@greenflashlight said in Something Completely Different:
To people who perceive it as an injustice, "Hey guys please allow this injustice to carry on until I can consult with someone who actually matters (unlike you) about whether this actually is unjust" isn't a super reasonable request.
I asked everyone for the opportunity to talk with mietze about what was going on. Mietze has already explained things from her perspective. I knew that she had other things going on and that the protesting was triggering her and causing more stress. I told her I would do what I can to quiet things down.
We talked about shutting the place down for a couple of weeks, but she shot down that idea. In the end, we decided that I would do my best to get everyone to hold off so that, when she was ready, she could go back, review the record, and we could deal with the situation together. I told her to take all the time she needed.
Ultimately, I think I failed.
To me, there were four matters that arose contemporaneously, which I'll address in no particular order. First, there was Derp's and Roz's elevation to staff, the former of which was met with loud skepticism. Second, there was the matter on the Politics board, which led to demands that Derp be removed as staff. Third, there was the locking of the "Admin Derp" thread, which was connected to the first matter and raised the issue of whether threads attacking members or admins were permitted. Finally, there was farfalla's banning for continuing to communicate with a member who asked them to stop communicating with them.
The first three are all interwoven. Regarding the thread, I concluded that a thread targeting a member or staff did not violate our Rules of Engagement, so mietze's lock on the topic at issue was lifted. I also concluded that it would have been unfair for me to dismiss an admin to whom I failed to communicate my expectations, but still had a long talk with Derp about what my expectations of him are. As such, I stated that I would not remove him for what happened on the Politics board.
The matter involving farfalla is what I believe set off the firestorm. Some people felt that it was a borderline call; some people felt that the complaining member instigated the matter; some people felt that I was too punitive. We had previously banned another member for paging someone who told them to stop (Ortallus), so a ban as a consequence for continuing to PM someone after they tell you to stop should have been no surprise. Further, when someone tells someone else to stop, they should stop. That said, farfalla's ban is still being review and may be lifted under the circumstances.
As an aside, after farfalla's ban, Meg asked if farfalla would be given access to her account so that she could take a log of the conversation. This request was granted, and farfalla was unbanned for 24 hours for that purpose, on the condition that she not communicate with anyone through the account (thus respecting the effect of the ban).
If the injustice is the ban, then, as I said, it is under review. Staff agreed to review all bans levied out of the event. We have not yet made any decisions, but we intend to complete the review within the next few days.
Whether the protesting was reasonable is I think a matter of opinion, as is my decision to ban those who were doing so. All I can offer is an explanation, tell the community what we are doing now, and how we hope to restore faith going forward.