Important: The tag titles

[Bare]

If I can just chime in I’ve been trying to stay out of this as a moderator due to being close to oretty much all parties involved.

Yes winner has held onto the tag titles for far too long. Plain and simple and there shojld be a plan soon for dropping them I wont argue that personally. Obviously it wasnt done with malicious intent and its probably just a mix of winner personally not realizing how far its gone, as well as commjnity demand for the tsg titles to be released. Not saying that as an excuse for the reign going so long but just as a plain and simple reasoning as to why.

Now I totally understand the distrust and reasons for being upset at it but I can promise anyone reading this that winner has seen the conversation. I wont put any words in his mouth or say anything on his behalf but all I can say is be patient for when does respond.

Personally speaking Ive felt much of the discourse we’ve had on the discord server has been very healthy and constructive both on topic and related topics that have branched out as a result.

As a community that’s how we should handle things. All I really want to say is that I hope we continue to handle this and any future topics of a similar nature in a similar manner and continue to be reasonable but also patient.

[Ichi]

Summary (TL;DR)
It's probably better to keep the conversation on the tag titles for now. However, that doesn't mean that the other matters/frustrations regarding Winner are unimportant. I don't think anything—the untimely title reign, people's reactions towards it, et cetera—should be trivialized here.

I think some lenience should be given towards Winner as a person. However, I don't think one should make excuses or play apologist for his actions or the effects they've had on other people. I don't believe that there is any viable justification for the title reign's length.

I'll also say that I don't want this to turn into a procedural slugfest where one side asserts that the other should've talked about this matter in private first—attempts at private communication were made, and some people have been given strong reasons to doubt that talking things out in private was a viable option.

(EDIT: My last paragraph can reasonably be misinterpreted as me trying to justify public outcry. However, this was not the intent. Its purpose was to preempt Winner from using the "private communication first" heuristic to implicitly discredit criticism, something that I have reason to suspect is a possibility.)


Main Text

Click to expand

I'm going to be slightly redundant here, but I believe the redundancies are worth reiterating.

As a preemptive step, I think it would be helpful to keep the discussion here—at least for now—on the tag titles. I don't believe that trying to pivot to talking about other matters would be helpful at the moment, even though those other matters are important.

I'll also point out that people's concerns and frustrations regarding the tag titles should not be trivialized. I also don't anyone should be maligned for bringing this matter up.

I get that from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with certain matters, it might seem trivial. But, the adage of "when people seem to be overreacting, there's often more to it" is very much salient here.

---

Now, as for Winner's actions, I believe some leniency can be shown towards Winner regarding the lack of timeliness with the tag titles. Such was likely not born out of malice, nor do I think Winner intended to hurt anyone.

That being said, I don't believe that one should make excuses or play apologist for said lack of timeliness. Nor do I think one should trivialize the damaging effects that attempts to do so have had on trust.

Personally, I don't think it would be productive for anyone to try to defend the length and activity of the SWAT Cats's title reign. A lot of the arguments for it fall flat when one considers the spirit of the rules and community sentiment. Nor would it be persuasive to try to justify discrepancies between administrative actions taken towards title reigns by citing a lack of complaints—such is a poor metric, is unreliable due to the chilling effect (i.e. people are reluctant to complain about an authority figure directly to said figure), and a lack of complaints does not justify lack of adherence to procedures and norms. Claiming positive reception of the SWAT Cats does not give one carte blanche to mishandle a title reign, nor does it mean that people wish for the SWAT Cats to reign in perpetuity.

(The examples I gave in the last paragraph were prophylactic, rather than an assertion that said arguments have or will be made.)

I'd also prefer to not see anyone turning this discussion into a procedural slugfest by insisting that this matter should've been brought up privately—they were brought up privately beforehand, and I know for a fact that some have been given reasons to actively doubt that private conversation was viable. Talking in private before going public is a solid heuristic, but it is also one that can be weaponized to derail discourse.

(EDIT: My last paragraph can reasonably be misinterpreted as me trying to justify public outcry. However, this was not the intent. Its purpose was to preempt Winner from using the "private communication first" heuristic to implicitly discredit criticism, something that I have reason to suspect is a possibility.)

[Malkavia]

I'd also prefer to not see anyone turning this discussion into a procedural slugfest by insisting that this matter should've been brought up privately—they were brought up privately beforehand, and I know for a fact that some have been given reasons to actively doubt that private conversation was viable. Talking in private before going public is a solid heuristic, but it is also one that can be weaponized to derail discourse.

You say "attempts at talking in private have been made."

Ok, here’s my experience of private talks. You once spent several drunken hours in my DMs trying to manipulate, badger, and bully me into sharing details of private conversations with Winner after I’d explicitly told you to leave me alone about it — in large part because you had nothing to do with the situation in question.

Why do I bring this up? Because as much as I disagree with some of Winner’s decision, neither he nor his rules have *ever* done anything like that. And "that" does *way* more to kill the vibe than any winner decision or absence or belt. And it’s not just you. People are *regularly* shitty to staff and each other out of a sense of entitlement to what they think is the correct outcome to X, Y, or Z.

"We tried talking in private, but we got ignored so now we’re going to have this conversation in public" is a huge tell. It indicates you feel entitled to the "correct" or "fair" policy, and if you can’t persuade the siterunner to agree, then you’ll politick to force the issue.

I’m gonna be blunt. It’s Winner’s site. If Winner wanted to blow up law and use the domain to run an aromatic soap e-commerce platform, that’s his call. No, we don’t actually have a right for him to be fair. If you disagree with some of his decisions, great, me too, but if you can’t persuade him to agree, then tough. Take your rp to a site that’s a better fit if you really can’t deal with it, but don’t play these godforsaken political games.

[Bearhug Goddess]

As far as I agree with everyone in this thread, I don’t agree with the "who kill the vibe" in LAW. I'm not saying that because i'm probably pointed with that sentence but because none of thid would happen if Winner applied the rules on himself, like I ans other people asked.

He may be the admin, fair, but trust is the base of everything. Why would I accept to follow the rules of someone who ignore it when it's the best for him ? Why would I want to stay in an unfair place where being friend with the admin will give me more fun and more "power" than other user ? It just can’t work.

And like you said when it go public aftrt tryong to talk in private with no success... But that's all Winner's fault. Why don’t he tell us why ? Why don’t he explain his situation and why when someone else is in his situaton the rules are applied ?

He probably have a reason to be inactive the 3 last years by doing one post every month in a thread, he probably have an hidden thread with them losing the tag belt, maybe he have nothing at all and is struggling to pass out the belt for years... Still, other users was in the szme situation and Winner took actions for them.

It's so frustrating to point this out in public because we don’t have any actions or answer without it, it litteraly bother everyone equally. But if you prefer to stay silent and let this unfair situation keep going it just means you agree and are ok with this situation.

[Mysterdio]

BG is completely correct. It's not about pointing fingers for this or that about "who kills the vibe." We all have people on here we have our issues with. It's a big place. It's about being able to trust that the rules will be upheld fairly, which is only reasonable.

[anime_hentaifighter]

Not that have any in the know knowledge, but I doubt it was done with malicious intent, we’re busy adults and stuff gets overlooked. Doesn’t take any serious enjoyment away from the site, and I’m sure if it’s addressed it will be resolved. On another note, could always make your own unofficial tag gimmick title and go crazy with it!

Ohhh like what Tazz did when the champ was injured as he made his unofficial championship a big deal.

[DSX93]

I’m gonna be blunt. It’s Winner’s site. If Winner wanted to blow up law and use the domain to run an aromatic soap e-commerce platform, that’s his call. No, we don’t actually have a right for him to be fair. If you disagree with some of his decisions, great, me too, but if you can’t persuade him to agree, then tough.

I've really gotta disagree with this bit here. What I've got in bold, to be more precise. And more in general terms than anything against Winner, exactly. Fair treatment should be the standard, not a privilege.

[Mysterdio]

Fair treatment should be the standard, not a privilege.

This is completely right, too. If you establish rules then it's the bare minimum that you uphold them equally as the person setting them in place and still occasionally enforce them. This is not to say that Winner has done this purposefully or maliciously as many have emphasised, but DSX is 100% correct in saying this.

[ThatPolishDude]

BG is completely correct. It's not about pointing fingers for this or that about "who kills the vibe." We all have people on here we have our issues with. It's a big place. It's about being able to trust that the rules will be upheld fairly, which is only reasonable.

That is a correct notion, of course we want rules to be fair and such but there already are a lot of leaniencies given to people other then winner, a lot of slaps on the wrist being given out and while the tag titles are a big shiny target cause we can stick it to the big man for exploiting their position or whatever you want to paint it as but the fact is that some of the most vocal people have also been given a lot of grace and we had multiple instances of staff being acused of inaction shortly after people complained about them being too medlsome.

Wanting fair rules is great, wanting them enforced fairly is great but expiriance both as a member of staff and a user is that people will not respect whatever ruling is made because it is not the ruling they wanted. The same people crying for something to be done will be the people slinging insults and accusations the moment something is actually done and try to pressure for it to be changed.

There is no solution that will make everyone happy and regardless of what is done, somone will complain that they are treated unfairly.
Something does need to be done but i empathise with the staff cause doing anything will suck either way

[FreestylePoet]

I’m gonna be blunt. It’s Winner’s site. If Winner wanted to blow up law and use the domain to run an aromatic soap e-commerce platform, that’s his call. No, we don’t actually have a right for him to be fair. If you disagree with some of his decisions, great, me too, but if you can’t persuade him to agree, then tough.

I've really gotta disagree with this bit here. What I've got in bold, to be more precise. And more in general terms than anything against Winner, exactly. Fair treatment should be the standard, not a privilege.

If this is your response, then I would recommend rereading what @Malkavia actually wrote.

The minor point that Malk is making is that, like, even though basically all of us here agree on the important bit -- that the tag belt has been held for far too long -- Winner might just not go along with it. That's not some giant objective sin, and none of your or my rights are being abrogated by it. It's just a site admin doing the thing he wants with his site, and even though we all think that's a problem, we can just RP somewhere else if we dislike the decision. And honestly that goes for any site decision, like Polish said a lot of times there's no easy call like there might be in this situation. If you disagree with how something goes, you move on if you can or you take your activity somewhere else if you can't move on. That's not controversial, I would hope.

The more important part, that I think you and everybody here should reread, is that if people are going to be really annoying, like one unrelated user DMing and badgering another unrelated user who doesn't want to talk to them, then subtweeting them on the forum, that's bad. Like @Bare said, conversation both here and on the Discord has generally been very productive and mature. And like Malk suggested, that's actually a really good improvement on most site policy conversations! @ThatPolishDude mentioned something along those lines: Lots of times people genuinely do get disrespectful when they're mad about how something is going on the site, and this time I think people have been pretty reasonable. People who aren't doing that should stop doing it. That's, like, the bulk of Malk's message and I wouldn't read deeper into it than that.

TL;DR most people are chill, keep being chill