zeruch>>net
The Breed Art Group
The irregularly regular blog: Intellectual Insolvency
The music blog: Thelonius Funk has a Posse
The Scribblelogue

Mood: mercurial/enervated
Listening to: The Beat Kids - Open Rhythm Society
Reading: Systems Analysis and Design Methods
Watching: Os Capitaes De Abril

So there has been some hubbub about a comment I made about another user. And while I thought about what level of exposure I should give this, I will instead opt to provide an edited (for the sake of privacy and formatting/typos) copy of a response to a private message related to the current brouhaha:


XXXXXXXXXXXX said the following:

Do you really believe that this is appropriate behaviour from an Admin.
[link]
Personally I am extremely surprised and disappointed that respected members of dA Admin refer to dA members in that manner.I firmly believe that you owe *mountainhawk an apology.

I am going to say this as a user and not an admin: I owe that user, or anyone else for that matter, no such thing.

I have an expectation that behind closed doors (which the admin forums technically should be, just as private notes are for any dyadic pair of users to say whatever they wish, irrespective of public Etiquette Policy), that I can speak with candor and have an expectation of privacy. The fact that someone broke their NDA (a legally binding contract) and provided that to public scrutiny changes that not one whit and changes my personal opinions of certain users not one iota.

I am amazingly...human (quite a shock for many of my detractors I am sure). I have users I respect for any number of qualities and like as people, there are users I respect for any number of qualities and do not get along with at all (i.e. they are articulate debaters, or artists, or exhibit other characteristics I admire, but who I happen to clash with on a personality level), and there are users I find repugnant on all levels.

This should neither come as shocking. Nor should I be expected to apologize for a comment that should not have been distributed beyond its intended audience.

While carrying out duties as an admin, I make it a point that all are treated the same in terms of how I carry out what I do (i.e. I don't escalate helpdesk tickets out of order or use different criteria for closing threads), but that does not mean on a personal level I have to give one damn about them outside of what my duties require. And if you somehow find yourself a superior human in that regard and sunshine emanates from your every pore, let me know, as I've always wanted to meet a living saint.

This is obviously a very serious point of time in dA history and is definitely not a time for name calling and over-reactions.

Nor is it time to enjoy peering into the conversations of people who were speaking amongst themselves with the expectation of privacy and candor. Thank you for pointing that out.

Admin.should be setting an example and not trying to exacerbate an already serious situation.

Ah, the admin's now have to set an example, and the userbase is exempt?

I consider myself on good terms with °jark , and have a pretty well-grounded professional respect and personal admiration for the man (with all fairness, I actually never got to know Matteo, so in my own eyes, °jark *is* the founder -singular- of DA). I am hard pressed to think that he would sanction some of the garbage that is being done in his name.

Admins that haven't been around long enough or have no proximity/visibility into the areas that are the source of the current imbroglio are being lambasted, berated, and contacted to be given the grand inquisition at each and every turn to the point of distraction. They are somehow expected to take endless abuse and smile, even in the privacy of their own "home"? I call bullshit, and in so many words.

Not all of the admins know about "the Truth" (with a capital T for emphasis about how important such a currently ephemeral thing is). The fact is most do not. We know how to deal with PVs, working a Helpdesk, picking DDs, and otherwise doing a job (that in most cases is voluntary, ergo obviating the pecuniary interest that seems to be at the core of the controversy) that has nothing directly connected to the current fiasco, yet are all of a sudden expected to provide answers they have no knowledge or visibility to provide, let alone the legal right to do so even if they did (hence why at least one admin who has resigned and apparently intimates of knowing wth actually happened hasn't spoken about it in other than obfuscating generalities).

No. There are no apologies to be made. I care enough for this site and the community that resides within it enough to see through some sense of continuity and working for it as best I can. If I am not up to it, I hope I am wise enough to bow out, or if worse comes to worse, $lolly asks me to, I will comply without complaint. If I am up to it, I am going to still do exactly what I did before this mess started, and damn-all ANYONE tell me otherwise because they need a convenient target of their confusion.

=================================================

Now to add to this, I actually care about this community. I sincerely do. I joined it several years ago in abject fascination. A fascination that continues to this day. But that is as a whole. I do not share the same level of respect, admiriation or affection for you all as individuals, and I don't think it states anywhere that in my hearts of hearts I have to think every make and description of deviant as super-ichiban-peachy-keen. I don't. This is I suspect, exactly the same attitude that each and every one of you has; you probably do not love each and every user you have come into contact with, if you've been here longer than 8 zeptoseconds. Yet, you somehow expect superhuman emotional stoicism from admins even in their assumed private conversations.

Walk up and throw the first stone.