Oh Dear God

Since my retirement doesn't kick into place until I make my acceptance post in the Hall of Fame section, I have no problems returning to NLSC. No problems except to say what the fuck?What in gods name is happening here? How is that two people leave, myself and Jae, and the forums get completely thrown upside down. People who are banned are given free passes. Mods will let anything slide as long as you don't criticise their actions. People can make threats after being banned and they get reinstated just to allow them to make the same kind of posts that got them banned in the first place? Holy shit.

This is not what I wanted to see when I left. I know Jae feels the same. Where is the courage to make tough decisions to better the community? Where are the balls to enforce the rules without being a fricken Nazi?

Where is the leadership?

I just can't understand how a place can dissovle so quickly... I think back to the old forums (and no this isnt a "well back in my day point") and even though there was spam, there was flaming, it was fair. There wasn't the inconsistancies that we see today. It's almost like its become upside down, whats left is right, up is down, coolmac is smart, dweaver is cool, sit is a winner. These are opposites that should never be confused with each other.

But ok, those are the problems I see ( just a small list, other then that everything seems to be ok ). How can it be helped? What can be done? The following may cause some grief to certain people, but its exactly how I see it. If you don't like what I say, you're entitled to not like it. I don't mind and I'm not offended, but instead of whinging, try to use that energy and motivation to improving what you guys have here. Also remember I have nadda to gain by making these observations. I'm not gunning for a return or to take your job. I just hate seeing the forums run into the ground.

For starters, the new moderating team has to be re-evaluated in my opinion. The only guy I would keep is Indy, and thats becuase he seems to not be serving his own ego when he does his job. The new guys, cyanide, bighort, ty land, you say its inexperience or whatever, and if thats the case, then are you admitting that you really shouldn't be in a leadership role here at nlsc? Everyone knows it takes time to adjust to a new position, hell it took the Greatest Mod of all time (Jae) a few weeks before he understood what it took and he took it to a new level.

But what made Jae great? It was his passion (or lack of life ) to enforce the rules whilst using common sense. He became a leader and shaped these forums into somthing special becuase he never put himself or his ego infront of a decision he made, it was always the community first. I see a little bit of that in Indy, but at the same time Indy is still his own man. I'm not saying Indy is good becuase he is a little like Jae in that regard, I'm saying he's the best of the bunch so far becuase he actually interprets the rules with common sense.

Banning an inactive account of a person who has 2 accounts is not a common sense interpretation of the rule "Do not sign up for more than one account"

Allowing people to come back to avoid drama is also not a common sense interpretation of the rules. Obviously this is not a real life society, but just think for a moment if judges only made rulings that avoided drama. If you care about the site, you will take shit for it. It's just the nature of it. And just remember, if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to stay. It's hard, there are expectations on you, and at times you will be unpopular. But that's what you volunteered for, not to roam around the forums with a title and the ability to move posts.

This is what the problem was with Tales. Thats what the problem was with Nigel (cha ching ). As Jackal has said, respect is to be earnt, not expected.

I think I've spoken enough. If you have something to say, feel free to disagree or throw an idea or two into how to improve things.

Additionally, alot of posters will read this and not reply. The community is not about 6 or 7 leaders. They are a big part, but if you read this and think "man the forums are going bad" and then proceed to spam and make trouble at the forums, you will contradict yourself.

It's time everyone stepped up.

You know what, Matthew? I know we've had our problems, but I seriously cannot agree with you more (not necessarily about your opinions on the new mods though- I think they're doing a fine job... I mean the general mess the forums are of late).

I've been automatically aggressive with people lately, and I've been thinking hard and long about why it's happening. It's because I'm damn fond and defensive of this place. I've just been expressing it in the wrong ways. Oddly enough, your post has made me realize what I want to do.

I may not be the best poster, or moderator, but I know I'm not the worst (not having an ego here). So I'm going to be making a stand- doing everything I can to be both the best poster and best moderator I can. Hopefully I can work myself back into the position of someone honestly helpful and active that I used to be.


I agree with you 100%, and while it might not mean much to you, I will be doing everything I can to pull this place out of "the gutter".

Last edited by Donatello on Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Good post as usual there matt...i see you've been keeping up with the forums. I'm interested in Andrew's point of views on this matter...

Personally, you're blowing it out of proportion.

The whole Sit situation took a lot of discussing because apparently his account was never banned and Zoom flew under the radar. I don't know much about Sit or his situation other than trying to pull off a laughable revolt. In most cases, if somebody makes a second account, I doubt they'd be automatically banned in all cases. If I remember correctly, at some point in time, you didn't bother banning Sit because you wanted to piss him off because he was practically begging for it.

As for the CoolMac thing, IPs didn't match with MacGuyver, but in the end, MacGuyver was banned anyway based on the assumption he could be CoolMac.

Dweaver. He flew under the radar because he didn't post as often as he did, and when he did make a post, they were good posts. The only time he was exposed was when he pretty much said, "Hi, I'm right here." Of course, he was banned right away. The only mod who said that he shouldn't be banned was me, because he's a good poster whether or not you agree with me. You just didn't like him, so you can just simply ban him because of a personal vendetta and call it spamming. God knows how many spammers we have here that didn't get banned.

Personally, I'm tired about the bitching about the new moderating. We've banned people, we've locked threads, moved threads, gave warnings through PMs, and just because we have a difference of opinions doesn't mean that this place is "upside down."

Fucking ridiculous.

Personally, I'm loving this whole period of discussion.

I think these debates are healthy and good for the forum. I think it would be great to have each of the new moderators explain how they'll interpret each of the rules.

We have some people saying the No Duplicate Accounts clause means none in any circumstance, others say the circumstances matter. We have the question of whether there can be redemption for bannage or not, if there can be second chances.

There's also the question of overturning past decisions at hand by some here. That's a fun thread of thought as well.

So, I'd love to see the moderators, new and old, post their interpretations on clauses such as "Please note that we take the liberty to permanently terminate a member's account if they are disturbing the overall atmosphere of the Forum." What constitutes "disturbing the overall atmosphere"? What is the "overall atmosphere"?

Delve into the clauses like:

Do not sign up for more than one account

As you may freely change your username, there is no need to register more than one account. Members who sign up for more than one account will have their additional accounts deleted, and will be reminded of this rule.

or

Be civil and offer constructive criticism when a forum member announces a new patch or website. Please refrain from insulting comments; help out new patchers by providing useful feedback.

Are these suggestions and advisements? Or are they orders and demands?

Let's have the debates! It'll be fun!

that's what you volunteered for, not to roam around the forums with a title and the ability to move posts.

Key.

There needs to be more of a dictatorship sorta thing goin on like Jae had. Someone who will get their hands dirty and stick with their decisions with no fucking around. That's why I don't agree with the amount of new mods that were hired. No offense to Ty-land, bighort and qballer. But they just seem like utterly pointless appointments to me. Cyanide and indy would have been fine.

5 new moderators - along with the 3 or whatever existing ones. The moderator forum must be like a bunch of seagulls scwobbling at eachother. Decisions can't be made that way. Have one guy, 2, maybe 3 make those decisions.

I also have doubt that the thought process behind ty-land and bighort's decisions to accept their roles as moderator was for the passion to better the community, but rather to have that power, and that tag. They don't have the longevity to make me believe they'd wanna be mod for any other reason than having the tag. Prove me wrong boys.

Donatello, all anyone can ask of anyone is their best. If they don't, they're cheating themselves and the person in question. It's not that hard not to be a spastic, yet people here act as if it's their given right. And I never said the place is in the gutter. It's more of a tailspin.

Yohance, why wait for Andrew thinks? You're a part of this community as is he, so your views are just as welcomed.

Cyanide, personally you're an idiot. Your post is way off topic and is full of your own assumptions about what would be my flaws to justify your ineptness as a mod. Just remember, nobody is forcing you to be a mod. If you think its ridiculous, then fuck off.

Benji, I'll post my interpretations of the three rules that you posted.

"Please note that we take the liberty to permanently terminate a member's account if they are disturbing the overall atmosphere of the Forum."

"Overall atmosphere" right now could be viewed as trouble making spammers, so I guess you could be banned for being a sense making, conservative poster.

Do not sign up for more than one account

As you may freely change your username, there is no need to register more than one account. Members who sign up for more than one account will have their additional accounts deleted, and will be reminded of this rule.

This could be confusing. In Sit's case, his zoom account should be banned and then his regular sit one be reminded of the violation.

Be civil and offer constructive criticism when a forum member announces a new patch or website. Please refrain from insulting comments; help out new patchers by providing useful feedback.

This is saying you can criticise in a professional manner (constructive criticism) and don't insult n00bs.

Suggestions or advisements? Suggestions.

Orders or demands? Neither.

What do you think?

Nick, you think Jae had a dictatorship? How? He enforced the rules but also listened to suggestions and maintains his personality through his decisions.

It was anything but a dictatorship.

Donatello, all anyone can ask of anyone is their best. If they don't, they're cheating themselves and the person in question. It's not that hard not to be a spastic, yet people here act as if it's their given right. And I never said the place is in the gutter. It's more of a tailspin.

Well, then I shall do my best to help get us back on course.

And, agreed- Jae was anything but a dictator.

With the whole "changing of the guard" around the forum, the new guys have been thrown in at the deep end without detailed instruction on some of the trickier situations we deal with and that's my fault. Re-evaluating policies may be a good idea and aiming for consistency is the way to go but I still think our new mods need to be given a chance to gain some experience and get used to the position.

So, I'd love to see the moderators, new and old, post their interpretations on clauses such as "Please note that we take the liberty to permanently terminate a member's account if they are disturbing the overall atmosphere of the Forum." What constitutes "disturbing the overall atmosphere"? What is the "overall atmosphere"?

That is a pretty antiquated statement, I have to admit. What it comes down to is if someone's causing trouble and generally annoying everyone - spoiling threads by random flaming or an abundance of spamming and acting like a complete tool - we reserve the right to ban them without warning.

It's been a while since we updated the rules aside from adding notes about avatars, signatures and custom titles. Perhaps it's time to go over them again.

I view the "atmosphere" clause as one that negates the necessity of the other rules altogether. The only way to interpret it would be that the administration has the authority to remove any member they see fit. It negates the necessity of reasons for such terminations making the other rules redundant and simply specifics overriden by a general. It also makes by law any appeal a personal one and not a challenge via the rules, effectively mandating double standards.

If it only means flaming/spamming then there are already rules forbidding it, making it an unecessary addition unless to formalize the power to terminate without a reason. "Causing trouble", "annoying", "acting like a tool" is all subjective, and while it is fine to interprete through violations of rules, I don't know if one wants to codify subjective language.

I think based on the reading of the rule itself, your Sit interpretation of the account rule would be correct. An amendment should be made saying that a user can petition to switch to a new username, otherwise I don't see a way to interpret this rule as anything else.

I find the final one I mentioned to be a rule that's requiring of posters to offer constructive criticism and help patchers by providing useful feedback. Not saying that posters SHOULD do it, not saying they should do it instead of the opposite. I conclude this because the other post-restriction rules are all in the form of "do not [something]" and this one is the form of saying to "do something" and so the rule as written would have to be enforced that way. It is not restricting a freedom like the other rules, but instead mandating a responsibility to posters.

Maybe dictator was the wrong word for what i was trying to put accross.

What i respected about Jae's moderating was his ability to believe in his decisions and stick with them without needing to consult others. He just did it - right or wrong. We need more of that. Balls.

And I never said the place is in the gutter. It's more of a tailspin.

I'm sure such words like, "the forums get completely thrown upside down," "how a place can dissovle so quickly" is more on the sunny side up of things

Cyanide, personally you're an idiot. Your post is way off topic and is full of your own assumptions about what would be my flaws to justify your ineptness as a mod. Just remember, nobody is forcing you to be a mod. If you think its ridiculous, then fuck off.

Yeah, I really strayed off topic by specifically talking about the things that you specifically mentioned that got this place "upside down." Of course, I had to add how you handled the situation for fairness, and to point out your (coincidentially, your favorite word) hypocrisy.

If you think leadership is missing, I see it in bigh0rt. If you think nobody is taking the Sit/Dweaver/CoolMac situation seriously, why don't you take a look at the Members Forum and tell me it's being ignored. If we have rules, we do our best to enforce them, but you're forgetting that there are conditions. It's not black and white when it comes to banning a member, and unfortunately, the recent situation was just bad timing that caused debate. Don't forget about the other people that we banned, Matthew.

Go ahead and call me inept, I'm sure every member agrees with you, but personally, since your first days as a mod up until your retirement, other than NBA Talk, all I've ever seen you do is insult people and act like an arrogant prick.

I view the "atmosphere" clause as one that negates the necessity of the other rules altogether. The only way to interpret it would be that the administration has the authority to remove any member they see fit. It negates the necessity of reasons for such terminations making the other rules redundant and simply specifics overriden by a general. It also makes by law any appeal a personal one and not a challenge via the rules, effectively mandating double standards.

If it only means flaming/spamming then there are already rules forbidding it, making it an unecessary addition unless to formalize the power to terminate without a reason. "Causing trouble", "annoying", "acting like a tool" is all subjective, and while it is fine to interprete through violations of rules, I don't know if one wants to codify subjective language.

Good point. I guess that paragraph (assuming it's kept) should instead emphasise that these are the rules we've set; by posting you agree to abide by them and we reserve the right to ban those who do not.

I think based on the reading of the rule itself, your Sit interpretation of the account rule would be correct. An amendment should be made saying that a user can petition to switch to a new username, otherwise I don't see a way to interpret this rule as anything else.

I have to admit that rule's been somewhat inconsistent, even in the old forum. I abandoned my original account when I took the NLSC job and a couple of other regulars signed up with new names from time to time as well mainly because Discus didn't allow us to change usernames as phpBB does. It really only became an issue when people started to create additional accounts to cause trouble.

If we're going to allow people to start fresh with new accounts then absolutely we need to add an amendment. I'd say that's a weakness with the rules in general, we don't mention much about exceptions and special cases and we do need consistency there. My current feeling is that with all that's happened it would be for the best if we enforce that rule as originally intended from here on.

I find the final one I mentioned to be a rule that's requiring of posters to offer constructive criticism and help patchers by providing useful feedback. Not saying that posters SHOULD do it, not saying they should do it instead of the opposite. I conclude this because the other post-restriction rules are all in the form of "do not [something]" and this one is the form of saying to "do something" and so the rule as written would have to be enforced that way. It is not restricting a freedom like the other rules, but instead mandating a responsibility to posters.

Well, I guess that rule is redundant since breaking it basically equates to breaking the rules regarding flaming other posters which is already there as a "Do Not". Perhaps it would be better as an example under the "Do not flame" rule?

I say two sentences to you and you draw out 3 paragraphs of, well, nothing related to this thread? I think you have some unresolved issue with me and you're trying to get it off your chest in this thread. Now thats the kind of leadership this place needs.

But seeing I have time and I'm bored, what the hell.

I'm sure such words like, "the forums get completely thrown upside down," "how a place can dissovle so quickly" is more on the sunny side up of things

Do you ever get sick of being wrong? You're assuming I mean the same thing by saying the forum is upside down as saying the forum is in the gutter. I'm telling you I don't think its the same yet you think it's the same? I think you're itching for an argument. Hi Arvin .

Yeah, I really strayed off topic by specifically talking about the things that you specifically mentioned that got this place "upside down." Of course, I had to add how you handled the situation for fairness, and to point out your (coincidentially, your favorite word) hypocrisy.

My hypocrisy eh? You're basing my actions on what you think is the reason behind them, so you can then maybe draw a contradiction out of them. My advice to you is you don't know so maybe you shouldn't assume, becuase you really have no idea.

If you think leadership is missing, I see it in bigh0rt. If you think nobody is taking the Sit/Dweaver/CoolMac situation seriously, why don't you take a look at the Members Forum and tell me it's being ignored. If we have rules, we do our best to enforce them, but you're forgetting that there are conditions. It's not black and white when it comes to banning a member, and unfortunately, the recent situation was just bad timing that caused debate. Don't forget about the other people that we banned, Matthew.

I read it all, Jae pointed it out to me. I'm aware that its not black and white, but theres instances where you have to be consistant with the rules for the benefit of the forum, not to be popular. That may come as a shock to you, but I don't care. It's the reality of the job that you voluntered for.

As for the deliberation, one or two sentences without explanation for your thoughts is not serious talk. I could say I think the world will implode becuase of a volcano, but is it serious talk if I dont show anything else to justify those thoughts?

Go ahead and call me inept, I'm sure every member agrees with you, but personally, since your first days as a mod up until your retirement, other than NBA Talk, all I've ever seen you do is insult people and act like an arrogant prick.

lol, what is wrong with you? I couldn't care less what you think about me, yet you still offer your opinion like it's meant to mean somthing? It's almost like I'm Kobe and you're Raja Bell.

Thanks to Matthew for bringing these things up, it's only ever benefitted the forum in the past having these open discussions. People might get hurt and such but I guess sometimes they have to.

Everything now is deferred to Andrew... obviously Andrew is the admin and could delete us all if he wanted, but alot of the decisions Matthew and I made we barely even consulted him because we knew what was best for the forums and I can't remember a time where Andrew ever disagreed with one of our actions. I know all of the mods are new and inexperienced, but all it takes is one person to take the initiative and start making decisions on their own. We had guys like Andreas, Yohance etc who did defer to Andrew quite alot, but with the two of us doing our own thing there was still that outward leadership there that doesn't exist at the moment.

There is a lack of leadership here at the moment, and that comes from the fact that all of the new guys are virtually the same when it comes to their attitudes towards moderating... if anything it's just basically a matter of who's more lenient than who. It could be argued that between Matthew and I we were too similar in the opposite way. Regardless, there has to be one person who steps up and takes control of the moderating across the board... you'll be the most unpopular moderator out of all of them, but you'll also earn the respect of pretty much everyone if you do things properly.

I have to admit a couple of the appointments confused me, I won't name names because I don't see the point but in the discussions I've had with Andrew in the past about potential moderators and whatever, some of these guys NEVER came up before. I really think it would've been more beneficial to introduce everyone individually and spread out over time but they weren't so what we have now is what we have to deal with. Obviously Matthew or I could just come back and take our old positions, sure it'd probably smooth things out alot more but it'd just be a band-aid. We can't stay here forever and people really need to step up and start carrying the forums.

One thing I would say to all of the new mods, is that you guys aren't a team... when you introduce 5 or whatever new people all at once, the absolute first thing you should do is make sure you're a team since you really are gonna need each other to get through the whole initiation period. That hasn't happened, the amount of mini in-fighting and questioning of decisions that goes on is kinda worrying to be honest. You know in all the years Matthew and I were moderators, we never questioned each other once. Even when we were fighting about other things but since no one here really has stand-out leadership qualities within the forum, it's best that you operate as a unit I think. It'll be completely different to what people are used to, but this is a "new era' of sorts around here.

Edit: For those who are confused, if there is no one to step up and be a leader I think it is best to operate as a unit. Neither of these are happening at the moment.

Anyways I'll add another post later on, those are just my initial thoughts.

I think how everything is deffered to Andrew is a problem. What made us work really well together is we talked about issues and resovled them as a team. It wasn't a one person decision, and we were able to cover alot of ground. With all the defering to andrew, there is too much work on one man's shoulders.

Take for example the situation with the multiple accounts. The best solution at the moment is to have manual account authorization. If it's just on Andrews shoulders, he has to take care of all that, plus do the bulk of the moderating decisions plus post as the leader. Thats a hell of alot just for one person.

Maybe Andrew should look into making Jae a co forum admin, just for the sake of the forums?

As for the CoolMac thing, IPs didn't match with MacGuyver, but in the end, MacGuyver was banned anyway based on the assumption he could be CoolMac.

If it was CoolMac, he could have used a router so his new IP would show his location as somewhere else instead of the Philippines.
Don't be fooled by CoolMac's "format it" PC knowledge. I do think he's capable of posting under the radar with different IP's to show he's from some god forsaken location.
That may also be the same case for other banned members.

Maybe Andrew should look into making Jae a co forum admin, just for the sake of the forums?

He won't exist in virtual world much longer, as he wont have a computer at where he's moving to. Plus he's retired (well, in spirit).

Thank God I'm not a regular poster anymore.

Something I would like to add, I think the new guys are doing a fairly good job in the NBA Live related sections. From what I can see, things are probably better looked after there than when I was in charge. The difference, however, between the NBA Live sections and the general sections is that most of the guys in the Live sections seem to either have no personality at all or are only interested in basic game-related things that don't take much social brainpower to fix. The general sections are all about personality and opinions and they seem to be the main things people are struggling to control. I guess it just comes down to not trying to mark your territory or stamp your authority in those places until you've got the respect of the people who post there because essentially they're the ones who matter.

No offense to Ty-land, bighort and qballer. But they just seem like utterly pointless appointments to me. Cyanide and indy would have been fine.

Isn't the phrase 'no-offense' rather redundant; especially when it follows with:

I also have doubt that the thought process behind ty-land and bighort's decisions to accept their roles as moderator was for the passion to better the community, but rather to have that power, and that tag. They don't have the longevity to make me believe they'd wanna be mod for any other reason than having the tag. Prove me wrong boys.

If you think I really care about the 'tag' and the 'power' associated with being a mod you must have at least some evidence to support such a claim. I care as little for the power as I care for the necessity to gain any respect from you. Find one instance where I haven't shown the passion to better the community. Futhermore, the reason why I wanted to become a mod is on the basis for my respect for Jae and the role he played around this place. Regardless of how much I had posted in the past, I thought Jae's departure presented an opportunity for me to step up and install the same authority and order, even with a similar tact and manner, as Jae did. The way I approach this role is in constant consideration of how previous mods such as Jae and Matthew handled the various situations around the community. I will easily admit that I'm still learning, put I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to be a 'power player' and I'm not hungry for authority. This is a place I have come for years now to relax, read and have some fun. My respect for the other Mods and Andrew, plus my desire to enhance this community is based on these very foundations.

So your attept to proclaim generalisations about my desire and direction without any evidence seems to be a rather piss weak and ill-informed attempt to target me and drag me into this situation to a greater extent. While you may not have meant to deliberately instigate this offensive stance, it has nonetheless been achievec. But I hope the aforementioned information will prove that your claim is unfounded and that my objective is in fact to better the community and help it prosper in the future.

I'm going to offer my opinion in here, and this is really just what I feel should/could be done, taking these steps would probably shape up the forums and leave most parties involved satisfied.

Also, a lot of this post will look like a mish-mash of points already brought up, but that's just because they seem to be the most obvious steps to take that numerous people have come to the same thoughts.

Want to make the forums run smooth? Appoint Jae & Matthew as administrators. Both of them. Jae doesn't question Matthew, Matthew doesn't question Jae, Andrew questions neither and Matthew & Jae might question some of Andrew but they've got a way of working things out amongst themselves. I know Andrew isn't keen on the idea of sharing the "power", but you always say you're open to suggestions and what not, so there you go.

Most certainly you won't feel for the idea, which is why I ask you this...if we put the community to decide, what would their answer be? Does that count?

Secondly, the new guys should be given sections related to the Live stuff. They have the ability to be polite and that's what newcomers (mostly noobs in those sections anyways) need. General Talk forums should be left to other people like Jae, Matthew, Indy and maybe Cyanide. AG will remain unmoved ofcourse. Fgrep can be removed aswell, he's never around.

The rest of the guys should be able to handle the Live sections with ease.

I'm not saying that the new guys shouldn't be given a chance, I'm saying let them actually see how it's done by two of the best people that did the job.

Thing is, in General Talks etc, that's where the real personality of this forum hangs out, I don't know a single person in those Live sections, it's basically guys with 20-30 posts and you never see them again. General Talk is like a different forum, there you need different leadership. Thing that tends to annoy the shit out of me about Andrew (and to a lesser extent, the newly appointed moderators), they are neither here, nor there. Most of the cases everyone just seems to be in between trying to maintain forum peace.

Which is why I like Jae & Matthew so much, it'd be absurd to say we haven't butted heads in the past, but they've put me in my place when that's needed. That's what they do, they don't endlessly discuss something and try to reach a stalemate with you. That keeps you on your toes, not the constant in-between-ness.

Those are my reasons for me wanting them to be co-admins, everyone knows they are fully capable of running the place, that's been proven in the past.

Yohance, don't worry, I didn't forget you so there is no need to remind me you are a long time moderator. I know.

Jackal, what would be the difference between Matthew and Jae being "co-admins" and "Moderators"? Is there a technical difference in how much ability they have to use their power?

I always thought Mods would have just as much ability to do things as Andrew, except Andrew can make changes to the actual site, go further with banning, etc.

There wouldn't be much of a difference in "duty" per se, just that none of the other moderators would have a say in what they do. That is the reason Matthew lost hope to start with, no one except for Jae supported his decisions/actions against Sit.

As an administrator, they'll be able to decide what's best without having to defer to other people except for themselves and Andrew. That seems much more logical to me than to have to discuss your actions with...Yohance or Alexboom or Cyanide, all splendid guys, don't get me wrong, but not the type of leaders the aforementioned two are. They shouldn't have to explain their actions to anyone but eachother and Andrew.

Atleast, that's what I feel about the situation.