As promised last evening, and with the intention of providing insight and transparency, we (the Senior Staff and acting Board members) are opening a topic regarding the events of the past few days.
Primarily for privacy reasons, it isn't normally our policy to discuss protected/private conversations or moderator actions. However, the circumstances in this particular case are so extremely unusual that we simply don't see a more politic or appropriate way to shed light on recent events -- or to move forward with any credibility without going into this level of detail. As many of those who were affected or involved have also publicly posted on these events both here and elsewhere, we trust that they are not opposed to having those details made known.
First off, we would like to apologize to those community members who had accounts that were temporarily suspended or banned from the site this week. Those actions were NOT approved or initiated by the Board and should never have taken place in the manner they did. Because they did not follow our internal, self-imposed procedure, each of those bans and suspensions have been revoked at this time. It was our intention to reach out to each of these community members individually to apologize prior to this post; unfortunately the actions of a few people circumvented that intent, and we determined it was more critical to make a public statement as soon as possible.
So how and why did it happen, why was it wrong, and who did it?
As you can imagine, those are somewhat uncomfortable questions with pretty disheartening answers in several cases. A lot of people have posted some version of the events; many more have expressed an opinion based on what they know, were told, or think they know. That's inevitable in any community, and pretty much de rigeur in an online forum.
Taken step by step, the following is a fairly comprehensive timeline of events, warts and all:
Even prior to day one of taking over administration of the site, the Board took the decision that all permanent or long-term bans MUST be discussed and approved as a team. This was one of our many checks and balances to address any future claims or concerns regarding favoritism or arbitrary discipline.
Over the ensuing months since December, it became clear that a small subset of community members consistently account for the majority of RoC violations and reports on the site, and take up the vast majority of our moderators' time and effort to address. These users cause regular disruption in the community and daily operations of the site, either directly or by trolling or inciting other users to violate Stratics' RoC. While some of their behaviors and actions skirt the letter of specific rules, they blatantly violate the spirit of them and cause grief for other community members who are simply trying to use the site and interact with others. Further, these users make it extremely stressful for those in our community who are generous enough to volunteer their time and efforts to keeping the site running. As we all know, without these willing volunteers there would BE no Stratics.
In practice, because we are so reluctant to ban community members, we often look the other way or grant leniency to many of these users on a regular basis. We've had many, many discussions about whether this is a wise policy or if it actually drives our more silent, rule-abiding users away, to the overall detriment of the community. After all, there are not a great many of us left in UO and we have been together for a very long time -- again, warts and all. But the fact remains that there sometimes comes a point when you have to re-evaluate these decisions and practices for the good of the overall community.
With that in mind, and for the purpose of abiding by the Board's agreed-upon process for escalated disciplinary action, a discussion thread was started in the Sr. Staff Forum so that the entire Board could read and participate without all having to be online at once. To be clear: this was a private, staff-only, NDA-protected forum. All participants with access were believed to be trusted staff members. NO specific action was pre-determined prior to the discussion, although it WAS presumed that once the Board had posted, reviewed and debated the list of users and their previous or on-going infractions, certain actions (up to and including bans) might ultimately be recommended, voted on, and carried out.
During that discussion -- but prior to the conclusion of that exercise -- a trusted staff member with access to that forum read the thread in question. That staff member, who was not a moderator and had no context regarding the origin or purpose of the thread, took a decision to violate their NDA and distribute screenshots of the discussion to community members -- several of whom were being discussed. Not surprisingly, that thread was passed on to others...and to others, and to others.
Understandably, many people who read it were extremely upset -- particularly those who were named in the discussion. The thread was posted publicly on another forum, with more invitations to read and discuss it. The backlash was exacerbated because, in blowing off steam and frustration in what was understood to be a private space and conversation, the original thread contained an uncomplimentary memes and several snarky comments in addition to actual documentation of infractions or disruptive actions. Those comments were admittedly unprofessional and inappropriate for public consumption -- and no, they are not something any of us are proud of or would ever repeat in public, despite the grief we so often take from some of the people being reviewed. In point of fact, our desire to be certain we are fair is the main reason we often let those users get away with a great deal more than many other forums would.
To move on: once it was realized that the privacy of the staff forum had been breached and that sensitive information had been distributed, we questioned the staff member who'd taken the screenshots. After admitting their NDA violation and apologizing, that person decided to post a public apology on the Stratics forums. Unfortunately, this had the effect of further inflaming the situation rather than making it better. The staff was besieged by accusations which escalated into an uncontrollable situation for even those staff members who are not on the Board, and we archived the thread while we debated what, if any, additional action should be taken in light such an egregious NDA violation.
While that conversation was on-going, one specific Board member took the unilateral decision to ban the users who'd been under discussion in the original thread, in addition to several other unrelated community members. The bans were performed overnight, included no warning or follow-up documentation, and had not been agreed upon by the rest of the Board. The remainder of the Board discovered the action the next morning.
So what now?
From our perspective, there is no part of this scenario which is straight-forward. There is blame in any number of corners; there are actions that should never have been taken, and perhaps some that should have been taken long ago or more consistently.
As noted at the beginning of this post, the recently-banned user accounts have been restored. Regardless of what action we might or might not have taken in some or all of the original cases under discussion, the appropriate process was not followed in this instance. This does not indicate a free pass or carte blanche in the future; we will continue to enforce the RoC as it is written and intended, for the benefit of the community.
Captn Norrington has stepped down from the Stratics Board and from staff. There are a number of rumors, conjecture and even untruths being circulated about the reason for this. From the Board's perspective, who have accepted his resignation, we will only say that we tried very hard to avoid that scenario, but ultimately it became unavoidable. The primary reason we elected to create a Board was to protect the site from unilateral actions initiated by any one person. That is a tentant we have every intention of continuing. We do wish Captn well, and will miss him.
Clops, who violated our NDA agreement, is also no longer on staff, and his account has been suspended from the site for 6 months. While we appreciate his contributions to the site and during the sale, a violation of our NDA that is so egregious is simply not something we take can take lightly.
As for ourselves, we have learned some fairly hard lessons as well. They are not the first ones and we don't expect they will be the last. It is agonizing to each of us to have worked so hard for so many months to establish our credibility, only to have that effort obliterated with a few thoughtless words in an unguarded moment -- even if those words were absolutely intended to be private. We realize that some members of the community may not accept this as the extent of the situation, or still may be critical -- and that is an unfortunate consequence that can only be erased by time and our future actions.
Insofar as further discussion on this topic and moderation of the forums in general -- the RoC of the site WILL continue to be enforced. While normally discussion about moderator action would be prohibited by the RoC, we will allow it in this purpose-created thread...as long as it remains civil and productive. While we recognize that may not sit well with some, this is still Stratics, and the rules still apply. We'll answer questions that are relative as we're able, but goading and trolling isn't going to go anywhere other than the nether-sphere.
(And no...we are not having a trial, a grand jury, or a witch-hunt. We are also not having an election for a new Board, however much some folks wish otherwise.)
Primarily for privacy reasons, it isn't normally our policy to discuss protected/private conversations or moderator actions. However, the circumstances in this particular case are so extremely unusual that we simply don't see a more politic or appropriate way to shed light on recent events -- or to move forward with any credibility without going into this level of detail. As many of those who were affected or involved have also publicly posted on these events both here and elsewhere, we trust that they are not opposed to having those details made known.
First off, we would like to apologize to those community members who had accounts that were temporarily suspended or banned from the site this week. Those actions were NOT approved or initiated by the Board and should never have taken place in the manner they did. Because they did not follow our internal, self-imposed procedure, each of those bans and suspensions have been revoked at this time. It was our intention to reach out to each of these community members individually to apologize prior to this post; unfortunately the actions of a few people circumvented that intent, and we determined it was more critical to make a public statement as soon as possible.
So how and why did it happen, why was it wrong, and who did it?
As you can imagine, those are somewhat uncomfortable questions with pretty disheartening answers in several cases. A lot of people have posted some version of the events; many more have expressed an opinion based on what they know, were told, or think they know. That's inevitable in any community, and pretty much de rigeur in an online forum.
Taken step by step, the following is a fairly comprehensive timeline of events, warts and all:
Even prior to day one of taking over administration of the site, the Board took the decision that all permanent or long-term bans MUST be discussed and approved as a team. This was one of our many checks and balances to address any future claims or concerns regarding favoritism or arbitrary discipline.
Over the ensuing months since December, it became clear that a small subset of community members consistently account for the majority of RoC violations and reports on the site, and take up the vast majority of our moderators' time and effort to address. These users cause regular disruption in the community and daily operations of the site, either directly or by trolling or inciting other users to violate Stratics' RoC. While some of their behaviors and actions skirt the letter of specific rules, they blatantly violate the spirit of them and cause grief for other community members who are simply trying to use the site and interact with others. Further, these users make it extremely stressful for those in our community who are generous enough to volunteer their time and efforts to keeping the site running. As we all know, without these willing volunteers there would BE no Stratics.
In practice, because we are so reluctant to ban community members, we often look the other way or grant leniency to many of these users on a regular basis. We've had many, many discussions about whether this is a wise policy or if it actually drives our more silent, rule-abiding users away, to the overall detriment of the community. After all, there are not a great many of us left in UO and we have been together for a very long time -- again, warts and all. But the fact remains that there sometimes comes a point when you have to re-evaluate these decisions and practices for the good of the overall community.
With that in mind, and for the purpose of abiding by the Board's agreed-upon process for escalated disciplinary action, a discussion thread was started in the Sr. Staff Forum so that the entire Board could read and participate without all having to be online at once. To be clear: this was a private, staff-only, NDA-protected forum. All participants with access were believed to be trusted staff members. NO specific action was pre-determined prior to the discussion, although it WAS presumed that once the Board had posted, reviewed and debated the list of users and their previous or on-going infractions, certain actions (up to and including bans) might ultimately be recommended, voted on, and carried out.
During that discussion -- but prior to the conclusion of that exercise -- a trusted staff member with access to that forum read the thread in question. That staff member, who was not a moderator and had no context regarding the origin or purpose of the thread, took a decision to violate their NDA and distribute screenshots of the discussion to community members -- several of whom were being discussed. Not surprisingly, that thread was passed on to others...and to others, and to others.
Understandably, many people who read it were extremely upset -- particularly those who were named in the discussion. The thread was posted publicly on another forum, with more invitations to read and discuss it. The backlash was exacerbated because, in blowing off steam and frustration in what was understood to be a private space and conversation, the original thread contained an uncomplimentary memes and several snarky comments in addition to actual documentation of infractions or disruptive actions. Those comments were admittedly unprofessional and inappropriate for public consumption -- and no, they are not something any of us are proud of or would ever repeat in public, despite the grief we so often take from some of the people being reviewed. In point of fact, our desire to be certain we are fair is the main reason we often let those users get away with a great deal more than many other forums would.
To move on: once it was realized that the privacy of the staff forum had been breached and that sensitive information had been distributed, we questioned the staff member who'd taken the screenshots. After admitting their NDA violation and apologizing, that person decided to post a public apology on the Stratics forums. Unfortunately, this had the effect of further inflaming the situation rather than making it better. The staff was besieged by accusations which escalated into an uncontrollable situation for even those staff members who are not on the Board, and we archived the thread while we debated what, if any, additional action should be taken in light such an egregious NDA violation.
While that conversation was on-going, one specific Board member took the unilateral decision to ban the users who'd been under discussion in the original thread, in addition to several other unrelated community members. The bans were performed overnight, included no warning or follow-up documentation, and had not been agreed upon by the rest of the Board. The remainder of the Board discovered the action the next morning.
So what now?
From our perspective, there is no part of this scenario which is straight-forward. There is blame in any number of corners; there are actions that should never have been taken, and perhaps some that should have been taken long ago or more consistently.
As noted at the beginning of this post, the recently-banned user accounts have been restored. Regardless of what action we might or might not have taken in some or all of the original cases under discussion, the appropriate process was not followed in this instance. This does not indicate a free pass or carte blanche in the future; we will continue to enforce the RoC as it is written and intended, for the benefit of the community.
Captn Norrington has stepped down from the Stratics Board and from staff. There are a number of rumors, conjecture and even untruths being circulated about the reason for this. From the Board's perspective, who have accepted his resignation, we will only say that we tried very hard to avoid that scenario, but ultimately it became unavoidable. The primary reason we elected to create a Board was to protect the site from unilateral actions initiated by any one person. That is a tentant we have every intention of continuing. We do wish Captn well, and will miss him.
Clops, who violated our NDA agreement, is also no longer on staff, and his account has been suspended from the site for 6 months. While we appreciate his contributions to the site and during the sale, a violation of our NDA that is so egregious is simply not something we take can take lightly.
As for ourselves, we have learned some fairly hard lessons as well. They are not the first ones and we don't expect they will be the last. It is agonizing to each of us to have worked so hard for so many months to establish our credibility, only to have that effort obliterated with a few thoughtless words in an unguarded moment -- even if those words were absolutely intended to be private. We realize that some members of the community may not accept this as the extent of the situation, or still may be critical -- and that is an unfortunate consequence that can only be erased by time and our future actions.
Insofar as further discussion on this topic and moderation of the forums in general -- the RoC of the site WILL continue to be enforced. While normally discussion about moderator action would be prohibited by the RoC, we will allow it in this purpose-created thread...as long as it remains civil and productive. While we recognize that may not sit well with some, this is still Stratics, and the rules still apply. We'll answer questions that are relative as we're able, but goading and trolling isn't going to go anywhere other than the nether-sphere.
(And no...we are not having a trial, a grand jury, or a witch-hunt. We are also not having an election for a new Board, however much some folks wish otherwise.)
