Transparency 2: Electric Boogaloo
Feb 1, 2017 21:16:14 GMT -5
Eve Avana, Rania Fujikagi, and 6 more like this
Post by Consequence on Feb 1, 2017 21:16:14 GMT -5
Hello. I have been speaking further with Eaon, who originated the thread "Transparency". It's a thing that you can go read on your own. I kind of wanted to restart on all of that with much less hostility in the air. I've spoken with Eaon this afternoon and I have obtained his permission to directly quote him and respond to him here.
Here is the full block quote from Eaon, although I am going to edit a couple words to stick to business as we were having a somewhat informal chat. If Eaon feels anything material was omitted, he will absolutely be able to correct that. I asked him directly to tell me what statements I need to back up, and what he would consider to be proof on my part, and then I will respond piece by piece.
So first up:
I need to make a couple clarifications here regarding this. First, I am not the sole force for justice on BG. I understand that I sit in the big chair and I am the "final call" on a lot of matters but I am simply not the same guy with the hilarious amounts of free time that I used to have when I was the IP administrator. I cannot maintain the same vigilance that I used to for a number of reasons. This is not an excuse, merely a declaration of fact. With that in mind, several people have asked in the past, why don't we have a point system, or a clearly written track for stuff like this? Well, in the past, the opinion has always been that no two cases are alike. Rarely, do people do you the favor of performing an action that is very neatly categorized and that compares to a clean chart about what means what, so a lot of judgment quickly becomes involved.
So by all means, if you (Eaon) or any other number of people want to create a track of discipline (X violations = Y action), or (At 5 points, you're on a one week ban, at 6, a 2 week), or any other system...I'll accept it. Just point blank, I'll adopt it. I reserve the right to strike any absurd provisions, like attempting to tie the disciplinary chart into any sort of IC consequences, et cetera, but I will otherwise simply accept it and make it a rule. I'll remove my "case by case" basis and yield to this system. Just have to give me one.
In a final reference to this point, it's obviously very silly to pretend I never enforce it at all (i.e. your language "for once") especially when we just got done permanently banning Danielle/Aryae. If you feel I do not enforce it evenly or equally, I can defend your right to say that. But to say I don't at all? That's factually, objectively, wrong. Please give credit where credit is due, as I am very much trying to do the same.
Next:
It's normal practice that people's forum accounts match their character names. We make each character have its own account. This has always been the case. This was simply an instance of a member of staff trying to apply this to Discord which is normally fine. In this case, "Proto-bitch Katastrophe" was an established name and would have been fine to stay, since they didnt change it on a whim. However, the staff member who changed it needed to be educated on when to apply this and when not to. So the "we are discussing it" was genuine. We do have to train staff. I realize it reads like a cheesy stupid thing to say, maybe even a cop out, but it's also accurate.
The change was not necessary. But had it been, it should have been brought up with her prior to happening. I agree completely, and I have instructed staff on this. You are absolutely right. We do occasionally -immediately- change the names of people who are new to BG, but that's a different animal entirely and only happens in the event of ridiculous names.
Next:This is extremely difficult to answer. The number of actual serious, long-term bans that have been issued while I've been around are as follows, as near as I can remember:
-"Vikus" was banned indefinitely from chat because he was constantly slurring at people, while claiming it was IC. This was just a chat ban.
-Colin Arascain was indefinitely banned from the site for a number of reasons that Robert would be better equipped to explain than I would; you can talk to him, as he performed the action.
-Victoria was indefinitely banned from the site for a number of reasons, and allowed to return approximately 10 months later after sufficient effort to reform was made.
-Garra / Hatred was banned from the site for 60 days for grossly harassing players in OOC threads. He was allowed to return after 60 days.
-The person 'Prestige' was banned from chat indefinitely for promoting negativity and harassing members while refusing to participate in the community.
-Danielle / Aryae / Adrianne was banned from the site for 120 days for repeatedly identity-swapping only to intentionally dropping threads, at least three times.
-Shizuka asked to be banned indefinitely today, although I'd be happy to remove that anytime.
So in each of these instances, all of the circumstances were grossly different. And among those listed, four of the actions are genuinely full site bans. One is permanent, one was indefinite but reversed, one was 120 days, and one was 60 days. So the idea that we have something so refined and specific as to account for when or when not "this needs to be permanent" is silly. That line doesn't exist in a clear fashion, and it's only actually be done once on a guy I did not ban. Using this list, my only basis for comparison is to say, "Does Kyousuke stack up to what Colin did?", and I don't have much I can back that up with other than to say 'no, I don't really think so'.
I would tie this into what I said before, in that if you want there to be a clear line and you have a better way to quantify it than I have, I will accept and adopt what you say. It's an almost impossible question to answer. If it were easier, I'd have done it. Please understand this is not me trying to deflect, I genuinely cannot quantify or qualify a response here. No one can.
"After 11 incidents." Okay, but what if all of those incidents are just like...refusing to drop political chat out of Discord when asked? Is that just as egregious as someone who thread invades someone else 11 times because they hate them OOC? Like, the line is fucking impossible to draw in a really serious way. I cannot literally see through your eyes, and you, unfortunately, cannot literally see through mine.
One thing I will clarify though, is that in order to make a "permanent ban", I have always stated that I require something to seriously invite that. For anyone. The reason Victoria received an indefinite ban was a very serious one. The reason Danielle received a 120 ban was a pretty serious one. The reason that Garra did, I felt, was also serious. And again, Robert can comment on whether or not he felt the inciting incident to Colin's ban was serious or not. Hint: it'll be a serious one, but I dont want to put words in his mouth.
Which leads us to the "grain of sand" line that Salmon quoted, that I used in 2014.
Yes, I used that argument. While I didn't lie, and the argument did play a factor, I was also omitting things for the sake of protecting a number of other involved parties. To those of you who are still around today, I am deeply sorry this keeps coming up; it isn't my intention to repeat this. What I would choose to phrase it as is, instead of being "the reason", the 'grain of sand' served the purpose of removing any and all benefit of the doubt. The fact that there was such a tremendous pile of stuff to go along with the major incident meant that we were not inclined to accept and wiggle-room in assigning responsibility. Should Kyousuke ever infringe to a serious degree, I can most definitely assure you that the mountain of history he has would remove any and all wiggle-room for accepting responsibility. This egues into the next point.
Next up:
At this point in time, Shun has access to the general staff board. His input and experience is of value in regards to a lot of the ideas I want to put forward, and things I want to do. In short, he has a degree of "vision" as a long-term site owner that no one else here has. I don't know how many "former site owners" are out there, but I doubt very many of you are. And if you are, who among you can claim to have led a site this large for anywhere near as long as Shun did? It's probably a pretty short list. He is a valuable resource to me in that scope as a sounding board for my ideas. Nothing more.
He has no input on requests, he has no input on grades, he has no input on discipline.
The full disclosure here is that is most definitely a friend of mine, but that's where it ends. He handed the site over to me last March, and if he had wanted to keep all of the power he already had, he very much could have done that just by staying Owner and doling out responsibility wherever he felt like it. For example, there is nothing at all stopping me from saying "I quit" and then telling you that you are all on your own, while still remaining Site Owner. There's literally no reason for him to have stepped down, other than to step down.
So, with that in mind, let me pick out a quote that I know a lot of people were worried to read...
Which is why I'm going to tell you something that's a cold, hard fact: Kyousuke will never be permanently banned
To me, I am only responsible for the things that I say. Shun is no me, therefore I am not responsible for the things that he says. This strikes me as basic, but I understand my mindset and perspective are my own. Shun does not speak for me. Only I speak for me. A lot of people were very concerned and even upset when I did not immediately refute his stating this. This concern genuinely escape me. To me, unless you say me say that, there's no reason to worry. But understanding that this concern escapes me, I can also understand that it does not necessarily escape you, the reader.
So let me be clear.
Kyousuke Tsukimiya can be banned. For any length of time, whether it be 7 days, 30 days, indefinitely or permanently. He is not immune to being banned while I am the Site Owner.
As I stated above and repeatedly in the other thread, I do require an inciting incident in order to invoke a permanent ban.
The problem has been where, every time he does anything at all disagreeable, I am asked to permanently ban him.
Kyousuke can be banned.
Shun can be banned.
I believe Shun was trying to state that he believe Kyousuke will never do anything worthy of a permanent ban. That is his opinion to hold, and only Kyousuke's conduct will prove the truth of the matter. Just this week I supported Salmon applying a 7 day Site Ban to Kyousuke for evading a chat ban. See? When you ask for something I find reasonable, I give it. I do not find asking to permanently ban him every time someone gets downwind of him to be a reasonable thing.
I hope this is more clear.
Next up:
I asked Eaon to clarify, and he explicitly meant the Application thing. Although I have said in the other thread that this has been talked about to death, I understand that's dimissive of me and inappropriate for this conversation. I will explain what I can.
First, understand I have nothing to do with directly doing apps anymore. I am not an adeptly qualified app grader. I've done like 6 all of last year, and none any more recently than like 8 months ago. I just don't do apps. So I leave the majority of the judgment up to purely my other staff. I speak up about powers and I vet that, and that's it.
Second, our grading process for applications is not collaborative. People are assigned an app to grade, and they grade it. If some of us find a significant problem, we speak up after the fact with each other, but we generally do not clear our grades with each other or discuss them openly unless we have something we are genuinely unsure about or need help with.
Third, we have published this grading rubric in order to spell out exactly what we look for.
Fourth, we have published these templates which actually go into reasonable detail about how a section might look (although this document is more for minimums, rather than excelling)
So, with those things in mind, we can take a look at the Otto Berg application and link straight to Bri's grade, wherein she takes the time to highlight in green, everything she felt the Otto app was able to meet. As you can see, she has clearly declared everything she is giving him credit for. And then you can read the Otto app to see if that thing exists.
At this point, I would encourage Walkren, Murat, Salmon, or anyone else who has done grades under this new format to chime in and say what they think the Otto app is worth. I am guessing that most or all of them will say that it's 2,800 or better, up to and including 3,000. I've reviewed this app a few times referring to the templates and rubric, and I consistently feel like I would give him 2,900 or 3,000. The only place I would dock points is in the History as I feel he significantly deviates from structure we encourage in the application, although this is not a commentary on what he has.
So, if you can objectively look at his app, and the rubric, and tell me Bri was wrong to give that grade and she is wildly off, I will 100% take you seriously and look further into possible favoritism.
It would be tremendously stupid of her to have done so with the rubric and the grade both public, especially knowing what a polarizing figure Kyousuke appears to be.
In the future, Bri would maybe do well to eliminate the appearance of bias and stay away from Kyousuke's applications, but I think you'll agree she didn't transgress here.
Nothing in the above suggests favoritism regarding his grade.
And next:
As site owner, I have absolutely nothing at all to do with the sorting of IC power. Staff has never, ever had influence over this in any way shape or form, except to enforce the standards of activity for faction leaders or people in "challengeable positions", such as Captains of the Gotei. So if you're hearing that Bri, Shun, and Kyousuke want to make some waves in the Quincy world, it's probably because they do want to. Staff does not sanction them doing this; Staff doesn't sanction anything at all that anyone does IC. This is entirely up to players.
The only thing I am here for, as staff, is to give you IC power in the form of Milestone, Rank Ups, and Masteries, at a time when you can get me to agree that you've earned them.
What titles you acquire, IC enemies you make, IC moves you make, with any of that? Is 100% up to you.
This is not a matter for me to sort out, unless you feel that another player is -refusing- to talk to you regarding important IC matters. If this is the case, I will gladly moderate a discussion between you. If this is not the case, you'll have to communicate with that person and settle things IC; this is the way it has always been. And my understanding is that this is the way people want it to stay. if it isn't, we can discuss that. Please let me know.
And finally:
I feel as if I have addressed this above, but I'll circle back to it since you did:
A lot of things on BG are institutionally lacking, and I cannot fix them all. Nor should I. I require you, all of you, in order to run this site. I demonstrably cannot do it on my own. If you want standards enforced, if you want actions taken, if you want the Code of Conduct revamped, if you want -anything-, I am 100% of the time open to honest, earnest conversation. I will always validate and hear out reasonable ideas.
"Ban Kyousuke" for every infraction is not a reasonable idea to me, without some of the things we have talked about above.
I keep saying this, and I have said this the entire time since I have been Site Owner. I've never changed my tune, and I understand that's a problem for some of you.
I am offering you a chance to do something about it that I find reasonable and agreeable. I hope cooler heads will prevail so we can try to get back to some writing.
=======================
And on a final note that was not covered by Eaon. I just wanted to take the time to say that you can make a post and ask me literally anything you want me to. Tag me in it, and I will reply. I don't care how personal it is, how controvertial it is, how theoretical it is. If it's about the site, I will respond.
Please understand that we are only 1 degree removed from each other, guys. I am not some distant, shadowy man who sends telegram of my intentions via 14 intermediaries. Several of you know me on a first name basis and have known me for years. I live here. I write here. This is my site. I am here reading the board very day and I will always hear you out no matter what you have to say.
I will never ban you for questioning me. Eaon is living proof of that. Hint: we've clashed alot.
If I respond to you and you think it's a safe, lame answer? Call me out on it. Keep pushing me until I answer. Ask me questions and you'll get a response. I would implore you to avoid backroom deals and plots, and just be open. With me, with each other, with everyone. You'll be happier. I know I will. To anyone I've disappointed either in the past or in recent days, I hope you give me an earnest and honest chance to earn it back. But if not? I wish you the best. We are all ongoing projects, myself included. I want the best for Bleach Gotei, but I don't have all the answers.
Thank you for your time.
//3230
Here is the full block quote from Eaon, although I am going to edit a couple words to stick to business as we were having a somewhat informal chat. If Eaon feels anything material was omitted, he will absolutely be able to correct that. I asked him directly to tell me what statements I need to back up, and what he would consider to be proof on my part, and then I will respond piece by piece.
I would consider it proof if you either expanded the CoC and enforced it for once, or you actually made repercussions from doing things. If when people complained that staff changed their names in chat it wasn't something they found out about after the fact but something that was brought up with them before it happened. I would consider it proof if we were allowed to know what makes the mountain of evidence to ban one person different from the mountain of evidence to ban another. I would like to see specifically what Shun's role on the site still is if he's not staff but somehow has all the power and more. I would like some proof that staff doesn't play favorites with Kyou, I would like someone to explain why I keep hearing about leaked DM's of Shun, Bri, and Kyou conspiring to fuck up the Quincy Metagame. I would like an honest justification of how exactly you can get off saying Kyou hasn't earned his ban without your PR "We've talked this to death" or "We don't think its fitting" because get this, I got a lot of people who think you guys are fucked up, but I'mma do you a solid right here nad alleviate one stress
So first up:
I would consider it proof if you either expanded the CoC and enforced it for once, or you actually made repercussions from doing things.
So by all means, if you (Eaon) or any other number of people want to create a track of discipline (X violations = Y action), or (At 5 points, you're on a one week ban, at 6, a 2 week), or any other system...I'll accept it. Just point blank, I'll adopt it. I reserve the right to strike any absurd provisions, like attempting to tie the disciplinary chart into any sort of IC consequences, et cetera, but I will otherwise simply accept it and make it a rule. I'll remove my "case by case" basis and yield to this system. Just have to give me one.
In a final reference to this point, it's obviously very silly to pretend I never enforce it at all (i.e. your language "for once") especially when we just got done permanently banning Danielle/Aryae. If you feel I do not enforce it evenly or equally, I can defend your right to say that. But to say I don't at all? That's factually, objectively, wrong. Please give credit where credit is due, as I am very much trying to do the same.
Next:
If when people complained that staff changed their names in chat it wasn't something they found out about after the fact but something that was brought up with them before it happened.
The change was not necessary. But had it been, it should have been brought up with her prior to happening. I agree completely, and I have instructed staff on this. You are absolutely right. We do occasionally -immediately- change the names of people who are new to BG, but that's a different animal entirely and only happens in the event of ridiculous names.
Next:
I would consider it proof if we were allowed to know what makes the mountain of evidence to ban one person different from the mountain of evidence to ban another.
-"Vikus" was banned indefinitely from chat because he was constantly slurring at people, while claiming it was IC. This was just a chat ban.
-Colin Arascain was indefinitely banned from the site for a number of reasons that Robert would be better equipped to explain than I would; you can talk to him, as he performed the action.
-Victoria was indefinitely banned from the site for a number of reasons, and allowed to return approximately 10 months later after sufficient effort to reform was made.
-Garra / Hatred was banned from the site for 60 days for grossly harassing players in OOC threads. He was allowed to return after 60 days.
-The person 'Prestige' was banned from chat indefinitely for promoting negativity and harassing members while refusing to participate in the community.
-Danielle / Aryae / Adrianne was banned from the site for 120 days for repeatedly identity-swapping only to intentionally dropping threads, at least three times.
-Shizuka asked to be banned indefinitely today, although I'd be happy to remove that anytime.
So in each of these instances, all of the circumstances were grossly different. And among those listed, four of the actions are genuinely full site bans. One is permanent, one was indefinite but reversed, one was 120 days, and one was 60 days. So the idea that we have something so refined and specific as to account for when or when not "this needs to be permanent" is silly. That line doesn't exist in a clear fashion, and it's only actually be done once on a guy I did not ban. Using this list, my only basis for comparison is to say, "Does Kyousuke stack up to what Colin did?", and I don't have much I can back that up with other than to say 'no, I don't really think so'.
I would tie this into what I said before, in that if you want there to be a clear line and you have a better way to quantify it than I have, I will accept and adopt what you say. It's an almost impossible question to answer. If it were easier, I'd have done it. Please understand this is not me trying to deflect, I genuinely cannot quantify or qualify a response here. No one can.
"After 11 incidents." Okay, but what if all of those incidents are just like...refusing to drop political chat out of Discord when asked? Is that just as egregious as someone who thread invades someone else 11 times because they hate them OOC? Like, the line is fucking impossible to draw in a really serious way. I cannot literally see through your eyes, and you, unfortunately, cannot literally see through mine.
One thing I will clarify though, is that in order to make a "permanent ban", I have always stated that I require something to seriously invite that. For anyone. The reason Victoria received an indefinite ban was a very serious one. The reason Danielle received a 120 ban was a pretty serious one. The reason that Garra did, I felt, was also serious. And again, Robert can comment on whether or not he felt the inciting incident to Colin's ban was serious or not. Hint: it'll be a serious one, but I dont want to put words in his mouth.
Which leads us to the "grain of sand" line that Salmon quoted, that I used in 2014.
Yes, I used that argument. While I didn't lie, and the argument did play a factor, I was also omitting things for the sake of protecting a number of other involved parties. To those of you who are still around today, I am deeply sorry this keeps coming up; it isn't my intention to repeat this. What I would choose to phrase it as is, instead of being "the reason", the 'grain of sand' served the purpose of removing any and all benefit of the doubt. The fact that there was such a tremendous pile of stuff to go along with the major incident meant that we were not inclined to accept and wiggle-room in assigning responsibility. Should Kyousuke ever infringe to a serious degree, I can most definitely assure you that the mountain of history he has would remove any and all wiggle-room for accepting responsibility. This egues into the next point.
Next up:
I would like to see specifically what Shun's role on the site still is if he's not staff but somehow has all the power and more.
He has no input on requests, he has no input on grades, he has no input on discipline.
The full disclosure here is that is most definitely a friend of mine, but that's where it ends. He handed the site over to me last March, and if he had wanted to keep all of the power he already had, he very much could have done that just by staying Owner and doling out responsibility wherever he felt like it. For example, there is nothing at all stopping me from saying "I quit" and then telling you that you are all on your own, while still remaining Site Owner. There's literally no reason for him to have stepped down, other than to step down.
So, with that in mind, let me pick out a quote that I know a lot of people were worried to read...
To me, I am only responsible for the things that I say. Shun is no me, therefore I am not responsible for the things that he says. This strikes me as basic, but I understand my mindset and perspective are my own. Shun does not speak for me. Only I speak for me. A lot of people were very concerned and even upset when I did not immediately refute his stating this. This concern genuinely escape me. To me, unless you say me say that, there's no reason to worry. But understanding that this concern escapes me, I can also understand that it does not necessarily escape you, the reader.
So let me be clear.
Kyousuke Tsukimiya can be banned. For any length of time, whether it be 7 days, 30 days, indefinitely or permanently. He is not immune to being banned while I am the Site Owner.
As I stated above and repeatedly in the other thread, I do require an inciting incident in order to invoke a permanent ban.
The problem has been where, every time he does anything at all disagreeable, I am asked to permanently ban him.
Kyousuke can be banned.
Shun can be banned.
I believe Shun was trying to state that he believe Kyousuke will never do anything worthy of a permanent ban. That is his opinion to hold, and only Kyousuke's conduct will prove the truth of the matter. Just this week I supported Salmon applying a 7 day Site Ban to Kyousuke for evading a chat ban. See? When you ask for something I find reasonable, I give it. I do not find asking to permanently ban him every time someone gets downwind of him to be a reasonable thing.
I hope this is more clear.
Next up:
I would like some proof that staff doesn't play favorites with Kyou,
First, understand I have nothing to do with directly doing apps anymore. I am not an adeptly qualified app grader. I've done like 6 all of last year, and none any more recently than like 8 months ago. I just don't do apps. So I leave the majority of the judgment up to purely my other staff. I speak up about powers and I vet that, and that's it.
Second, our grading process for applications is not collaborative. People are assigned an app to grade, and they grade it. If some of us find a significant problem, we speak up after the fact with each other, but we generally do not clear our grades with each other or discuss them openly unless we have something we are genuinely unsure about or need help with.
Third, we have published this grading rubric in order to spell out exactly what we look for.
Fourth, we have published these templates which actually go into reasonable detail about how a section might look (although this document is more for minimums, rather than excelling)
So, with those things in mind, we can take a look at the Otto Berg application and link straight to Bri's grade, wherein she takes the time to highlight in green, everything she felt the Otto app was able to meet. As you can see, she has clearly declared everything she is giving him credit for. And then you can read the Otto app to see if that thing exists.
At this point, I would encourage Walkren, Murat, Salmon, or anyone else who has done grades under this new format to chime in and say what they think the Otto app is worth. I am guessing that most or all of them will say that it's 2,800 or better, up to and including 3,000. I've reviewed this app a few times referring to the templates and rubric, and I consistently feel like I would give him 2,900 or 3,000. The only place I would dock points is in the History as I feel he significantly deviates from structure we encourage in the application, although this is not a commentary on what he has.
So, if you can objectively look at his app, and the rubric, and tell me Bri was wrong to give that grade and she is wildly off, I will 100% take you seriously and look further into possible favoritism.
It would be tremendously stupid of her to have done so with the rubric and the grade both public, especially knowing what a polarizing figure Kyousuke appears to be.
In the future, Bri would maybe do well to eliminate the appearance of bias and stay away from Kyousuke's applications, but I think you'll agree she didn't transgress here.
Nothing in the above suggests favoritism regarding his grade.
And next:
I would like someone to explain why I keep hearing about leaked DM's of Shun, Bri, and Kyou conspiring to fuck up the Quincy Metagame.
As site owner, I have absolutely nothing at all to do with the sorting of IC power. Staff has never, ever had influence over this in any way shape or form, except to enforce the standards of activity for faction leaders or people in "challengeable positions", such as Captains of the Gotei. So if you're hearing that Bri, Shun, and Kyousuke want to make some waves in the Quincy world, it's probably because they do want to. Staff does not sanction them doing this; Staff doesn't sanction anything at all that anyone does IC. This is entirely up to players.
The only thing I am here for, as staff, is to give you IC power in the form of Milestone, Rank Ups, and Masteries, at a time when you can get me to agree that you've earned them.
What titles you acquire, IC enemies you make, IC moves you make, with any of that? Is 100% up to you.
This is not a matter for me to sort out, unless you feel that another player is -refusing- to talk to you regarding important IC matters. If this is the case, I will gladly moderate a discussion between you. If this is not the case, you'll have to communicate with that person and settle things IC; this is the way it has always been. And my understanding is that this is the way people want it to stay. if it isn't, we can discuss that. Please let me know.
And finally:
I would like an honest justification of how exactly you can get off saying Kyou hasn't earned his ban without your PR "We've talked this to death" or "We don't think its fitting" because get this, I got a lot of people who think you guys are fucked up, but I'mma do you a solid right here nad alleviate one stress
I feel as if I have addressed this above, but I'll circle back to it since you did:
A lot of things on BG are institutionally lacking, and I cannot fix them all. Nor should I. I require you, all of you, in order to run this site. I demonstrably cannot do it on my own. If you want standards enforced, if you want actions taken, if you want the Code of Conduct revamped, if you want -anything-, I am 100% of the time open to honest, earnest conversation. I will always validate and hear out reasonable ideas.
"Ban Kyousuke" for every infraction is not a reasonable idea to me, without some of the things we have talked about above.
I keep saying this, and I have said this the entire time since I have been Site Owner. I've never changed my tune, and I understand that's a problem for some of you.
I am offering you a chance to do something about it that I find reasonable and agreeable. I hope cooler heads will prevail so we can try to get back to some writing.
=======================
And on a final note that was not covered by Eaon. I just wanted to take the time to say that you can make a post and ask me literally anything you want me to. Tag me in it, and I will reply. I don't care how personal it is, how controvertial it is, how theoretical it is. If it's about the site, I will respond.
Please understand that we are only 1 degree removed from each other, guys. I am not some distant, shadowy man who sends telegram of my intentions via 14 intermediaries. Several of you know me on a first name basis and have known me for years. I live here. I write here. This is my site. I am here reading the board very day and I will always hear you out no matter what you have to say.
I will never ban you for questioning me. Eaon is living proof of that. Hint: we've clashed alot.
If I respond to you and you think it's a safe, lame answer? Call me out on it. Keep pushing me until I answer. Ask me questions and you'll get a response. I would implore you to avoid backroom deals and plots, and just be open. With me, with each other, with everyone. You'll be happier. I know I will. To anyone I've disappointed either in the past or in recent days, I hope you give me an earnest and honest chance to earn it back. But if not? I wish you the best. We are all ongoing projects, myself included. I want the best for Bleach Gotei, but I don't have all the answers.
Thank you for your time.
//3230
