Baozi

zeeeee

I like to be technical because I don't like misunderstandings of sorts. I think that's good. At no point in time did I disparage this or say you didn't change or own up to what you did. Again it made me believe that the 2 week warning discipline action worked out and you basically learned from it. I certainly don't think you are a bad person. I've said it multiple times now, we have a difference in values and views. I've acknowledged this and I've explained to you why we are different but I didn't say that you can't be you. Certainly if i did then I do apologize for that, I definitely mean it takes many people in many walks of life and we all have different life experiences so none of us are the same. That isn't even in a negative way. Its just to express uniqueness in each person. This is why i took the time to listen to your podcast and I replied back to you. Also please note I haven't discouraged or shut down any of this conversation because I think its fine to have these discussions. Certainly talking it through and having people voice concerns I've always welcomed.

What I mean was more that 2 weeks WAS a warning. Something you were referencing to. Other personal attacks past warning phase have typically led to perma or indefinite suspensions. I think its fine if you want to argue that warnings should be lighter perhaps but I just wanted to clarify that both yours and mine were essentially warnings. I also want to point out that @Beketovown warning years ago was 8 weeks tpe ban.

Sorry I do want to point out something here based on the technicalities you seemingly are trying throw at me for and I just want to set the record straight. This was the announcement of your disciplinarian action. Conversely I also received a 2 week ban for words I said during my own infraction. If you look also, another member for also a 2 week ban right before yours for a harassment complaint as well. So its pretty consistent across multiple instances that first time offense harassment charges typically get the same disciplinary action so I'm not sure why you feel it wasn't established or was overly severe. We all pay for our mistakes in one way another, how you feel about what happened to your reputation or mental health however does not weigh into the judgement. There aren't indications here specifically targeting you or anything different than was announced for what myself and others that got hit with harassment complains got.

Mod team is proud to announce @JB123has passed the process and joined the team. Other candidates are still under consideration as this will go be an ongoing process in the future and all relevant applicants will be kept in open inventory.

@TheLastOlympian07DO YOU EVEN KNOW ME?

Quik was in our staff chat complaining per usual. So yes hes still very much alive. Also how was I not tagged in this as OG.

Oh i thought it wasn't updated since s77, i guess that was just the post. Thx.

Someone should update the Continental cup wins record book. It hasn't been updated since s77 lol.

I don't believe you are fragile by any means. Many of us have the same issues and the same thoughts going through out minds. What I mean that it takes alot of strength to actually tell others about it and to just ask for help. You shouldn't believe for a moment that you're any less than someone else. You obviously have a lot going on and I can't even begin to imagine how you are dealing with it all. Its very commendable. You can easily find me on disc as usual

2EK521815K8885726 Free Week (12 TPE Capped) $1M Player Store Cash (How to Claim) 5 TPE Uncapped

Hi @Agito I can understand that feeling. While I don't know if I can help you at your phase currently, I'll be around if you just want to sit with someone, maybe listen to some music. I'm typically working but in between meetings I like to hang out and just play some music while I work. You're free to come join me and talk, or don't and we can just listen awhile together if that helps. No pressure, I find solace alot of times just being in the same room as others but not necessarily needing to interact with them. Life is both amazing and hard at the same time and it doesn't come with instructions. What we choose to draw and the path we take is what defines us.

I am in no way dragging someone back to question something that obviously hurt them. Are you sure you know how victim trauma affects people? Why is this even an option or something to consider. This is literally not how consent works. It is not when someone has said "no". Its actually when you have not gained a "yes" and you proceed.

Maybe you should refer to your victim instead. The consent isn't decided by me but by them. Or are you implying I created a fake complaint against you so I could remove 12 tpe from you player? I still don't know by what metric you think this is a severe punishment for a sexual harassment incident. If I take your player red lite and subtract 12 TPE from them, it comes out to 1% of your total tpe of which you had 167 banked. Consideration was taken to the context of the situation and prior history. I'm fairly certain the phrase is actually imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I will not apologize for giving you a 2 week suspension for harassment and making a member feel sexually harassed and unsafe in our community. Please let me know how you observe me to be "blind" since it is indicative of a physical impairment for me to be unable to read what you are typing. Why thank you. I'm glad someone appreciates the hundreds of hours of unpaid time myself and all other staff members have put into the community in order to keep it growing and making it a place for some people to be for over 10 years. Maybe if you figure out that viewpoints aren't right or wrong but the information used to garner such viewpoints can be, then you may come to an understanding of how you're just attempting to create circumstantial instances of trying to convince me the error of my ways to make yourself that the harassment complaint against you was completely unjustified.

Your article was May 5, 2021. We were informed during during the investigation you had already been talked to. On that note, even if you disregard that, referencing that post you made already indicated that you should stop and the article was already disturbing to some people already so I mean that's kind of an indicator in itself. If you can't comprehend how light this is then I don't know what to tell you. But sure we can continue with the personal attack at me. Again you're just throwing accusations and personal attacks here that I can't even follow. I mean you're free to have that opinion of course, I can't really stop you. Its unfortunate I don't have some kind of counter for me to time how long I've been serving here and the time I use to review issues. That just sounds like an opinion. Which of course you're free to have but maybe you should prefix it or add a conditional "IMO" for that since there is no real factual support provided for this. Feels like a kettle/teapot type argument. Let me put it this way, how do I know you're right and I'm wrong or vice versa? Or is this grounded in the theory that everything you say is correct and there are no fallacies (of which I already seemingly pointed out) in your own mindset?

We were sent screenshots indicating at least 2 EFL mods were aware of the article/investigation and a reference made that a staff member had already reached out to speak to you about it. You were given a 2 week suspension. In what way do you not think that this to give you a chance to do better? What metric are you using to distinguish the two exactly? What is your threshold and experience in regards to either of them? How long have you interacted/observed them to arrive at this conclusion? I work with youth programming, refugees, adult training, and crisis counselling across southern Alberta in my 8-5. What is your point? Teaching a dog new tricks can be both "how to think" and "what to think" and isn't mutually exclusive of either. Per Piaget formation theory, you begin critical thinking development at pre-teen so like 11-12 or something along those lines and generally can master deductive reasoning and relationship theory a few years after that. You can always develop further ability for critical thinking but logical operations required to have that is typically in place by the time you are 18. Hence the idea of a minor and reaching 18 is based on the psychology of being able to think for themselves and why we treat 18 year olds with adult rules. I don't even understand this line of reasoning. Are you expecting that we only recruit persons graduated with degrees in law enforcement and human psychology in order to be mods? Do you understand that staff here are all volunteers? I mean if you want to look at my educational background for example, I graduated with Communications degree with specialization in Law and society. I have a certification in project management, and passed psychological and RCMP background check for the highest level of security clearance in the country and have tested level 3 in several government certifications including analytical thinking, client service and adaptability and flexibility. I'm not quite sure what else you want for a qualification? Do you need my job experience? I was a project manager for 1 year in the healthcare industry, I've done 3 years as an investigations officer, 3 years as a National data analyst, and I'm currently 5 years into my current role which includes the afore mentioned programs I oversee, coordinate and write contracts for in my province.

I feel like some kind of response would be warranted given the time I spent on this request.

@Tate Coping With Negatives Agreed that this is something that everyone will experience and learning how to deal with these instances allows you to move on and grow. What we probably disagree on here is whether it is ok to allow things to happen to you and be passive about it versus being proactive and seeking to prevent this negative from happening to others. An example you used here is like your neck injury. While you are the person that has to deal with it (its very unfortunate mind you) and you have to live with having to deal with this pain throughout your life it means your focus is on your current pain and how to mitigate it and allow you to eventually either move on with life accepting the pain occurs, or finding a solution so that the pain stops. The view I’m bringing that is probably what we are at odds is here is that not only are we (as a team) looking to do all that for you, but we’re also looking at how to prevent these kinds of injuries to others. Divide and Conquer No real issue here, it isn’t intended and there isn’t any attempt here as far as I’m concerned. Inclusive Environment I couldn’t exactly find the definition you were using so I had to google something to reference instead but I think it serves the same purpose. This I believe is probably one of our major disagreements and/or maybe it's just a semantics difference between us. I just took this from googling “definition of inclusive community”. But it should serve the same purpose. So by textbook definition, you are correct. An inclusive community should include those of all opinions. One of the caveats of course is the question, what do you do if there are people’s opinions inside this community that contradict and/or exclude the rest of the community? At this stage the answer I’ve arrived at is that people that fit within that structure that have the opinion that does not respect others or make them feel safe, have in essence violated the principle of being in that community and thus aren’t really in it. Like an example is that one person is of a homosexual identity and the other person dislikes homosexuality. One person doesn’t “hold the opinion of being homosexual, that is their identity and defining trait” while the other person holds the opinion that “homosexuality is wrong”. In this textbook argument its just an opinion and one can say “why can’t this person be allowed to say homosexuality is wrong? It's just an opinion right?” Well the problem here is that allowing this person to freely express their opinion directly threatens the safety of the other member. So not only is their identity being held in question, but their motives, ideals and their mental health is threatened at this point and they will arrive at the question of “is this actually home?” So why is the direction we’ve gone very opposed to allowing this person from saying “homosexuality is wrong, or nobody cares?” The case here is that if a person that doesn’t like homosexuality is in the same space as a homosexual. Does that person’s sexual preference threaten the identity of the straight person? Does it imply their motives are in question or their moral boundaries? Or does it remove the sense of home for that person? Logically it really doesn’t because gender preference doesn’t define how that person would interact with the straight person. However the straight person expressing their opinion that everything about the homosexual person is wrong, is already a direct attack and can cause any or all of those traumas at that person. In that aspect we don’t believe those people are part of an inclusive community or would qualify to be part of those communities. That is why you may believe that all opinions should coexist whereas I don’t because some opinions are directly attacks on those around them and just don’t belong here. Teach people How to think vs What to think The concept I believe isn’t wrong but can be overly simplistic. While the basics of living and progressing in life I believe it is very useful like instead of memorising math, how do you do math? Or what is the basic principles behind using addition and multiplication, not just so you memorise that 2x2 = 4 but how did we get there? Absolutely I agree with this. The flip side of this concept is what if due to “teach people how to think” and they still arrive at the principle that killing people is wrong? How does one teach someone that killing is wrong either? All of these issues are part of the “what to think” and the what to think are basically society values that we construct along the way. Everyone doesn’t just learn through life experience that “killing someone is wrong” because that would require everyone to have killed someone in order to learn why it is wrong. So in these cases “What to think” is the correct way to impart social values upon an individual. We learn from society/schools/teaching that murder is wrong and that is handed down from generation to generation because it is not a first hand experience everyone can learn from themselves. In this case weighing whether you need to teach someone how to think, and in this case of the VHL we’re already dealing with adults so they have already established their methodology for learning, its the matter of fact is that they’ve already arrived at a point in their life where you can’t change “how they learn” anymore so you have to teach them “what to learn” because there is no real way for someone to experience the life of a bullied person or a marginalised person if they have not already have grown up living that life. Discipline vs Punishment Sam already touched on this point but we have discussions on penalties within mod chat and such. It's almost never a one person decision (multis are pretty cut and dry so these are exceptions along with several others) and it's overseen by the blues to overrule. How we apply these is constantly a learning progress of course and we adjust that as we go but generally we use precedents when possible. There are certainly times that someone is punished for the purpose of “discipline” and hoping they come back as a better person. Other times a person may just not show any indications of remorse or attempts to change so it very well is a punishment. Change for progression? Don’t disagree with this. I have plans on training a successor and when the time comes I’m sure it will be for the best. Are we the same? I mean this in all due respect still. I feel it is a very simplistic view which isn’t wrong mind you. But due to the living experiences of everyone, each person does think differently, coinciding with your “how to think” topic earlier. Its not to say its bad/wrong, but I value the diversity of thinking. Its literally why everyone on the mod team has a different background and ultimately they all think differently than me but share one common goal of building the community. I only listened up to 24 mins where you indicated that these were philosophical questions and not VHL related so sorry if I missed something. If there are more VHL or me directed questions in there I’ll go back and listen to it. Hopefully this answers some of your topical questions (I think I caught all of them, but I may have missed some), if you feel like you need more clarification feel free to ask as I kind of responded to this all off cuff and not in my normal (PR) writing way as my team is more familiar with. Cheers. (Should i submit this as a PT?) Edit: Changed the text to purple cuz the formatting was messed.

No its 31 mins of my personal time to listen to a point task of my own volition during my own personal time for all intents and purposes can just be a bash post anyways at me. If this was like a suggestion and or an official complaint request, it would come in a written format that I would absolutely take the time to read. Also can we dispense with the passive aggressiveness already? I've spent a lot of volunteer hours in the community and I don't feel there is anything I need to prove to you at all about how I value the VHL and the effort I put into it.

Transcribe please lol.

I'm not much of a podcast listener tbh. Is there a transcript I can go over since its addressing me I suppose?

I was born that year

This posting is still active and under consideration currently.

Sucks to be you, there were no auto messages back when i joined so i actually did get greeted