Hello, the intent of this pastebin is only as a response to rwf's (recently made public) pastebin attacking LaurieRose. It's important to me that you know I really didn't want to out this, but it's the only way I can answer that pastebin. It wouldn't be fair to LaurieRose to let those public accusations stand to damage her credibility as a moderator when there exist very good answers to the attacks made against her.

LaurieRose did not do perfectly as a trial mod, she did stumble a bit, and made some poor assessments. Some of the content of rwf's attack-bin is valid criticism, but a lot of it is very misleading, or just flat out wrong. It's important that LaurieRose's performance be taken in the context of most of the mod team at the time not wanting to provide her any assistance whatsoever, and a few going out of their way to nitpick everything she did, and make a public spectacle out of each. Anyone can look like they did a bit poorly under this level of scrutiny. You'll notice that although LaurieRose has an extremely high OT rate, most of the appeals made against her are just by mods, and even small corrections like a duplicate vio that should be corrected silently being made into an [Appeal] so that everyone knows she made a little mistake.

When I conceived of the idea for trial mods, I never expected parts of the mod team to treat it like a vehicle to bash and humiliate the applicants they didn't want to succeed. LaurieRose has my deepest apologies for putting her in a situation like this. In future iterations of the trial mod system, I will ensure there is CLEAR understanding that trial mods are to be given assistance and goodwill from the mod team. I said the mods didn't need to help the trial mods because I expected most mods would be happy to offer that help for most applicants, and that insisting on it would not be necessary.

Now I will explain both the atmosphere LaurieRose was provided with while attempting to mod, as well as explain many of the unfair criticisms made against her:


Dezeriae explains to myself and LaurieRose how she needs to fail her trial because the trial mod system needs to fail (they are intentionally sabotaging the effort)

PM log of dezeriae's comments to LaurieRose
dezeriae  sent a message to LaurieRose  4h 40m ago
« Back  Reply
I understand that. It is still about formalities, we just don't mod people with active cheating vios. I know (from all the excessive information I was provided with) what you have done/what your intentions were. It's still about a rule which is still intact - cheaters don't get modded. Since you are a special case, we draw the line atleast violation expiration before modding. That is the absolute minimum.
dezeriae  sent a message to LaurieRose  4h 26m ago
« Back  Reply
No, you are not the only one, believe me, everybody got their fair amount of shit thrown at them privately.
You are the one in the middle, and I told you this, I told this to Arc a week ago minimum too. You gonna be taking the toll what this caused, there is no helping to that. You were smart enough to know that as being the only trial mod, you gonna take the shit which it entails. I'm sorry it hurts you, but you took a position which was doomed to fail, along with you.
Remember, we don't want you to fail. It is not personal. We want the system to fail so we can rebuild a system that works and is bettering the site instead. That of course means, you can't succeed for that to happen.
Also, don't take what Katie is doing right now as personal. She is doing it as an eye-opener.
dezeriae  sent a message to LaurieRose  4h 3m ago
« Back  Reply
He is not doing it though and asked Katie to provide him games where you made the wrong call.
And yeah, I'm fully aware of what I've said. If you are modded under the sun of this glorious Trial Mod system, then moderation is doomed cause the system is not good and is very exploitable.

LadyNemesis expresses to Laurie the same sentiment that Dezeriae did... that LaurieRose is being set up to fail so that my idea can be viewed as a failure.

[5/25/2014 4:16:39 PM] LadyNemesis: I know we're not particularly helpful, but we've been told it's unnecessary to help
[5/25/2014 4:16:52 PM] Laurie Rose: yeah that I know lol
[5/25/2014 4:17:02 PM] Laurie Rose: until i can't action reports rofl
[5/25/2014 4:18:09 PM] LadyNemesis: and to be very honest when I look at myself I might also want to prove a point. I think a training system would be very good, but not like it's done now. And if I'd help you out I'd actually create some kind of training system and the current way of doing this might seem a success....
[5/25/2014 4:18:23 PM] LadyNemesis: I am telling you because I don't want you to think it's personal
[5/25/2014 4:18:36 PM] Laurie Rose: I'll be honest though, it feels like the mods are fighting against me a bit (most not all) and just leaving me to sink or swim to prove or disprove
[5/25/2014 4:18:41 PM] Laurie Rose: oh just what i was saying
[5/25/2014 4:18:41 PM] Laurie Rose: lol
[5/25/2014 4:18:55 PM] LadyNemesis: Yeah well we've been told it'll save us time
[5/25/2014 4:19:11 PM] LadyNemesis: and training people doesn't save time, it costs time. For a good cause of course, but ey, that's not the current idea of the system.
[5/25/2014 4:19:39 PM] Laurie Rose: well the thing is, you guys have been very quick to call for me to be unmodded instead of looking at ALL of the reports I've done.  Again I know part of that is because reports aren't actioned, etc.  But i'm saying it SEEMS like you guys are hoping this fails
[5/25/2014 4:19:48 PM] LadyNemesis: I know I could be more welcoming and it's unfair towards you. I really think the current implementation is not the best though and the only thing to get that point across is let it work as it is intended
[5/25/2014 4:19:54 PM] LadyNemesis: which is: not needing to help..
[5/25/2014 4:19:59 PM] Laurie Rose: THAT I get
[5/25/2014 4:20:17 PM] Laurie Rose: although I should be able to ask questions about rules and situations, though they would be minimal.

[5/25/2014 4:25:00 PM] LadyNemesis: I just hope that I can get the point across that the current way of implementing this needs some.. change
[5/25/2014 4:25:07 PM] Laurie Rose: obviously
[5/25/2014 4:25:18 PM] LadyNemesis: well robert didn't seem open for it a few days ago
[5/25/2014 4:25:24 PM] LadyNemesis: which is partially why I didnt offer help.
[5/25/2014 4:25:44 PM] LadyNemesis: So I'm sorry you get screwed just because I want to get a poitn across.

[5/25/2014 4:40:23 PM] LadyNemesis: I am not sure what I want yet. I think you could be an asset to the team, but you are 'failing' according to the 'rules' he made up. And if I'd ask him to mod you it might look like it succeeded. I am gonna think about this, communicatoin wise.
[5/25/2014 4:41:11 PM] Laurie Rose: na it didn't succeed because I had to not be a trial mod.  He had to mod me until the tools are in place.  but I don't think it needs to be about it failing, but more about
[5/25/2014 4:41:16 PM] Laurie Rose: it being reworked
[5/25/2014 4:41:25 PM] Laurie Rose: something not working the first time is not a failure if it's a good idea.
[5/25/2014 4:41:27 PM] LadyNemesis: yeah I agree, but that's the point I tried to get across thursday
[5/25/2014 4:41:33 PM] LadyNemesis: and every suggestion has been blown off
[5/25/2014 4:41:48 PM] Laurie Rose: I will be honest, your take on it on you WANTING IT TO FAIL is not the best take.
[5/25/2014 4:42:01 PM] Laurie Rose: it's more that he needs to see it needs to be reworked to work correctly
[5/25/2014 4:42:19 PM] Laurie Rose: I think you mean that
[5/25/2014 4:42:27 PM] LadyNemesis: all points that are difficult for you and for us are points I've raised.
[5/25/2014 4:42:30 PM] LadyNemesis: yes
[5/25/2014 4:42:34 PM] LadyNemesis: reworked a LOT
[5/25/2014 4:42:40 PM] Laurie Rose: lol
[5/25/2014 4:42:41 PM] Laurie Rose: :)
[5/25/2014 4:42:44 PM] LadyNemesis: but since he didnt wanna listen to suggestions, I use the word 'well lets fail it then'
[5/25/2014 4:42:55 PM] LadyNemesis: that's why I feel bad towards you because its not personal
[5/25/2014 4:43:19 PM] LadyNemesis: but I'm afraid a 'failure' might be the only thing to get the point across that it needs work
[5/25/2014 4:44:33 PM] Laurie Rose: but if you are WORKING for it to be a failure by inaction or otherwise......is it a failure or a setup?
[5/25/2014 4:44:43 PM] Laurie Rose: MIND you I know that a bad plan is a setup as well
[5/25/2014 4:44:45 PM] Laurie Rose: lol
[5/25/2014 4:44:52 PM] LadyNemesis: I'm not working for it, I'm just letting happen how it's been designed ;)


Apperantly several mods were complaining that someone had shadow banned maymay (lobby ban with no record in mod actions). Since LaurieRose has this capability, they were quick to put the blame on her. She had 0 reason to troll-ban maymay given the seriousness of her attempt at trial mod, and the shit shes taken over it. She of course denies it, and there was no report she might have handled of maymays that could lead to this. Given how a couple of my mods are trying to make Laurie fail, and knew about this shadow ban exploit (raised it as a problem to me when discussing trial mods. any mod can do it though, not just a lobby mod), you decide for yourself if they did this to frame her. They had previously been harping on her for banning someone from lobby temporarily in lieu of a suspension, which isn't a big deal since she couldn't suspend at the time and as long as she kept track of it it makes no difference.

Once I told the mod team that I wouldn't fail Laurie unless it was due to a lack of merits during her trial, rwf decided to start looking through all her reports, and OTing them if she possibly could. She also wrote a nasty pastebin called "Trial Mod Evaluation" which is extremely bitter, and attempts to place everything Laurie has done in a negative light. http://pastebin.com/Z8a6tDnf Here are some of the OTs rwf performed to discredit Laurie:

https://epicmafia.com/report/97624 rwf's OT
https://epicmafia.com/report/96736 Laurie's original report.
Reason for OT: Not lynching the confirmed scum isn't gamethrowing here. He voted the cop that he believed was mafia. It's the same as him hammering the next day (he'd just vote dixey the next day if the lynch was correct, and if it wasn't it's like him mishammering later).

This is not at all what's going on this game. Laurierose gave this guy a violation because it was a lost autowin. The cop was clear because the watcher didn't see his CC visit. Vegas didn't realize this, and was trying to win with his own logic, and hence NV is a correct OT, but rwf didn't realize this, and quickly overturned LaurieRose in a manner which makes her appear foolish. She also changed it to ISP after a different issue was pointed out by Goemon, claiming another moderator had affirmed it in the comments, which is also wrong because Vegas didn't show a lack of effort, he had his own reason.

https://epicmafia.com/report/97531 rwf's OT
https://epicmafia.com/report/97424 Laurie's original report
Reason for OT: 2 minutes of not speaking is not ISP.

If you look at the game a little closer, EpicVillager, the fiddler, put his team in auto-loss by not claiming. He had a night action so he was there during the night, and the cop had an inno. The watcher outed, and a blue was in GY, so it was auto for town unless watcher was CC'd (fiddler's job here). We could give EpicVillager the benefit of the doubt that he was away for the first 2 mins, but given that he has acquired many violations in a short time, and has 3 GT, that's not likely. Laurie's assignment of ISP negligence for the failure to cc out of autoloss was fine here. Importantly, rwf tries to make it look like Laurie didn't know what she was doing, by suggesting Laurie assigned the vio ONLY for 2 mins of silence from the player during the game.

I told the mods that any form of bias or abuse from a trial mod would result in immediate disqualification, so rwf confronts Laurie and tries to paint her as biased for... giving banned user Sirius a vio partially based on his previous vios.. mods are supposed to take previous vios into account when reviewing cases, this is not "bias", but rwf thinks she can convince Laurie that she was biased on the report and get her to admit to it: she never complains about this to me (and she sure complains about Laurie a lot) because she knows the argument would fall flat.

[5/30/2014 8:16:19 PM] Laurie Rose: well a) I wasn't biased b) I did it on the basis of why he got shot
[5/30/2014 8:16:20 PM] Laurie Rose: ok
[5/30/2014 8:16:27 PM] Ded: it wasn't lack of effort holy fuck it was only two minutes
[5/30/2014 8:16:28 PM] Laurie Rose: well I want you to recognize I was not "biased"
[5/30/2014 8:16:31 PM] Ded: it looks
[5/30/2014 8:16:32 PM] Ded: very biased
[5/30/2014 8:16:33 PM] Ded: especially
[5/30/2014 8:16:36 PM] Ded: since your reasoning
[5/30/2014 8:16:37 PM] Laurie Rose: Katie? ease up here.
[5/30/2014 8:16:43 PM] Ded: was that he had a lot of vios
[5/30/2014 8:16:59 PM] Laurie Rose: I didnt REALIZE how many vios he had until I had decided and looked it up to figure out what the penalty is
[5/30/2014 8:17:08 PM] Laurie Rose: so no, i wasn't biased
[5/30/2014 8:17:20 PM] Ded: yes
[5/30/2014 8:17:21 PM] Ded: you were
[5/30/2014 8:17:23 PM] Ded: yawn
[5/30/2014 8:17:29 PM] Ded: you saw a lot of vios
[5/30/2014 8:17:31 PM] Ded: and went
[5/30/2014 8:17:41 PM] Ded: HAH MUST HAVE BEEN ISP FOR 120 SECONDS OF INACTIVITY
[5/30/2014 8:17:44 PM] Laurie Rose: girl-I wasn't. bottom line.  I looked AFTERWARDS to see how many they had so I can figure out.
[5/30/2014 8:19:13 PM] Laurie Rose: and fact is you WANT to believe I was biased because you really don't want me to be a mod.  that is no secret.
[5/30/2014 8:19:21 PM] Ded: oh god you were just
[5/30/2014 8:19:21 PM] Laurie Rose: so look at yourself when we talk about biased
[5/30/2014 8:19:23 PM] Ded: very biased
[5/30/2014 8:19:27 PM] Ded: in your description
[5/30/2014 8:19:45 PM] Laurie Rose: I said I wasn't biased.  I made a NOTE how many vios they had for future looking back for other reports
[5/30/2014 8:19:46 PM] Ded: previous vios =/= intent
[5/30/2014 8:19:52 PM] Laurie Rose: I never said it was
[5/30/2014 8:19:54 PM] Ded: he didn't have
[5/30/2014 8:19:55 PM] Ded: isp vios
[5/30/2014 8:19:57 PM] Ded: 2 minutes
[5/30/2014 8:20:00 PM] Ded: is NEVER a vio
[5/30/2014 8:20:17 PM] Laurie Rose: ok well anyway, i wasn't biased.  I've said so.  I look at the report, i decide the, then I look at their priors if it is a violation.
[5/30/2014 8:21:16 PM] Ded: You were biased in that report
[5/30/2014 8:21:26 PM] Ded: the priors had nothing to do with only 2 minutes of inactivity
[5/30/2014 8:21:30 PM] Ded: accept your faults and own them
[5/30/2014 8:22:49 PM] Laurie Rose: chick, I'm not going to sit  there and argue with you.  you're on a rampage right now.  YOUR bias against me will cause you to insist it.  Let's not talk right now.  You would love for me to fail.  I love you, but peace out for now. Relax.
[5/30/2014 8:23:22 PM] Ded: I'm relaxed
[5/30/2014 8:23:25 PM] Ded: I also know
[5/30/2014 8:23:28 PM] Ded: you don't see me as a friend
[5/30/2014 8:23:35 PM] Ded: so I'm no longer sugar coating shit for you

https://epicmafia.com/report/97585 rwf's OT
https://epicmafia.com/report/97396 Laurie's original report
Reason for OT: Incorrect violation given. GRS=/= Repeated suicides. When handling a repeated suicides report, please mark the suicide rate.

LaurieRose is not at fault here, she knew RS was the appropriate vio, but had taken the report expecting a GRS case. She can't assign RS, so she PM'd me to tell me about this case, and that she was giving GRS instead of RS for the time being. I said that was fine and that I'd look at it. There was no erroneous judgement on her part, the only other thing she could have done is dropped the report out, or made a redundant comment. LaurieRose explained the situation in the report, and rwf continues to lambaste her about it despite acknowledging her reason in the report:

"Incorrectly handled:
https://epicmafia.com/report/97396 - Warns for repeated suicides, but gives a GRS vio. (User suicides immediately n1) This one's so bad I'm forced to overturn it. She claims she has no repeated suicides option and that arcbell knows. If this is true, why didn't she comment this and why did arcbell do nothing to fix it? Putting the wrong violation is not a solution."

Here's some generic complaints about meaningless things which have nothing to do with Laurie's ability to moderate:

"Reports closed for being a duplicate without handling the original"
https://epicmafia.com/report/97400
https://epicmafia.com/report/97356
https://epicmafia.com/report/96971
https://epicmafia.com/report/97612
https://epicmafia.com/report/97601
https://epicmafia.com/report/97587

The only reason we ask moderators to not close duplicate reports without handling the original is that it's a cheap tactic to inflate one's report count. She would have no reason to need to do this (no direct report count as a trial mod), and is indeed doing a small service by closing duplicates of reports she can't handle herself, being a trial mod. As an actual mod she would be asked to avoid this, but this is a feeble reason to accuse Laurie of poor modding.

"Needs to not sign her name as Rose, as it can lead to incorrect appeals."
A good suggestion, might have been more useful if rwf had recommended this to her instead of pasting it as another attack on her.

There was a problem where Lobby mods couldn't apply violations on their own, so Laurie wasn't able to apply violations on reports by herself. She gave them to other mods to apply on her behalf. Rwf knew full well of the existence of this problem, as did the other mods, yet rwf pretends to be confused about it here (see the first report), and tries to make it look like Laurie's fault (I've since fixed the issue).

"https://epicmafia.com/report/97203 - says "ISP warning -(has prior note for isp: https://epicmafia.com/report/68425). Participate more in games or get a violation/suspension for your next occurence. ==Rose" Doesn't actually give a violation? Not sure if this is a Laurie issue or a lobby mod issue, but she should have messaged someone to apply the violation. Also, training report.
https://epicmafia.com/report/97098 - "ISP-1st offense-Warning ==Rose" Still does not give violation. Also this is a training report and he has 1500 points, so he shouldn't have been considered for an ISP vio in the first place.
https://epicmafia.com/report/96797 - she forgot to give the ISP vio again? If she can't give it why isn't she messaging people to or avoiding ISP altogether.
https://epicmafia.com/report/96742 - Again fails to apply the violation. https://epicmafia.com/report/96687"

https://epicmafia.com/report/98366 rwf's OT
https://epicmafia.com/report/98176 Laurie's original report
Reason for OT: This is no vio. He CCed the next day and was clearly playing to win. If he hadn't, it'd be ISP, which should not be looked at for a user with only 290 points.

Let's take a look at the user "DarkJester13" laurie gave a GT vio for: https://epicmafia.com/user/233172, while it's true this user only has 290 points, if you examine the user more closely, they have a number of unlinked alts, and it can be easily established that he's no new user. There is a game in his list where he, as cop in a n1 doc death (nl), outs a fake guilty. This is a meta-strategy you'll never see a newbie use. It's safe to assume he knew he needed to CC cop when guiltied, and the only question is why he didn't. I agree that assigning this GT is overly harsh, because he claims he just missed the claim, and there's a possibility he wasn't actually witholding his claim to troll / lose, but since he's demonstrably not new, didn't defend his case, and isn't linked to any known users, I can really see how LaurieRose read the situation like this.

https://epicmafia.com/report/98393 rwf's OT
https://epicmafia.com/report/98270 Laurie's original report
Reason for OT: He had 2/3 chance of hitting a PR and being in 50/50 chances of winning, and he didn't speak at the end of the day after he voted. There is no indication that this was game related. The last thing he says is "why should I listen to someone who said he is a cop in disguised?" Before this, even less. I have no idea how fighting the lynch (in four lines all day) then not speaking for several minutes after voting in day before a veg at night is making a GRS "present" Also, 6 games played including this and 177 points.

rwf is calling LaurieRose out here for giving someone GRS without proof that it was a GRS, and not just that player going AFK. The user itself has 177 points and played 6 games, which rwf tries to use to make Laurie look like a monster who gives vios to newbies for things they didn't do. Lets take a closer look shall we? Read this game, one of this player's 6 games: https://epicmafia.com/game/3068758 end of day 2, the player is being lynched, and manually presses the leave game button, objectively attempting to GRS (failing because of kicklynch mechanics). This wasn't reported, and went unpunished, but Laurie read this player's previous games and saw this. If you continue to look at the other games, you'll find this player is often present, but not talking. Given that 1/5 of this player's other games have been provable GRS when being lynched, suiciding when partner is lynched and you're in a 1/3 chance of winning, and you were there on the same day, it's not PROVEN that it was a GRS, but generally it never is. If I hadn't read the few games this player participated in to get a sense for them individually, I'd have gone with a no vio myself, but finding such a recent and deliberate GRS from the same player, I would have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

https://epicmafia.com/report/97481 OT'd with the input of several, possibly, or just Ucklar
https://epicmafia.com/report/97431 Laurie's original report
Reason for OT: Hipfire =/= shooting without claims, it's shooting early into the day without any reads. Juneau had reads, however poor they were, she shot someone who implied they are not pr.

First of all, the player Juneau shot just over 1 min into the game said 1 line: "hi i don't cc", this was in reference to the cop claim, the watcher had no claimed, yet somehow whoever OT'd this at last says the player implied they are not pr. This is false, there are two PRs on this setup, this player only implied that they weren't cop. Secondly, Juneau has a history of shooting and lynching recklessly, and defending her behavior with lies: https://epicmafia.com/report/91946 .. here she claims the player was "scummy" for that one line made 1 min into the day. Note that just because a player says "i had a read" doesn't mean mods are required to believe it when nothing about it seems genuine. Since it was a shot 1 min into the day, done without asking if the player was watcher, and after him having spoken only 1 line, I'd be inclined to consider this the same way we consider hip-firing: GT .. or at the very least ISP.

https://epicmafia.com/report/98202 Laurie's report
Rwf's criticism: This user appears to be very new. He may not even know what a pr is. 10 games played. How is this a throw and not ISP? Oh, and again, can't moderate him for ISP. Needs a note or a verbal warning, and a good explanation of what happened in lylo. I'm too lazy to appeal this at the moment, but we've reached consensus on how it should've been handled.

If you look, this player is NOT very new based on mod info. It's actually a rather old user. Rwf is again trying to say that LaurieRose is being harsh on new players at every opportunity, because she knows it's something Lucid doesn't like...

Something rwf put at the bottom of the bin that I just feel angered enough to need to respond to: "p.s. thanks to everyone that contributed, if I named you here you might mysteriously get banned xo"

As if I have a history of mysteriously banning people I don't like, or even jokingly considering it... mysteriously unbanning them maybe. I take this to heart because it's something rwf knows I'd never do, and knows Laurie hasn't done, yet she says this anyways as if to suggest this is what I'm about. It's just upsetting that's all..