I do not understand this

I really didn't want to make this thread, but it's really starting to annoy me, and I don't think it will ever be addressed in a serious setting if a thread like this isn't created.

We have a guy who is a staff member for a very long time, and often goes on spans of inactivity, and before that has compromised the integrity of the staff team to questionable levels. He has antagonized a victim of a scam, shown no humility or sorrow towards the victim, and utterly embarrassed the rest of the staff team in how he handled the situation. A huge lack of professionalism, coupled with the odds being stacked against him in terms of proof by contradiction to the stories he presented. Fair enough it wasn't entirely direct, but at the very least, if he wasn't able to prove his innocence (he wasn't), the right call was to make him step down. There is no way in hell, that in any other professional setting, would a company allow someone like that to still be a part of their team, it's unfathomable.

There wasn't any public knowledge of his extensive absence in this thread. When he does comes on, he takes care of a few reports (to fill his quota), posts a cheeky post in the spam forum, then goes inactive for days, and repeats this process. HE HASN'T BEEN ONLINE FOR A MONTH.

Blade bro 4 was demoted for an act that was NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE to what Lean perpetrated. Can we please get a level of consistency when it comes to decisions like this? It's really making my blood boil.

 

I am not posting one way or another towards this thread, just adding some information.

I PM'ed all staff about that staff member's activity a month ago, where he was offline for over 3 weeks.

The only response I received from one admin was "our only method of determining activity is modscore."

 

If the claims made in this thread are truthful, as with BladeBro, I believe this case should definitely be looked into and depending on the information gathered, acted upon one way or another.

 

Why does it matter what he does as long as he's doing what's required of him?

 

There were no consequences to his actions.

 

From what I understand, he is not. But I could be wrong.

 

The staff decided he wasn't at fault. Seems more like you're more concerned with the fact he's 'inactive' in your eyes than anything else.

If he's getting in his quota each month what's the problem?

 

He is more at fault than blade bro 4. This is about keeping a level of consistency, accompanied by the fact that he was inactive for a month, whereas blade bro was not. If you measure both incidents, can you honestly say that blade bro has done more to warrant a demotion than lean? If so, you need to evaluate your thought process because it's not even close.

Edit: Regarding your second point to James; I really doubt a quota is something evaluated on a month to month basis. If that was the case, the majority of staff would be inactive as well after responding to a few reports.

 

Well, for starters you're assuming you know the reason, or reasons behind blades demotion.

Secondly, you're bringing up something from nearly a year ago.

Lastly, I'm a volunteer and I'm sure there has been or is a poll somewhere regarding my activity which is completely understandable. If the admins choose to demote me I'm fine with that decision as my life doesn't revolve around this site. I do what I can when I can, keep mind im an adult with responsibility.

I'll go ahead and close this because it's just a grief thread and there are other feedback threads for this.

 

this is assuming that inactivity is the same thing as ignorance

inb4lock

 

For starters, we all know it wasn't one incident. For all the reasons brought up, it still doesn't trump your mess up.

Secondly, it applies to my premise of keeping things consistent when deciding these things.

Lastly, the only thing keeping you around is the modscore system, in it's entirety which is flawed, and negates any feedback of activity of the course of a year. I'm seeking an answer for things not being consistent.

@Bleu, http://www.sythe.org/community-input/1738085-evidence-against-leanbean.html

6. Is enough to get anyone fired at a job. Especially when damages go as far as $2,000. I know Richard likes to keep things equivalent to real world laws of order, so either be consistent, or acknowledge that not taking action was a mistake.

Lean's negligence plays no factor in this? I'd say it exceeds what blade has done. The detriment is far worse.

 

There shouldn't be. As the quota is used to measure ones activity, if it is reached, (in)activity should not be grounds for demotion.

I am in no way saying he is or isn't guilty of anything, I am just saying that if there is a evidence to support suspicion one should follow up on it in matters like these as it will ultimately prove ones innocence or guilt and this matter can be laid to rest.

 

I'm not saying I completely agree with what happened with the Honest Iago situation, But staff made their decision. Honest did not ask for a PM and it ended up in his getting scammed.

As far as #6 is concerned staff has cleared Lean of any punishment. If someone is cleared we don't continually bring up the issue over and over again; that amounts to little more than a smear campaign.


As far as Leans activity?

Unfitting of his position; But Blade's situation is different, So I dont know why you would try to compare the two.

 

Again, simply providing information. Modscores are posted amongst all staff biweekly. There.is no way to tell which days they were completed, but they can see which activity gave the scores. I cannot tell you much more without leaking. Hopefully this answered some questions!

 

Comparisons are made to signify the level of importance between the two. If one outweighs the other, it definitely calls for questioning. That's the reason for this thread creation. I'm fine with discretion, as long as it makes sense.

How do you give a pass to someone who has done greater damage, and not the other way around? It logically doesn't make sense.

I'm a guy who likes logic. So let's use it.

Should we also ignore the unnecessary remarks and lack of professionalism post dispute?

 

you yourself said.

If we were discussing this as a court of law, it wouldn't be admissible for Blade's defense to be "Well look at what lean did he got off scot free"

Each situation is different, and handled differently. Believe me; I know where you are coming from.

 

Different judge, different jury, different defendants, lawyers, etc. This is not the case, therefore correlation is absolutely justified. I would like to know how these two decisions came about, because it doesn't make sense to me.

 

Not a bad point, I do see where your coming from; although personally I just don't agree with it.

I cant speak for Blade's situation, But Lean was Cleared because there is no way Honest could not have justified a 1 Mo old PM for the current trade he was doing.

Simply speaking (regardless if Lean was hacked or not) If Honest had requested a PM, he would not have been scammed

 

This is exactly the same thing that happened with Malakadang. Nothing against Lean here but he isn't actively on the site at all and hasn't been for quite some time. If anything Globals are supposed to be more active as they should be providing leadership to lower level staff members, actively vote on pardons and what-not. They're primarily the one that can resolve account recoveries too. Using how Malakadang was dealt with as a precedent I do believe he should step down for the time being until he has more time to make sythe.org a priority.

 

The pm was not the issue. List of problems during that event:

1. He didn't use a real email for his skype account.

If you're placed in a position of significant power, and you're unable to control a simple situation like this due to your negligence is something that should have consequences. If he had a real email, no one would have gotten scammed and $2,000 would be safe.

2. He antagonized the victim after the incident.

This did not stop until the situation fully blew over. It was childish, immature, and unnecessary.

3. He said he did not care for the situation, and even went as far as to say he doesn't care about the site.

This alone can get you fired from your job. Especially if you publicly say it without remorse.

4. He never actually countered the points. He simply closed every thread regarding the issue, and claimed it was an attack on him, instead of his performance.

Abuse of power?

5. Too many coincidences fell into place.

It's pretty unbelievable that all this happened on the fly, and wasn't planned at all. There is no way for a hacker to know the dates of which Lean's paypal cycle completed etc.


At the very least, a demotion was suppose to be given. It wasn't? Okay. But you can't go around demoting someone for a lesser incident, with considerably lesser demage. That's hypocritical.