Linkshell Leader Meeting Transparency

[Deirdre]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: These posts have been split into a separate thread in order to keep the original on topic.

 

Barring private things like that regarding PMs, I'm speaking strictly of non private things, which I know has happened and I think should be visible. I don't understand 'redaction for their own sakes' that to me translates in to something to hide, and LS leaders should not be hiding behind redaction.

[Ellie]

In an environment where what you say, no matter how innocuous, can be interpreted wrongly and can lead to large long-standing arguments and grudges, it's no surprise that there is a need for privacy. If someone wants to bring up a sensitive or polarizing topic with the linkshell leaders at the meetings, I think they should be able to do so without fear of possible retaliation from those who might take their words the wrong way.

 

The reason we have a forum mod host it is to make sure that there's no backbiting or gossiping or general toxicity that could sow discord not just among the linkshell leaders but among everyone. If the concern is that they're using that privacy to hide insults from those they are insulting, then rest assured that such a thing is not tolerated at these meetings.

[Kylin]

The only other "redaction" I can think of that would make you so strongly in favor of its reveal would be a negative comment regarding the skype chat's usage. That comment was actually edited by the person who said it minutes after the fact, so it wasn't really a redaction since the edit was in the copy/pasted chat. Though, assuming this is what you're referring to, I'm a bit concerned that something like that reached people outside the meeting so quickly and makes me wonder how much gossip is going on while the meeting is ongoing...And that's quite disheartening.

 

If this is the "redaction" you're talking about, I have to say I'm a little puzzled why you want it public so badly. It kind of comes across like you're trying to take a personal vendetta into the public in order to give a lashing to said person who said the comment. And that's just not cool

 

This is kind of off topic from the original post quite a bit though.

[Deirdre]

In an environment where what you say, no matter how innocuous, can be interpreted wrongly and can lead to large long-standing arguments and grudges, it's no surprise that there is a need for privacy. If someone wants to bring up a sensitive or polarizing topic with the linkshell leaders at the meetings, I think they should be able to do so without fear of possible retaliation from those who might take their words the wrong way.

 

The reason we have a forum mod host it is to make sure that there's no backbiting or gossiping or general toxicity that could sow discord not just among the linkshell leaders but among everyone. If the concern is that they're using that privacy to hide insults from those they are insulting, then rest assured that such a thing is not tolerated at these meetings.

 

Thank you Ellie I appreciate your response.

It's not like we are talking about abortion here. LS Leaders are the same as the rest of us, we are all accountable for what we say. The same thing goes for this linkshell meeting. If its that polarizing then take it to a private meeting. The LS Leader Meeting is touted for being a public thing, but in my opinion it's just being hidden away.

---

The only other "redaction" I can think of that would make you so strongly in favor of its reveal would be a negative comment regarding the skype chat's usage. That comment was actually edited by the person who said it minutes after the fact, so it wasn't really a redaction since the edit was in the copy/pasted chat. Though, assuming this is what you're referring to, I'm a bit concerned that something like that reached people outside the meeting so quickly and makes me wonder how much gossip is going on while the meeting is ongoing...And that's quite disheartening.

 

If this is the "redaction" you're talking about, I have to say I'm a little puzzled why you want it public so badly. It kind of comes across like you're trying to take a personal vendetta into the public in order to give a lashing to said person who said the comment. And that's just not cool

 

This is kind of off topic from the original post quite a bit though.

 

I'm sorry Kylin, but I've seen the actual meeting notes because again, this is NOT a private meeting, and thus not considered gossip. I want transparency for others, not just for the last meeting but all the meetings. I have no interest in making anything a public vendetta I'm simply the first one who stood up against it.

I have not named names nor stated any topics in particular that were redacted that I was upset about. I think I'm being very broad, plain and clear so please don't make assumptions.

[Kylin]

And again, the notes put up ARE transparent. The only redaction was that of the PM and the talk involving it. What you saw was EDITED DURING the meeting. As such, we can't copy the original message over.

[Deirdre]

And again, the notes put up ARE transparent. The only redaction was that of the PM and the talk involving it. What you saw was EDITED DURING the meeting. As such, we can't copy the original message over.

 

I also don't think LS leaders should be allowed to edit their posts like that, don't say something if you don't mean it.

Also no, if there is content redacted, it is not transparent.

[Deirdre]

Since you seem to have your own log that differs from what was posted, why don't you share with us exactly what it is that's bothering you so much? Every representative in those meetings has been fair and mature and I'm sure if you need some clarification he or she would be glad to provide an explanation as to why a particular line of chat was redacted.

 

Let me reiterate again.

I am not mad at a single meeting.

I want transparency for every meeting. For everyone.

[Eva]

Edited previous post to amend a point about utilizing PM's.

 

Additionally, perhaps this is something that can be agreed upon by the leaders and others at the start of the next meeting? I have no qualms about leaving my own lines of chat intact going forward if nobody else does.

[Ellie]

I'm not sure I'm understanding this, Deirdre. What's the point of being so unforgiving as to not allow someone to retract a statement that they feel might have been brash or poorly worded? It only means that they regret their words and are willing to take them back.

 

EDIT: This is getting off topic anyway. If this is really a big concern, perhaps it should be taken somewhere else?

[Deirdre]

I'm not sure I'm understanding this, Deirdre. What's the point of being so unforgiving as to not allow someone to retract a statement that they feel might have been brash or poorly worded? It only means that they regret their words and are willing to take them back.

 

Because going back and editing your post changes the reactions of those responding to it, and in text format distorts everything. If you feel your post was brash or poorly worded in this meeting, make another post saying so or apologizing, so as to not alter everything after it.

 

Edit reply: I can make another thread if you want but I posted this in a public place to encourage public discussion.

[Deirdre]

(As an aside thanks to Ellie for splitting the topic)

[Orlog]

This topic has honestly been something that I've been very concerned about in the past. I'm skipping naming names, but I know there were a few people who insisted on keeping everything within the LS meeting 100% private.

 

Right now there's actually a large portion of the meeting cut off right in the middle of the conversation and given the above information, I can't help but feel off about it. If it's room you're worried about, feel free to just attach the whole conversation as a .rtf and let people skim through any side chatter themselves. Even if anything said isn't relevant to the topic at hand, I still think it should be seen by the public, as this is a gathering of leaders.

 

I do think that keeping specific names out of the conversation when discussing something that might be a problem is a reasonable action, but anything else being removed is pretty much unwanted on my end.

[Averis]

Honestly, I can understand why some things NEED to be kept private in this situation, especially when it comes to PMs, from a moderation perspective.

 

Edited: After reading the last minutes, though, it seems to be just some friendly banter between guild leaders. Maybe the meetings aren't the best place to deal with "private" matters, but if it involved an LS you were in, you should just contact your LS leader about it, no?

[Yssen]

In all honesty, I have absolutely no problem with the LS leader meeting notes being completely open and transparent. I think they should be. The LS leaders are not a secret council trying to outline governance for the entire RPC. The meetings are so that we can compare notes, resolve possible issues between LSes, and figure out how best to mesh our ideas together to foster a shared experience for our membership. We are there to promote fun, and having everyone see what we are doing will only show them what we are really working toward. It will show that that we are trying to provide opportunity for fun RP for the enjoyment of the entire community.

 

That is my point of view at least.

 

- Yssen Van

[ArmachiA]

Meh, I don't mind mine being out there for all to see. Mine was mostly "Are Legacy LS's worried about being more inclusive to new LS's" stuff.

 

But I can see how some stuff may want to be redacted. Talking about specific people and PMs and such. Even talking about a specific event could warrant a redaction depending on the circumstances. BUT I believe that when talking about the community as a whole, that should remain transparent. Which... I think it is *Goes to read to see if anything was left out*

[Curtis West]

Hmm, I was trying to read the minutes and it seems something was cut off? Look here

 

I am not sure if more is coming. Very interesting read so far!

 

I'm pretty much in agreement with Deirdre in that people should be held accountable for what they say. The words "behave like an adult" / "mature community" keep being said, so let's live up to it and take some responsibility! :love:

[Shuck]

Not only do I not have a problem with transparency, I insist on it. I've insisted on it since the initial meeting. Creating the kind of separation that filtered information creates has never been a good idea, and never will be.

 

That being said, I do want to take some responsibility for a piece of the redacted content: I had requested that a PM that was sent to me (brought up as evidence of what I see to be a growing issue), as well as the user's name, be redacted in order to keep them out of the proverbial frey. Not sure if that's what people are referring to (as there's a /ton/ of content cut out of these minutes. A ton.) But I can't very well throw my voice into the "let's not pretend we're a secret cabal" without accepting my part in it.

[Grott]

I'm going to throw my two cents in here. Take it or leave it.

 

I'm for 100% transparency. 100%. Nothing less.

 

Linkshell leaders aren't some appointed government body that actually has any real authority, so I don't see why there's even a question about it. Linkshell leaders just happened to be the ones who bought pearl sacks or whatever first and established a group. I could be a linkshell leader if I just made a thread about it on the Linkshell Hall forum. We're all a bunch of gamers who pay the same amount of money to play the same game. There's no real governmental structure here and I don't see why a bunch of dudes sitting around in skype pretending otherwise needs to be hidden away from us like they're some type of shadow council.

 

It's essentially a socially accepted clique. And to pretend otherwise is a joke.

[Alothia]

I agree. If we're having these meetings for the benefit of the people in our linkshells, and for the benefit of the community then we should make it transparent. If things are said that could be taken out of context, perhaps it is up to us to better police our words while we are speaking. Same thing goes for on here as far as I'm concerned. Half of the problems on the RPC wouldn't be here if people took a step back and re-read what they wrote before hitting submit.

[Eva]

Everyone is kind of repeating the same thing and agreeing here. So I think it makes sense for all future LS meetings to be held in a glass house.

 

I know I may have edited one or two lines of text from the last meeting, but if we're going for full transparency going forward I will make it a point not to do this in the future. I think most (if not all) of the other leaders can agree upon this.

 

It feels like we're all just spinning our wheels here at this point. :dazed:

[Averis]

It does seem pretty simple, really. If all involved know that the meetings will be public then anything that needs to be dealt with privately should be dealt with as such. Then there are no questions asked. People will always have private matters, but where and how it's dealt with is the question.

[ArmachiA]

Oh yeah, the end does look cut off, didn't even get to the part about the concern for new people. I would assume that's because of the Forum's character limit though, not because of any redacting. Hopefully the rest will be put up soon

[Eva]

I see what you mean Curtis & Armi. Kylin explained this to me back when I was trying to set up the RP Handbook which was also crazy long. Sometimes really lengthy posts seem to truncate after a certain point - so it made more sense to make that over two or three posts. I imagine the same thing has happened here, and he will probably post the rest of the log when he gets back online. I don't think he realized the truncation happened, nor was this left out intentionally.

[Varus]

So I think it makes sense for all future LS meetings to be held in a glass house.

 

Allowing regular members to observe the meetings as they take place would also be a powerful way to promote transparency.

 

In order to prevent spam and as a general courtesy, any non-leaders at the meeting should simply NOT SPEAK IN THAT CHANNEL. Any commentary can be said in PMs or on the OOC Skype chat.

 

There. Transparency. Because you get to WATCH.

[ArmachiA]

I'm pretty much standing my ground that this was a forum error. The part that was Redacted in the meeting isn't even in that log (It happens later).

 

I don't see why people couldn't watch, though