly disregard in service to this idea that there is an "oversight" of the council. Which I'm still hung up on the hypocrisy of feigning "lack of transparency" when you clearly delivered a dose of your own.
628
629Louvegarde: I'm not sure what you mean by oversight. Do you mean that according to you I've tried to prevent the council from functioning in FAF ?
630
631Ze Dogfather: There was simply no effort to communicate with the council; the only one who was contacted was Brutus
632
633Louvegarde: I've contacted both Brutus and Gorton at the precise moment anything was done. Your statement is false - the whole action was communicated immediatly with the council.
634
635sheeo: Just because the permission system was implemented and there wasn't yet somebody decided to oversee it doesn't mean it's nobody's: It clearly falls back to the council as a whole, and within the council I'm pretty sure we'd each agree who decides on individual permissions quite rapidly if needed.
636
637Ze Dogfather: Perhaps this is not you Louv, but rather what is being paraphrased from Geo's standpoint
638
639Ze Dogfather: Because it is a rather skewed perspective to say the least
640
641Geosearchef:
642There was simply no effort to communicate with the council; the only one who was contacted was Brutus
643
644to repeat a previous by sheeo, one of you talks for all of you
645
646sheeo: The action should not have been executed without agreement from the council in the first place, this is way overstepping acting as a server administrator.
647
648Geosearchef: so there was more communication with the council than needed
649
650Morax: Does anyone have a picture of this avatar that caused the ruckus anyways?
651
652Louvegarde: @sheeo I've agreed with that earlier on.
653
654Morax: I still don't even know what made it "violating"
655
656Geosearchef: RqdxdSU.jpg
657
658sheeo: Yeah, I'm just reiterating for clarity. Sorry if I'm making noise :slight_smile:
659
660Ze Dogfather: You did not try to speak to ftx, you simply resorted to pulling the trigger and ask questions later
661
662FtXCommando: you know perfectly well sheeo said that in the context of him reading all arguments
663
664FtXCommando: so he had a solid understanding of council position
665
666Louvegarde: No it's alright, but then what I don't understand is the longjump between that and the moderation.
667
668Morax: So can someone explain to me why a guy with sunglasses on demands action?
669
670Geosearchef: unknown-1.png
671
672Louvegarde: If you think I've acted wrongly as a server operator and that I am no longer fit for the function, the server operator role is the one you want to take.
673
674FtXCommando: obviously we are not a hivemind and do have different opinions BEFORE reaching a consensus
675
676Louvegarde: If you think I can still do some good, a discussion regarding the server operator role is in order.
677
678Morax: Louv, by moderation or FAF rules, how did this avatar break any of them?
679
680Geosearchef:
681You did not try to speak to ftx, you simply resorted to pulling the trigger and ask questions later
682
683not really, FTX was using the avatar to chat in aeolus and people were confused, so the action was to stop such behaviour till clarification
684
685FtXCommando: using the avatar to chat in aeolus?
686
687Louvegarde: As far as I know this avatar did not break any rule of FAF, but I did not try to apply a rule by taking a server action anyway as I wasn't doing any moderator's duty.
688
689sheeo: I personally think you can still do good both as a server admin and a moderator Louvregarde.
690
691Ze Dogfather: Again, without speaking to him, and not being aware that there was a previously observed agreement between Gorton and Ftx?
692
693Louvegarde: @Ze Dogfather This was answered previously
694
695Ze Dogfather: Perhaps if you simply told ftx he would have revoked it?
696
697Ze Dogfather: Was that simply beyond comprehension?
698
699Geosearchef: as far as we were aware the avatar deletion was broken
700
701Geosearchef: so he can't just remove it
702
703sheeo: But we need Gorton back before we discuss anything further about reversal of the action the council agreed to take based on this -- I see your argument and I think the council should delibrate on it. But we want Gorton in on that.
704
705Ze Dogfather: This is where the escalation of conflict could have completely been avoided
706
707Ze Dogfather: Then he would have asked you to delete the avatar
708
709Ze Dogfather: And not suspend his role
710
711Ze Dogfather: This was a critical error of management here, and this is what we agreed on.
712
713Geosearchef: so you mean he uploads an avatar to test it and if it doesn't fit he creates workload for a server admin
714
715Geosearchef: testing on prod
716
717Geosearchef: just NOPE
718
719Louvegarde: I fail to understand how it is reasonable to bypass Gorton once for inactivity, but once the damage is done, to wait again for Gorton before repairing anything.
720
721Louvegarde: I understand the process, but by all means, please give me an estimate of the delay
722
723FtXCommando: well technically
724
725FtXCommando: gorton should be forcibly resigned
726
727FtXCommando: because being offline for a week technically breaks ur pledge
728
729Ze Dogfather: Well it seems that you were just as eager to remove the avatar just as you were to do that AND remove his permissions
730
731FtXCommando: we arent doing that
732
733Morax: Louv, because you were under probation
734
735Ze Dogfather: So that doesn't really fly by me Geo
736
737Louvegarde: I was not under probation
738
739Morax: and further, the council does a majority vote on issues.
740
741Geosearchef:
742So that doesn't really fly by me Geo
743
744wdym?
745
746Louvegarde: "Being under probation" means something, which just isn't true in that case. 
747As far as I've been communicated by with Gorton, I was not in probation for anything
748
749Louvegarde: I was just instructed to not speak too much with morax, basically
750
751Ze Dogfather: Refer to the subject, but honestly we're forking in different directions here anyway
752
753Louvegarde: That is a rather huge stretch to call it a probation period
754
755Morax: Then he failed to communicate this or you did not understand.
756
757Geosearchef: that is not her fault
758
759sheeo: Some miscommunication certainly happened here, but we can't resolve it until we hear from Gorton.
760
761Louvegarde: 
762Louvegarde: This is absolutely everything I've received from gorton on the subject
763
764Louvegarde: As you can see, it is never question of a probation period
765
766Louvegarde: Even if it was, that probation would probably regard moderation - not server access
767
768Louvegarde: I can send more messages privately to sheeo if you can but I'd prefer avoid exposing huge chunks of PM publicly.
769
770sheeo: The punishment performed here Louvre is based on the assumption that you were abusing your server admin powers acting unauthorized as a moderator
771
772Morax: Sheeo i think Gorton dropped a big ball here if that is the case.
773
774Louvegarde: Yes, but I hope that is now clear to you that I did not act in any way in the name of moderation.
775
776Louvegarde: if not i'm afraid I'm reaching the very end of my english skills to express it :cat:
777
778Ze Dogfather: Well what we've been expressing so far has not been the "assumption" that you were doing so, but rather that you did
779
780sheeo: It's not perfectly clear to me, no. But as I said I think we should deliberate on it and I'd like to ask you more about what happened here. But we do need to involve Gorton for a few issues here and while I know that's frustrating, it's the only way to get to an optimal result.
781
782I can't give you an estimate of the timeline. But clearly if we don't hear anything in relatively short order we'll have to pick a new moderation councilor asap.
783
784Ze Dogfather: And you did not realize it
785
786Louvegarde: Also, it does not sound very wise to apply punishments - your goal should rather be that this thing does not happen again, no? 
787In moderation at least the goal is rather to have people misbehaving not to misbehave again, not to "punish" them by stripping them from something unrelated.
788
789sheeo: At a meta level this entire thing is to me a mixture of my own administrative area and the moderation councilor's area. So we're missing half the principally responsible councilors.
790
791Morax: How can you say that after you removed a councilor's capability?
792
793Louvegarde: Because that wasn't, in any mean, a moderation action nor a moderator action.
794
795Geosearchef: she didn't remove a councillors capability
796
797Louvegarde: The freeze was done to prevent FTX from uploading or reuploading other avatars until the situation was sorted out.
798
799Geosearchef: she removed it temporarily while contacting other councillors about a councillor overstepping
800
801Louvegarde: This is not the same as, for example, messaging someone on the IRC to try and talk them out of using the n-word
802
803Geosearchef: it's not like she tried to prevent him from doing anything related to his job
804
805Louvegarde: I do not know what your view on moderation is, but mine is certainly not a "way to deliver fancy punishments"
806
807Geosearchef: as can be clearly seen from the screenshot, this was immediately handed to the reponsible councillors
808
809Ze Dogfather: It's still concerning that you're trying to distance the problem by calling it something else, when we've been trying to emphasis the underlying issue here
810
811Louvegarde: I'm not calling it something else
812
813Louvegarde: Look at the messages I've sent when I took action
814
815Louvegarde: "I've removed the access _for the moment_"
816
817Louvegarde: This was litterally what I did - I removed precisely avatar uploading, to avoid any further uploading, and this was temporary.
818
819sheeo: In this case, I should've probably been pinged, too. The severity of stripping a councilor of their powers cannot be understated, and you clearly did wrong in doing this prior to seeking authorization.
820
821Ze Dogfather: It is not one or the other, they are distinctly related simply due to the nature of its managment
822
823Louvegarde: Saying that I impeached the council of acting is another long jump considering that not only they were the first informed, but also that it was a precise action meant from the start as temporary.
824
825Geosearchef:
826The severity of stripping a councilor of their powers cannot be understated
827
828can we stop pretending councillors are gods for a second please?
829
830Louvegarde: @sheeo Next time I will probably just ping the whole council to be honest
831
832Ze Dogfather: We're not, can you just relax?
833
834sheeo: I don't believe my statement says that in any way, Geo.
835
836Geosearchef: yes, it does
837
838Geosearchef: it says exactly that
839
840sheeo: @Louvegarde doing that and then not perfoming any action would've been better, yes.
841
842Louvegarde: @sheeo I've previously agreed on this²
843
844Geosearchef: I agree, we have to have someone regulating and taking important decisions
845
846Ze Dogfather: Attempting to grasp straws with making us sound so pompous in that way
847
848sheeo: No, it does not say exactly that. It says that stripping a councilor of their powers is a severe action and must not be understated. How does that equate to councilors being deities?
849
850sheeo: That's absurd.
851
852Geosearchef: but if the devops councillor comes and asks me to do something related to moderation, I will not care a single second
853
854Louvegarde: It was (probably) just sounding a bit overdramatic i think.
855
856sheeo: Did this happen?
857
858Geosearchef: also, stripping of their powers, she didn't restrict his power to create avatars
859
860Geosearchef: remember, a few days earlier mods used to ping and wait for me to upload
861
862Ze Dogfather: It is to indicate seriousness, there was no self-congratulatory ovation for simply pointing out why we need to take a councilor removal serious
863
864Geosearchef: she temporarily removed that and pinged 2 councillors which was rolled back after at most a few hours
865
866FtXCommando: it wasnt rolled back
867
868Geosearchef: the entire point you're fabricating here is that she somehow touched your power and that must be punished, which is the point I find really concerning
869
870FtXCommando: i had to have 2 tournies withhold avatars because i was waiting for brutus/council to form a consensus on whether i would get the privileges back
871
872Geosearchef: that's not her fault
873
874Geosearchef: that's the same thing she's complaining about
875
876Ze Dogfather: This is true, you are involved too yes?
877
878FtXCommando: well it is because this whole event could have been resolved by a 5 minute pm to me or gorton
879
880Ze Dogfather: Which is why we brought you here along to understand why this was a problem
881
882Geosearchef: there was a pm to gorton
883
884FtXCommando: right and he didnt answer
885
886Louvegarde: If I had been messaged by a councilor to restore the powers, as I've said in those very early messages, I would've restored FTX's power immediatly
887
888Geosearchef: and a pm to brutus
889
890Louvegarde: The only thing I asked for was for clarification
891
892Louvegarde: The problem is that it never came out of the black box
893
894FtXCommando: you should have asked BEFORE revoking the powers
895
896Ze Dogfather: Again I'm not understanding why not Ftx himself?
897
898FtXCommando: you took action based on imperfect information
899
900FtXCommando: and this created needless drama
901
902Ze Dogfather: If you're gonna not involve him in this and treat it like he's some kind of offender, perhaps that was a result of the moderation mentality
903
904Louvegarde: This is the fourth time I agree that I should've waited more before taking action despite confirmation from another admin.
905
906Louvegarde: I do not think I've "created this needless drama"
907
908Geosearchef: you took action without talking to somebody responsible technically by uploading an avatar to prod (you should never test on prod) and this created needless drama
909
910Louvegarde: Some people seem to be putting much more effort than me into it
911
912sheeo: Okay look. Louvre/Geo: Do you both agree that you should've awaited a response before acting?
913
914Geosearchef: you were lucky the deletion feature was just fixed, otherwise you would have had to create work for a server admin to delete
915
916Ze Dogfather: Seemed to have worked out since you did that on top of the other things
917
918Geosearchef: retroactively no, I had my reasons for the decision, for the future I will
919
920Louvegarde: As I've said earlier, I agree.
921But as it was said in the PM I received, knowing that we can have a fast response from the council in time of need would greatly increase our trust in pinging the council for decisions.
922
923Geosearchef: although this was not actually an action, it was freezing the state by preventing harm of this avatar being shipped to users while awaiting a response
924
925FtXCommando: if i wanted to give out the avatar arbitrarily i would have done it from the start
926
927Ze Dogfather: Which sounds like an action
928
929FtXCommando: that reasoning makes no sense
930
931Louvegarde: In the moderation chat I'm often pushing other moderators and gorton so that applications are answered quickly, because I know how the "black box" effect feels like. I do not know if you guys do the same, but id you don't, i would appreciate that you do :cat:
932
933Ze Dogfather: Well believe me I know
934
935Ze Dogfather: Took a month or two to get a response from sheeo ;)
936
937sheeo: I understand and I'd love to have a council-requests stream where quick access to all councilors from people trusted not to spam us is allowed. We used to have a big-round-table chat which perhaps we should reintroduce?
938
939sheeo: And yes. I'm personally a big part of the problem. I'm sorry.
940
941sheeo: My latency spikes are at times quite big due to what I do
942
943Geosearchef: We are all aware and fully understand the fact that people don't have time, that's fine
944
945Ze Dogfather: Having a chat where people can send requests and perhaps just act as a safety net in terms of communication, would be nice
946
947Ze Dogfather: That way we have an official record we can all keep track of
948
949Geosearchef: just like moderation-request, e.g. council-request
950
951Louvegarde: Yep
952
953Louvegarde: would help immensely
954
955sheeo: Given that you now both agree with what not to do in the future I suggest we put the avatar situation to rest. A lot of people have to read a lot of text in this stream and it's getting circular
956
957Geosearchef: the only question is, do you want it public, or just people likely to inquire (mods, server admins, ...)
958
959Ze Dogfather: Don't necessarily want to have a public dump that somebody can just shite on
960
961Geosearchef: yeah, it may go wrong
962
963Ze Dogfather: But we don't want to lock it behind too many doors either
964
965Louvegarde: The moderation-request channel looks like it works okay, and the #moderation channel too
966
967Louvegarde: #moderation is used by any user to hand out issues to the moderation team and it's a very useful channel of communication
968
969Louvegarde: It is not really spammed or anything - even though god knows how touch of a subject moderation is
970
971Louvegarde: I'm pretty sure the council could use the same
972
973Ze Dogfather: Agreed
974
975sheeo: Yes. Let's just do it and see what happens. I'll create it
976
977Geosearchef: that's probably best, as you can discuss some more internal things in the private one from people likely to request things
978
979Louvegarde: By the way
980
981Louvegarde: There's another thing, while all of you are here
982
983Geosearchef: e.g. in the moderation-request channel you got GDPR sensitive data
984
985Louvegarde: I'm going to ask you something, which is not related to the FTX avatar situation, but that I would definitely like to be precised
986
987Louvegarde: (I insist on the fact that this is a different topic)
988
989Ze Dogfather: Precised? Or clear?
990
991Louvegarde: Back when I started in the moderation team more than a year ago, I asked privately Voodoo (back then mod councilor) some questions about how handle moderation. One of them was - are councilors supposed to be bound by the FAF rules, or not?
992It seemed obvious to me than yes, but I wanted to check - and Voodoo told me that the answer was yes.
993I'm not talking about FtX's case, but rather for example something very very obvious like a teamkill. If a player is reported for teamkilling, and that player happens to be a councilor (and the case is pretty clear):
994- Should I take action?
995- Do I have to notify the council before taking action?
996- Do I have to wait for the council before taking action?
997
998In normal times I would have asked gorton directly, but I assume he would've redirected the question to you guys in anyway (?), and gorton isn't really there at the moment anyway so I wanted to gather your opinion
999
1000Louvegarde: (As of now this has never happened, I think one of you got a short chatban at some point but it wasn't from me and I don't remember it precisely)
1001
1002FtXCommando: not for breaking faf rules and stuff like that
1003
1004sheeo: Of course we're bound by the FAF rules. There's only one person which you don't mess with if he breaks the rules, that situation sucks but there's no way around it.
1005
1006sheeo: So to answer your questions:
1007- Yes
1008- No
1009- No
1010
1011Louvegarde: Ok! Thank you for clearing that up
1012
1013Louvegarde: I'm going to write it somewhere in the moderation chat in case anyone in the future wonders the same thing
1014
1015Ze Dogfather: So does this signal the end of the conversation or is it on hold for some reason?
1016
1017Ze Dogfather: Oh boy my Halo mcc collection finished downloading just now
1018
1019Geosearchef: :)
1020
1021Ze Dogfather: More room for Halo! ;)
1022
1023
1024-----COUNCIL CHAMBERS-----
1025sheeo: @FtXCommando would you relay the full message you sent to Geo and Louvre? I lack a bit of context reading his reply.
1026
1027sheeo: Sorry about this, I feel like it's happening because I didn't step in and take over, which I should've done.
1028
1029I'll take my time and respond here
1030
1031FtXCommando: geo-reponse.png
1032
1033
1034sheeo: Oh he did relay the full thing.
1035
1036FtXCommando: rack-response.png
1037
1038
1039FtXCommando: icedreamer said they had some sort of contract where they couldnt hold use server admin privileges to hold faf info hostage
1040
1041FtXCommando: i said it would be best if someone that has, like, any knowledge of what that means to approach them
1042
1043FtXCommando: but no one did so i just operated with the knowledge i had that this contract has this idea in it
1044
1045sheeo: I think we need to agree on a timeline for what happens in case we don't hear anything from Gorton. I'd say we give it another week before we start picking a new councilor; but we should start asking around and see if we can pick another trusted moderator to act as an intermediate for moderation matters until he returns
1046
1047FtXCommando: gieb or phil best bets
1048
1049Ze Dogfather: Indeed; this is a pretty big issue
1050
1051keyser: if it is needed, i think the one ftx said should be the best
1052
1053keyser: they are here since a long time, and i never heard of issues of moderation with them
1054
1055Ze Dogfather: But yeah ^ I think those two are the only two sensible choices, considering their time and experience as mods
1056
1057keyser: while still doing quite a big part of the moderation work
1058
1059keyser: also are rackover moderation rights on hold for now ?
1060
1061FtXCommando: think they are removed until gorton is back to talk about the issue
1062
1063FtXCommando: then it can be discussed what to do again
1064
1065Ze Dogfather: Okay, so we're just keeping an ear out for Mr. Gorton
1066
1067Ze Dogfather: Could something bad have happened to him? :(
1068
1069sheeo: That's what I'm concerned about -- he was last online here 4 days ago, though, it seems.
1070
1071sheeo: Historically new moderation councilors were picked by vote internally in the moderation team, right?
1072
1073Ze Dogfather: Well was he here? I feel like on discord he's always on and idle
1074
1075Ze Dogfather: So either has seen and does not have time to address things here
1076
1077Ze Dogfather: Or he really hasn't been able to check his computer/phone in some time
1078
1079keyser: i thought voodoo just gave his councilor right to gorton; like ice did to me
1080
1081FtXCommando: i mean there isnt much precedent
1082
1083FtXCommando: voodoo for 8 billion years then gorton last yearish
1084
1085FtXCommando: idk if a vote happened but i just assumed some sort of discussion happened between the team
1086
1087keyser: i can try to contact gorton on fb, not sure if that will help though
1088
1089FtXCommando: no harm done i guess
1090
1091sheeo: A vote did happen according to my recollection.
1092
1093sheeo: @keyser I've already done that