# Trial Admins



## Arshes Nei (Mar 18, 2007)

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7262


Now I'll state again with one or the other of your selection of Trial Admins, but I'm going to say it looks pretty bad and does make me lose respect for FA if you're just going to chose couples and partners and base things off popularity. You have had people who were dedicated in the reports of violations, it shouldn't matter if they're liked or not or other stupid politics, it should have mattered if they were doing the job you were seeking.

Really FA, I thought it wasn't about choosing friends and people who are in sexual relationships :/ Yes, people can come in with the rhetoric, "it's their site" but it doesn't shut down the validity of the question.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 18, 2007)

Please don't jump to conclusions, Arshes. Lyenuv was recommended by Uncia and were selected based on their time and activity on the site.

We're going to be adding more admins down the line (so we can try to get 24/7 coverage). This is merely the first wave of them, and again, they're trial admins. There have been many in the past - some worked out, some did not. Damaratus, Silver Wolfe and others have been on as trial admins -- I didn't hear much complaint about them then.

Kyoujin was selected due to his previous work as a volunteer CSR in for the MMORPG Anarchy Online. All admin choices were voted upon by the staff. Some invitations were even extended to other active members of the site who are helpful in reporting violations, problems and whatnot, etc, but they turned down the offer. There are plenty of good choices of admins, and we are aware of them.

If any of the new admins do not work out they will be removed. If this were a merely a popularity contest, trust me, things would be ten times worse.

The adminship of the site is currently undergoing something of a metamorphasis, a much needed change that will help the site for the better. While I understand you may not agree with the changes as they are now, I'd not knowingly or intentionally do anything to hurt the site, its reputation nor my own.

EDIT: Removed Kyoujin as Uncia's recommendation. I was mistaken when making this claim.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 18, 2007)

Conclusion is that both are in a sexual relationship with each other. Is this or is this not a fact?

Point 2 you have chosen an admin that has basically been part of a trolling community known as wtf_fa.

Half of the problems in the harassment forum is due to participation in this club, which is causing other users to troll those posts.


----------



## Surgat (Mar 18, 2007)

*Snark community != trolling community.*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Point 2 you have chosen an admin that has basically been part of a trolling community known as wtf_fa.
> 
> Half of the problems in the harassment forum is due to participation in this club, which is causing other users to troll those posts.



1.)There does not seem to be any encouragement of trolling in the posts to wtf_fa (neither in the OP's nor comments). This activity is prohibited in the community rules anyways, and I'd issue warnings or bannings to any explicit call to harass a Fur Affinity user. 

2.)The fact that some trolling occurs after something is featured in the wtf_fa community does not allow you to infer that the _cause_ of the trolling is the featuring. That is a Post Hoc fallacy.  

For any given submission, a number of different ways someone could come across it exist: personal journals, other LJ communities (such as Badtattoos_4), chan-boards, the Browse function on FA itself, etc. 

Since trolling occurs on pieces not linked to wtf_fa, and since many (if not most) of the pieces linked to that community are not trolled, being featured on wtf_fa is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being trolled. 

I don't think there is even any evidence to suggest that wtf_fa acts as a catalyst for trolling. Still, even if it was, it wouldn't matter: you could say the same thing about the Browse function.


----------



## Lyenuv (Mar 18, 2007)

I can honestly see where you're coming from, Arshes, and I had taken the matter into consideration before accepting the trial run. Yes, Kyoujin and I live together and are in an emotional relationship, but we've both talked through it, and assure everyone that our relationship wont get in the way of our potential adminship. As far as tilting votes and the like, believe me, Kyoujin and I are two separate people and have different views XD. In more than a few cases we agree to disagree on things, including several threads in the harassment forum we've reviewed over the past few months. 

And in the event that we break up, we're both adults and will act like it. If it does happen, we will both take appropriate action as seen fit by the situation, and by the rest of the administration i.e one of us backing down or taking a break from adminship.

And for wtf_fa, yes, I *was* a participant, mostly a lurker. IMO Surgat is dead on with the whole topic.

And like you said, our situation isn't impossible, and I trust Preyfar and the rest of the Admin team on selecting us. :3


----------



## Kyoujin (Mar 18, 2007)

First off, I'm sorry that you feel that way, Arshes. However, please give Lyenuv and myself a chance. I believe in a couple months you may change your mind.

Like Preyfar said, we came under the recommendation of Uncia. And we were given pending admin status after the admins voted to do so. I'm very honored that Uncia and the administration have given us the chance to prove ourselves, and I believe that we will exceed the expectations required of us.

Yes, I was a Customer Service Representative for one of the big MMORPGs. I went through a lot of training, not only with commands I had to learn, but how to work with people to solve the problems they were experiencing and so forth. Also, I have admin/mod experience with websites. On another popular art site/forum years ago, I was the first one they trusted enough to give a "super mod" position. I believe that my background CS experience will help FA.

And honestly, that's really why I accepted the position. I've been a supporter for the site since the beginning, even with all the roadbumps it's gone through. I'd love to do a part in helping FA become a better community.

I can understand you being worried about Lyenuv and myself being admins since we're together, but I assure you it won't get in the way of things. I think us being admins and living together will have a very positive effect. We'll be able to cover a lot of time and respond faster. When Lyenuv isn't on, I'll be on.. etc. And yes, Lyenuv and I have gone over the fact that we may split up. If it happens, like Lyenuv said, we'll handle it like adults. It's not high school. ;p 

Soo.. just give us a chance and I'm sure you'll be happy with the results.


----------



## yak (Mar 18, 2007)

Dang, it must feel quite uncomfortable being under the microscope....


----------



## Pinkuh (Mar 18, 2007)

Hey we have all been under the microscope many times, lol this is just one chance of many to dance whilst people are looking.


----------



## izartist (Mar 18, 2007)

I'm confident that they will prove themselves well, and I congratulate both Kyoujin and Lyenuv. A very big kudos on your trial adminship, I hope it works out for you two. 

I was an admin at Toyin around (a small site, and before it died) for a while there, and it's not all easy squeezy.  I'm sure the admins are doing everything they can to make this a great place for furs like us to hang out.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 18, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Point 2 you have chosen an admin that has basically been part of a trolling community known as wtf_fa.


I'm also an semi-active member of Portal of Evil and Something Awful, read, get a bunch of lulz and worship the random shit in FYAD and the Gamers threads. I used to be one of the leaders of Something Awful's Planetside gamer's group, and we used to PK/hunt down members of our own teams when they screwed us over, chasing them down over continents and worlds in game.

So, to be completely honest, there's a lot of things that you can prod against people, but if they can maintain the site, follow the rules and guidelines honestly, that's what I care about. In the end, the question is: will they be good for the site?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 18, 2007)

Kyoujin said:
			
		

> First off, I'm sorry that you feel that way, Arshes. However, please give Lyenuv and myself a chance. I believe in a couple months you may change your mind.



I didn't say not to give EITHER one of you a chance, I am saying however, having both on is a conflict of interest. With many moderations of different websites, both people being on has almost always had disastrous results It didn't matter if the couple was 18 or 65 years of age. I'm sorry to say FA is no more the exception. What you say, now and what happens down the road, sorry to say, I've heard that line before. 

This is your playground, now becoming your workground. Even under Uncia's recommendation, that still doesn't account for having both people in a relationship on board. 

I actually would lean more towards you being in the trial adminship over Lyenuv. Not to say she isn't a nice person, but man having someone on wtf_fa making fun of submissions and also in charge of deleting them. That just looks REALLY bad. It doesn't look like you respect them.

You would probably have more of an appearance of neutrality over all.

I'll put it in hypothetically too, if I was asked to come on, I'd decline for that very reason. I don't feel its right to present myself one way and do  that. 

The disagreement isn't if you guys are scum or whatnot, there does have to be some kind of line between who you have on your staff. Experience is talking here, and it's not because I'm trying to be mean or take it personally. I've had to decline having people on staff for various sites for the same reasons I stated above.


----------



## furry (Mar 18, 2007)

Personally, if I were to choose people for administrative posts, I'd be wary of recruiting people that are having a relationship. I feel like the point of having multiple admins is not just manpower, but also providing multiple point of views on how to solve issues. I think the relationship between the two people can kind of be counterproductive in that regard.

Plus, drama potential+++
If one of them someday turns on you, what will happen?
Will you have to let them both go because on could abuse the other's account?
(Remember Grave on Sheezy?)

On the topic of "adminship due to having sex with current admin", I don't care anymore. 
When I read this topic I was a bit angry seeing FA apparently getting back to its old practices, but I'm not going to bitch yet, I'll give the new guy the benefit of doubt, personally. Hey, even someone chosen for stupid reasons can turn out to be fit for the job, while someone whose resume seems impressive could turn out to be the next *named-removed-for-obvious-reasons".

When(if) shit happens, expect lots of "We effin' told you!"  and "When will you egging learn, FA!?", though!


----------



## wut (Mar 18, 2007)

FA needs more Pagus. 

Pagus for admin, I say!


----------



## Kyoujin (Mar 18, 2007)

> So, to be completely honest, there's a lot of things that you can prod against people, but if they can maintain the site, follow the rules and guidelines honestly, that's what I care about. In the end, the question is: will they be good for the site?



Amen.



> I didn't say not to give EITHER one of you a chance, I am saying however, having both on is a conflict of interest. With many moderations of different websites, both people being on has almost always had disastrous results It didn't matter if the couple was 18 or 65 years of age. I'm sorry to say FA is no more the exception. What you say, now and what happens down the road, sorry to say, I've heard that line before.



And I'm sorry you've just had a negative experience.  Every person is different. If we become full admins, and it does happen, then tell me you told me so. But I know it won't. 



> This is your playground, now becoming your workground



Of course I know that. Again, I was working as a CSR for an MMORPG. ;p I enjoyed working for the game. It was fantastic being able to help players get over obstacles. And although this is a little different, I'm completely prepared.



> Not to say she isn't a nice person, but man having someone on wtf_fa making fun of submissions and also in charge of deleting them.



And aren't you an active member on wtf_fa? Couldn't you say the same thing for yourself, as you're a member of the TOS team? I acknowledge that you have no administrative powers, however, having someone working for FA that also makes fun of submissions on FA.. doesn't that look a little weird too? I'm sure some people frown upon that as well.


----------



## Lyenuv (Mar 18, 2007)

> Not to say she isn't a nice person, but man having someone on wtf_fa making fun of submissions and also in charge of deleting them. That just looks REALLY bad. It doesn't look like you respect them.



Hence why I replied with "was" in bold, I have no intentions on further participation in the LJ community, and haven't done anything but lurk since before I was even informed I was being considered for adminship.


----------



## Xipoid (Mar 18, 2007)

Good luck you two. I just hope you don't need it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 18, 2007)

Kyoujin said:
			
		

> And aren't you an active member on wtf_fa? Couldn't you say the same thing for yourself, as you're a member of the TOS team? I acknowledge that you have no administrative powers, however, having someone working for FA that also makes fun of submissions on FA.. doesn't that look a little weird too? I'm sure some people frown upon that as well.



Very different animal. TOS proof editor is making sure the TOS policy was spelled correctly, and making sure nothing was left out of the site. There is a VAST difference contributing in those rules, and becoming a person who enforces those rules. I was a TOS editor BEFORE I went on wtf_FA and for good reason I went on, to see if there were submissions people were posting that could be something to discuss for the site. Oh say like a 14 year old posting himself drinking?

I cannot bend the TOS policy for just me. That's why there was a team with input.

It is also just not my experience, this has been a problem with many websites by the way, so having both on board is going to reek of unprofessionalism versus one or the other, no amount of you trying to convince me otherwise will change that. That's why inter-office dating is frowned upon, it can also be construed as sexual harassment too. If one even gets a hint of feeling there is an unfair advantage of people in enforcement because of their relationship with each other, it really blows up in your face.

By the way couple things, your participation Lyenuv in the babyfur tattoo thing?

Also, you know I like finding out the truth, especially when one's name keeps getting mentioned in the thread here, and finding out what actually happened and what is stated here on the forums has left me with disgust :/

In the future, please don't speak on Uncia's behalf if you're not going to be honest.


----------



## Kyoujin (Mar 18, 2007)

> Very different animal. TOS proof editor is making sure the TOS policy was spelled correctly, and making sure nothing was left out of the site. There is a VAST difference contributing in those rules, and becoming a person who enforces those rules. I was a TOS editor BEFORE I went on wtf_FA and for good reason I went on, to see if there were submissions people were posting that could be something to discuss for the site. Oh say like a 14 year old posting himself drinking?
> 
> I cannot bend the TOS policy for just me. That's why there was a team with input.



No no. Like I said, you don't have admin powers. However, you are a member of the TOS team.. therefore, you *represent FurAffinity*. If a user sees that you are on the TOS team, and they spot you on wtf_fa or such, then it's probably not going to look too professional. I'm sure a good amount of users don't know the difference between titles on FA and the forums. Even when I first saw the TOS titles, I was confused and wondered if they had moderator/admin privileges

And I think if Lyenuv or myself went around screwing with our admin powers, we'd get booted off pretty damn fast. And I know I don't want to have that kind of reputation.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 18, 2007)

Read my above post since I added something on, there's also some lying by the admins in this very thread.

Really, just wow. By the way I didn't post on those submissions however, one of the admins flagged Lyenuv for doing so. That's just even worse :/


----------



## Vitae (Mar 18, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Point 2 you have chosen an admin that has basically been part of a trolling community known as wtf_fa.
> 
> Half of the problems in the harassment forum is due to participation in this club, which is causing other users to troll those posts.



MOTHERF'ING HELLO!!!! 
IM A F'NG SOMETHINGAWFUL GOON!

I was one of the first admins! Jesus Christ... 
Don't worry about a thing unless said trial admin does something to hurt or offend you. Which trust me won't happen.
Go on about your life and don't worry about what happens behind the curtain.


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 19, 2007)

*pokes vitae*  I don't think I've ever seen you do an admin-type thing ever.  Possibly better that way?  :B

(I have a hands-off philosophy towards admin powers,  only use them when things can't be arbitrated the normal way, such as taking down floods, etc)


----------



## Lyenuv (Mar 19, 2007)

> By the way couple things, your participation Lyenuv in the babyfur tattoo thing?
> 
> Also, you know I like finding out the truth, especially when one's name keeps getting mentioned in the thread here, and finding out what actually happened and what is stated here on the forums has left me with disgust :/
> 
> In the future, please don't speak on Uncia's behalf if you're not going to be honest.



Which, as I mentioned, happened before I was informed of being considered for adminship. Dragoneer sent the note March 2nd, the submission was posted February 26th, and I wasn't even added as a trial admin until the 16th of March . Like I said, actions made before I accepted trial adminship ended when I accepted trial adminship, digging up old dirt isn't going to change that.

And on that note, seeing as it's obvious things aren't going to go anywhere with this debate, I'm withdrawing. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree  And if things do go the way you fear, you can give me a big fat I-told-you-so.


----------



## Vitae (Mar 19, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> *pokes vitae*  I don't think I've ever seen you do an admin-type thing ever.  Possibly better that way?  :B
> 
> (I have a hands-off philosophy towards admin powers,  only use them when things can't be arbitrated the normal way, such as taking down floods, etc)



Eh I did some PR back in the day, you know the icons (the one with the paintbrush/pencil/drama-face) I made those, I took care of a lot of little stuff like changing ratings from g-xxx, locking underage accounts, etc..etc.. I never really did anything that would gain much attention.
I like it that way though.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 19, 2007)

I just like the fact that Preyfar had the audacity to say Uncia recommended both of them, which is actually not true at all. One was recommended, not the other. But ok, if you guys want to run off that platform how both were and use Uncia's name like that without any apologies at all, you really do have no trust from what you say here from now on.

The fact you lied about it to justify two people in a relationship with each other to be admins, how sad. Actually rather low blow and disgusting overall.


----------



## Damaratus (Mar 19, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I just like the fact that Preyfar had the audacity to say Uncia recommended both of them, which is actually not true at all. One was recommended, not the other. But ok, if you guys want to run off that platform how both were and use Uncia's name like that without any apologies at all, you really do have no trust from what you say here from now on.
> 
> The fact you lied about it to justify two people in a relationship with each other to be admins, how sad. Actually rather low blow and disgusting overall.




I cannot fully speak for Preyfar in terms of what he said at the beginning of this thread.  That will have to be something that he addresses.  I have spoken with Uncia on this matter as well and you are correct that his recommendation covered only one of the two people.  On the other hand, he did not explicitly deny the other person if I recall correctly (Uncia may correct me if I am incorrect).  I do personally apologize for any misrepresentations that were given in this thread.

I will say that Unica is quite able to represent himself in these matters, he is well-spoken and obviously knows the situations that he was involved in better than anyone else.  I highly encourage him to say things with his own voice when it comes to someone presenting what he has said improperly, rather than utilize others (intentionally or unintentionally) in this fashion.

That said, part of the reason that there is a trial period for new potential moderators/administrators is so we can elucidate any problems that may arise from the induction of new members into the staff.  This includes the concerns of the users who have had interactions with these people prior to the point of them being considered for being on staff.

In this case the points brought up are:


Participation in wtf_fa
Particular commentary on images on FA
The relationship between two of the trainees

Naturally these will be taken into account when dealing with the overall determination of whether they should be inducted into the staff.  However, the decision to bring these two people on has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they are in a relationship, and it is currently ridiculous to actually make that a factor.  The other two points you made have a far greater baring on what makes or breaks someone in terms of moderation and administration than whether or not they are involved with each other.  

It's a question of how much time they will put in to helping FA.  How well they can moderate situations that arise on the different facets of FA.  During the trial period of time it will be obvious whether or not their relationship hinders their ability to be productive and useful staff members.  So currently I would suggest before going completely off the handle that you reserve your overall judgement in the matter and watch how they perform.

I can say I will be doing the same and formulating my own opinion as to whether they are capable of being fully active staff members.  I too have my own concerns that will obviously be primary points that I keep in mind as they perform the various tasks that are handed to them.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 19, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I just like the fact that Preyfar had the audacity to say Uncia recommended both of them, which is actually not true at all. One was recommended, not the other. But ok, if you guys want to run off that platform how both were and use Uncia's name like that without any apologies at all, you really do have no trust from what you say here from now on.
> 
> The fact you lied about it to justify two people in a relationship with each other to be admins, how sad. Actually rather low blow and disgusting overall.


First off, I will be the first to admit I was mistake. I did go back and read my notes and yes, in fact, Uncia DID recommend Lyenuv only and NOT Kyoujin. Howevre, I still stand by Kyoujin and brought my concerns with him to the fellow admins when we voted on him. I openly listed how I felt about him and he was still voted in at 7-0.

Kyoujin had been a consideration as an admin for a while given his skills and background, and we had talked and discussed it quite a bit as we are both former CSRs for an online MMO and had quite a bit in common. However, at the time, I did not want to appoint an admin right off from my friends list because A) more accusations of admin "in breedin" and B) he's a hyena, I'm a hyena and god only knows the fingerpointing that would take place.

Arshes, I am not above admitting I made a mistake. In fact, I will openly admit -- as I have many times in the past, so lay off. You're ALWAYS looking for faults, cracks and problems and there honestly comes a time when enough is enough. Blindly pointing a finger does not always resolve problems. Also, there are many people Uncia personally recommended to me who were -- and are -- still being considered. I valued Uncia's opinion above all others and still do, and considered his list of candidates to be the PRIMARY candidates for FA.

I had planned to do two batches of admins for initiation - one now, and one once the new group was settled in. My goal is to improve the site in the end, and that's what I'll do.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, Lyenuv only had 6-0 votes.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 19, 2007)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> Participation in wtf_fa
> Particular commentary on images on FA
> The relationship between two of the trainees



Thank you for the response, however, when you have two admins in an intimate relationship it's not ridiculous when you have a website growing as FA is something to consider greatly. As I said, this is not just a volunteer assignment but can be seen as a workplace.

Already, having Trial Admin A try to come over to defend Trial Admin B unfair as it is, already puts judgment on their judgment because quite frankly they are in a relationship.As relationships go you naturally want to defend your significant other. I said it's unfair but that's very true. This is why you don't have two people in an intimate relationship on board.

The point that also seems to be missing is that I said Either could be given a chance on separate grounds, but because you have two, you also open the can of worms as "what constitutes as harassment" in the TOS. 

The reason I brought up the lying this time is because this is the *second* time Uncia has been misrepresented. As you said Uncia can speak for himself, I think the admins would do very wisely not to invoke his name to promote agendas.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" from now on any statements you try to promote from your former admin is extremely questionable at best.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 19, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Already, having Trial Admin A try to come over to defend Trial Admin B unfair as it is, already puts judgment on their judgment because quite frankly they are in a relationship.As relationships go you naturally want to defend your significant other. I said it's unfair but that's very true. This is why you don't have two people in an intimate relationship on board.


And trashing them be_fore they have even had a chance to proove themself _as an admin, trial or not, accomplishes what? Please tell me, because I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to accomplish here. I mean, I hear what you're saying, but I don't see what you hope to gain from it. If they screw the pooch they'll be fully accountable for their actions under the new admin code coming out, and I have no problem throwing them off the team.

The mistakes of certain admins who came before shall not be repeated. But it's pretty god damn biased of you to so ruthlessly judge those who have yet to even show their potential for good or bad in their official role, Arshes, and you know better.


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 19, 2007)

Online trashing of authority, solely because of their position as "The Man" (or "The Woman", I guess...) and not because anything they may have actually done or said, makes one's e-peen bigger.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Mar 19, 2007)

I'm curious... were all of these people refered by current admins/mods, or was their a sign-up I missed, or what?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 19, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again the position is the same, you don't have people in an intimate relationship working as admins. What part of this is hard to understand? I'm not even going against your other choice you had as a trial admin either, so if it were something like that ALL three trial admins would be under discussion. The fact is they are not.

Good or bad, you had one person TROLL another submission. I think that's a pretty BAD right there. I even said you're probably better off leaving Kyoujin and choosing another admin for trial in the meantime.

So please stop trying to polarize it when I've made the statement clear. Especially since this problem of those in intimate relationships have affected the site before.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 19, 2007)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> Online trashing of authority, solely because of their position as "The Man" (or "The Woman", I guess...) and not because anything they may have actually done or said, makes one's e-peen bigger.



Which would mean "trashing" all three, which I have not. Theory vaporized.


----------



## ArrowTibbs (Mar 19, 2007)

I think you guys are really missing the points she's trying to make here...She is right that having two individuals in an intimate relationship (no matter how stable, no matter how mature they are) both in positions of administration is usually a bad idea. That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but in general and in a majority of situations when this happens it ends badly. 

That isn't bashing, that's just observation and based on some experiences of my own I can say that she is right about it being a bad idea.


----------



## Damaratus (Mar 19, 2007)

ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> I think you guys are really missing the points she's trying to make here...She is right that having two individuals in an intimate relationship (no matter how stable, no matter how mature they are) both in positions of administration is usually a bad idea. That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but in general and in a majority of situations when this happens it ends badly.
> 
> That isn't bashing, that's just observation and based on some experiences of my own I can say that she is right about it being a bad idea.




It appears that the primary concern in terms of an intimate couple being part of an administration team is based on whether one might end up defending the other in various situations.  Kind of an unneeded gang tactic.

While I fully understand the concern about this, and it is something to take into account, I will iterate that this is the kind of thing that putting a potential moderator/administrator through a trial period is meant to help clarify.  

If Lyenuv and Kyoujin can maintain their professionalism and be a positive influence on the site during this time, then such concerns should not be nearly as prominent (never gone, but not nearly as prominent).  If their relationship ends up being a hindrance then they won't be brought into the staff.

It is good to hear from people about what experiences they've had in similar situations; still this is not the same situation.  As much as you can venture to guess the outcome, the only way to actually see what will happen is to give it a chance and then gauge things on the results.  Our trainees know that what they do on the site will be scrutinized, it is their job to convince you and the current staff that they are worthy of the position that they are currently in line for.


----------



## Hanazawa (Mar 19, 2007)

I think Arshes is trying to play the PR/public image card here, rather than an administrative upset issue thing. (sorry for my inability to be precise or coherent right now...)

but y'all will probably ignore the PR part since right now it seems like only the "vocal minority" cares at this point. and it doesn't seem like anyone on staff has been highly concerned with PR because "most" of the users really don't care...

I don't speak for anyone but myself here, just making an observation...


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Mar 19, 2007)

*Arshes*, drop it. It's not a big deal. As long as they administrate well, is there a problem? There are bigger things out there to worry about.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 19, 2007)

WelcomeTheCollapse said:
			
		

> *Arshes*, drop it. It's not a big deal. As long as they administrate well, is there a problem? There are bigger things out there to worry about.



I don't need you telling me to drop it. It is a valid point, it doesn't matter if Laurel and Hardy are a couple, I'd still bring it up. The fact is it was a problem with PAST admins too on FA. One of the admins who posted had an outburst at another user over a personal relationship issue. The creator of FA was choosing admins simply because they were their mate. So yeah. Let's not repeat this please.


----------



## DarkMeW (Mar 19, 2007)

Well just to toss my two cents in here. I can fully understand Arshes' point in there being a conflict of interest in two people that are in a relationship becoming admins. I've never paid much attention to the wtf_Fa group or the actions of people on it, however if there was inappropriate comments that were made there, it was 'off site.' That doesn't excuse the comments or it's relation to FA but one must consider the degree in which the so called wrong doing was done. I don't know specifics about it, but from what I've heard it's off hand comments and nothing vindictive. 

So does the degree of those two things justify disqualifying the two from being trail admins? Personally I don't think it does, especially as 'trail admins.' I've seen them both around FA before I exited my participation in the main site last year. So I'm not judging them solely on a couple off hand comments on some live journal bull. I've thought for the most part they were always rather level headed, even when dealing with trolls. Adding the fact they both seem qualified for the position (perhaps one more then the other) it doesn't seem unreasonable that they would be added as admins for a trail period, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Kyoujin (Mar 19, 2007)

ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> I think you guys are really missing the points she's trying to make here...She is right that having two individuals in an intimate relationship (no matter how stable, no matter how mature they are) both in positions of administration is usually a bad idea. That's not to say there aren't exceptions, but in general and in a majority of situations when this happens it ends badly.
> 
> That isn't bashing, that's just observation and based on some experiences of my own I can say that she is right about it being a bad idea.



I completely understand her point. I can understand anyone being scared that if we broke up, there'd be disaster.. however, Lyenuv and I are grown-ups and usually pretty mature. If we ever split up, one of us or both of us can step down, or maybe stay on the team depending on what happens.

However, as Arshes had a point at first, she has changed her point quite a few times and gone from "Bad having a couple on admin" to "oh shizzle one of them was participating in wtf_fa" (and she's definiately not the only one), And also has not even replied to a few comments in where she's been shown "wrong". 

But I agree with Lyenuv. Whatever we say won't change Arshes mind. And like I said in my first reply, I'm sure Arshes will end up changing her mind once (and if) we are on admin staff. No point in debating on the subject.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 19, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> Well just to toss my two cents in here. I can fully understand Arshes' point in there being a conflict of interest in two people that are in a relationship becoming admins. I've never paid much attention to the wtf_Fa group or the actions of people on it, however if there was inappropriate comments that were made there, it was 'off site.' That doesn't excuse the comments or it's relation to FA but one must consider the degree in which the so called wrong doing was done. I don't know specifics about it, but from what I've heard it's off hand comments and nothing vindictive.



Just a small correction here, the comment was actually made ON site on a person's submission. If you look in the Harassment forums, about the babyfur "4chan style trolling" you'll notice a comment about "a potential candidate for adminship" made a comment. Putting two and two together, actually has my mind changed about allowing that person to be on as an admin.

Does that mean Lyenuv is a bad person overall, not at all, but I'd be rather sore if I were that person finding out I'm being modded by a person who decided to diss me publicly, and on site.

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=6835&pid=115178#pid115178 

To Kyoujin: I have more than one point, follow them all. I didn't say you weren't a bad candidate for adminship. 

That coupled with you in a relationship is why I'm debating the matter.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 19, 2007)

This sort of issue would have been most useful if it had been raised before the trial admins were set into motion, although I'm under the impression Arshes didn't know until afterwards. I also don't get the feeling she's trying to attack or bash anyone here. She's very neatly laid out perfectly valid objections.

Unfortunately, I don't think the trials could simply be revoked, given that no minds will be changed in this debate. I'd say that it would be a good idea to watch out for this in the future, but Arshes made mention of a reminiscent situation gone bad, which probably started similar to this.

In the wake of that problem, I would think people agreed (or maybe even just thought to themselves) that it would be a bad idea to do the same thing again. I think she's saying that FA is needlessly setting a risk up for potential problems that a lesson was already learned from in the past.

I dunno... what I got from this entire thread so far is that we've been here before.

I can't say anything in regards to the wtf_fa as I'm not familiar with it, but it sounds like she has a point there too.

At this point, the practical path is probably going to be taken and the trials will have their run, for better or for worse.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 19, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> That coupled with you in a relationship is why I'm debating the matter.


You do have a point in that, Arshes... but I think we'll have to come to that bridge when we do. As of right now, I'm not too worried about it so long as their performance and conduct is mature and in accordance with FA interests.

If their situation changes in the future we'll address that. But, even like relationships, I've had a falling out with several of the previous admins before and had issues with certain individuals. The love interest can have the same effect as the best friend breakup, and it's always a risk regardless.


----------



## Litre (Mar 19, 2007)

Which is why you don't bring on friends. You don't have to be best buds in order to work together. Just respectful of each other.


----------



## furry (Mar 19, 2007)

I think all admins should be forbidden from having a relationship at all.
I mean, their partner might log on the computer and ruin FA!

So please, FA admins.
Kick your boy/girl out of your place, cut the links from your family, don't allow your friends in anymore.
For great justice.

PS:
Yes! Paint those eggs!


----------



## Vitae (Mar 20, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> DarkMeW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hay arshes i love u on the internets <33333333333


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 20, 2007)

Batty, lol 

The thing is, I do consider Kyoujin and Lyenuv buddies, not close ones, but I don't have direct animosity towards them. However, I think the fact that I am stating this gives you a perspective, of the problem I am seeing.

The fact that another member of WTF_FA reported the incident, is exactly what our Prospective candidate SHOULD have been doing. Trolling on someone's submission is wrong, regardless if I agree with the content. In this case I don't, if I see the guy walking down the street with the tattoo, there is nothing constitutionally stopping me from saying "Eww that tattoo sucks", however, in this case you have now a potential admin that decided to do this unprovoked on that person's submission. That's a BIG violation of the TOS. We can debate the grey line where people argue and bicker with each other on FA, but in this case, it wasn't like the poster went over to Lyenuv's page saying "hay look at mah cool tattoo" and Lyenuv went "eww that's gross"

Lyenuv went to that person's page. This isn't old dirt since this happened at the End of February this year. "I got a note," doesn't cut it either. It's basically coming off rewarding someone for not respecting the rules that were put in place, and now you're going to have that person enforce them or ask users to listen to them? Sure you'll get the "she's cool peoples" crowd because they're unaware or think it's funny to troll that guy for the tattoo, but I have to say... *what*. Other people have been *banned* for less. That sets a bad precedent overall.

Had I been looking at prospective candidates, she would have had been under immediate dismissal especially since you said you have other people to try out. Again, does that mean Lyenuv is bad? No. However, this is a more neutral perspective. Unfortunately, I can't look at it as "She's a cool buddy" because that wouldn't be right. 

You have other candidates that probably didn't participate in that incident and maybe did the right thing even when it wasn't the popular decision.


----------



## DarkMeW (Mar 20, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> if I see the guy walking down the street with the tattoo, there is nothing constitutionally stopping me from saying "Eww that tattoo sucks", however, in this case you have now a potential admin that decided to do this unprovoked on that person's submission. That's a BIG violation of the TOS. We can debate the grey line where people argue and bicker with each other on FA, but in this case, it wasn't like the poster went over to Lyenuv's page saying "hay look at mah cool tattoo" and Lyenuv went "eww that's gross"



OK so since I arrived far to late to actually view the comment, was it as benign as 'ew that's gross' or was it a more hate filled comment? There are a lot of things on FA (when I was looking last year) that I'd have about the same reaction. I don't think when people post or do something incredibly stupid or disgusting, and then when people call them on it constitutes as trolling, I mean just look at how you've reacted to Rouge2's dumb comments. Does her comments really constitutes as trolling on the site? From what I heard in the thread the tattoo was pretty dumb and gross. (I know trolls use the excuse of just telling the truth, but some times it's true and depends on the degree of the response.) 

All and all unless she actually pulled some venomous comments I'd say the main problem is just the relationship, which I've already stated my opinion of it not immediately disqualifying her qualifications as a trail admin in my opinion.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 21, 2007)

DarkMew brings up an important point here. Negative comments far more directly insulting and inflammatory than 'eww gross' have been defended in the past as "not trolling" because they were "simply telling the truth." Rouge2 is more or less a punching bag for some people any time they show themself on the site, and its become somewhat accepted as the natural order of things. Sig-Quoting another person to highlight a particularly 'lulz' remark they made is done for the purpose of publicly ridiculing them, which is a form of harassment, and could be considered against the tos if one wanted to argue that point. 

Does Lyenuv have an established history of doing, condoning, or encouraging such behavior? Or is this really just one instance of a person making a bad judgement call and making a remark that was a bit short on tact but far from a full-on flaming of another user? Yes, there have been people banned for less. But not for a single offense of "eww gross." People get bans for multiple repeated instances of rule-breaking, not for a single infraction. And even then, how often do those bans actually stick?

Everyone makes mistakes and/or shows less than desirable behavior sooner or later. It seems a little silly to write off an otherwise qualified person entirely for one mistake when there are so many people who haven't been written off for much worse.

You and I both have done far worse than "ew gross" and yet we're being trusted to help with the site in some fashion. Neither of us are in a position to pass judgement on Lyenuv's qualifications based on the one incident you mention given our own histories.

We're being given a chance to help, so why not just sit back and let Lyenuv have her chance? Especially since its going to happen anyway, regardless of whether you approve or not. :


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 21, 2007)

"Eww gross" was a paraphrase, what was actually said was erased.

 Nor were the posts to Rouge just coming on randomly to his page. He was starting a feud with Purity in one case, and other were replies to his response on the forum. See grey line where it's about users not getting along.

Ganging up with your friends to troll a submission just because the guy wears a tattoo you don't like from someone you don't even know. That's where it was out of line. How can you expect respect then?

You now have that person in enforcement. Since these are really major points being skipped over. I'm not in charge of ANYONE which is a major difference here. 

The fact remains there are other users that have been skipped over who have equal qualifications on the matter and instead things were being whitewashed in this case so that another potential admin can look better. That's not cool either.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 21, 2007)

*shrugs*

The question still stands: was this one incident, or does Lyenuv have a history of this? People in this community are allowed to develop lengthy histories of unwanted behavior, and will still have their judgment and opinions listened to from time to time. We don't know WHO the other qualified candidates Preyfar mentioned are. Maybe they had worse things on their resume than Lyenuv's. Maybe not. What goes on behind administrative decisions isn't always known to the rest of us. Second-guessing the Administration's judgment and abilities is healthy to a point, it keeps them on their toes, and makes them aware of potential user complaints. But after a point, it just gets ridiculous and unnecessary, and becomes a hindrance to any attempt at moving forward for the site's betterment.

Like keeping them from finally addressing the issue of staff short-handedness despite the great amount of time that had been spent on complaining about their lack of staff. If they are restricted from hiring anyone who doesn't have a sterling record, they're pretty much screwed because NOBODY is perfect.

Your points, whichever ones you want to stick to, have been made, heard, and acknowledged. And they disagree with your evaluation of the situation. They're not going to make you happy unless they do what you're telling them to do. Which just isn't going to happen. So you're unhappy with this decision, and that's kinda the end of it. Sit back and see how Lyenuv performs. 

If they mess up, you get another big fat "told ya so."


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 21, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> *shrugs*
> 
> Your points, whichever ones you want to stick to, have been made, heard, and acknowledged. And they disagree with your evaluation of the situation. They're not going to make you happy unless they do what you're telling them to do. Which just isn't going to happen. So you're unhappy with this decision, and that's kinda the end of it. Sit back and see how Lyenuv performs.
> 
> If they mess up, you get another big fat "told ya so."



Oh no didn't say that. I'm aware of that however, I just said that when people are replying they're not replying to the answer directly, it was like not actually addressing the point and arguing around it. That does look like "ok I half read this but I'm going to reply anyways"

It's like walking up to a cashier at a store, showing them a product and explaining to them that the price doesn't match the shelf price, and the cashier tells you "did you try getting an alternative product to suit your needs" XD


----------



## DarkMeW (Mar 21, 2007)

One of the points about using Rouge2 as an example is the fact that it isn't about just one case. Often as you point out in your sig, he says really stupid things that end up just being funny. However, people make a point (you included, in part) to comment on FA and the forums when ever he shows up with his nuttery. Does that mean that every one is trolling him? I don't think it does for a lot of the cases, because there is a degree of negativity people natural respond to an absurd situation or person. 

Even the ganging up on Rouge is natural to a degree. When ever you put something stupid or offensive (gross or other wise) in a public forum or site, there is a natural tendency for people to gather, for short bursts, in their responses. Did Lyenuv really seek support to damage in any vindictive or mean spirted way that your 'ganging up with your friends' implies? Or was this just a tendency for people to talk about the newest stupid antics of an individual? Is it the same gathering of attention a submission would gain if it was a fantastically great artistic work, by word of mouth? Gathering attention applies to both spectrums, the good and the bad, but it doesn't mean people are purposely ganging up? The duration and the intensity of responses directly effect if it was indeed a case of trolling, or just an off hand comments. It goes to the same about it moving from the submission to the user's page. Sometimes doing stupid things natural follow from one point to another, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. (I can't say 100% of which it is since I don't have all the facts of the situation. From what is presented, it does sound like wasn't great behavior on Lyenuv's part, but it doesn't sound like bad behavior either.)

On the subject of whitewashing. It's annoying as all hell, IMO. I see it all the time, when one person is chosen over another. It comes down to defending their decision but blotting out any related facts. I think it's fine to pick someone out of personal preference over someone that is or seems more qualified, when you are in the postion to. However, the whitewashing is often used rather then just taking responsibility in saying, 'it was my decision based on the situation and personal feeling and I choose to stand by that decision.' I hate it when people backpedal and all I can say is it's something I would be disgusted with myself if I ever did it.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 21, 2007)

Okay, apologies may be in order then, Arshes, because maybe everyone is just misreading your points. I had felt that your concerns had been addressed.

Concern #1: Two people in a relationship is asking for trouble.

Response given: This point isn't really being considered because it isn't a GIVEN that two people in a relationship will be a bad situation. Yes, its something to think about, and from all the responses to you, it does indeed appear that the matter HAD been considered by all parties. You yourself even admitted that it isn't impossible for them to work out despite being a couple. So, I think it would be fair to say that point has been addressed to as satisfactory a degree as is reasonable.

Concern #2: One person was closely affiliated with a group that has a history of producing trolls and problematic user behavior.

Response Given: Lyenuv has had minimal involvement in that group, and the tattoo remark was made well before the offer of a position. Several key administrators have been involved with similar groups in the past. You yourself have corrected me in the past of the fallacy of holding a person's affiliation with a group against them just because the group can produce unwanted behaviors from some of the people associated with it. People aren't arguing around the point so much as trying to explain to you how the same could be applied to almost anyone at some point or another. Again, point heard and acknowledged, and deemed to be insufficient to justify as a disqualifying factor.

Concern #3: One person's actual involvement in behavior violating the ToS.

Response Given: This is the valid point, but still not nearly as severe an issue as you feel it to be. It is why they are doing "TRIAL Admins." If someone with a _history_ of making unwarranted and unprovoked inflammatory and insulting remarks to other users were being considered for adminship, trust me, I would be right there with you casting a VERY critical gaze at the Administration, and you know it. But nobody is perfect, and ONE example of bad judgment is just not enough to permanently remove a person from consideration when they could be a valuable asset to the site. 

The simple fact of the matter is that there is not a tremendously abundant pool of people to draw from. If they sat around waiting for absolutely flawless people, they'd never get anywhere. If Lyenuv had simply been fully promoted, then yeah, I'd probably be with you in saying wtf because harassing someone for no reason IS a concern. But again, they're TRIAL admins. If the tattoo thing was a fluke, and not representative of her usual behavior, then it shouldn't be a permanent mark against her. If she's done that sort of thing frequently, there's a problem, and it will come forth, and then that's that. "Trial" failed, position revoked. You won't be the only person keeping an eye on them.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 21, 2007)

Yeah that's the one thing that really disappointed me too, it was pretending "it didn't happen" which is what I'm referring to as the administrative whitewashing. Notice I had to link and bring it up before acknowledgment?

Like Wolfblade said and something I already knew, it wasn't going to change the admins minds, but I think at least discussing as much as possible in public about it you'll understand it wasn't me trying to be mean or just "oh she's hating cuz she didn't get the nod/promotion" I would have turned it down to be honest, because if it were me instead of Lyenuv and reacted that way on a submission, I wouldn't feel right becoming an enforcer. Even if people are like "Well people make mistakes" I'm saying I couldn't do that because I don't feel right taking a position of authority when I acted like nothing more than a troll to a userbase I'm going to preside over. 

I don't think it matters if it was one time it was so public it kinda tarnishes and destroys respect to those who saw it.

Because I run a large site, I had to be more hardball on those I chose, and yeah something like that kills candidacy, especially when I know I can find someone else. That may be harsh but see, the thing is once the probationary period of being a hardass is over, we let our administrative team have more responsibility on their own so we run into less clashes as to who does what on the site. It worked out really well, this team I run with is really drama free, and there is a lot more consistency. We still get users who complain about bans and stuff, but the agreements and understanding each others working style we don't look like "The arms don't know what the legs are doing". We are definitely not free of errors, we are going through a technical error now, but it doesn't have much to do with our staff than our tech support.

You also find yourself relaxing more as an admin because you really do see your team work well XD


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 21, 2007)

Thank you on both points. Yes, there's a difference between trolling and simply reacting naturally to something that happens to be 'lulz.'

And yes again to it NOT being a bad thing by default for a person in position of authority to put their personal opinion and preferences into the equation. "This guy I don't know is more qualified, but this other person I've known for years and KNOW I can trust them" IS a valid reason for choosing a less qualified person over another. Especially given this site's history with misplaced trust.

I think the tendency to white-wash (though I don't see it happening nearly as badly as they get accused of) is mostly caused by the fact that any and every appearance of perceived favoritism is met with such extreme vehemence that the Administration feels inclined to try and stifle that impression whenever possible.

When in reality, it WOULD be better if they just said, honestly and bluntly, with full justification to do so; "Yes, we know and trust this person more than the other, and chose them for that reason. Deal with it."


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 21, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> The simple fact of the matter is that there is not a tremendously abundant pool of people to draw from. If they sat around waiting for absolutely flawless people, they'd never get anywhere.



I just wanted to point something out. They DO have other candidates to try out. Ones that have less of the problems I outlined. I know yes this is a trial period, but I felt yeah, they should have bumped them into the trial time first instead of what happened here. If you read back in the thread even it was mentioned this was one of the first wave. I think they should have at the very least said bump this person, let's give this other person the trial run first. Especially given the circumstances.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 21, 2007)

*nods*

And for the first time in a while, it seems a visible and concerted effort is being made to get the arms to know what the legs are doing, and that is more confidence-inspiring than anything in a good while now.

Out of curiosity, do the people you feel to be more qualified have ANY history of unwanted behavior on the site? Even if someone hasn't any single instance as big of a deal as Lyenuv's, its possible that many small infractions add up to counting more against a person than the one somewhat big one. I can think of a few people off the top of my head who are definitely staff material, but they're not entirely flawless either, y'know? And perhaps the factor of perceived trustworthiness is what moved Lyenuv higher on their list than she places on yours.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 21, 2007)

To answer your question, as far as I know yes, there are. Just there were people that were mentioned, elsewhere and I would have been fine with them. Especially since it would have given more variety than "a couple in a relationship" (I mean besides professional issues, it does feel like using a crude prhase of "peeing in the same pool you're swimming in" - in meaning that the site can do REALLY well with some variety and not hobnobbing/shopping the same faces) and some were a little less known which would be good especially since I do remember them saying the admin positions shouldn't be too public. Especially for people who may be given moderator status where scrutiny will happen big time.


----------

