So with regards to this whole scandal, I feel it is time to finally say a few words.
First any of you wishing for an apology or resignation, prepare to be disappointed. The role myself and others sit in is not one where we can only look at and discuss the easy scenarios, and ignore to conceptualize the more distasteful ones. Rather it is imperative that we look at all scenario’s which may increase balance in the community and establish a means to help it progress and grow. Sometimes in this process to encourage growth you have to evaluate if something needs torn down to make room for that growth to happen. For considering these more distasteful and difficult questions there won’t be an apology from me.
Our criteria for those to evaluate consisted of individuals who had a long history of warnings, harassing staff, harassing other members, have conducted egregious acts with light repercussions, or acted as enablers for any of these, chosen independently by each of us, based on recent events and memorable history. The idea started with questioning from other staff, community members (including some of the ones rioting now), and various VIPs as to how certain members of the community regardless of how often they instigate arguments, throw insults, and act distastefully are still around while other community members preform many less violations and receive bans. When you hear the same thing from multiple areas, there is a problem and it deserves to be looked at.
So our plan, was to each create a list of people, compare them, simplify the list and see if a case concerning an immediate ban would be justified. None of us would actually be in a position to execute the ban, not by our own rules. What we would achieve if we find enough in a user’s actions and history that we felt it would justify an immediate ban, instead would create a documented example of how our current moderation system doesn’t always work as it should, and at the same time something that can be laid out as the beginning of a discussion on how to improve it and remove its shortcomings.
These discussions largely took place off the forums, the thread which was leaked was in essence a notebook created to hold information from discussion session to discussion session, as we went through the automatic logs of every warning and action that had been taken against these users. While the wording of much of it isn’t exactly professional, this was a forum that was not and should not have been exposed to public review and criticism, and was used as not only a place for us to keep notes but also vent frustration over the task at hand. Frustration was present, it is commented on as well, because we knew there would be a certain amount of push back from the community if any action, regardless of what it was, was decided to be taken on some of those individuals. But not doing this would be failing an obligation.
My perspective is that my obligation is to the Stratics Community, not to Ultima Online, or the UO Community no matter how much these may overlap. We’re not beholden to Broadsword, we have no agreement with them, they are free to use our forums just as each of you are free to decide to use them or not.
When a decision comes that is a choice between what is best for the UO or Stratics community, I’ll happily take the Stratics community 100% of the time. If end result of losing 20% of our community was the cost of allowing the other 80% to flourish and establishing a foundation on which we can actually grow while removing the fear of being harassed, I’d do it. If it meant creating a place where people feel they can express their opinions and have a civil debate without someone coming in and starting aggressive arguments over a simple difference of opinion, I’d do it. If it meant the staff wouldn’t receive nasty-grams 75% of the time when they action someone, I’d do it. And if it meant not letting someone encourage others to stir up crap so they can enjoy watching our staff members lick the spoon, I’d do it.
Continuing to allow constant disruption undermines every other endeavor we want and have a desire to undertake. If we can’t make this a place a majority want to use, rather than a place people will avoid due to being harassed by an aggressive minority then there is little point in trying to improve the site, and I personally won’t apologize for being concerned with these matters.
Now if anyone thinks harsh names, threats etc. is going to scare me off from doing what I feel is my obligation to Stratics, I’d love to inform you that you’re sadly mistaken. I can promise you I’ve taken heat from the absolute best, you don’t survive Parris Island with a thin skin. If you want the truth, you guys are giving me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I don’t particularly care if I’m liked or disliked, I’m not here for a popularity contest, I’m here to think about and explore the hard choices and the easy and do what I signed up to do, and that’s help protect the members of this community that operate within the rules as they are written down, discourage and evaluate for discipline those who don’t, and look for ways to make Stratics better, even if a very vocal minority find those actions contrary to their desires and wishes if it has the potential to benefit a much quieter majority.