No Fuhr: Mod Mentality

[Tate 450]

An audio letter for@Baozi.  

 

 

 

 

@Beketov & @Josh also mentioned.  

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Tate

[Baozi 1,658]

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

[Tate 450]

Just now, Baozi said:

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

 

Meant to be listened to. 

 

[fromtheinside 1,290]

I've only gotten about halfway through and have to go get ready for work but from what I've gotten through, this is a very thoughtful and well-constructed presentation. Really great work so far Tate, excited to listen to the rest when I get home tonight. 

[Josh 1,665]

2 hours ago, fromtheinside said:

I've only gotten about halfway through

and am still waiting for the intro song to end.

 

Overall a good listen. 

[Baozi 1,658]

2 hours ago, fromtheinside said:

I've only gotten about halfway through and have to go get ready for work but from what I've gotten through, this is a very thoughtful and well-constructed presentation. Really great work so far Tate, excited to listen to the rest when I get home tonight. 

 

Transcribe please lol.

[Tate 450]

13 minutes ago, Baozi said:

 

Transcribe please lol.

 

 

It is quite a statement, that you can't bring yourself to listen to 20 minutes of a conversation that talks directly to you.

 

Baffling for a Head Moderator of a League that should care.

 

But... perhaps not so baffling at all.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Tate

[Enorama 2,038]

14 minutes ago, Baozi said:

 

Transcribe please lol.

 

I think Sonix will do the first 30 minutes of transcription free if you sign up for their free trial

 

Because no way anyone here is putting in the time to transcribe lmao.

 

I'll make sure to put this on in the background later tonight. Hoping for some incendiary takes tbh

[Baozi 1,658]

21 minutes ago, Tate said:

 

 

It is quite a statement, that you can't bring yourself to listen to 20 minutes of a conversation that talks directly to you.

 

Baffling for a Head Moderator of a League that should care.

 

But... perhaps not so baffling at all.

 

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.

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Baozi

[Nykonax 1,564]

wasn't a diss track, 0/10

Edited October 28, 2022 by Nykonax

[Tate 450]

19 minutes ago, Baozi said:

 

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.

 

 

 

1. Doing it as a PT is a veteran move.  All new folk who find themselves here take notice.

 

2.  It's not about proving anything to me, this is a literal audio of me reaching out to you, and the mod team.  The fact that you find it difficult to listen to my voice doesn't surprise me, but it is why it is so important.  Text is not enough.  I am quite literally reaching out to you. 

 

Ball's in your court now. 

[samx 1,173]

I've listened to a majority at this point in time and still am I as I write this.

 

This is a very well spoken podcast. Like There are really great points to it. However I don't think it a bit of it applies to the vhl in the way you are trying to.

 

What's the mod teams job? to keep people feeling safe, welcomed, and enjoying the community along with some other things. But I think we can agree on that. Although I can understand where your point about not being inclusive. being inclusive also means getting rid of those who are not. (This is no reference to anyone in particular.) We can not call our community inclusive to minorities if we have people who are openly racist,sexist etc for example. 

 

You talked alot about people "misstepping" or making mistakes. Mods are going to do that to. It has been proved within the last few days with blues pulling back part of rutuus ban. We are also going to make mistakes in judgement and not be perfect just like every other member in this league. What I think a lot of people need to remember sometimes is that the mod team is not out to get anyone. In a perfect world the mod team doesn't even need to exist because there would be no problems for us to deal with.

 

We are open to feedback and will take it. I know I've had people who I have talked to about mod things say hey just for the future can you x,y,z. And I take a lot of those changes and suggestions into how I mod. When bringing a suggestion to mods being aware of how you are doing it and how you are saying what you feel needs to be in your mind. Doing it 30 seconds after a ban was posted saying hey mods you suck fix it. isn't going to do anything. 

 

I feel very Gustav like with this long response 

[Frank 5,208]

I didn't listen but I can confirm the number of bannings correlates to higher job pay for mods. 

[Tate 450]

1 minute ago, samx said:

I've listened to a majority at this point in time and still am I as I write this.

 

This is a very well spoken podcast. Like There are really great points to it. However I don't think it a bit of it applies to the vhl in the way you are trying to.

 

What's the mod teams job? to keep people feeling safe, welcomed, and enjoying the community along with some other things. But I think we can agree on that. Although I can understand where your point about not being inclusive. being inclusive also means getting rid of those who are not. (This is no reference to anyone in particular.) We can not call our community inclusive to minorities if we have people who are openly racist,sexist etc for example. 

 

You talked alot about people "misstepping" or making mistakes. Mods are going to do that to. It has been proved within the last few days with blues pulling back part of rutuus ban. We are also going to make mistakes in judgement and not be perfect just like every other member in this league. What I think a lot of people need to remember sometimes is that the mod team is not out to get anyone. In a perfect world the mod team doesn't even need to exist because there would be no problems for us to deal with.

 

We are open to feedback and will take it. I know I've had people who I have talked to about mod things say hey just for the future can you x,y,z. And I take a lot of those changes and suggestions into how I mod. When bringing a suggestion to mods being aware of how you are doing it and how you are saying what you feel needs to be in your mind. Doing it 30 seconds after a ban was posted saying hey mods you suck fix it. isn't going to do anything. 

 

I feel very Gustav like with this long response 

 

Thank you Sam, I really appreciate your message, it means a lot coming from you. 
 

I do want to mention that I don’t feel as though I’ve been personally targeted.  
 

My primary concern is the severity of punishments, the level of accurate investigation behind them, and also wanting to know that the person in charge of the MOD team is an individual I can trust to be fair. 

 

I’ll leave it at that but thank you again for responding. You rock!

[samx 1,173]

1 minute ago, Tate said:

 

Thank you Sam, I really appreciate your message, it means a lot coming from you. 
 

I do want to mention that I don’t feel as though I’ve been personally targeted.  
 

My primary concern is the severity of punishments, the level of accurate investigation behind them, and also wanting to know that the person in charge of the MOD team is an individual I can trust to be fair. 

 

I’ll leave it at that but thank you again for responding. You rock!

So let me better address your concern then. yes fong is head mod. No he does make the decisions alone. Most decisions made are unanimous or close to it. If we have some differing opinions we will reviews what the evidence is. If we have a couple ideas for what the punishment could be we will do a vote. Whatever gets majority is what we go with. It's not one person making the decision. none of the recent bans have been. There's a lot of discussion that goes on. As someone who has spent a lot of time on multiple different cases, I can say that we do our due diligence with what we have and work to find as much evidence as we can to build a case. Warnings are handed out more often than people realize because we don't post them in ban threads as well it's not a ban. So from the outside sometimes it might look like damn they did something wrong once and now are banned for 2 weeks. More likely than not they had a warning (s) before.  I hope that helps a bit.

[Tate 450]

1 minute ago, samx said:

So let me better address your concern then. yes fong is head mod. No he does make the decisions alone. Most decisions made are unanimous or close to it. If we have some differing opinions we will reviews what the evidence is. If we have a couple ideas for what the punishment could be we will do a vote. Whatever gets majority is what we go with. It's not one person making the decision. none of the recent bans have been. There's a lot of discussion that goes on. As someone who has spent a lot of time on multiple different cases, I can say that we do our due diligence with what we have and work to find as much evidence as we can to build a case. Warnings are handed out more often than people realize because we don't post them in ban threads as well it's not a ban. So from the outside sometimes it might look like damn they did something wrong once and now are banned for 2 weeks. More likely than not they had a warning (s) before.  I hope that helps a bit.

Your response definitely helps and by no means did I think Baozi was making decisions alone. But Baozi is the leader and representative for the team, a person who plays a strong role in setting the tone.

 

Because of the interaction I had with Baozi in JRuutu’s thread, I’ve chosen to do this podcast so I can speak both directly to Baozi and to you all. That’s why I wanted to say it, because text is too easy to be misconstrued.

 

All of this is to help relay feedback to your team and also show you the humanity of one of your members. A person who has been previously suspended. I want to help you make better decisions within the group.

 

But I think it starts with the top, and such is why I am directly reaching out to Baozi in this podcast. 
 

 

[Baozi 1,658]

@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.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Baozi

[fishy 1,757]

goddamn it fong i transcribed this shit for you and came back to find a response from 7 minutes prior

[Baozi 1,658]

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

Edited October 30, 2022 by Baozi

[Victor 10,937]

This is the worst interaction in VHL history.

[Tate 450]

Hi @Baozi, sorry for the delay.  I had full intention of responding but I wanted to allow a moment to breathe and absorb, and also give it some time before I wrote back what I had to say.  Now, the unfortunate part is that I have to do the following in writing (you know how I feel about it when it comes to big topics), and so I'll do my best to make it as clear and concise as I can be. 

 

First off, I want to say thank you to you for taking the time to listen to me, and also for writing out a thoughtful response.  Ultimately, that was what I wanted (for you to listen and respond) and the fact that you did that and are still looking for a response from me makes me feel heard, and respected.  I really appreciate that.  Genuinely. 

 

What I want to do now is highlight some of my key responses to your viewpoints, and point out why I believe your navigation in steering this Mod Mentality is not what we want (overall).  Especially if our long-term model for success as a league strives for inclusivity. 

 

 

 

On 10/28/2022 at 6:18 PM, Baozi said:

• 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.

 

 

Here in lies one of my greatest concerns of your team, which is your proactive preventative measures.  This, in my opinion, is very wrong and let me tell you why.  I am so glad you used medical as an example, and let's stick with my neck injury.  Yes, it sucks that I have it, but I am being guided by a professional who has spent the majority of their life being educated in that subject matter (Doctor).  Not even the best doctors get to be surgeons, because even that requires unique skill.  Not a single member of your team, including you, are qualified to be proactive in your preventative measures.  In fact, it is your belief that you are qualified which makes you so reckless. 

 

Case in point, my suspension.  Now is the time for me to show you why your team is dangerous with this mentality:

 

Context - I openly flirted with a VHL member over a timeframe of three years.  During that time I received no discouragement from that member, and in fact encouragement.  We talked in DM's, and I generally thought we had a great friendship.  I have come to accept that what I did was wrong, and I have grown as a person because of it.

 

Incident - I came onto Discord in Oct 2021 and started to flirt with said member.  At the time, Kachur was masquerading as Horcrux and immediately came back at me, telling me that what I was doing was wrong.  At first, I was nonapologetic because I did not believe that it was true.  But it did turn out that the member did not like that I would flirt with her, and after I was told by the member I realized it was true and I stopped immediately.  In the meantime Horcrux (Kachur) and the member complained to management and I was warned to stop.  No further incident has ever occurred.

 

 The Investigation - I was then informed I was being investigated, and stated my case.  In the meantime I worked on trying to repair the friendship with the member I offended.  I ended up being suspended for two weeks and the major reason for why was CONSENT.  I was stunned.  What on Earth for?  This began the rumor that persists to this day, and the very thing that you, Baozi, threw back at me in the previous forum fight that was false. Which is the FALSE fact that I had been warned previously to stop flirting with the member by management in the EFL. 

 

WRONG.  Never happened. 

 

Now, does that mean that the member who I offended never said anything to the EFL?  No.  But what it does mean is that I was never contacted by the EFL which means that your team did not do their due diligence when investigating my case! And you labeled me as betraying CONSENT WITHOUT CONFIRMING.  And here is a big giant middle finger to everyone of you who were involved in my suspension, and not doing your due diligence by confirming with the EFL. 

 

 

Not only did I get suspended for an incident that came out of literally nowhere, I was labeled as a person who had disobeyed consent.  Do you understand the kind of psychological trauma that causes a person!? How fucked up that makes them feel?  Your team did that.  Your team did that to me.  

 

I'll have you know that I still deal with ramifications from it -- for one -- your response shows that you, yourself didn't do the proper legwork.  And two!! I went to recreate in the SHL, joined as a rookie to a locker room and searched my name only to see that @Esso2264  had told the room about my suspension for making misogynistic comments.  And you know why Esso told them that?  All because the server owner said that they missed me. 

 

Shame on you, and shame on your team.

 

This is a scar I still wear to this day. 

 

 

On 10/28/2022 at 6:18 PM, Baozi said:

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.

 

I used the definition from the dictionary.

 

 

On 10/28/2022 at 6:18 PM, Baozi said:

• 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?”

 

 

My point about people having wrong viewpoints on subjects like race or homosexuality is that they should be given an opportunity to grow, learn, and change.  I was brought up in an absolutely wildly strict religious home, and one of the things I was taught about life is that masturbation was a sin and was wrong.  Bad behavior can be both learned and unlearned.  It is possible to help people see a bigger, and brighter picture.  It's about breaking it down for them, why is it that they feel it is wrong? 

 

I should have been given the chance to do better, and instead I was punished.

 

 

 

On 10/28/2022 at 6:18 PM, Baozi said:

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.

 

When they are attacks, legitimate attacks.  Yes, those people should not be here.  But this whole post, and debate has not been about those individuals.  People like Kachur are the individuals we don't want, people like JRuutu - we do. 

 

 

 

On 10/28/2022 at 6:18 PM, Baozi said:

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.

 

 

In this whole paragraph from you - you are wrong.  Especially in the following quote,

 

"in this case of the VHL we’re already dealing with adults so they have already established their methodology for learning"

 

Absolutely false.  I literally work in adult education in my 9-5.  There's not only a boatload of statistics to prove this otherwise, this is one of my major issues with you BEING IN THE ROLE THAT YOU ARE.  I need to be clear, as a person, love that you're a member here.  As the Head Mod.  This is a scary mentality to have. That's being too dramatic.  It's a sad mentality to have, and a very backwards thinking one as well.  The old saying of, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks," is not true.  You can, so long as the dog wants to play. 

 

 

 

On 10/28/2022 at 6:18 PM, Baozi said:

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.

 

 

None of your team members are qualified to hand out the punishments you are delivering.  Mistakes are not acceptable when peoples psychological well being is at stake, as I have demonstrated above.  Such is why a new leadership model needs to be undertaken. 

 

 

Here is my proposal:

 

I do believe that the current Mod Mentality is broken.  In a perfect world, Baozi would recognize this and step down.  I think we need to have new leadership instilled and I am genuinely offering myself as a temporary option to help guide the ship for a new replacement.  I have stated my case through these posts, but also in my podcast.  For those that doubt me, I implore you to listen to the pod, and give me a fair chance.

 

@Beketov @Josh -- I've never been more serious.  The leadership of this Mod team needs immediate care.

 

The one thing I cannot do is manage Discord but we have great mods in place for that.  I can however be involved on Discord for discussing issues as they arise, and I can also be utilized to not only assist in investigations but also help mediate when it comes to any possible, "offenders."

 

This Mod team needs a major shakeup, and it starts at the top.  Let's be the change we want to see. 

 

Thank you.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Tate

[Baozi 1,658]

43 minutes ago, Tate said:

 The Investigation - I was then informed I was being investigated, and stated my case.  In the meantime I worked on trying to repair the friendship with the member I offended.  I ended up being suspended for two weeks and the major reason for why was CONSENT.  I was stunned.  What on Earth for?  This began the rumor that persists to this day, and the very thing that you, Baozi, threw back at me in the previous forum fight that was false. Which is the FALSE fact that I had been warned previously to stop flirting with the member by management in the EFL. 

 

WRONG.  Never happened. 

 

Now, does that mean that the member who I offended never said anything to the EFL?  No.  But what it does mean is that I was never contacted by the EFL which means that your team did not do their due diligence when investigating my case! And you labeled me as betraying CONSENT WITHOUT CONFIRMING.  And here is a big giant middle finger to everyone of you who were involved in my suspension, and not doing your due diligence by confirming with the EFL. 

 

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. 

 

43 minutes ago, Tate said:

I should have been given the chance to do better, and instead I was punished.

 

You were given a 2 week suspension. In what way do you not think that this to give you a chance to do better? 

 

43 minutes ago, Tate said:

People like Kachur are the individuals we don't want, people like JRuutu - we do. 

 

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?

 

43 minutes ago, Tate said:

I literally work in adult education in my 9-5

 

I work with youth programming, refugees, adult training, and crisis counselling across southern Alberta in my 8-5. What is your point?

 

43 minutes ago, Tate said:

The old saying of, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks," is not true.  You can, so long as the dog wants to play. 

 

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.

 

43 minutes ago, Tate said:

None of your team members are qualified to hand out the punishments you are delivering.  Mistakes are not aloud when peoples psychological well being is at stake, as I have demonstrated above.  Such is why a new leadership model needs to be undertaken. 

 

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.

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Baozi

[Tate 450]

17 minutes ago, Baozi said:

 

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. 

 

 

I was never once contacted prior to the incident in October 2021.  YOU DID NOT DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE. 
 

Show the message sent to me prior to Oct 2021. 
 

It does not exist.

 

17 minutes ago, Baozi said:

You were given a 2 week suspension. In what way do you not think that this to give you a chance to do better? 

 

Ridiculously severe punishment for the incident itself. A warning was more than enough. Again, this is what shows how blind you are.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Baozi said:

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?

 

All cases are individual and unique. All should take proper time and care, none of which you sufficiently do. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Baozi said:

 

I work with youth programming, refugees, adult training, and crisis counselling across southern Alberta in my 8-5. What is your point?

 

 

My point is that people learn their whole lives, or they don’t. But they should be given a better opportunity than the one you provide.

 

I don’t know how better to spell this out for you. Your whole mindset is not appropriate for your position. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Baozi said:

 

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.

 

For someone as smart as you, it’s surprising to see how you cannot see the error in your ways.

 

I have done enough to prove my case against you, the conclusion now lies in the leagues opinion. 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Tate

[frescoelmo 1,276]

6 minutes ago, Tate said:

Ridiculously severe punishment for something the incident itself.

 

 

English plz

[Tate 450]

2 minutes ago, frescoelmo said:

 

English plz

Fixed.