[D] Removal of Wallenburg from GA Secretariat

[The Overmind]

And who will keep those higher-ups in check? And the higher-ups of those higher-ups? And the higher-ups of those higher-ups of those higher-ups?

Adding people to a broken system will not fix the system. Fixing a broken system will.

But what some of the ordinary player base, the ones who are complaining about this decision, are made mods?

Perhaps this conversation could be moved to viewtopic.php?f=16&t=547911? This is a thread addressing Wallenburg's removal from GenSec.

[Ignis Ferreus]

viewtopic.php?t=548017&f=20&view=unread#unread

A poll has started on this topic

[Reploid Productions]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?t=548017&f=20&view=unread#unread

A poll has started on this topic

Note for transparency: The linked post was erroneously posted to the General forum; it has been merged into the GenSec nominations thread here: viewtopic.php?p=41425467#p41425467

[Ignis Ferreus]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?t=548017&f=20&view=unread#unread

A poll has started on this topic

Note for transparency: The linked post was erroneously posted to the General forum; it has been merged into the GenSec nominations thread here: viewtopic.php?p=41425467#p41425467

Thank you very much, however I do intend to make a poll related to this. Could you please move it into the appropriate forum but as its own thread with its own poll?

[Reploid Productions]

Note for transparency: The linked post was erroneously posted to the General forum; it has been merged into the GenSec nominations thread here: viewtopic.php?p=41425467#p41425467

Thank you very much, however I do intend to make a poll related to this. Could you please move it into the appropriate forum but as its own thread with its own poll?

Staffing is not determined by forum poll; for one thing it's not a popularity contest, and forum polls can be very easily puppet-stuffed. There's not really any point to using one for this.

[Ignis Ferreus]

Thank you very much, however I do intend to make a poll related to this. Could you please move it into the appropriate forum but as its own thread with its own poll?

Staffing is not determined by forum poll; for one thing it's not a popularity contest, and forum polls can be very easily puppet-stuffed. There's not really any point to using one for this.

I understand, its not meant to be an election, but rather a representation of how the NS community feels. Where should I put the thread then?

[Reploid Productions]

Staffing is not determined by forum poll; for one thing it's not a popularity contest, and forum polls can be very easily puppet-stuffed. There's not really any point to using one for this.

I understand, its not meant to be an election, but rather a representation of how the NS community feels. Where should I put the thread then?

There really isn't anywhere for it. The discussion belongs in the nominations thread, not via a wildly inaccurate, easily puppet-stuffed forum poll.

[Idinist Imauggland]

The solution to me, is that we need more mods.

I think the thing is that there are many mods who the community would trust and who would be transparent, but they are not high enough in the mod hierarchy to do anything about it]

Oh yeah, another thought, we need more higher ups:

Maybe that would work... but if you happen to appoint an admin who is just as bad the situation is worse.

[United Calanworie]

Hello,
I am posting to note the following information:

The telegram sent to Wallenburg was one that we have sent to staff members upon departing the staff team in the past. Former Issues Editors, Moderators, and now GenSec alike have all received this telegram at some point. To quote from our internal moderator policy documents:

This policy exists because when an ex-mod begins to grumble in public, it puts the mod team in a no-win situation, where it would unprofessional to respond in kind, but remaining silent allows the allegations (or suggestions) to stand.

It is an unfortunate oversight that the same explanation has not been provided internally to GenSec. This is a pinch point in our process that we can, and should, look at rectifying.

We provided an avenue for Wallenburg to reach out if he felt that he was unsure if the policy would apply to anything that he might comment on in public, specifically, that he should send in a GHR if uncertain. To date, he has not done so.

I hope that this provides some more clarity to y’all.

[Bananaistan]

Hello,
I am posting to note the following information:

The telegram sent to Wallenburg was one that we have sent to staff members upon departing the staff team in the past. Former Issues Editors, Moderators, and now GenSec alike have all received this telegram at some point.

To be clear for others reading, I did not receive such a TG upon resigning from GenSec.

To quote from our internal moderator policy documents:

This policy exists because when an ex-mod begins to grumble in public, it puts the mod team in a no-win situation, where it would unprofessional to respond in kind, but remaining silent allows the allegations (or suggestions) to stand.

It is an unfortunate oversight that the same explanation has not been provided internally to GenSec. This is a pinch point in our process that we can, and should, look at rectifying.

I think it's overkill to have GenSec included in the same policy as moderators and issues editors considering GenSec has no access to any sensitive information about anything nor, apparently, has it any influence over any decisions regarding the General Assembly that might be made by the M/A team. While I can see that the policy might be appropriate for a moderator who actually had input into decisions, I do not feel it should be automatically applied to those who do not.

We provided an avenue for Wallenburg to reach out if he felt that he was unsure if the policy would apply to anything that he might comment on in public, specifically, that he should send in a GHR if uncertain. To date, he has not done so.

I hope that this provides some more clarity to y’all.

I can see why Wally has not taken you up on this considering the nature of the whole issue.

[United Calanworie]

Hello,
I am posting to note the following information:

The telegram sent to Wallenburg was one that we have sent to staff members upon departing the staff team in the past. Former Issues Editors, Moderators, and now GenSec alike have all received this telegram at some point.

To be clear for others reading, I did not receive such a TG upon resigning from GenSec.

I should note that you retired under good terms, and were not forced to leave the team. We don’t typically see a need to immediately remind former staff members of their responsibilities under this policy when there isn’t as much of a risk.

To quote from our internal moderator policy documents:


It is an unfortunate oversight that the same explanation has not been provided internally to GenSec. This is a pinch point in our process that we can, and should, look at rectifying.

I think it's overkill to have GenSec included in the same policy as moderators and issues editors considering GenSec has no access to any sensitive information about anything nor, apparently, has it any influence over any decisions regarding the General Assembly that might be made by the M/A team. While I can see that the policy might be appropriate for a moderator who actually had input into decisions, I do not feel it should be automatically applied to those who do not.

GenSec absolutely has access to sensitive information. For a period of time, y’all had access to the stats attached to GA resolution categories, GenSec more recently has been looped in on technical changes to the game, some of which at this moment may not be public, and perhaps most sensitive of all, GenSec has permanent 24/7/365 access to NS3, where a wide variety of technical changes may be in testing at any moment.

[Bananaistan]

To be clear for others reading, I did not receive such a TG upon resigning from GenSec.

I should note that you retired under good terms, and were not forced to leave the team. We don’t typically see a need to immediately remind former staff members of their responsibilities under this policy when there isn’t as much of a risk.

I think it's overkill to have GenSec included in the same policy as moderators and issues editors considering GenSec has no access to any sensitive information about anything nor, apparently, has it any influence over any decisions regarding the General Assembly that might be made by the M/A team. While I can see that the policy might be appropriate for a moderator who actually had input into decisions, I do not feel it should be automatically applied to those who do not.

GenSec absolutely has access to sensitive information. For a period of time, y’all had access to the stats attached to GA resolution categories, GenSec more recently has been looped in on technical changes to the game, some of which at this moment may not be public, and perhaps most sensitive of all, GenSec has permanent 24/7/365 access to NS3, where a wide variety of technical changes may be in testing at any moment.

Fair enough on both counts. I had forgotten about that testing platform tbh.

[Tianming]

Is it not in the best interests of the team to allow the public opinion to be formed without such heavy handed intervention?

It seems quite ludicrous to assume that if a team member or ex team member complains about some issues or concerns, that it is in the best interests of the team to reduce that person's voice or influence.

It seems quite contradictory to have criticism result in any disciplinary action.

In general, if people bring not just complaints but false allegations or information that can threaten the privacy and security of site leadership, information can be provided and the team member discredited with the information publicly published, debunking them.

A temporary ban during prior to the publishing of the information to prevent further chaos, and then a permanent ban depending on the severity after the information is made public, would seem wholly appropriate to allow concerns to be brought forward while discouraging false allegations or sabotage.

This would mean that criticism from a former team member or team member is allowed, however if there are false allegations or harming the privacy of team members, there are serious punishments for it.

Of course that brings up factionalism-but frankly, I think that factionalism is not a problem with this website in terms of what should be allowed.

This would allow the team to also focus on what the players are requesting for features, such as a manual tax rate and fiscal and budgetary policy.

[Wallenburg]

We provided an avenue for Wallenburg to reach out if he felt that he was unsure if the policy would apply to anything that he might comment on in public, specifically, that he should send in a GHR if uncertain. To date, he has not done so.

Hi Cal. Unless you're using some special secret meaning of the phrase "private discussions", then I'm prohibited from sharing details of anything folks here can't already see for themselves. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to clarify.

[Katganistan]

In general, if people bring not just complaints but false allegations or information that can threaten the privacy and security of site leadership, information can be provided and the team member discredited with the information publicly published, debunking them.

A temporary ban during prior to the publishing of the information to prevent further chaos, and then a permanent ban depending on the severity after the information is made public, would seem wholly appropriate to allow concerns to be brought forward while discouraging false allegations or sabotage.

You don't think that letting the cat out of the bag in cases of revealing PII or game mechanics that will ruin the game for everyone can be remedied by deleting it and punishing someone once it's out there, do you?

I'm not sure that anyone really wants that.

[The Overmind]

In general, if people bring not just complaints but false allegations or information that can threaten the privacy and security of site leadership, information can be provided and the team member discredited with the information publicly published, debunking them.

A temporary ban during prior to the publishing of the information to prevent further chaos, and then a permanent ban depending on the severity after the information is made public, would seem wholly appropriate to allow concerns to be brought forward while discouraging false allegations or sabotage.

You don't think that letting the cat out of the bag in cases of revealing PII or game mechanics that will ruin the game for everyone can be remedied by deleting it and punishing someone once it's out there, do you?

I'm not sure that anyone really wants that.

Actually, it can. Just delete the offending information, and DOS the nation. Anyone who didn't want to read it would have refrained from doing so. And I'm not sure what this has to do with gagging someone with respect to the reasons for their removal from moderation, or their perspective on it for that matter.

[HISPIDA]

Oh yeah, another thought, we need more higher ups:

Because:

POWER CORRUPTS! We need to keep M/A in check, to stop some bad apples, maybe have a system where admins are kept in check by a council of higher admins and have most mod cave discussions made in public(except those that involve private info/legal stuff), and maybe have the players be able to vote out mods? Just make everything public.

power doesn't corrupt. it has a nasty tendency to enable, though.

[Katganistan]

You don't think that letting the cat out of the bag in cases of revealing PII or game mechanics that will ruin the game for everyone can be remedied by deleting it and punishing someone once it's out there, do you?

I'm not sure that anyone really wants that.

Actually, it can. Just delete the offending information, and DOS the nation. Anyone who didn't want to read it would have refrained from doing so.

Once the info is out, it's out. There is no magically removing every instance of it from the internet. "Just delete it and it's fixed" is naive at best.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

In general, if people bring not just complaints but false allegations or information that can threaten the privacy and security of site leadership, information can be provided and the team member discredited with the information publicly published, debunking them.

A temporary ban during prior to the publishing of the information to prevent further chaos, and then a permanent ban depending on the severity after the information is made public, would seem wholly appropriate to allow concerns to be brought forward while discouraging false allegations or sabotage.

You don't think that letting the cat out of the bag in cases of revealing PII or game mechanics that will ruin the game for everyone can be remedied by deleting it and punishing someone once it's out there, do you?

I'm not sure that anyone really wants that.

What's that got to do with this?

[The Overmind]

Actually, it can. Just delete the offending information, and DOS the nation. Anyone who didn't want to read it would have refrained from doing so.

Once the info is out, it's out. There is no magically removing every instance of it from the internet. "Just delete it and it's fixed" is naive at best.

It's even more naive to think that someone bent on ruining the game in retaliation for being taken off the moderation team would care that you gently instructed them not to. And you still haven't linked this in an way with the gag on Wally with respect to speaking to his side of his removal. Is this really how the moderation team intends to double down on that decision? Talking tangentially to the issue and making doomsday prophesies about what would happen if they didn't?

[Refuge Isle]

Greetings,

We understand that there's been a request for additional clarification about the circumstances around Wallenburg's removal from the GA's GenSec, following Sedge's post the other day. I apologise for the delay, but unfortunately that's just the nature of how things work when the Moderation and Admin team is composed of a wide variety of people, and we get input from as many as we can.

Following several episodes of inappropriately hostile conduct by Wallenburg toward various other staff members, particularly in private staff areas, it became clear that GenSec needed a written Code of Conduct, much as the Issue Editors and Moderators have. This was presented for feedback to GenSec late last year and subsequently made active in January.

There continued to be incidents of unacceptable hostility to staff, particularly Sedgistan, over the course of several weeks. These concerned a variety of topics, including the Secretary General topic in Technical (to which GenSec was given advanced notice last December), though were not issues because of their disagreement as has been suggested. Disagreement with an idea is not disallowed for GenSec, particularly since mechanics and policy changes go through significant evolution through suggestion and critique. However, as with debate around the rest of the site, we would like that criticism to be directed at the idea itself, and not through personal attacks on the staff members presenting it. This is especially important in topics where the proposal's presenter is a spokesperson for Moderator and Administrator collaboration, not an executor of an independent agenda.

Throughout a three-week discussion on these incidents, Wallenburg was able to neither, unevasively and without caveat, provide a commitment to following the rules in the future, nor demonstrate an adequate acceptance of what constituted a conduct breach in the past. NationStates cannot function with team members who cannot work with one another; consequently, we have lost confidence in Wallenburg as a member of staff and, as such, removed him. As this decision was the result of long discussion involving the vast majority of all Moderators, Administrators, and Directors, it will not be reversed.

[Varanius]

Thank you Luca for the comprehensive and succinct response. This seems like a straightforward case, thanks for the communication

[Francois Isidore]

As much as I appreciate the communication coming from site staff via this statement, I would appreciate it to an even greater degree if this level of transparency was the standard right out of the gate for when decisions like this are made. That way, at the very least, you all could've saved yourselves a week of public outrage.

[The Ice States]

Thank you Luca for the comprehensive and succinct response. This seems like a straightforward case, thanks for the communication

Frankly, I can't see this post as motivated by genuine support for the reasons given.

Nonetheless, while I still strongly disagree with the reasons given, it is good for the public to be informed. Will Wallenburg be permitted to give their own account of the situation?

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

Thank you Luca for the comprehensive and succinct response. This seems like a straightforward case, thanks for the communication

Frankly, I can't see this post as motivated by genuine support for the reasons given.

Ok