I don't remember Joe Capitano being this belligerent when he was doing the recaps.
Excuse me, what? This phrasing is silly and you know it. Joe Capitano's one defining trait as recapper was belligerence.
In Torgo's defense, I did side with him during the whole "Non-Readout Day" issue. Prizes also took some of our comments as a personal insult.
In your quote of me, note that I mention a personal attack, which does not mean insult. It means an attack one's character, as in an ad hominem
attack, literally translating as to the person. I was disappointed in the page's reading comprehension, not insulted. The two statements can overlap, but that wasn't the case.
This and her defense of said action came completely out of the blue. At first, she said the Non-Readout Day wouldn't happen again but then she revealed that Chelsea (whom I didn't expect to be behind this sort of thing at all) decided on doing it the day before the next show airs. It was something that they -inaccuracy removed- decided on behind closed doors.
Defense of such action came about because of Chelsea's work schedule, which often makes it hard for her to be in the chat. Also, these facts/instances aren't aligned properly, regardless of external circumstances. I do feel bad about the first no-readout day because it was on such short notice, the night before. However, the second was decided a good 30 hours beforehand. I frankly don't think this kind of thing needs more than a mention a few hours beforehand, if that, and that's only because of Torgo, who uses said readouts to form the recap. Because of the previously unknown issues this caused, it was deemed in the best interest of Torgo to have any sort of warning that would allow him to prepare adequately.
These were unknown for a reason you're actually likely pretty well antiquated with: The chat never used to do readouts, and as such, recaps never followed them. The latter of course, is my mistake, on the first iteration. In contrast, however, the former doesn't require notice, at all. Why does the site even need to be told that it will be a no-readout day, either time? There is no reason for it. Change and innovation happens, oftentimes with less notice than this. That's life.
I never stated the reason why I wanted this, did I? Well, here goes. This site quality from many members, has really taped off, as of late. The chat no longer has valid discussion beyond yay, aw, and a bunch of gimmicks.
I'm not saying chat or this pagehas to have the solemnity of a church, I'm just saying I want better quality in the chat, and subsequently, the forum itself, and in show discussion. In an effort to improve that, I wanted to see if by removing the culprit of distractions, and easy outs to discussion. It's why I have that Steve Gavazzi quote in my signature. Posts lack the same quality on the whole they once had. If it was sustainable before, why can't it happen again? With Steve, CU, Alfonzo, Torgo, Army, Chelsea, myself, among others, that's the site we're trying to create. That will not be changing. Quality has always been the main goal of any page I associate with, be it as a contributing member, moderator, or administrator. Buy a Vowel is a good example of what I mean, in terms of quality of posters. Do I want all to agree with me? It'd be nice, but boring, especially in a world of nearly seven billion living individuals. Not everyone is going to agree, so long as there is solid discussion, points of contrast, and, in a broad meaning of the term, learning. Right now, the vast majority of this page lacks any of those, not to mention some intangibles, such as humor.
Now, pray tell, did my small-scale experiment it work? No. I was wrong, I admit that. But the idea at least warranted consideration. Chelsea liked it because it was something new and different, and wanted to see that first-hand. Other than Torgo and the recap, which is something I genuinely felt bad about, what did anybody have to lose for that one show? Sticking with one, because one was purely experimental, and if we can't at least try something new here, once, than this place is much more stuck in the past and in its ideals than thought possible. In that sense, perhaps, the original trial was getting a young child to try a vegetable: It may not be pleasant, there's likely disagreement, but it's for the growth and health of the child or site, no matter how small.
As for the closed door bit, yep. No question. Some decisions about staffing, moderating, etc. are going to be autonomous of the general page. That's the nature of online forums. We're not going to go around asking every active member on the page if such and such a member should be banned from the chatroom, before a decision is reached, as your statement implies. For one, it is unnecessary, and two it would take any sort of control of the page out of those who have been proven trustworthy to do so. Of course, the latter, with respect to asking every member, is absolutely hypothetical, since you didn't present an argument near anything like that, lest I be accused of a strawman argument on that front.
When the criticism ensued, Prizes ignored it and she [and] Chelsea -inaccuracy removed- went on with what they decided on anyway. As I said in that thread, it's not the staff wanting something different for a day that bugs me. It's the decision to do so with very little time for members to see for themselves, rendering them helpless in the discussion.
This quote tells me you didn't read the rest of the thread where you linked my feelings of feeling 'insulted', honestly, given the following:
No-readout day returning for Monday's show is 100% me. After getting both compliments and complaints about the first one, I wanted to see another play out, this one in person. Figured while the issue was still fresh. Didn't want time to elapse and "oh, hey, boom here it is again". If there's criticism, I wanna hear it. If there's compliments or praise, I want to hear it.
The reason I'm so intrigued by the idea is it's the first *new* thing that's been tried around here in a while, and I like new ideas.
The "no readout" idea was an interesting one, remembering how the readout started in the first place, and I wanted to see it in it's actual implementation.
Furthermore, Guint and I originally had a collusive effort to do the next one around, perhaps on, the Thanksgiving show, intentionally timed for when we calculated the next date chat would be at near-peak population. If you want to be okay with that, you can't thank just him, and blame me in the process! Joint effort on the next scheduling deal.
Chelsea's idea to come in just for that was a surprise, and not only did I not want to turn her down, I did not know the next time she'd be available to do so. When you work with someone who has a limited schedule time, you do your best to work with their schedule; especially if they are your superior. This was done out of courtesy, quite simply.
Please refrain from casting retaliation stones, until you know who shot them. I maintain that, other than Torgo, nobody stands to lose anything with no warning of such an effort in the future. Of course, it's only fair to ask: Why and what would you, both as an individual and speaking for the forum members on the whole, stand to benefit from more advance notice of such an event?
Before I make any decision regarding an action on a given page, I always consider five factors, in this order, but not of this importance. One: How do I, as an individual, benefit or become affected from this decision? If it it positive and/or with good affection, go to number two: How does my staff, on the whole, benefit or become other affected by this decision? If it it positive and/or with good affection, go to number three: How do the (non-staff) members of this page, on the whole, benefit or become other affected by this decision? If it it positive and/or with good affection, go to number four: How are visitors (outsiders) impacted, benefitted, harmed or affected by this decision? If it turns out okay, it's the last step: How do these elements apply to long term outcomes and to its similar-interest based communities, of individuals you want coming to the page? If all are succeeded, the action is taken. Not that you disputed this, but if you look at the no-readout plan, it meets all of these goals, on various levels.
Obviously, it isn't totally this simple, given short term, long term outcomes, not to mention the benefits of alienating one of the aforementioned groups. Besides, some of that is trade secrets for how to run any kind of successful business!
If we're going to have the moderators call out members for their honesty, then what's the point in having this thread?
Honesty? Care to explain? Genuinely unsure of what you mean specifically in this case, as I cannot accurately address these concerns at this time.
As for calling people out for these actions, while I appreciate the constructive criticism directed towards me, I'd like to see some additional potential solutions in there as well. It's what we have to do as staff for a multitude of factors, after all! After all, this is the thread where you get to be the mods, and to some degree, show us what kind of moderator you would be. In defense of Kevin though, he offered the idea about waiting. This is one I can agree with, as it was the intended original plan. Keep them coming!
One thing I am not happy about with though, is how much this thread has turned into biyotch about Torgo, from a few members, on the whole. Constructive criticism is fair, and I'd like to see more of it. Of course, there's some of that in here, it's certainly not every post. More specifically, JJ's done a nice job of doing just that.