Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Saizy last won the day on August 3

Saizy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

136 Bronze 2

About Saizy

  • Rank
    certified lover boy
  • Birthday 01/19/2001

Personal Information

  • Location
    Dallas, Texas

Computer Information

  • Operating System
    Windows XP 32-Bit SP1
  • CPU
    AMD Sempron LE-1250
  • GPU
    256MB NVidia GeFORCE 6150SE nForce 430
  • RAM
    3 GB @ 358 MHz
  • Motherboard
  • Power Supply
    5Watt Cable
  • Monitor(s)
    8" Monitor 4:3
  • Hard Drive(s)
    298GB Western Digital


  • Discord Tag
  • Gamer Tag
  • Steam ID
    Aubery Andrianakis

Recent Profile Visitors

2,721 profile views
  1. I’ll take you at your word, and of course but what I mean is, since Ben is both currently TL and Teams Director, who will check him? It’s the executive’s job to make sure everything is going smoothly with Directors. Of course, if Ben chooses to have a new Mod TL in place, it then falls on Ben to keep that TL in check. Moderators being active in votes on each ban review, when there is, I assume, a lot of them at any given day is too much, however they can always offer their input if asked. Its not meant to be that strict. I just want the guidelines to be followed strictly.
  2. If the ban is unacceptable, a DM'd apology & retractment to the recipient of the ban from the TL should happen ( I assume this is already standard as I've experienced this before ). The Team Leader should be trusted to make ethical unbiased decisions, and it'll be too much of a hassle for Moderators to vote on it either way. If the Team Leader seems to be doing a poor job in general, that's why the Teams Director is there but since they're the same person, I imagine that falls upon the Executive Director making sure there is no biased decision for now.
  3. If the Team Leader decides the ban is acceptable, it doesn't mean the member can't appeal ever again. I just want it where it makes sure that the ban isn't unreasonable in the first place instead of making the accused do the work.
  4. Thanks for taking the time to read it and take some into consideration, but I want to brush up on some of my suggestions, especially with the transparency bit. I don't see how DLs picking their own members would lead the wrong way. As long as they follow the global moderation guidelines and follow what you say instead of the Division Leader, that should be good enough. If Directors don't trust that a DL won't coerce their own members into forming a clique, why are they a DL if they are not that trusted? I thought that Discord Partnership was actively being pursued and I was wrong, but at least the outcome I wanted may happen either way. Partnership Rules messes up a lot of Discords in unforeseen ways. As previously mentioned, following up with a DM of why they were punished, even if their DMs are off, is a good precedent to set. If their DMs are off, it's their fault and nothing on the Moderator. I don't see anything wrong with this besides a little extra work, and it can clear up issues than making the member go through an entire appeal process. I believe bans should be reviewed when they happen, unless the evidence is thickening enough that it's just not needed. Causing resentment among players just to force them to do ban appeals doesn't work, as seen in previously in the whole problem months ago when the Breach Managers banned 3 people and they went "crazy". Thanks again for taking the time to talk about this though.
  5. > no been deleted Fair, but the fact it existed in the first place is really saddening. > been discussed a while ago The fact it happened in the first place shouldn't be excused by "everything is good now". Just showing that it shouldn't happen in the first place.
  6. I'm not gonna go into their detail, because that's personal drama I have no part in. However, if a Moderation Team coerces this much drama, whether they started it or not, that Server Managers get involved, it's probably time to become more transparent with the public & strict with moderation guidelines / how to deal with Moderators. If a Division Leader makes a century long essay in a drama-filled application because Moderators are causing it blow out of proportion, that's more of a yikes. Hopefully this gets taken seriously and goes into discussion. If Moderators can't be mature enough to de-escalate possible arguments & be held responsible for how they deal with people, why expect members to do so?
  7. There is a #mod-rants chat..? I don't think I need to explain the list of why this is wrong in so many ways, the fact that the general public do not even know this exists is even worse, and hopefully transparency in mod chats can be way better.
  8. 396 is pretty low, depending on the join date. I didn't include that, and that is entirely my fault. You are an active Moderator in GMod, and a server manager there, I'm not taking away that fact, however I want Moderators to be more active other Discords. It's in the job's name. The point with the "spending 24/7/365 combing meticulously through each and every server" proved my point further that Division Leaders should be able to recommend their own Moderators. Not every Moderator replies to @Discord Moderators, and I have only seen a select few really be active enough to even reply to it. It's sad that I get a much faster reponse by @ing JGuary or another active moderator then @ing the Moderators themselves. Typo issue. "Telling" = "Insinuating". A bunch of Moderators wouldn't say "follow the spirit of the rules" if one didn't tell others to do it. To further expand on this, the quote inherently vague and establishes a grey area in moderation, which shouldn't be the case since moderation guidelines should be as explicit as possible. If it creates cliques, that is the Team Leaders fault more than anyone else's. Cliques are very easily prevented, and the Moderators WILL NOT ADHERE to the Division Leaders way of "moderating". All guiding is still left to the Team Leader. I think I mentioned this, but Moderators will still follow the global Moderation Rules & Guidelines. 1. If someone is being a huge nuisance like that, generally no. However, this was applied to people who don't do that and get muted / warned for various of other things. I guess it's more of a case-by-case situation, but it applies more often. 2. That's their fault. Not the Moderator's fault. 3. Fair. 4. I hope you didn't ignore the second part of that sentence. Just going off what is noticeable. I said I don't know what happens in internal but from what I've gathered, there is room for improvement and I had 5 people read over this for inaccuracies.
  9. First, I would like to begin by saying this is by no stretch of the imagination a diss towards anyone in the Moderation Team. I have no problems with any of them and none of them have ever "wronged" me to push me to make this post. If you are here to comment insulting things while to to dish out your rebuttal, I won't read it or acknowledge it. I want civil discussion because my opinion, along with others, is not god-tier. There is a lot of suggestions I would like to make towards the current moderation team. I do not know if there are changes that are going to be implemented now that Ben is the Team Leader, but why not? To summarize, as this will be a long post; more moderation transparency, make each moderator accountable for their activity outside of their "main Discord server", moderators shouldn't enforce anything that is not written in the rules, "follow the spirit of the rules" should never apply to anything, unprofessionalism, and Discord Partnership. We'll begin with making each moderator accountable for their activity. I'll post some statistics of what I mean; Main Discord Activity Cambr: 718 (last message 9/05, but only 2, before that 5/28/20) Foe: 16 (10/26) Janie: 139 (10/27) Xivi: 62 (10/26) Duck: 396 (10/26/20) Yogi: 65 (10/15/20) Lurn: 1,524 (10/12/20) Qas: 4,045 (07/14/20) Canman: 469 (08/25/20) Rust Discord Activity Royce: 6 (05/10/20) Duck: 43 (10/26/20) Xivi: 1 (09/03/20) "i joined." Qas: 15 (01/24/20) Canman: 31 (08/21/20) Other moderators aren't even in here. I doubt I need to keep going, as I don't even have the time to delve into this topic that much. However, I have seen Moderation Applications be denied due to "activity" and "you don't have the time", but there are moderators who can't even spend a second of their day to pop in to say hello and make sure everything is going ok? I left out the ones who are active, as I do not want to call the good ones out from the bad ones--of course, I do not know each ones story or why they are Moderator in the first place, some could be Division-centric. If Discord Main wants to actively go for Discord Partnership, the activity needs to be there. I believe each Moderator should report their activity and how they are doing. Now, I don't have access to internal and can see how much work they really put in, but there is definitely room for improvement here. If Moderators truly feel like they can't do this (why did you even ask to become one?), Division Leaders should be able to pick their own players and recommend them as Moderators to the Team leader, so they can reviewed by the Team Leader (skipping the application process [arguable], since applying for a division-specific spot is really taboo, for some reason?). These Moderators would be division-specific but still comply to the Moderator Guidelines & Punishments and adhere to the Team Leader. Some servers need these, such as Rust & Breach. It could also help with the activity of the team as a whole. Division Leaders can be capped on how many people they can recommend in their servers. Secondly, "follow the spirit of the rules" is such a, well not a smart statement. That statement alone will get you barred from many moderation positions in other communities. I have seen multiple Discord & Forum moderators mention this. Discord Partnership rules are not followed "in spirit". They are followed right down to the exact detail. If the rules allow for so much room like that, they're trash rules and should be revised. I admit I could've very well been punished more times over than I care to admit if we did follow the rules down to the detail, but there are some things that need to be sacrificed if Discord Partnership is viable. Rules should be fully followed & enforced, as well as the guidelines. It's up to the community to suggest & complain if they are "treated unfairly" and to change the guidelines / rules. Telling Moderators to act based on their emotions instead of what is written down and expected is a terrible precedent for their future livelihood in real life too. Some kids take actual lessons from their experience in GFL and apply it to their life. "Following the spirit of the rules" shouldn't be encouraged within the current moderation team and they should instead either revise or enforce the guidelines. Next up, more moderation transparency. There are many ways to do this, and I understand that too much transparency is problematic. Moderation Transparency Suggestions In detail, explain why the person was muted in the command. (ex: "!warn Saizy Violation of rule 1: stop being disrespectful to others") Follow up with a direct message, if necessary, about why they were muted so there is no need for drama to be escalated. It happens. Perhaps the most controversial & I can be shitted on for this; make moderation chats public but only moderators can talk in there. Discuss “problematic” people being unbanned. Additionally reviewing all member bans case by case in ban logs. Perhaps what is the most sickening to me is the unprofessionalism of the moderation team, no sly remarks to anyone. Moderators shouldn't shit on someone's application for the fun of it. I can bring up three examples of this but I'm not going to call out the applicants. Some holes are better left closed. Without condescending, insulting, or insinuating opinions on a person when voting on them, just give a detailed & professional reason why you voted that way. There is a lot of times I've seen personal drama & emotions be coughed on applicants for no reason. What the applicant's friends did when their previous application was rejected should not be considered. Only actions by the applicant in the past should be considered when reviewing their application and voting. Drama shouldn't arise from applications because a Moderator wants to feel snarky. Moderators should be punished for their choice of words when voting on applications and be held of their behaviors / rule breaking in the forums & Discord. Finally, Discord Partnership. If this is truly pursued, rules have to be fully enforced. There is no room for ghosts or spirits. This could either lead to a more active, friendly community or a far less active one. Benefits may outweigh the downsides, but there is a lot of consequences of introducing Partnership rules to Discord. I have seen the worse & the best happen to a multitude of Discords I am in active in. People will act out. People may follow along. The Moderation Team needs to be ready for this and I hope the Directors can think about this longer. This is just a rant & suggestions. If this offended you, that wasn't the intention. I respect each Moderator, even if I haven't met them (and I'm active...). Hopefully at least one of my suggestions can be implemented or at least thought about. I would love to hear Ben just shit on this and tell me why it isn't good, after all, it's just my opinion. I'd like to hear other opinions as well, if you want to add on or critique it. If you're not sure what exactly I am suggesting and you see it as a rant cause Saizy big mad, comment that so I can make a better summary!
  10. I hear so much of "gfl is garbage", "gfl sucks", "gfl belongs in an asian sweatshop", "harakoni is beautiful". What are your favorite things about GFL and what good experiences did you have with the community as a whole?
  11. thanks for all the suggestions you beautiful people. also fuck sao.
  12. OurWorld. 2D MMO Browser game. Simple but amazing. Spent maybe $100 of my parents money on it haha!
  • Create New...