The question posed in this thread is not necessarily one of the moderation team, the site owner lucidrains/Phillip Wang, or other moderators/admins on the moderation team of this website.
People are calling for Ethereal's head because they were recently promoted from role moderator to moderator. The people calling for Ethereal to be demodded are generally viewing and accusing Ethereal as a predator.
My question is, if you guys care so much about Ethereal being a potential predator, should you not be arguing that Ethereal should be site banned? (Personally, I don't think Ethereal should be site banned. She has done her time for being banned and is currently a very big help for the moderators and cheating investigation team, in my opinion.) Your argument seems to not want to rid the website of possible predators, but to just make sure they don't become moderators. It doesn't really make much sense to me.
And even if Ethereal is demodded, guess what? She's still going to help with Cheating cases and finding banned users... nothing is going to change (except that she won't be able to do reports). Is that really going to be a sigh of relief for all of you?
So if Ethereal is demodded, what difference is it to you people if she's still allowed to be on the website...?
EDIT:
I am in favour of demodding Ethereal to please the community fwiw (I was before I even made this thread), but if we do that I don't really get why they are even allowed to be on the site anyways. I'm seeing these arguments I just don't agree with them; potential is potential at the end of the day, and I believe Ethereal should be allowed to stay on the site
i don't care what fake fights they're fabricating. if i'm not getting any actual proof rather than words i'm not buying it.
deletedabout 10 years ago
There was a huge public backlash to Petri's unbanning when she first got unbanned 18 months ago or however long it was, and if she wasn't banned then she won't be banned now, which is why I didn't call for a banning in my thread. Let's be honest here, Arcbell probably used some fear-mongering tactics or pulled some "i'll fix an exploit for you" BS to get her unbanned.
The fact that Petri is a mod after years of trolling this website with a crazy vindictive obsession is still a bit confusing though, but I forgot she's reformed now
No it didn't, IF a moderator is a pedophile and they get demodded, guess what it still means they're a pedophile and they shouldn't be allowed to be on the site period
giga, i don't know if they're actively a pedophile now and in fact ill even go with probably the unpopular opinion that being a pedophile shouldn't give you an autovio as long as you don't go out harassing people
however, as a moderator, i do not think they should have been a pedophile ever and that seems to be the case here
arcbell, the one who unbanned petri in the first place. share this proof
she wasn't even on the computer at that time, her mother even confirmed it in a skype call w/ arcbell. why don't you speak to arcbell about it?
arcbell was the one who unbanned petri, he's friends with her. so unless this proof is shared in public his word means nothing. dustworth was a petri account, that much is confirmed
when they became lobby mods they weren't even on speaking terms anymore lol
im surprised no one remembers my thread aganst the unbanning of petri lmao
deletedabout 10 years ago
arcbell had 100% proof it wasn't petri
arcbell, the one who unbanned petri in the first place. share this proof
she wasn't even on the computer at that time, her mother even confirmed it in a skype call w/ arcbell. why don't you speak to arcbell about it?
arcbell was the one who unbanned petri, he's friends with her. so unless this proof is shared in public his word means nothing. dustworth was a petri account, that much is confirmed
giga, i don't think anyone has accused her of being a predator btw.
many people have in the past day alone actually
they just do not want to have to deal with the possibility that she could given her history
lets just say they were at one point a confirmed pedo and are no longer one: do you believe they should continue to be a moderator? if your answer is yes and can't see why people have a problem with it then that is the main issue
they don't have to be perma banned off the site unless they're actively 'hunting' for people to harass so please stop bringing this up as an argument for keeping them as a moderator because 'its the same thing if shes still on the site anyways'. you in fact have expressed that moderators should be held to a higher 'standard' and to some people that standard is never have been a pedo before
A mod-pedophile can PM a user. A pedophile can PM a user.
Both of these things are true!
The potential is still there!!!!
moderators are held to a higher accountability than a random user.
that is the one sentence im going to say because apparently the point flew over your head since i wrote an essay
No it didn't, IF a moderator is a pedophile and they get demodded, guess what it still means they're a pedophile and they shouldn't be allowed to be on the site period
if someone wanted sammie site-banned they'd have to go to lucid and he'd just say he and you would have to contact the authorities
Yeah, so some people (not all) probably just want to get at Sammie however they can because of that basically, which is part of what I'm saying
Kerry, can you give me a timeline of when Sammie became reformed?
Was it a sudden shift in spirit or what
she got her life sorted out
arcbell probably knows more about the reformation than i do considering he unbanned her when i wasn't speaking to her at the time and i was vehemently against the unbanning
deletedabout 10 years ago
arcbell had 100% proof it wasn't petri
arcbell, the one who unbanned petri in the first place. share this proof