Hello,

I know that there have been many issues over the years as it pertains to staff, some issues being more prominent with featurers, some with moderators, some with admins.  However, I feel that it'd be best to address the issues that encompass the entire foundation, creating a systemic issue that causes frustration for staff and frustration for regular users. Your non-friends on staff and in forum membership are still your equals.

The goal of this complaint is to hopefully galvanize someone(s) into taking both responsibility and initiative as it relates to both the issues within the staff, but being a part of staff itself.

There seems to be two distinct halves in the moderator team depending on friendships. Some of the people on one side are obviously friends with those on the others, but when it comes to handling professional matters on the forums, these opinions tend to shift only a little and there are consistent advocates that tend to stick to one "side." I've been told how some moderators/admins are afraid to bring up issues that they have with other members of staff due to risk of losing friendship over conduct. Solving "hey I'm afraid of telling my friends my honest feelings and frustrations because I'm afraid they'll stop being friends with me" isn't the goal of this conversation, but it helps illuminate why I'm writing this complaint as I feel it shows an issue inherent to modhood.

That is, not just a lack of transparency from staff to normal users, but from staff to staff.

Bluntly, when a moderator (multiple, actually) tells me to not not lump them in with [those other moderators they don't like] then I think it's reasonable for me, and other users, to be concerned. Especially when it's been a pervasive issue that feels like it hit peak in the past few years.

One issue I've been told about is how many moderators/featurers/event coordinators/assistant mods/etc. take things too personally. This includes criticism about the events created, how they judge things, or whenever an issue is brought up with an event at all. I've heard it been described as pulling teeth to accomplish anything. It both doesn't solve the issue in an official capacity, but also enables this other group of mods to feel "well, hey, I'm not them." I see in the writer chat that Bug said there's a change in staff to "freshen perspectives" and improve things, but given that some of these issues were brought up with me because of things said in the feedback forum in the past few days, it seems that Bug is referring to a group that hasn't actually improved.

Transparency has always been an issue from staff to users. Transparency was an issue acknowledged during the (ultimately failed) attempts at a round table, when certain staff members were open about "what they were going to accomplish (as it pertained to having an excuse to instate rules that were going to happen anyway, shutting down opinions of those who weren't personally favored because of who said it, etc.) Transparency was an issue supposedly during user surveys earlier in the year, and a lack of compassion was felt by users due to "bias." There was also talk in the chat about how all users favored a certain medium (or two for featurers, now) and I remember there being discussion about how mods would only rise up and take initiative when there was a personal agenda on the line, even when it was beneficial - if screenshots have enough perceived popularity, then that was all they needed.

I feel this happens due to staff having trouble coming to terms with differing opinions unless they were already in someone's friend group. Staff members have had to have more "likable" members voice their opinions to have them be perceived favorably, even if it was already stated once by the unfavorable person. I remember one instance of drama was over contributor privilege, and how there was risk of contributors receiving moderator-esque powers because they were friends, but the rule not going through because it meant that contributors they didn't like would also have to receive that power. I heard of judging people who try to accomplish good things (create events, assist others, etc.) still getting scoffed at just because of who they were. Honestly I don't like those users either, and I was part of the problem, but looking back on it it was unacceptable conduct.

I've heard from staff about how one half of the mod team is a lost cause. That it took one week to solve an issue with a user being inflammatory to moderators because there was no actual official process/flowchart to follow that would allow fair judgment across all cases. If it did exist at that point, it wasn't followed, and is thus worthless.

There is a lack of respect and cohesion inside staff that will prevent any actual improvement to occur and satisfy users.

It can be assumed staff members are competent, or else they wouldn't have become staff. With competency and age comes a lack of time. I don't think regular users should be faulted for prioritizing -anything- over the Nuzforums. However, this is different for staff members.

Many staff members tell me they can't voice their opinions due to lack of time and energy to fight, or that they worry of making their case look worse. I realize that as a voluntary position, it is done out of good will and I'm thankful that they care and obviously want to invest in the betterment of the forums. However, just because it has good intentions doesn't mean it's actually effective. Nothing is accomplished. When the formerly mentioned user insulted staff, the question was raised "What will change next time?" And the answer received was "I think next time we'll have incentive to do things differently" as a vague hope. I also know that one staff member did try to propose a change and was lost in the current. However, as a member of staff, the potential for initiative exists that a normal user doesn't have. At this stage, abstract "maybes" doesn't seem to be enough for staff and users alike.

Of course, this brings the question that mods (and admins) have asked me over time: “Why do they tell you these issues and not us (the staff?”)

Tl;dr Staff members have been afraid of dogpiling by cliques within the staff itself that have occurred and a futility, and it's a similar fear that exists for normal users. By not being a member of staff, it appears people feel more free to express their feelings and frustrations. After so long, though, it feels like treading water. There seems to be a level of vitriol that may require change. Of course, frustrations have also arose due to certain staff members being stridently against change, which harms them as well. And to clarify, there is nothing wrong with staff being friends with some staff and not others because there's no helping who you like, but that has -nothing- to do with how someone should be treated during staff situations as a matter of professionalism.

One solution I may see staff attempt is for anyone to just -say- that the staff is going to be more open minded and friendly to all on staff, and carry a sense of blame to those who haven't expressed these concerns earlier. This is the completely wrong vein of thinking. It is privileged victim blaming. It has happened before. Just because something wasn't brought up sooner doesn't make it any less valid, even if it requires more effort.

It will likely require people to say things about other people's characters that may be true or false, kind or hurtful. What is most important at this point is that this is how staff members currently feel, and that their feelings are valid by existing at all. If these assumptions are to be changed, will require action and not just saying you'll improve, much like the empty promises the round table or feedback channel currently serve.

Instead, this is an issue that requires both self-reflection and admission of failures as it relates to the context of, all outside workload aside, "I have a position to lead the Nuzlocke forums." If someone doesn't have the time or goodwill to be part of staff, it is not an attack on their character, it is simply an incompatibility that is ultimately a futile fight that, when fought for like it is, is taken personally and ultimately unproductively.

There is a lack of professionalism that is reprehensible, like talking poorly about regular users who seem to be trying to help while people hide in private channels. I realize an admin stepped in to contend this issue, but the fact that it occurred at all is horrendous. Reading the comments on the feedback thread, people have faith in the forums. This is different from having faith in the people who run the forums.

I think it is possible to change, however, if transparency is used. Again, my goal is to express why the users are frustrated but also why staff is as well. Don't fault those who remain quiet, and don't fault those who decided this environment isn't healthy for them. I would hope as members of the staff, there are only good intentions when these talks occur.