Justin Harris12 said:If you ask me, Tyndalla and rustydrifter10 should be stripped of their admin roles immediately. We need to keep Strilet on the team because he actually provides quality oversight; sure, he might be a bit strict sometimes, but at least you can actually have a conversation with him. rustydrifter10 just doesn't have the right temperament—she’s way too overbearing, shuts down any real discussion, and constantly hands out penalties where an admin shouldn't even be getting involved. Let me remind everyone here: an admin is supposed to act as a supervisor for the moderators and oversee the overall health of the forum, not behave like a low-level moderator by handing out cards for things like spam, trolling, or off-topic posts, which I see happening all the time, often without any justification. On top of that, Tyndalla is basically useless when it comes to actually addressing user inquiries.
As far as I'm concerned, that question for administration thread should never have been closed. All those minor questions being asked were perfectly valid, and honestly, opening a whole separate topic just to deal with them was incredibly stupid, truly stupid.🤷
The issue isn't really about him being strict; it's more about how he unconditionally "backs up" rustydrifter10.
Even in this latest situation, you can see him agreeing with the users and acknowledging that rustydrifter10 is in the wrong—yet he still takes her side.
Personally, I have a lot of respect for loyalty, but when people start throwing shade at you just because you're being loyal, and you end up looking like the bad guy, then it’s not really loyalty anymore. It's starting to look a bit foolish.
Aaron Harris2 said:In all the years I have been following this community, I have never once—not even once—witnessed you or Striks peddling nonsense or falsehoods. That remains true even today.
It is truly a somber day for this forum when some of our most dedicated moderators and staff members depart. This is an issue that the owner of this platform should reflect upon more deeply, if not view it as a matter of significant consequence.
I sincerely hope that you will both return to shaping the editorial policy of this forum very soon, as that is an honor you have undeniably earned.
Now, I realize this isn't strictly on-topic, so I suppose a penalty is forthcoming, and while there is so much more I could say regarding the actual subject matter, I must adhere to the guidelines we are expected to follow "officially." Under normal circumstances, of course. Hmm...
I mean, can't you guys just start some kind of vote over in the moderator section or... I don't know... something? 🤷
rustydrifter10 said:Look, I am not responsible for what other people decide to type out. I don't control anyone else's keyboard, and I certainly can't be held accountable just because certain individuals refuse to engage in even the most basic, civilized conversation.
I absolutely can, and I certainly am. Look, he originally opened up this platform specifically so he could address questions from our community after everything that went down here. Once he handed the reins over to Strilet and me, we were finally free to run things exactly how we thought was best—and honestly, I think what we’ve accomplished is exactly what needed to happen.
...but you are responsible when all of us who criticize the administration—which basically means criticizing your work—get handed bans that
you hand out under the guise of "trolling" (😕). Then, on the flip side, when a group shows up specifically to attack those of us who criticize, they automatically protect you. The worst thing I expect to happen is having my posts deleted.
And if anyone here is actually refusing to communicate civilly—it's you!
If you don't like something, you just delete it.
Take my own example from last week, where you banned me and wiped my post.
Not to mention how you deleted about five of my attempts to quote the question on the main board, claiming it was "unpleasant." 🤦
The truth usually works like this....
As soon as you didn't like what was being said, you nuked the post, regardless of whether it was relevant or not. Like that time you deleted the post where Manchild mentioned his relation to Striks... I mean, seriously? 😕
How do you even justify deciding for someone else whether they should or shouldn't write something like that? Just... wow. 🙄🤣
rustydrifter10 said:Look, I am not responsible for what other people decide to type out. I don't control anyone else's keyboard, and I certainly can't be held accountable just because certain individuals refuse to engage in even the most basic, civilized conversation.
I absolutely can, and I certainly am. Look, he originally opened up this platform specifically so he could address questions from our community after everything that went down here. Once he handed the reins over to Strilet and me, we were finally free to run things exactly how we thought was best—and honestly, I think what we’ve accomplished is exactly what needed to happen.
I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding there—of course you can, especially since you've already got all the right tools at your disposal to make it happen.
If you happened to miss the sentence right after that:
The corporate culture here basically tells you that you shouldn't go over your boss's head. It's one of those unwritten rules you just kind of pick up along the way—like how you wouldn't walk into a Starbucks and try to tell the manager how to brew their coffee. You just follow the chain of command and keep things moving smoothly.Look, if this truly represents your absolute best and you've already hit your ceiling, then I honestly think you're just the wrong people for the job. It’s like hiring a local high school squad to play against the Dallas Cowboys—it doesn't matter how much heart they have if they simply don't have the skill set required for the level. You can't blame the players for being outmatched when the management picked them in the first place.
rustydrifter10 said:It looks like the main topic here is the question of why the questions for administration have been locked down. If you check the most recent post, the reasoning is laid out right there. That said, if anyone is still feeling a bit confused by the explanation, feel free to ask about it here. Just please, let's try to keep the off-topic chatter to a minimum.
The topic here is why those "questions" were locked, but honestly, part of us—or at least me—feels like this thread is just a direct reflection of your inability to handle things as an admin. It feels like you shut it down because lately, it’s become a bit of a hot potato that you just don't know how to manage.
The reason I didn't include that specific part in the headline—or why I'm hesitant to start an entire thread just about it—is honestly just a matter of common courtesy. I don't want to be that person.
People can think whatever they want about me or my reasoning behind these topics, honestly. But let’s be real—nobody actually enjoys reading a harsh critique. It’s uncomfortable. So, I figured I’d soften the edges a bit and frame things this way instead.
If you really feel like we need to start a dedicated thread just to get everyone's take on how the admin team is handling things around here—go ahead and write it.
rapidhawk22 said:I find myself in complete agreement with everything fadedsailor932 wrote.
In my view, rustydrifter10 lacks the fundamental competence required for anything beyond basic moderation. She simply isn't equipped to handle the inherent pressure of an administrative role; she fails to maintain any sense of objectivity, constantly shifting her stance whenever the wind changes direction. It’s impossible for her to make a firm decision and actually stick to it, which means she can't treat all the forum members with the consistency that such a decision demands. Her responses to posts are incredibly selective; she tends to ignore anyone offering actual substance, choosing instead to focus on trolls or jokes—even when those comments are directed at her personally—under the convenient excuse that, as an admin, she isn't obligated to engage.
As for the topic itself, if it were being moderated properly, it might actually yield something worthwhile. As it stands now, it’s better off being locked, because it’s doing nothing but generating an endless stream of garbage.
I'm with you on that.
rustydrifter10 was more than just a solid asset, but being a great soldier doesn't automatically make someone a great leader—and her performance definitely proves that point.
rapidhawk22 said:I find myself in complete agreement with everything fadedsailor932 wrote.
In my view, rustydrifter10 lacks the fundamental competence required for anything beyond basic moderation. She simply isn't equipped to handle the inherent pressure of an administrative role; she fails to maintain any sense of objectivity, constantly shifting her stance whenever the wind changes direction. It’s impossible for her to make a firm decision and actually stick to it, which means she can't treat all the forum members with the consistency that such a decision demands. Her responses to posts are incredibly selective; she tends to ignore anyone offering actual substance, choosing instead to focus on trolls or jokes—even when those comments are directed at her personally—under the convenient excuse that, as an admin, she isn't obligated to engage.
As for the topic itself, if it were being moderated properly, it might actually yield something worthwhile. As it stands now, it’s better off being locked, because it’s doing nothing but generating an endless stream of garbage.
It’s just a lot of circling back to points where she clearly doesn't want to be cornered.
William Bennett53 said:I believe it is a missed opportunity that we won't have a dedicated question for administration section, and I truly hope this changes eventually; however, I am not at all regretful about moving away from the kind of chaos we used to see in those threads.
The process, in my estimation, could and perhaps should function as follows:
1. A user submits a question (the question must be submitted in their own name, remain specific rather than general, theoretical, or rhetorical, and clearly state whom it is directed toward).
2. The administration responds within a reasonable timeframe (providing an answer that is specific, concise, and clear).
And that is all there is to it.
In short, questions ought to be actual questions, not a platform for endless debate with the administration—or what we have been witnessing lately: heated arguments between certain individuals or factions in conflict.
The user receives the space to ask their question, and the administration holds the responsibility to provide an answer, provided the inquiry meets the aforementioned criteria.
Generalities, asking on behalf of others, arguing out of disagreement once an answer has been provided, reposting the same questions in special PŽK threads after they have been closed, using clone accounts to circle back to previous questions, allowing outside PŽK specialists to linger here, or seeking a second opinion (such as demanding another administrator's input because the first answer wasn't favorable, specifically requesting a male or female admin, or appealing to an admin because a supermoderator's response was unsatisfactory...) should all result in the immediate removal of the thread and, without exception, disciplinary action.
Now, I realize I might sound a bit authoritarian, but I am convinced this is the only way this section can function effectively. Any deviation from this structure inevitably leads to the absolute mess we dealt with until recently.
Recently, a colleague from a sub-forum called me out for ignoring a question he had posted in the Q&A section. He was right, of course; I didn't respond. It wasn't because I wasn't reading the PŽK, but rather because his inquiry got lost in a storm of spam and trolls that was blowing through the questions while two groups of users continued their feud there. We simply don't need that. That is why I hope that if—or when—this section reopens, things will not revert to the old ways. If the administration (and the boss) decide that questions cannot be managed this way or that such a section would be counterproductive, I would much rather see it remain closed than see it descend into total mayhem again.
I agree that’s how it ended up looking, but honestly—who is actually at fault here?
.....leads us right back to the mess we had recently.
-----------------
...rather than just letting things stay settled.
🤣