Recap Harder: Oct 2021 Recaps — Part 4
NEWS/OPINION/ANALYSIS — Recapping the Recaps
“The conversation then devolves into a discussion of the value of the argument and discussion from the start.”
— October 2021 Recap Team
Other entries in this series:
(September 2021 recap did not get a dedicated post, in that its main points were covered spread across blog posts here, and on Confic Magazine — here and here.)
My God. The Oct 2021 Recap is just ridiculous, isn’t it? There is enough discussion going on in Staffchat to fill a series worth of SCP articles.
We should at this moment take a step back to realize just how difficult it should be to wreck a creative writing website like SCP. You literally don’t have to do anything much but delete subpar articles and maybe ban the occasional person for incredibly horrible offenses (like child grooming). Yet, the SCP Staff has, given enough time, made the site into a worse place. That takes a lot of effort and… for a lack of a better word… skill. It is no coincidence that the site’s acceleration toward the ground is increasing in direct proportion to how large the Staff becomes and how many roles they provide themselves. The edifice is so utterly contorted — such a giant bowl of cold spaghetti — that no one has any clue what or how to do something as simple as the censure of an Admin who unanimously abused power.
Let’s pick up where we left off. I’ll announce at the fore that this will be the last textually-covered Recap. Confic Magazine is starting a podcast in Quarter 1 of 2022 called Confic Call-In, hosted by yours truly. It’ll be a live podcast with a call-in number, probably about a 45 min-1 hour long show with my (+ maybe a guest’s) ranting for most of it and with pauses for calls. We will cover future Recaps there; it is… as you can see… simply too much material to cover on foot. We’ll need a bicycle to get through all the material in a reasonable amount of time, and that bicycle will be talking, on the podcast.
But let’s finish what we started because by god the November recaps were just posted today.
Let’s save those who don’t care for such deep diving some time and list the take aways:
- Staff constantly bring up that these discussions shouldn’t be happening on Discord, and instead should be on O5. I agree. If the Discord was deleted, and O5 made the only way to communicate, there would be no need for Recap team. There would also be very minimal room for secrecy. The argument that Discord is a faster way to contact people only makes sense if you pre-assume people are checking their Discord more than O5, which they wouldn’t if O5 was the only forum for this kind of stuff. The length of these Recaps is the best argument for using O5 more.
- The idea of an Admin being held accountable to their power’s consequences renders an invalid output in this system, despite it being done before (e.g. in this case, it awkwardly heralded by Dexanote). Somehow, it is way more complicated this time and just can’t be done as efficiently or effectively.
- The need for Staff to insulate themselves from public view and from their userbase is a desperation. There is a need to statement-craft extensively before releasing anything to O5 re: the Admin censure, pronounced in Staff like Moose treating the simple act of publishing something to O5 with the polish and production of K-con entry. It’s because the stakes are that high and Staff have stage fright.
- Dexanote is being protected by the system he utilized to enact abuse. What we are witnessing occur in this massive bureaucracy is it trying to lick its own ear, and the obsessive compulsion that it must do so before it can conclude anything about that ear. This is what’s keeping everything in a spin, preventing anything from moving forward. No real motion is taking place here. Moose is the jingling keys, whether intentional or not, dangled over the rest of the Staff and userbase regarding this issue. The sheer amount of rationalizing around why the censure delay is its own commentary on why it is a problem that he isn’t censured already.
- Staff are afraid of djkaktus and display how seriously they take his words and actions.
- Staff call out and recognize clear political agendizing by a tight-knit political gang that they suspect in ways is attempting a sort of coup, but decline to recognize this for what it is, and euphemize the clique as “the new generation of Staff”.
Topic: Volatile Comments on Joint Statement
The radiation from Dexanote/Mann’s continually-stalled censure is still hanging in the air, and there is arguing in the fallout shelter. To get to the bottom of this one, we have to take a detour and go visit the mainsite mirror link to Dexanote’s official statement. We can recall from Part 3 that it was clear Dexanote was hesitant to make an on-site mirror discussion for his statement. Let’s take see why:
It’s almost a whole year from the original incident, and nine months since Mann proposed self-censure. I feel like after a certain point, recognizing that the admins and Disc team are unable to formally enact censure, you should have gone ahead and just self-imposed a censure. I find it hard-pressed that anyone would find punishing yourself in the absence of punishment from others to be irresponsible overreaching. At this point, it feels like you’ve taken advantage of the fact that nobody has been able to set up a formal call to censure. You are now waiting for further setup to allow for this discussion to even start, despite the fact that you and Mann agree that you both should be censured. At the very least, informal self-censure would show that you take it seriously, and that you aren’t trying to take advantage of this long delay… I’m stating that taking responsibility unofficially once it became clearer that the official response was slow-coming and would not happen for quite some time is reasonable. — ghostchibi
This echoes my thoughts exactly. Its entirely within your and mann’s capability to self invoke what amounts to a censure, even if its not officially. Relying on the bureaucracy of the wiki to submit you to it is overcomplicating the situation at best and rules lawyering at worst -Gekkoguy
I do not find the explanations for the delays to be sufficient enough for 11 months. — Rounderhouse
I mean, you both messed up and a censure is pretty much like, something that should happen. It’s deserved, really. This just feels like running away from that — most people think it’s deserved, it just… never happened, and people forgot until now. It’s just a censure, it shouldn’t be a big deal to take it, if only to show that you’re taking it seriously. Simple as that. — aquafloats
Honestly, instead of making this a discussion again you guys could just have started your censure. — sirslash
You get the idea. One of the comments spawns a more venemous set of responses, and it was instigated by none other than perpetually-angry imp Ihp. In the post, Ihp is bemoaning about the incident being called “The Cerastes Incident”, which is what has been colloquially accepted for about a year, and has been referred to as such on official posts on O5 Command numerous times by now.
Ihmp somehow finds this to be “somewhat aggressive”. This is like asking people to change the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon.” The toothpaste isn’t going back in the tube. Let’s put this into perspective though; Imhp is more worried and concerned about the name given to the incident, and not the power abuse and miscarriage of public punishment that it refers to.
The irrationality of this is saying that calling it “the Cerastes Incident” might damage Cerastes reputation is in a thread that is about how an admin abused their position to destroy Creastes reputation. Ihmp is distracting attention away from the actual issue, the actual “somewhat aggressive” act here, and onto themself in an attempt to look emotionally insightful. Maybe Ihmp doesn’t like the alternative “the Great Seal Incident” because it could improperly portray innocent seals? (I know, I know, it’s the SCP-001 material. Keep your pants on.)
Ihmp actually comes more closely to defending Dexanote et al. when the discussion is called “a dogpile”. The proper reply of course is to politely sit in the discussion thread, raise your hand, and wait to be called on by the person who knows you are going to criticize them. Ihmp writes, “things that senior members of staff say get shouted down”, ignoring that perhaps the answers from senior staff members after a year of delay aren’t good enough. Not when there is some precedent. The argument that Dexanote’s case is unique because he is usually the one holding the gavel is not an excuse; it is a huge and a frankly foreseeable problem that needs to be addressed, and the quicker the better. This is far from quick.
Because not many Staff besides Moose are stepping up to the plate (something we saw clearly enough in Part 3 of these Oct 2021 Recaps), Ihmp believes everyone should not be allowed to speak their minds to even the playing field.
The thread wobbles and goes airborne, most people deciding to debate whether or not being angry towards Dexanote’s milksop statement is or isn’t dogpiling. One writer calls it “very vehement and aggressive, with a clear agenda that resembles a witch hunt… accusations, saber-rattling, conjecture, circular arguments and overall mentality of ‘guilty until proven innocent’” (source). The writer goes on to note “…agenda-serving rhetoric towards several users who have been harassed for months on end by a group who is unapologetic for the distress they are causing, justifying it as them fighting against a ‘corrupt institution’ and claiming to represent the entire community when that is not, and cannot be the case.”
This is the equivalent of someone getting soft on an abuser for all the bad press they’re getting because of beating someone. The myopia in this sort of sympathy is one that would excuse the wrongdoer from experiencing the wrong they did to another; look at the phrase “users who have been harassed for months on end by a group who is unapologetic for the distress they are causing”, and ask if this does or doesn’t apply more to someone like Cerastes.
This user, Dr Balthazaar, would wish that no criticism is spoken because “this behavior intimidates people”. The cartoon-level rationale here is the cessation of any critical discussion for the sake of feelings; an increasing and omnipresent trend seen on SCP. If someone has done a bad job, they deserve criticism over it. That’s the real world and the reality, no matter how soft of a pillow people want to make the SCP Wiki for those who are running it directly into the ground.
Maybe DrBalth is right; maybe we should caste community figures and anyone in a role of public influence in a community, especially one with concentrated power, as untouchable for the sake of their softness as leaders. Maybe not calling out such behavior magically won’t give someone who wants it free reign to intimidate others to the full extent of their Site power.
No; intimidation is the point. The criticism is supposed to intimidate the one criticized into not doing something wrong again. How else can that be achieved when people who hold the power are abusing it? By definition the the little person doesn’t have another means of pursuit of a fix; they are the ones without power. What other redress is there available to one who is without power but shame-on-you; that massive power bundled of little numbers? Here, DrBalthazaar argues that no one should have this effective means at discouraging bad behavior.
Again, we can simply look backward one more degree and ask how much something like the power misuse gladly and unblinkingly exerted on the part of Dexanote (and DrMagnus) might have intimidated Cerastes. DrBathSalts chooses to cap their critical scope at just one degree of separation, to just the most immediate and short-termed link in the causal chain.
Interestingly though, DrBalthazaar digs into Rounderhouse, specifically his clear political agenda. You won’t see a more direct tagging of The Yurt than here (although this individual and probably those agreeing with the point likely continue to deny that such a political agenda exists when it is applied to a group, coordination, and planning…):
“Rounder is also among the most aggressive individuals in the thread, using appeals to emotion disguised as logical reasoning to pursue agendas seen on SCPD, chief of which seems to be giving increasing amounts of power to junior and operational staff (i.e. Many of the posters on the thread) while simultaneously weakening the position of more experienced staff members to the point where they cannot effectively perform their duties.”
While I love a good call-out, and one that so clearly voices the tactics of The Yurt too, I can’t accept this one. And it’s a good thing I didn’t buy into this because the stock absolutely tanks.
First, DrBalthazaar has done nothing at all but appeal to emotion. OptimisticLucio notices this skillfully — the argument is literally “this might make someone feel bad”. There is nothing backing any claim, even when there could be. Second, caution is thrown at the increasingly weakening power of “more experienced staff members to the point where they cannot effectively perform their duties.” DrBathSalts misses the point that experienced staff members being unable to perform their duties is why this discussion is happening in the first place; subsequent dogpiling completely aside. DrBathSalts also misses the motive of this perceived dogpiling despite typing it out word-for-word: “And those of us who do know just want this to end.”
DrBalthazaar is giving out free advertisement space, so might as well hook up:
“Most of the community doesn’t even know about this circus show; how many off-site places do you think will have any idea what you’re talking about, if you turn up and ask them their opinion about this?”
lackoflepers.medium.com, www.confimagazine.com, www.containmentfiction.net
Ultimately, DrBrassiere responds to rebuttals by saying “What I was trying to say was that the discussion in the thread had spiraled out of control”. No thanks to this type of distraction! A final whimper is eeked out when people defend their right to call out poor leadership for what it is:
“I hate all this infighting… It was not intended as an attack, but rather to attempt to explain that I and others I know find [Rounderhouse] intimidating, something that I am unsure you were aware of. [Rounderhouse,] you pursue your views really relentlessly and speak your mind very directly, and honestly it can be scary.”
DrBalthazaar, this is no place for meek and mild personalities who cower after their first strike to the back of the opponent, and when that opponent then turns around. The why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along mentality is not helping. Rounderhouse gets em: “…Am I supposed to not make myself heard because some people are irrationally afraid of me?”
Ihmp then says:
“The fact that they have the backing of some of the most influential users on the site only serves to further intimidate staff into being incapable of doing their jobs. Every action that has been taken by this clique has served to make this site a less safe, accessible, and harmonious place — disc and AHT are being made incapable of doing their jobs due to ‘optics’, tech team’s decision to do change site navigation was largely instigated by the new generation of staff, and the baffling allegations of conspiracies among staff over something as simple as a damn change in network staff is a clear intimidation tactic.”
So, again, there is your Yurt by the way. Second time in this thread alone. It’s not conspiracy. It’s not outrageous. It isn’t even a stretch. Ihmp is woefully misinformed here, and is taken care of for it, but the observation remains.
Ihmp also states:
“Overall, I’m sick of being civil with people who keep harassing those I care about.”
“Harassment” is equivocated with criticism. Again, as DrBalthazaar, Ihmp misunderstands that it is fair for people to be upset with Staff who have admitted wrongdoing and so far gotten away with it. Does all this come down to who the Ihmp cares about more? Can that not be accompanied by more complex, adult considerations?
Also, interesting is the “I’m sick of the leakers.” Sick of the leakers? What could this be but a hope for dishonestly and a willingness to keep people in the dark? If things are going on and being said in Staffchat that people in there don’t want to be known for fear of public backlash, or clear exposure of double-standards, or political immunity for things others are banned for, or the revelation of numerous lies… why wouldn’t an honest member of the community not want to know about it? Ihmp isn’t even denying that shady stuff can and does go on in these spaces, just saying that the most preferable reaction to it is to bury one’s head in the sand.
“Upper staff needs to put their foot down and curb this kind of behavior before it completely debases the site.”
Ihmp best be glad Staff isn’t braindead enough to do such a thing. Staff would have admitted to doing something that constitutes an abuse of power, done nothing about it, and then curb-stomped anyone who tries to find a way to criticize them, or garner community momentum for change through the previously-considered-non-violent method of words. I honestly wondered why and where Ihmp developed the reputation for being a Staff shill, but I see now.
“And people can ‘be held accountable’ without giving them anxiety attacks, stress nightmares, and giving them the feeling that they are constantly under attack.”
Again, the focus is on the generation of negative emotions, regardless of their context or causation. In this fantasy world, anyone who does something wrong shouldn’t face any repercussions, because the person who wronged might be thin-skinned. If you can’t handle the heat of your actions, then maybe think twice about performing those actions. Apparently this idea— and the entirety of civilizational stability — is poppycock. It is in this way that Ihmp turns out to be the poster child for what is “completely debasing the site”.
If wanting my friends to be treated with respect makes me some kind of damn bootlicker, then so be it.
Your friends did a bad job, Ihmp. They can’t escape their incompetence. It catches up with everyone eventually and especially if you excuse it for long enough. We shouldn’t encourage their composition to be that of tissue paper. We should hope our leaders are made of something more durable; be able to withstand dissent. You can still be friends with Staff and admit they did something wrong.
PlaugePJP, J Dune, stormbreath, OpitmisticLucio, and carolynn ivy mop up the Ihmp — this clean up on the candy isle — nicely enough.
The thread goes on with people siding one way or the other; djoric makes a surprising return to make the situation about his own history, and this — like other arguments on the “just drop it” side — doesn’t seem to work very well.
Detour over, and the point with relevance to this Recap recap is that things truly were getting pretty heated. Back to the Recap, a Staffer requests a stop order for the discussion, which seems to have gone off on a tangent (but is an inherent adverse effect of unaddressed power abuse in the heights of Staff… something like that is going to cause a lot of ferocity no matter how you slice it).
In a motion that echoes Balthazaar’s plea for passive complacency, and Ihmp’s appeal to emotional sensitivity above all other concerns, EdnaGranbo wants a stop order issued because arguing is scary. Thankfully, the rest of the Staff don’t consider being confrontational illegal, and no stop order is issued.
I am repeatedly shocked by how blatant Dexanote’s incompetence is. In this section, he writes:
“We can stop conversations if they look to be gonna be aggressive.”
Which is the moderation equivalent of pre-crime. Nothing about this statement bothers Dexanote, when it is something Philip K. Dick felt was problematic enough to write a novella about. Contrast this with Moose:
“I’m loathe to preemptively censor.”
Let’s enjoy some humor:
stormfallen suggests that talking about users who can’t see the conversation is problematic and unproductive. “Particularly as this will be recapped,” HarryBlank adds, a note of weary panic evident… Moose “sasses” ROUNDERHOUSE, who says it will go in the recap. He’s only partially correct.
Haha. Don’t change, Recap team. We need the laughs here more than anywhere.
Topic: SCPD’s Atmosphere
SCPD is a central topic of discussion in the above mainsite mirror for Dexanote’s statement. It is described as “an autonomous zone” when that is far from the truth. It is a vassal state. SCPD used to be independent of Staff purview, but a coordinated effort was enacted to bring it to heel. (Excuse the lack of sources, a document is being prepared for Confic Wiki and possibly Confic Magazine about this).
It seems though that the initial culling of lawlessness wasn’t enough. SCPD needs to be further hogtied because it carries the good name of SCP and isn’t glugging the koolaid as fast or eagerly as it should. This topic is more proof that SCPD is an official territory, the character and content of which should be considered and regulated more.
Topic: djkaktus Tweet Concerns
This one is amazing to re-recap. Basically, Staff see djkaktus explicitly leaking staff chats (but don’t worry the SCP Staff Cheat Leaks Twitter is totally someone else) and understands that he has a mole in their midst. Athenodora pings “everyone” and, though it is not typed out for some reason in the Recap (avoiding names is no way to deny something’s existence, haven’t you read Harry Potter?)… asks if anyone believes in The Yurt.
djkaktus’ stating of potential conspiracy is enough to get some to ask about it seriously. If this isn’t rife potential for conspiring on the part of djkaktus to manipulate Staff, then nothing is. They demonstrate constantly that he is a shadow administrator, and that his words are as important as anyone’s to some of them.
[Athenadora] states that as she was the one who [unwittingly, footnote removed] got the ball rolling on the handover, she believes she has every reason to be upset at the suggestion that she has been “unwittingly aiding and abetting a conspiracy”, and asks “everyone from the new generation of staff” whether they believe there is truly a conspiracy from senior staff to nullify the changes brought on by the new generation.
Athenadora may have not intentionally done anything here and isn’t to blame, but yes, she basically was the one who held the security door open for the person who then wrecked the place.
CaptainKirby states he is not going to answer the question out of annoyance from a mass ping, and that he is not new generation staff, but that he does not believe asking people whether they believe in a conspiracy is a productive way to start a conversation.
CaptainKirby is an alleged member of The Yurt.
Athenodora responds to Lucio by stating that the tweets “[do] draw a connection between the IRC changeover and intent to ‘nullify the changes being promoted by a new generation of staff’ (to quote from the tweet),” believing that this implies meaningful intent rather than only suggesting unintentional nepotism.
By the way, what some call “the new generation of staff” is what others call “The Yurt”. It’s a matter of semantics. If it isn’t, then ask why this new generation of staff is so notable as to receive their own epitaph, when such generational additions are and have always been constant at SCP.
ManyMeats states that “a broad, wide challenge of an opinion expressed by someone who isn’t in this server isn’t going to prompt much discussion”, djkaktus isn’t actually accusing anyone of conspiracy, and that nobody cited djkaktus’ tweet as a reputable source to spark a conversation agreeing with him.
^ Denial.
ManyMeats also identifies that they are on AHT but would not be willing to reveal the details of the internal discussion leading to the AHT warning and instead points to the text of the warning that is available already.
We again see the retreat of Staff — Admins mostly this time, now that their armor of Staffchat is kinked. They do not want this information released. This is likely not due to any “protective” measure on the part of anyone involved… no one believes such details would, say, hurt djkaktus (although he does bruise easily). Instead, this is a signalling of secrecy that Admins understand would be politically incendiary and/or revealing if made available. This implies that Admins have something to hide.
Recap quotes that AHT took “many weeks reviewing actions taken, attempting to ascribe or ascertain intent, and calibrating [their] response” to djkaktus, the published letter of which we saw in Part 3. It is discouraging that the letter is the best they could do when they were working on it for weeks.
“ManyMeats adds that “Even if [Athenodora is] 100% right, I am unclear where it is the duty of any portion of staff, let alone AHT, to “charge users with negligence in not fact-checking”” when “people say wrong things all the time”.
ManyMeats is unaware that CuteGirl/flagsam banned someone from site19 IRC chat for correctly reporting the possibility of myocarditis in young males as a result of the COVID-19 vaccines. Apparently, not only is this misinformation — even when the WHO openly discusses it, and when several European countries discontinued use of Moderna because of it, with several keeping a warning on the vial — but apparently it is the duty of a portion of Staff to charge users with negligence in not-fact checking. Seems as though the wrong person is being punished though; the lack of fact checking is done on that Staffer’s part. Is that also a power abuse that will go unaddressed?
Athenodora, no joke, wants to “charge djkaktus with defamation” and “sue for a different outcome” than what AHT came to the conclusion of.
OK. Wow. Let’s take a second here.
This is a Staff member who was not at all involved in the actual decision to transfer power to a bunch of untrusted Staff members who either quit or fled when it came their turn to be on the receiving end of their own stick. Four weeks after this, djkaktus’ commentary bothers her to the point of pinging everyone in Staffchat about her anxiety. She tries to float the idea that criticism of Staff on the whole is defamatory. Why so much concern? If the idea that what she catalyzed is so negligible, the possibility of a political cabal so laughable, why legitimize them both with a mass ping and legal threats? Who is going to pay for this lawsuit? Who is being defamed? Staff? Can an entire group claim defamation and sue someone for saying something mildly critical?
If we look at the referenced Tweet:
… we see it really only states that the decision to hand over SkipIRC to a group of individuals was rushed and that it had no public or democratic discussion. That’s not false. Athenadora doesn’t understand what defamation is. Kinda feels like firing into the dark out of sheer terror.
“If there’s no one among the new generation of staff who thinks this way, then djkaktus can rightfully be charged with at best negligence in not fact-checking his assumptions before stating them as facts, and at worst with defamation done in bad faith.” — Athenadora
With hindsight, we can actually make a strong connection between this IRC changeover and a nullification of political tactics promoted by The Yurt. Kufat has made it an explicit rule that you can’t criticize anyone on SkipIRC. He also attempted to make leaking chats “illegal”, as seen in Part 3. djkaktus sounds prophetic right now; Kufat’s actions read like a tactical Staff punch-back to the antics of The Yurt.
Intoxicated on her own panic, Athenadora pretends up a lawsuit that would be laughed out of the courtroom, the lawyer who up to then had been telling her this was a solid case laughing too with her money stuffing his pockets. Other Staff try to tell Athenadora how that would be a terrible idea. They communicate further (as if it wasn’t already apparent) that djkaktus is over the target and that this all boils down to them simply being displeased with the bad optics. “After all,” Recap has Athenadora quoted, “people disagree with me all the time.” Thankfully, I don’t have to speculate why.
Athenodora then pings ManyMeats and asks how she might “protest” the ruling by AHT and “sue for a different outcome” if she believes that AHT’s warning was a mistake…stating that her inquiry is not purely hypothetical and that she does “fully intend to challenge AHT’s ruling here.” She then outlines her belief that the responses to her initial question “[seem] to support [her] suspicion” that djkaktus’ actions were not done in good faith and that, unless people from the “new generation of staff” speak up and agree with djkaktus, she will continue to believe that there is no indication that djkaktus was acting in good faith.
Now, let’s be fair to Athenadora; she has stumbled upon something awkwardly correct and that no one else wants to talk about: no one ever thought djkaktus was, and certainly isn’t now, acting in good faith. This is a person who has made his reputation lording his meaningless internet numbers over others. He likes to talk out of one side of his mouth about it these days, because he has been forced to come to terms with how teenage his mentality is (apparently, he just turned 30 though!). His whining about equality in structural power comes off as distorted. He went from completely self-absorbed to Marvel Superhero for the good of the community in about the time it takes to squeeze out a turd.
Athenadora is rightly confused about AHT’s benefit of doubt in his action as being “in good faith”. There’s just nothing that she or anyone can do about it; Staff has to publicly posture that they believe he is acting in good faith, so as to not expose that they are pissed he is causing them damage, and further trigger a shooting match that neither of them are capable of or prepared for.
Vivarium joins the conversation by adding that “it would be in everyone’s best interest to take a step back, and realize that the vast majority of people here don’t actually believe that there is a conspiracy and that djkaktus’ tweet is not even that much of a concern.
The extensive discussion and Recap on this subject, not even the only one in the Oct 2021 Recap on this matter, directly argues otherwise. It is behind the enemy’s lines.
Topic: OS Access to Disciplinary Discord
In mid-October, Admin aismallard made a statement that said more staff will be able to join and view the Disciplinary Team Discord server. Rounderhouse has to remind her to implement this. Classic.
Topic: Staff Disciplinary Process & Fiat Questions
It looks like we are talking about a disciplinary process and fiat questions, but we are again talking about Dexanote’s lack of censure:
ROUNDERHOUSE says he doesn’t understand why this couldn’t be done after the current censures have been discussed. Moose states that Dexanote and Mann cannot be censured without proper reasoning, unless it’s “because people are real upset”, stating that this is no way to work, despite Dexanote explicitly preferring this reasoning. ROUNDERHOUSE wants to know what, in the current disciplinary process, is preventing this reasoning from being decided. Moose states that the event is too confused, and “all current staff” lack knowledge about the existing staff disciplinary process. They state that “barely any staff have ever been disciplined because Disc & most admins don’t understand” the process. They also note that their goal is to finish this disciplinary / fiat review within a week, and to then compose censure threads for Dexanote and Mann. However, they recognise this may be unfeasible, and state that aismallard has put up a deadline of 2 weeks.
This is perhaps the most important passage in the October 2021 Recaps. The best answer we have for why the censure hasn’t gone forward is that no one understands how any of it should work. The slight-of-hand is looking at a hole (in procedure) and treating it as a physical object that should be analyzed in its empty detail, instead of an indication that it should be filled.
Here, Dexanote is cast as advocating for his own immediate censure. We see that it’s the massive entity of bureaucracy that is keeping this from happening. Thus, the complexity of the weapon that was abused is the excuse for why it hasn’t actually done its job; the action preventing the reaction. While one abuse (technically here, acting in an authoritative disciplinary capacity outside of established rules in a vindictive and non-objective, highly-biased fashion) doesn’t excuse a second in reply (to Moose’s point), the inability of that bureaucracy to address its own members is itself a flaw that the bureaucracy cannot functionally address. You cannot perform your own spinal surgery.
Moose is making the damage much worse by attempting to comb over the entirety of the bureaucratic structure in 1000x magnification before the obvious can be concluded and enacted; believing this to be the key to preventing abuse. But a disregard for rules is what abuse is, so what makes Moose think establishing them more fully will prevent abuse?
Dexanote should simply re-abuse his power as Admin, act outside of the established rules since none exist to censor himself, which he agrees with and wants, and simply double the supply of error that he is preventing himself from facing the music of. What is Dexanote afraid of? At this point, his reputation is sunk and Admin fiat is the only thing that can bring an Admin to any justice. Why is acting outside of established rules so simple when it favors Staff and punishes undesirables, but so tired, slow, and impotent when it applies to certain members of Staff? Why is suddenly now stepping outside of the lines of rules simply too much for Dexanote to do?
Two months later, no ostensible progress has been made on these reforms, and Dexanote is no closer to censure… nevermind two weeks.
aismallard opines that, now that the Disciplinary team’s discord (known as disc-ord) is open for OS+ staff, “the improved transparency will help people see we’re working on it”, and that it isn’t being buried by some conspiracy. ROUNDERHOUSE requests whether the discussion is happening in the sections of disc-ord that non-Disciplinary moderators can see, and gee0765 (a moderator) states that they aren’t. ROUNDERHOUSE believes this is “markedly worse” than the discussion being fully behind closed doors. aismallard states that the Disc team want to move the discussion, and ROUNDERHOUSE says he’ll wait for that.
The repeated pattern of retreating into more areas of secrecy while nominally satisfying the most superficial demand and impression of transparency is again spotlit. OS+ Staff may come into Disc-ord, but Disc stuff will ackkshuully be taken care of in other channels that they are not given permission to enter into. I wouldn’t be surprised if all of Disc-ord was combed, any damning messages purged prior to OS+ staff getting this access.
A day later, moose sends a quick message saying there’s been “not a ton of progress” due to all the admins being busy.
This excuse again. What could be more important than solving the gaping wound of their own immunity to power abuse? Plenty of things apparently. This is posted less than 2 weeks later, but technically does not display any progress; it simply diagrams intentions. It ends with pleas for taking time and more promises to follow up with progress.
Moose also clarifies that Dexanote “tried to explain himself, but… had personal life shit to deal with and, honestly wrote a rushed explanation”.
Here again. Point out this IRL defense. Don’t let it slip. If an Admin can’t handle both IRL and literally the most important time to communicate clearly in their political career at SCP, that’s a loud message that they shouldn’t be expected to deal with both. Get rid of one.
They say that it is Dexanote’s responsibility to fix this, but that they will try to explain their understanding of his motivation to allow him to “save his energy” to apologise for the November 2020 incident, “which he accidentally cut from his rushed statement”, and to revise his statement for errors.
The over-extension in Moose’s going to bat for Dexanote is getting comical.
Moose proceeded to explain their interpretation of Dexanotes motivation during the November 2020 incident. This took around 1k words. Moose has informed staff and recap, over a week later, that this aspect of their thread contained severe misinformation. Recap team has been informed that a release of Moose’s misinformed statements could lead to harassment, and as a result the summary of this has been expunged from the recap.
A second-hand explanation of motivations from Dexanote is prevented from being reported because it is horrendously misinformed. We can’t see what it is because of the potential for harassment, which is again the reason we are trying to see Dexanote censured in the first place.
They explain that purview is granted or rescinded by Admin Fiat, backed either by “staff acclamation”, or concern about abuse of power. (Footnote: During AdCap’s review of this recap, thedeadlymoose noted that they had made a factual error. Rather than through Admin Fiat, purview would be granted by an Admin Vote. They say that their use of “Fiat” and “Group Fiat” in this conversation, with regards to purview changes, was similarly inaccurate.)
The one individual who should know the details of this mess, who is banking on thorough policy being the answer, aiming to correct them and set them up perfectly before we go through with any action — the prescription being all talk still at this point — doesn’t. I think we can stop giving a lot of weight to Moose’s statements, as unfortunate as that is. That’s two severe misses on information in a row. Three if you look down a few more sentences to footnote 8 (“During AdCap review of this recap, Moose noted that they misspoke here. They wished to clarify that they intended to discuss “abuse of Fiat that would result in severe consequences for the Admin” and that Fiat can still easily be “abusive” without hitting these higher standards of abuse.”).
A question: given that the parameters of Admin fiat are so poorly understood, the purpose and intent of the Charter seemingly confounded easily in one case of abuse, then is Dexanote really that much at blame? No one understands the ins and outs of this. Shouldn’t Dexanote be absolved?
No, because this is not and never was about the pedantic details of policy or Charter statements, or consensus policy. If Dexanote’s actions had been sanctioned in the rules, there would simply be this amount of controversy to change them.
Another question: If it is so unclear, then why have Admins been censured before? This is about an Admin getting some called-for recompense for uncalled-for behavior — codified or not — that everyone agrees was out of line.
Moose is frustrating this recognition, and making it about the details of the policy, detracting from individual responsibility. That attitude hasn’t helped up until now and it isn’t helping now. Moose themself doesn’t understand the territory implicit in their argument; Moose undermines their own stance that policy needs to be set firmly before any action can be taken by self-exposing no firm understanding of long-established policy.
One begins to wonder that if policy is the ticket, why in all this time that the Charter and Admins have existed, in all this time that the bureaucracy has addressed the most minute and academic of details in policy, that the grey areas of Admin power abuse has been kept so unclear; wonders if only now in the context of the Town Halls and general user dissatisfaction with the Staff are such abuses being recognized and called out, and not being let go.
Moose’s response is to incessantly trace the fractal down a rabbit hole of ill-defined and ultimately meaningless semantics; believing that there is something within the hole that will somehow fill it. Their distraction is a large rendition of Zeno’s paradoxes, in which “contrary to the evidence of one’s senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion”.
Moose is spinning a very large and elaborate wheel. They simply take up too much space and time and commit too many factual errors, with too little solidity in their reliance on policy in their attempt to pronounce the erudite language of policy, as well as their creation of new semantics to fill the gaps, to be of any more use to our recap-recap here. Thankfully, this rids us of a lot of type. We’ll see Moose out the door by noticing how short-sighted this line is…
“[Moose] tell[s] aismallard that they do not want to put first drafts on 05 as it could cause public confusion… They are concerned that posting rough drafts to 05 would lead to posters feeling harassed due to this, and they say that they have received harassment due to posts on 05 in the past.
… when all of that confusion still exits and is given more room to overgrow in something like the non-transparency of Staffchat, even with these Recaps aside. “Harassment” is being conflated with criticism again.
Captain Kirby says that there is too much upscroll for anyone newly joining the conversation to be able to catch up,
Welcome to the SCP Wiki.
DrBleep responds to ROUNDER calling Kirby a moron, saying that resorting to personal attacks is unnecessary. ROUNDER responds, clarifying that Kirby is a friend of his, and that he believed this was well-known enough that he could get away with calling him a moron.
This is an example of political immunity. No regular user in any regular chat would get the chance to explain that “that was a joke”, and the disciplinary decisions (which would be swift) wouldn’t hinge upon whether or not the object of the statement was OK with it, or a friend. Rounder, for all his words of activism stating to the contrary, seems to miss this. I do not believe Rounderhouse would be any better of a steward for things like accountability or transparency if he were in the role he is gunning for.
She says that past mainsite mirror discussions for controversial 05 threads have been chaotic, and is unsure if staff has the manpower to handle a chaotic thread…
“Man”-power? Excuse me, ZTHATZ SEXISTS!!! /s
moose replies, saying that they’d been trying to make rounder happy, as they see him as a friend and a leader of his “side”.
“Yurt”.
ROUNDER asks if any other admins or disc members could assist in cutting down statements to avoid them becoming too long. moose is unsure, and says that they haven’t found anyone who could as most are absent or overloaded, and that they have knowledge that other admins don’t due to how long they have been on staff.
This seems like an innocuous statement, but what Moose is saying is that a reserve Admin is the only one with enough time or interest to work on this major issue. Do we truly believe that no Admin can make time for this? What does that say about them? About Staff’s overbloated purview? About the priorities of their structure? Are they that busy, or just that incapable of contributing?
“[Moose] says that they have learned to expect personal attacks and accusations of malice on 05, which wastes discussion time, and that while it’s similar in staffchat they can plan for a specific audience.”
Wait, “personal attacks and accusations of malice on O5?” Are disc threads being made for these? Non-disc thread warnings? Perhaps they aren’t really personal attacks, maybe they are just criticism that is hard to face.
Topic: Adding New Recap Members
Rounderhouse, Calibri_bold, and Cyvstvi are nominated and added to the recap team. There is a lot of concerns about Rounderhouse, who everyone figures has an agenda, which they call “bias”. The recap team promises that Rounderhouse’s “bias” will be caught and removed from the final product, if there is any.
Topic: Staff Approval Question
Despite reams of policy text and a Charter, Moose — the champion of these things— polls the Staff about the basics of the chain of command.
Topic: SoullessSingularity’s Reserve Status
SoullessSingularity was the prior AHT Captain, and came under a lot of scrutiny when AdminBright was outed in mid 2020, and the integrity of the AHT reporting process was called into question. DrEverettMann removed them from that role, but I guess left them as Crit Captain. Soulless went into reserve at that exact time — yup — citing IRL stuff. Suddenly. Just-so happens.
Topic: Dissolving Site Crit Team
This is the second topic in this Recap discussing how useless on-site efforts to defibrilate talented criticism are.
From the Site Criticism Team Hub:
“The Site Criticism Team is the staff team of the SCP Wiki concerned with providing critique to published articles on the site. Additionally, it is their responsibility to ensure critique on published articles are kept up to standard.”
The only surviving role besides shooting the breeze in #thecritters — if we can say that this team does anything well still at all by this point (WhiteGuard sure doesn’t think so) — is to “keep an eye out for problematic mainsite critique”; the twisted opposite of what they should be doing. Instead of providing good critique, as intended, they are now mainly concerned with removing it (yes, in the name of emotional sensitivity; the axiom that all users are made of pudding).
The most recent activity from this team was done single-handedly by Mombun (“MomBun Staffposted on a number of posts containing problematic critique before taking a break”), the person who thought that SCP-DISC-J should be obliterated from the site for being satirical of Staff. Not sure this is the best qualification for giving model crit.
Site Crit is the old car model. There is a newer, shinier one now, mentioned here, there PWRD (Published Works Review and Discussion) team. (The forum post proposing this also mentions SCPD as a reservoir for official changes.) See that? Same meaning, fancier words. Staff feel that the new coat of paint will improve the engine. Meanwhile, any talented critique of articles causes massive ripples of animosity on the SCP Twittersphere and tectonic discussions of what should and shouldn’t be allowed. Most of this is in the name of… again and again and again… moated feelings and author entitlement.
“Tawny’s opinion is that the main problem with the team’s concept is a lack of teaching people how to critique published works, with the solution being incentivizing both staffers and non-staffers to engage in site critique.”
Moose is the individual who created Site Crit, and admits it was a failure.
I will say this until the cows come home; you cannot have a culture of emotional over-protectiveness, political conformity, censorship, and Staff-fortified author vanity and also have actual, meaningful, helpful critique. The SCP Wiki is eating itself and wondering why it can’t see or move its tail anymore. These are root problems; you won’t be able to reach them by trimming the leaves or putting a new color of pinestraw down.
Something else I’ll say until the cows return is that the SCP Wiki Staff is 90% unnecessary work. Their woes are self-inflected and due to an inability to adopt a more conservative approach and hold on the community and site. They are incapable of admitting this as it would reduce their social stature; publicly and personally.
It is also something to note that Staff, in their bureaucratic totality, have no procedure for dissolving a team.
TheDeadlyMoose notes that most staff are in agreement that addressing problems with the Disciplinary team are a priority, and says WhiteGuard can bring this concern up to 05command for discussion, or wait until the admin team is free to do so. They opine that this will not happen until the current “issues with Dex & Mann” (discussed in the “Censure” recaps of this post) have been clearly and publicly resolved.
We were just told that the Admins are too busy to work on their own gaping, mortal injuries. Now, all Admin responsibilities are in a traffic jam becuase of the Dexanote/Mann censure.
And that’s it for Oct 2021 Recaps. Will we see more discussions on O5 and less surface area for the Recap Team to trek? Will we be spared from such a ridiculous amount of coverage? Will any progress whatsoever occur with the Dexanote/Mann censure? What will djkaktus say next that will cause Staff to wet themselves? Now that he is on the Recap team, will ROUNDERHOUSE finally de-all-caps his name? Tune in next time.
We will do this again, but it will be on the upcoming podcast (specific future link will go here). We welcome and encourage you to join in the discussion by calling our Skype number when we are live, even if just to troll; even that would be a most welcome gulp of fresh water in what is sure to be very dry and dense terrain.
