[kessler.]

How about we post the admin conversations had during this time? No more of the he-said she-said and let people see the decision making process.

With respect, this sets a bad precedent. There is a trust in the admin team that evidence/data/information sent to them is kept confidential, and I'm not convinced even a redacted admin chat posting would be worth posting.

There are members of both sides of the 'cliques' on the admin team, and I trust the current team to be level headed and unbiased enough to service things moving forward.

Plus I trust this community to collectively make decisions almost as much as I trust radioactive waste to serve as good insulation. I'll take the admin team over a massive hivemind jury.

The cliquishness of the community has gotten bad enough that representatives of "both sides" are needed on the admin team? bryanbrr mentioned being able to ban a friend. The inverse, being able to treat someone you dislike fairly, is just as important in staffing. I understand that dinks has had many cliques before, and will inevitably have them so long as it is online, but this should not corrupt the staff.

As for not trusting the community, that's a horrible mindset. The evidence confidentiality should be maintained, however, seeing as it was grossly misused, I see no reason to trust incompetent admins over any Dinkleberg TTT member who cares enough to actually sift through all of this forum yap. The people who mishandled evidence don't deserve any more trust than the next person. It's not like the community properly elects staff. It's a club.