Talk: TheLaatSurvivor

Contact Me[]

If you’re reading this, you’ve found my talk page! Too bad I rarely check it... Instead, if you want to contact me try to find me on discord! Chances are I’m floating around in our chat somewhere, so give me a ping or a friend request and I’ll try to message you back!

Our chat can be found here: https://discord.gg/uXv6uhn

Laat the Survivor (talk) 05:09, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

Welcome[]

Hi, I'm an admin for the The Outer Worlds Wiki community. Welcome and thank you for your edit to User talk:TheLaatSurvivor! If you need help getting started, check out our help pages or contact me or another admin here. For general help, you could also stop by Community Central to explore the forums and blogs.

Please leave me a message if I can help with anything. Enjoy your time at The Outer Worlds Wiki!

President Augustus (talk) 05:09, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

No shit you’re the one who gave this position, you don’t think I know who you are or how this place works? Stupid automated welcome messages 😤🤧 Laat the Survivor (talk) 05:12, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

User rights[]

Hi Laat,

I've had time to think on our conversation earlier and have come to a decision, you will retain your user rights as in good faith I can see your stance on what I presented to you and that things I have seen may be out of context.

However, I do still hold some reservations over your ability to be impartial and to hold good faith. You yourself could see why these concerns are present.

As such I am going to impose terms on your rights retention, which realistically are the standard all rights holders should be expect to show before coming rights holders and continue to do so after the fact. I'm going to point out two of the things that are expected of you as a moderator, as these are where my concerns lie, but it is not exhaustive.

1. Be accountable - the first and only thing that has stuck in my mind from our conversation was your initial reaction to myself wanting to discuss the issue with you. Instead of getting straight into the discussion, your response was to deflect to the other moderator I needed to have (and already had) a word with. As a moderator you are going to be questioned and challenged at times (as I'm sure you know) and you need to justify your actions, decisions. Deflecting them won't do you any favour.
2. Communicate - There were things both you and Autumn knew about that the rest of staff weren't aware of. Although I trust you to deal with things, if you are aware of something (like a user using accounts to spam for example) the rest of us should be aware so we can handle the issue if it returns, or something else needs to be done. Yes the user was quickly globalled and you deleted the posts, however, said user was still active on Discord. If anything this is the most important part of working as a team.

As a whole, this doesn't mean you have to agree with mine or anyone else's stances, if you have a problem with the way things are being handled, speak up within the wiki so they can be resolved. This is the best way to make things move forward as a community. Not everything will go your/their way, but often there is a compromise. If there is one thing I do respect about you, it is that you're not a yes man. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 23:30, September 24, 2019 (UTC)

Following this I was shown some screenshots that concern me about your abilities again. You released a couple of screenshots from our conversation to a group of users, which on its own I wouldn't have been fussed about and would have been open to releasing if requested. The issue I take is that in these screenshots, a user suggested that the conversation might be confidential and yet you continued to post a second one from that conversation.

My second concern is that you have openly fought for transparency (which is why I wouldn't have been fussed about releasing this discussion, I see no reason why it shouldn't be) and in the second screenshot you are seen banning someone for releasing screenshots. Against the rules there or not, you and others have been frustrated by duality in behaviour, yet here you are applying duality yourself.

More worrying for me is this raises one of the points of concern I had in our initial conversation: how can we trust you to uphold the rules you are meant to govern? I've thought long and hard about this and honestly, I'm not sure you can be trusted given what has been seen. As such, your role as a moderator will be removed as even with good faith applied, such things cause an air of distrust and will actually push moderation discussions and decisions into the shadows, which makes things much harder to track.

For the sake of transparency, I'm going to include the screenshots presented to myself so others can come to their own conclusions if they so wish, alongside the full conversation we have (which I will link rather include as it is a long screenshot. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 05:04, September 25, 2019 (UTC)

Full conversation

Before I was shown those last three screenshots, I was going to reinstate your rights. This has nothing to do with Autumn erasure, personal feelings or its like. Your rights removal ultimately came down to does your behaviour show you can be trusted? In my view, no you cannot be trusted. Much of what I said still stands, there appears to be a duality when it comes to revealing "private" information. Publicly you appear to champion transparency, however, when in private you appear to take issue with it. It wasn't the revealing of that conversation I took issue with, as I myself have openly disclosed it to the wiki; it was the fact that someone suggested it might be confidential and you carried on regardless of that. That leads me to question if, given access to vandalism reports or channels where moderators need a block imposing (which you yourself can't do here) are you going to release those notifications? As inclined as I am to think you won't, there is this nagging in the back of my mind that you may well do so. It is a risk that I feel cannot be taken and one where I feel that inaction would be a bad idea.

To address the point you raised about "The rules there explicitly state that the use of screenshots gathered from the server to cause trouble elsewhere is against the rules." I have to ask, if you are for transparency, why did you push the button and not delegate to someone else to do so? If you believe in something as strongly as you say you do, would objecting to pushing the button and potentially losing your status bother you? If it would bother you so, I'd have to question your belief in that cause. As for "You can’t give me a lesson on hypocrisy and transparency when you had a whole conversation with me about demotion... in a private channel." Is it hypocrisy when I released the entire conversation to the wiki, in the name of transparency? Tell me how our conversation is private, now that it has been fully disclosed.

"So you’re demoting me because I banned you buddy from a private server? Your buddy that’s a known menace that’s threatened to rape and kill people before? That really shows your standards of staff, don’t it" prior to yesterday, my last conversation with Overseer was on 28-30 June, 3 months ago, regarding the issue of Autumn being hacked. Prior to that it was on 30 March, with Overseer approaching me to discuss handling of low effort posts. I'd hardly call someone who I have that little interaction with a "buddy". Regarding the "rape and kill people" component of the argument, I am in extreme doubt as to if Overseer it Matthew. I've seen the screenshots and I seriously doubt that he is. Note how one person says "If [he was] Matthew it would be the most elaborate thing ever" and if anything it was you yourself who said that "what if he was MatthewOne". I've taken Overseer in good faith that his "I Am" refers to him being God, not Matthew. Furthermore, from my own experience, Matthew's personality, demeanour and writing style is so far different to Overseers and that difference is so consistent, not only at Nukapedia, but elsewhere that it is very difficult to see any connection and I am compelled to take Overseer in good faith. I will leave those screencaps here so others can make their mind up on what Overseer said, but I'm not uploading them to the wiki as there might be a TOU issue with some of the naming conventions.

screencap one screencap two

On "Can’t be trusted my ass it’s clear I respect more rules than you at this point". Please point me to rules I am not respecting, as I cannot think of any.

Further from the discord, I'm going to throw some points by yourself made in bad faith.

I never said that enforcing rules in other places was a reason for demotion, what I said is it shows a duality. I'd suggest taking a step back and telling me you cannot see that. One of the many reasons I left Nukapedia was because I made decisions I felt were unfair to those they were inflicted upon and that weighed on me heavily. This first example that springs to mind is the banning of Reggie after he was goaded into losing his temper. That one still bothers me to this day.

Not bad faith, but I saw this statement and wanted to address it. Yes, the wiki is not hugely active, but it isn't inactive. If you check Special:Recentchanges you'll see that it isn't just one user working the content. Also when looking at Special:Analytics we have gone from ~12,000 unique views to ~16,000 unique views in 3 weeks. If your basis for the wiki being inactive is that Discord and Discussions have been largely silent, then yes, the wiki is inactive, but I've also noticed we are seeing users appear on Discussions, albeit single message posters. The wiki is now starting to wake up.

This is something I'm actually going to agree with you on, as I have seen you work:

Another statement you made I want to touch on is this one:

Yes, that is how the legal systems work, however the rest of the world doesn't. Employers in the US are allowed to fire for any reason, which includes suspected breaches of contract (unions do help prevent this, where they exist though) is one such example. In our personal lives though, we don't have to make that assumption at all. If we have our doubts on someones sincerity, we can choose not to deal with them, if it is something we are working on personally and collaboratively, individuals may well elect to remove someone from that team on the grounds of suspicion. My point is, it isn't how the world works.

How much power someone has is often based on those of equal or higher power. Right or wrong Nomad felt he couldn't enforce rules for various reasons, one being he was actually undermined by Autumn regarding the removal of the wiki user role. Unfortunately, as myself and the rest of the rights holders have been removed from the original server now, I can't even read up on the original conversation to really expand on this. In the end how much power has is defined by the actions of others. If a user feels they are unable to use the power they have been given, then they are effectively powerless. Although I know exactly what Nomad means by the user army, (and I image you do as well) I'm not going to touch on that as it is in part speculative, however, I have seen cries of "abuse" made for taking actions within the rules (such as Leni using her rights because of a consensus discussion where Rollback was removed from active use and there had been no use of rights, or even content edits since being them in January) or for kicking a user due to poor behaviour, after stating as such that would be the end result. Yes, there could have been a bit more visibility on discord on my part there, but in the end it wasn't some secret decision that wasn't available for the general public to see.

Finally, the following segments from Discord from today (timestamps are either GMT or UTC):

Twice I tried to move the discussion to the wiki to be fully transparent, twice you resisted this move. On the third time when I said I would lock the channel, you claimed censorship. Again, your stance on censorship is a bad faith argument as you are not being censored at all, in fact you're being sent to a more open platform.

All in all, instead of convincing my you can be trusted and you can work with others, you're giving me more reasons to be sure removal was the right thing to do. Arguments in bad faith, claims of censorship when the opposite is being offered (which highlights my point of accountability, as not wanting to move to a more transparent platform reduces accountability). Neither of these, plus some of the above things don't make for a good moderator Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 19:15, September 25, 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to not aaddress the hubub that is the last part of your response, as you seem to be cherry picking quotes and leaving out important details. You threatened to lock the channel. Preventing discussion wherever it is=censorship. As it stands, you removed me for leaking a "private conversation." The thing is, now you yourself made it public. Therefore, any argument taking that into account is pretty invalid.

Secondly, you call me a hypocrite for banning someone from a public server based on an admin consensus. I did not ban him for simply leaking things: I banned him for using leaks to cause issues on our server and elsewhere. That's a trait of toxic users, and that is not allowed. Additionally, he was unbanned following a simple review of the evidence (which I decided made him innocent) and unbanned (by myself as well). So your original basis for demotion has been shown to be quite senseless.

You are incorrect about /d livening up. The only posters there are me, autumn, and a few friends of ours. I think maybe three new users have made a post.

As for Nom's "lack of power" that has nothing to do with me having "bad faith." You've just shown there that Nom didn't get along with Autumn.

In short, your original reasons for demotion are null and void. Like I said, this is completely political, and wouldn't legitimately hold up anywhere else. Laat the Survivor (talk) 20:24, September 25, 2019 (UTC)