(09-18-2019, 02:40 PM)woelker11 Wrote:And, of course, maybe this discussion post doesn't even come to the forums, or maybe the incident doesn't happen in the first place, if members feel they can go to HO with their concerns directly.Do you not feel like you can go to HO directly with your concerns? If so, why?
(09-18-2019, 02:40 PM)woelker11 Wrote:I think we, the non-HO members of the league (that's most of us), are looking for transparency and accountability here.also, what does this mean? This is the second time I've heard of this from S18 guys, so obviously its something many people are worried about, but i'm not sure what it entails. The first time I heard about it was with the Philly GM debacle, that we were not open with that. With that, i mean we were just in a bad situation, the team was in limbo. we let you guys know as soon as we decided a new GM, only thing we could have been more transparent with is letting it be public who had applied? I feel like that isnt really somethign we should provide, but is it something you want? With this, i guess the concern is that we weren't transparent with the past precedent? I guess we could say what has happened in the past in our new post, but this subforum does have all our past decisions and such, so while we may not be overtly disclosing things to you, we're not hiding anything either. For accountability, I am also confused. Like, are people mad we're not claiming this as our fault? (09-18-2019, 08:56 PM)ADwyer87 Wrote:also, what does this mean? This is the second time I've heard of this from S18 guys, so obviously its something many people are worried about, but i'm not sure what it entails. The first time I heard about it was with the Philly GM debacle, that we were not open with that. With that, i mean we were just in a bad situation, the team was in limbo. we let you guys know as soon as we decided a new GM, only thing we could have been more transparent with is letting it be public who had applied? I feel like that isnt really somethign we should provide, but is it something you want? With this, i guess the concern is that we weren't transparent with the past precedent? I guess we could say what has happened in the past in our new post, but this subforum does have all our past decisions and such, so while we may not be overtly disclosing things to you, we're not hiding anything either. For accountability, I am also confused. Like, are people mad we're not claiming this as our fault?Well, let's start by correcting my dumb mistake: I meant approachability, not accountability. Not that accountability is unimportant; I definitely believe that you should be willing to defend and feel justified in every decision you make. But I don't know that that is even an issue in this instance. Second, in terms of transparency, I think it's just a matter of elaborating as to how you reach decisions. I think the resim decision is a great building block for that, for instance; obviously in this case, there is past precedent you can link people reading the decision to. I think I just want to know why decisions fall the way they do, not necessarily every step of the process. Now, to actually address approachability: I have had personal conversations with exactly 0 members of HO in their capacity as HO. I fundamentally believe that each of you is a great person, in the same way that I feel that way about much of the league. But I do not know that I would even consider coming to any of you directly about concerns I have with the league, because the HO side of HO members does not feel as approachable. Maybe I'm the only one that feels that way, but I think maybe engage with the community in your capacity as HO in a way that makes HO seem open to a certain level of dialogue is what I'm saying. Finally: I am flattered you think I'm part of the wonderful s18 class, but I am s17. Thanks for engaging me, Dwyer. I think this gets to the approachability thing.
P.S: Barry did the exact same thing, exposing the IP of not one but two underage members of the community in the same post and received no punishment, in fact he was commended by people who are currently in Head Office in the thread, and his post directly influenced the proceedings of the (wrongful) ban.
To make it worse, the photos are still up on the website Bye, Noble (09-18-2019, 03:21 PM)Guest_Noble Wrote:P.S: Barry did the exact same thing, exposing the IP of not one but two underage members of the community in the same post and received no punishment, in fact he was commended by people who are currently in Head Office in the thread, and his post directly influenced the proceedings of the (wrongful) ban.can you point to where in a discord PM? I dont remember this incident (09-18-2019, 03:11 PM)woelker11 Wrote:Well, let's start by correcting my dumb mistake: I meant approachability, not accountability. Not that accountability is unimportant; I definitely believe that you should be willing to defend and feel justified in every decision you make. But I don't know that that is even an issue in this instance.haha, sorry about that. I just remember seeing you in rookie chat, hard to remember who is who sometimes. transparency would be a little hard in that case. I do try and give some reasoning behind decisions, but its also kind of hard because HO can be divided. We generally agree on stuff, but not every decision is 5-0. So it would be hard for us to give our way of thinking as a whole unanimous HO because not all of us have the same line of thinking. Heck, i forget what it was, but a while back we had a decision that was a 5-0 decision but there were 3 different reasons for it. Or just some stuff i guess we just dont have a deep reason for it? like with this last punishment our reasoning was just that he leaked an IP, not much more deep than that. For approachability, i definitely think its something we need, I just didn't know it was an issue. I try to be active in the community, mess aorund, sometimes even join a voice chat in rookie discord. I will try to be more active in the general public, can just be hard sometimes with all the chats i have to jump around into
punishment was deserved. move along.
S25 Sarasota: 26 rec, 437 yds, 16.8 ypc, 4 TD
S26 Sarasota: 45 rec, 724 yds, 16.1 ypc, 7 TD
S27 Sarasota: 81 rec, 1,122 yds, 13.9 ypc, 8 TD **Ultimus Champs** S28 Sarasota: 84 rec, 1,182 yds, 14.1 ypc, 3 TD
S29 Sarasota: 105 rec, 1,470 yds, 14.0 ypc, 14 TD **PRO BOWL**
S30 Sarasota: 80 rec, 1,174 yds, 14.7 ypc, 9 TD **Ultimus Champs** (09-18-2019, 01:08 PM)Dylandeluxe Wrote:@124715 posted a screenshot from the forums to the NSFL discord that displayed another user's IP address. This is a direct violation of rule D8. This infraction happened also in March of 2018 but is not related to the first. I also would like to publicly clarify this part. The image I posted was not a screenshot of a user's post, but rather of a guest, which is not a violation of rule D.8. |
|