[☁ Pluto]

-snip-

Hey bab. Referring back to your response. "The issue that Pluto mentioned above is also concerning, what steps are you willing to take to correct the previous stonewalling in the future?"
I could be wrong, but that is implying that I stonewalled pluto in the first place. And considering the -1 was only a couple of hours after pluto's inital response, I can assume that you didn't intend on waiting for a rebuttal before placing your -1. I am also perfectly content with players -1ing based off something that someone says. I believe even more firmly that I like to see proof and evidence of what happened before making my decision. Regardless, for anyone interested in knowing the situation, I have been and will continue to explain and show the conversation. Thank you for the comment! I think the point I want to make has been made so if anyone wants to address things further, my DM's are open and I'll try to answer any questions.

As far as it goes, applications should be the main place for you to respond to feedback. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it to reply to people on the forums as long as you are concise with your reasoning to prevent multiple back and forths (and even then, it's still not a big deal. It's a forum). Having seen you reply to a few posts on here, it seems like that isn't much of an issue for you.

"I could be wrong, but that is implying that I stonewalled pluto in the first place."
Just to be clear on this, it wasn't a question or implication that you stonewalled me--it was a fact. Now, I'm not entirely sure what parts of the conversation you are including when you send it to people, but with this statement by you, I find it possible you could be cherry-picking and not giving the full thing. This wasn't really a concern for me up until this point.

Lastly, since I am here and replying again anyways... I do find your other reply to Ryan rather strange. In your reply, you stated: "You seem to state that this is the primary reason that I -1'd tiefling, but it is just one of many. I could go back to Tieflings app and write a whole different -1, but I just don't think it accomplishes anything positive."
This is just entirely inaccurate. On tiefling's application, this was your only reason for giving her a -1. This doesn't include what I have posted in your own application. On the same note, it would absolutely be beneficial and positive to go back and reclaim your reason for your -1, as it gives actual constructive criticism on something she could work on in the future, rather than, yet again, keeping your real reasoning sheltered.

[angel]

-snip-

Hey bab. Referring back to your response. "The issue that Pluto mentioned above is also concerning, what steps are you willing to take to correct the previous stonewalling in the future?"
I could be wrong, but that is implying that I stonewalled pluto in the first place. And considering the -1 was only a couple of hours after pluto's inital response, I can assume that you didn't intend on waiting for a rebuttal before placing your -1. I am also perfectly content with players -1ing based off something that someone says. I believe even more firmly that I like to see proof and evidence of what happened before making my decision. Regardless, for anyone interested in knowing the situation, I have been and will continue to explain and show the conversation. Thank you for the comment! I think the point I want to make has been made so if anyone wants to address things further, my DM's are open and I'll try to answer any questions.

This still didn't answer my question in the slightest. I wasn't looking for a "rebuttal", I was looking for a genuine answer to my question to you. I didn't view it as an argument.

Pluto feels that you stonewalled him in your private talk and that you brushed him off, which he's stated several times. You bring up seeing evidence of the conversation, but I was not going to go out of my way to ask to see a private discussion that people clearly had an issue with being referenced publicly. You chose not to respond to either of us who shared this concern and instead only -1'd both posts to show "disagreement", how would I have any way of knowing what went down without breaching the confidentiality that people have been advocating for?

The very first line of my reply was, "I am -1 on this for now". Meaning that I was willing to change my opinion based (hey, look at that, we're both willing and have the capability to change our opinions) on your response to the feedback and seeing how you would adjust based on it, but the neglecting to respond or even acknowledge either of us prior, and the way you're responding to it now, has made that extremely unlikely.

So, once again, until I see improvement in these areas, I am still -1.

[reina]

Thank you for pin beautiful staff member!!

:3

[dan]

I LOVE ICEY +1
THIS ISN'T SHITPOSTING
I AM SPEAKING MY MIND
LOVE DAN

[YourMateMurph]

I LOVE ICEY +1
THIS ISN'T SHITPOSTING
I AM SPEAKING MY MIND
LOVE DAN

same
love (name)

[Killahsasasin]

Perfect blend of a person who plays the game and staffs on the server. Icey's not too stuffy, he's kind to people no matter what rank, he knows how to have fun while playing dinks (which is hard to find these days), and he's fair and not clique with how he plays. I think he'd make a great addition to the admin team. +1

(ps. this isn't me being told to plus one, I heard he had an app and wanted to weigh in)

[Icey]

Thank you for all the comments! I really appreciate them <3

[Jammin]

I don't care to read everything brought up in the DMs.
I don't see anything glaring with icey other than maybe an inactive spell. I seem to recall something offputting going down a few years ago but I could very easily be mixing that up with something else.

Also more admins isn't bad. There's not like a limit to this.
Not like real change will happen anyway without the owner stepping in.

[Foxka]

Ok icey is allowed to -1 tiefling because she doesn't want to use a mic and I'm not sure why you're using that as a reason to downvote icey's app lol that just seems like you got beef with him for silly reasons and I think you three should talk about it a little more.

Now for my opinion, I think Icey would be a great fit in tandem with the current staff team. He's pretty reliable from what I've experienced with him and has a level head and would make decisions. He's also been around forever which shows to me that he enjoys the community enough to want to move up, and I think he has earned the right to do so. Big +1 from the George Santos of ttt admins! Good luck icey.

[reina]

In regards to you helping staff learn, when I tried to clarify further as to what someone can do to go forward with becoming an Admin during their time as Moderator; you downright stonewalled me and told me to go ask others. You referred me to other Moderators or Admins. You told me it wasn't your job, which isn't true, even as a Moderator. This is unacceptable as an Admin for me. One of the main things I see from being an Admin, or even a Moderator, is to be able to lead lesser staff members and give them direction.

(sorry this response is a bit late, i haven't gotten around to reading the long posts until today)
Gonna preface this by saying I am not an authority on anything TTT-related. I also haven't seen any screenshots, nor do I want to.

Since this has been mentioned several times without a response, I'd like to give my thoughts on this specific detail. I think this is a misunderstanding that's getting blown out of proportion a bit. To my knowledge, it is not Icey's obligation as a moderator to explain the details of becoming an admin candidate to another staff member. That's very different from what I would consider to be helping staff learn, which would be things like explaining how to handle an incident or clarifying the meaning of something in the rules. Now, I'm trying to phrase this as respectfully as possible— you aren't entitled to a response to the private message you've described in your post. From what I can tell, you weren't stonewalled. Icey just didn't go above what's expected of him as a mod when you asked him to, which is his prerogative.