From [address redacted]@pridelands.org Fri Feb 13 12:11:36 2004 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:07:15 -0500 (EST) From: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> To: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Life's not fair, is it? Greetings from an ex-fellow-admin. I would like to present a case against the administrative actions of Snowpony as well as a plea to reconsider my side of the story and an honest explanation of my actions. This is my last plea to get all of the administrative staff to come to a realization of what is honestly going on, and to come to a final decision on it. I feel that it was unfair that an action as extreme as a server delink went without the comments and thoughts of everyone on the administrative staff as a whole (everyone with an O: line). I'd also like start out by taking the official statement made by Snowpony about my server delink, and review the actual events of the situation in comparison to what she states: We have reached the conclusion that certain groups of users are currently showing vastly abusive behavior. We have not been able to deal with them because of one server administrator actively protecting them. Simba has not only prevented us from taking actions against abusive users but also openly insulted and abused other Furnet administrators. We think that his behavior is not appropriate for a Furnet administrator. We can only keep this network alive if administrators work together even if their opinion differs from the majority. Let's take that apart, piece by piece, shall we? Backing up my statements are facts and actual events. 1. "We have reached the conclusion that certain groups of users are currently showing vastly abusive behavior." When was this conclusion made? Honestly? I know Snowpony came to that conclusion. There was no question about that. The only other person who even came close to saying on the admin list that he thought that "abusive" behavior was taking place was Hurga. His only mailing list statement indicating that he thought there was "abuse" happening was one where he stated the legal problems with what was going on in #aryanfurs. After he made that statement, I took the diplomatic approach and made it so that I would have to screen topics posted in #aryanfurs for illegal content before posting it. He even admitted later to me that he was unaware of my diplomatic approach to his only voiced statement of abuse when he sent his "Take the user list and akill them all" suggestion of action. Because Snowpony just _couldn't wait_ to use her itchy trigger finger, even after seeing first-hand that I made that change to the services settings for that channel, she: a. Went in with guns blazing, as is typical for her. b. Threatened akills. c. Dropped and forbade the channel. All under the guise of, "Well, I had quorum approval from site admins for this action, so I didn't need to listen to their reasoning." This is completely unreasonable behavior and was purely based in her own disgust and intolerance of the individuals involved. 2. "We have not been able to deal with them because of one server administrator actively protecting them." This is a true statement. I admit that I was protecting them. I was protecting them from irrational actions which were based purely on feelings and not on technical policy. I was protecting them from one overzealous admin. 3. "Simba has not only prevented us from taking actions against abusive users but also openly insulted and abused other Furnet administrators." See, the question was whether or not the users were being "abusive" and you had better believe that I'm going to prevent an overzealous admin from taking actions on people who haven't done anything wrong, network-wise. In my eyes, the users had yet to be collectively determined by the admin team as being abusive. Until that happened, I wasn't going to let Snowpony "impose sentence" upon them. As far as openly abusing other "Furnet Administrators": There goes that plurality again. I only lashed out at her, nobody else, and if the shoe fits, wear it. By the time I got around to "abusing" Snowpony with a well-deserved tongue-lashing, I had nowhere else to go. Nobody was commenting. Nobody was offering their opinion. It was down to me getting tired of having to ward off her fire-breathing and nobody else showing any opinions on the matters. The tongue-lashing on the admin list was a cry for attention since nothing else seemed to get attention. It was a last, desperate resort to get someone to notice that the situation had gotten out of hand. In retrospect, it backfired on me, 'cause it was used as the grounds for my removal. 4. "We think his behavior is not appropriate for a Furnet administrator." The "behavior" which she states here was a mostly reasonable byproduct of: Calling out an admin on their misdoings, having a difference of opinion, wanting to take a more diplomatic approach, and wanting to get approval from more than just one or two people before letting Snowpony whip out her big dick of (mis)justice. My methods may be a bit uncouth sometimes, but my intentions are always for the greater good. I can't say that about her actions or intentions, though. 5. "We can only keep this network alive if administrators work together even if their opinion differs from the majority." Ahh, here Snowpony strikes her thumb while bringing down the hammer of misjustice. My opinions differed from that of one other, NOT a majority. If it differed from more than just one, they sure as hell weren't talking to me about it. Nice way to "work together" there, guys. Before you go all "well, Hurga agreed, so that makes it a majority," re-read #1 and add to it that all of the people with an O: line are a voice in the matter as well - ESPECIALLY on a network with so few site admins. Also, before you go all, "I was afraid to speak up, 'cause I thought you would give me as much of an insulting tongue- lashing as you gave to Snowpony", realize how long it took and how frustrated I was that nobody else was saying anything before I did that. This has gone on for like... 8 months. Snowpony took it upon herself to contact Hurga privately and push for my removal. The majority of the discussion for this happened between the two of them. Hurga was working with a lack of a full set of information. By keeping me out of it, I had no way of coming to my own defense and providing some of the lacking information. Later, I find out that I was kept out of it under the guise of, "Simba might try to leave us a parting gift, so to speak." I'd like to point out that in _ALL_ of my actions which I carried through on, not _ONCE_ have I maliciously caused problems for the network as a whole. Not _ONCE_ have I abused my added command set to be malicious to where it would affect the entire user base. I wouldn't be devoting as much time and effort to any of this if I didn't care _greatly_ about _all_ of our users, in a non-discriminatory fashion. Now, realizing that, don't you think that not allowing me to come to my own defense was a bit petty? I have _no doubt_ that it was Snowpony's idea to keep me out of the discussion. I also _highly suspect_ that she knew that I could provide enough of a counter-argument to help disprove the accusations being brought up against me and that's her real reasoning behind pushing to keep me out of it. *gasp* Yes, folks, I think she is that manipulative. Here is an itemized list of the things that I think make Snowpony a bad administrator and/or why I just plain don't like her: 1. Almost immediately after becoming part of the team, she has been almost obsessively trying to call shots and do things without the approval of other admins. Granted, I'm pretty much the only one vocalizing any opposition to her actions, but then again, I seem to be the only one paying attention and offering any opinions. 2. She's more bullheaded than I am, and that's scary. 3. She consistantly does immensely over-reactive things when she's presented with a problem. Instead of getting all the facts and completely comprehending a situation, she comes in with guns blazing, and expects everyone to almost ceremoniously yield to her "superiority". You don't get good reactions out of people when they feel that they're being unjustly singled out and bullied by someone who doesn't have a firm grasp on the entirety of an issue. 4. (Goes along with #3) Instead of helping the users help themselves, she immediately thinks that her added administrative "powers" are the answer to just about everything. 5. She totally can't take a joke and seems to have almost no sense of humor. Since part-time, I'm a comedian, I don't like that in anyone. ( :) ) 6. She uses her admin commands without much forethought, and sometimes compeltely irresponsibly. The prime example of this behavior is the script that she set up to set _permanent_ akills for someone using a specific nick or variation of a nick. This particular abuse of her operness got FC's net room banned from IRC for a while during the convention and made the Furnet admins somewhat of a laughing stock. Another example of this is when she had another bout of overzealousness and issued an akill _ON HERSELF_ 'cause she tried to say that putting "snowpony" in your ident was "impersonating an IRCOP". She issued an akill on "*snowpony@*", which matched her hostmask and knocked her off of the network. This also made a part of the Furnet administration somewhat of a laughing stock. 7. She uses her clout as an administrator to intimidate users into biding by her will. The prime example of this is what happened in #vcl one day when she went in, asked for ops and got them because, "who was going to deny a server admin ops to a channel?" She booted out a bunch of people who she "thought were going to cause trouble" (but hadn't actually done anything yet), and then got completely chewed out by the founder of the channel for interfering. She uses these scare tactics to get her way and for forcing her personal views onto people. 8. She's manipulative. I wouldn't let her manipulate me and she didn't like that. She waits until I'm at my wits end, in a moment of a desperate plea for attention 'cause nobody else is providing any feedback, and pushes and successfully manipulates the rest of the admins to have me ousted as an admin. An action which caused the network to lose a fairly well-connected server all for some petty infighting which would have been solved quickly and painlessly if there had been _any_ participation from the rest of the staff. 9. While I was taking a diplomatic approach to a delicate situation, trying to ward off her overzealousness until receiving approval or denial of her actions as a collective administration of policy, she was taking it upon herself to take grossly over-reactive actions and upset the delicate balance that I was trying to uphold. 10. Instead of separating her own feelings on an issue and looking at it from a technical standpoint, she reacts on almost pure emotion but then tries to rationalize it later. To some extent, a few of you are guilty of this, but Snowpony has been the worst. The way I see it, you approach each complaint and perceived "problem" from a completely objective point of view and ask a few simple questions to yourself before responding: a. Is this affecting the network as a whole? (And by "as a whole", I mean all 1000 or so people connected at the time) b. Is it impossible for the complaining user use tools provided to them by the network to solve their own problem? c. Is the complaint in regards to something that we can realistically legally be held liable for? If you answer no to all three of those questions, there is _zero_ need to use administrator-only tools, regardless of your own feelings on the particular situation. 11. She has used her ability as a services admin to make mode changes and add herself to the access list of channels which she is not a regular part of and had no permission to do so. The prime example of this is her _LEVEL 10_ access on #Furry right now. Now before you go all arguing, "#furry is owned by FurNet and as a Furnet admin, she has a right to do that." Bollocks. #Furry is only owned by Furnet because it's too old and well-established to have a single "Founder" set. The comments that I've received from some very-long-time regulars of #Furry is that she just appeared there one day, doesn't actively participate, added herself at level 10, and idles. Her reasons for these actions have yet to be determined. In the above accusations, where I've provided a specific example, the examples provided are, by no means, the only incidents where she was abusing her oper powers in the ways stated. They just happen to be ones that I witnessed first-hand. I bring all of this up in the hopes that some real justice will prevail. All it took to get me delinked was a few, petty claims of "Interfering with an IRCOp's duties" and "open insults to another oper". I hope that with all of the evidence I've brought forth, both against the allegations claimed against my actions and for the evaluation of Snowpony as an abusive oper, you all will reconsider which person deserved to be ousted. While I realize that we have no written "code of conduct" as administrators on this network, per se, I _am_ familiar with code of conduct on other networks. I used those to fall back on when making decisions on this one. Snowpony has gone against pretty much every rule ever made on any respectable network's "oper guidelines". The following URLs point to the "oper guidelines" on other networks: http://www.chatster.org/policy.html http://blitzed.org/docs/policy.phtml#a5 http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/ircd/ircopguide.html http://www.irchelper.co.uk/oper_guidelines.htm http://www.user-com.undernet.org/documents/operfaq.php (particularly item #7 and #10) http://www.aber.org.uk/abernet/ (Scroll to the bottom, left corner) Being involved with IRC networks since late 1993, I assumed that these age-old guidelines/policies apply here the same way that they do on every other network. When Snowpony started showing gross disregard for these guidelines, my reaction was to be horrified, and rightfully so. There are _really_ good reasons that almost every other public network in existance has the same general rule set for their administrators. They're tried and true and help to squash drama like what happened last week on the mailing list. Knowing these guidelines and their origins, I had no other choice but to object to Snowpony's actions and ask for clarification of policy before allowing her to continue breaking them. That's all I've been trying to do from the beginning. I brought this up directly with Snowpony, and the only excuse I got was, "well, this isn't EFNet, DALNet, or Undernet. We need to make sure that all our stuff is 'kept clean'". When was any publically accessible place ever a 'clean place'; ESPECIALLY on The Internet? Also, who are we to decide what's "acceptable" for people to say and what isn't? What it all boils down to is: I was looking out for the network as a whole, non-discrimitorily the users as a whole, and the administrative staff as a whole. I get the ultimate punishment (basically excommunication) because I: 1. Spoke up with my opinions against Snowpony's actions in private forums and asked for opinions on them in order to help solidify policy. (yes, channels are private and so is the admin mailing list) 2. Posted my arguments and responses by Snowpony to a place (on the web) where I could present them people, whom I trust for opinions, and ask whether or not I was doing the right thing. This was done only AFTER I wasn't getting any feedback from the rest of the administrative staff. 3. Prevented Snowpony from continued abuse of her operator privileges until a collective agreement on policy could be made. By "collective", I mean to include the entire administrative staff, or at least a majority of the following people: Aetobatus, Hurga, Snowpony, Frysco, Yappyfox, Lymril, Cheetah, Zetawolf, Stephen, and myself. At no time was there an "all in favor" movement. 4. Became a raving lunatic to see if _anyone_ was even paying attention and because after 8 months of holding back, I just couldn't any more. These four things were twisted into "Interfering with IRCOp duties", "betraying trust", "protecting network abusers", and "Ranting, raving, and using colorful language on the admin list". Now that you know my motivation behind all of these things, I hope that you can see that my interest, all along, was to continue to provide _all_ of our users with a place to gather and chat and to help the administrative staff come up with a uniform way to handle questions and/or complaints that came up. In closing, I hope that you take some of this to heart, and do what you think is right. Keep in mind that I am unable to read responses to the admin list at this time because I've been removed from it. If you reply there only, I won't be able to see your response. Logs of some of the events which I used in my accusations and allegations can be found at: http://www.cimeris.com/~simba/furnet/snowponyscrewups.txt Please believe me when I say that my motivations behind persuing this any further is not just to stir up trouble, but is merely my final plea to correct some gross unjustices. Unfortunately, she's going to have the chance to defend herself - an act of fairness that I have been denied. I realize that most of my statements are rather self-indulging and I apologize for that. It's a bit of an unfortunate byproduct of being basically the only other admin involved and being the one who was basically sentenced without fair trial. My actions are proof of my statements. The more Snowpony obsessed about abusing her oper commands, the more I obsessed about protecting the people to which she was aiming those commands. The moment another admin spoke up with his thoughts on the matter is the moment I gave in and made a change to the channel in question. If you've gotten this far, thank you for listening. Sincerely, --- Scott 'Simba' G [address redacted]@pridelands.org From [address redacted]@tigress.com Fri Feb 13 12:12:15 2004 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:06:34 +0100 (CET) From: Sven Tegethoff <[address redacted]@tigress.com> To: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> Cc: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Life's not fair, is it? On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Scott 'Simba' G wrote: > It's a bit of an unfortunate byproduct of being > basically the only other admin involved and being the one who was > basically sentenced without fair trial. Let's face a basic fact of life: Sometimes you just can't have it your way. If you keep insisting on it against all reason, and against the rest of the group, you'll have to face the consequences. You have not been sentenced. You have thoroughly forfeit people's trust in you! That's why things happened so suddenly, and without your further involvement. No amount of pages of justifications about how its everyone's human right to misbehave, and how it's all just a big conspiracy of some pesonal enemy, will restore the trust in you. So, though I'm sure your effort is being acknowledged, you could as well safe your time, because it will not change anything. yours, Cheetah P.S: My own views do not necessarily reflect the views of everyone else involved. From [address redacted]@pridelands.org Fri Feb 13 12:11:40 2004 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:46:31 -0500 (EST) From: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> To: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Life's not fair, is it? On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Sven Tegethoff wrote: > Let's face a basic fact of life: Sometimes you just can't have it your > way. That has been my point all along. The argument was made so that everyone could come to agreement on whose way is the "right" way. I would have backed down FROM THE BEGINNING had there been any more than just ONE opinion on the matters at hand. Instead, I was forced to play devil's advocate for EIGHT MONTHS before I got ANY kind of collective response. Where the HELL were your opinions when all of this started? > If you keep insisting on it against all reason, and against the rest > of the group, you'll have to face the consequences. I'm not insisting on it against all reason. I'm TRYING to get people to agree on reason in a reasonable fashion. NEVER have I gone "against the rest of the group". I was TRYING to get the rest of the group involved! If I was going against the group, THE GROUP SHOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING! The ONLY PERSON responding was the person in question. Gawd, did you even read and comprehend my post?! > You have not been sentenced. You have thoroughly forfeit people's > trust in you! That's why things happened so suddenly, and without your > further involvement. What exactly was it, in your eyes, that "thoroughly forfeited people's trust" in me? I can see what forfeited Snowpony's trust in me. That was made blatantly apparent in her own words. You say "everyone", though. I want to know what you mean by "everyone" when "noone" was commenting. Nobody else made any indications of such. > No amount of pages of justifications about how its everyone's human > right to misbehave, and how it's all just a big conspiracy of some > pesonal enemy, will restore the trust in you. So, though I'm sure your > effort is being acknowledged, you could as well safe your time, > because it will not change anything. When did I say that it's everyone's human right to misbehave? MY WHOLE LETTER was about how Snowpony was misbehaving. If I thought it was everyone's human right to misbehave, I wouldn't have posted a case against someone who was ACTUALLY misbehaving! I wouldn't have been spending the last 8 months gathering evidence of her misbehavior! I wouldn't have been trying to find out what kind of "misbehavior" warranted administrative action. Have you EVER been an administrator on a network where these issues have come up before? Furnet wasn't prepared for these types of problems. Instead of a collective agreement on what to do when it did come up, EVERYONE IGNORED IT in the hopes that it would go away on its own or something. What kind of way to run a network is that?! > P.S: My own views do not necessarily reflect the views of everyone > else involved. Good! At least I finally got an opinion out of you! Thank you for finally participating! --- Scott 'Simba' G [address redacted]@pridelands.org From [address redacted]@snowy.org Fri Feb 13 12:12:19 2004 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:29:27 +1000 (EST) From: Snowy Angelique Maslov aka 'Snowpony' <[address redacted]@snowy.org> To: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> Cc: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Life's not fair, is it? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am not going to copy and paste responses on the various things listed in this letter - mainly because it is both a waste of my time and the time of everyone on this list. I will merely make these statements. I expect this to be my last response on this manner. 1. The letter sent to the users mailing list was not penned solely by myself but was in fact a collaborative effort and was agreed upon by myself, Hurga and Aeto before being sent. The action of removing your server was a combined effort. It could not have happened had it been otherwise. 2. Whilst I had partially instigated the action to have you removed; I was not the only administrator who had issues with your style and management. I was also not the only administrator whom had issues with various actions taken by you in terms of breeches of trust in regards to the confidentiality of this list, conspiracy to cause the network undue stress by the protection of miscreants and the lack of professionalism shown in your "conversations" with myself. 3. This action was not taken lightly; in fact it has been under review nearly two months. I had previously voiced my concerns as to your handling of #aryanfurs and both Hurga and Aeto took a considerable amount of time to gather information from their own sources before acting. Suggesting I had somehow managed to co-erce Hurga into a decision is at best laughable. You obviously have not talked to him much at all. 4. Of all the AKILLS in my alleged rampage of irresponsibility, I have justified each and every one - anytime you have requested it I have details my actions for approval/disapproval to the administrative mailing list. I regularly cite the email address of this mailing list if people have objections to how I have treated them. I regularly seek the advice of fellow administrators (excluding yourself due to personal issues of course) in determining how to deal with a situation or to seek advice on whether they feel I handled a situation in a fair manner. 5. In incidents where my response has either been in excess or in error I have apologized to the individuals involved and removed the ban. These are very rare. And from the lack of complaints to the mailing list obviously accepted. My banning of myself was seen comical by most (I know I laughed), I certainly am not infallible. I would question the sanity of anyone would said they were. I have even made apologies on this very mailing list. 6. When asked I have presented copious logs of all situations; including the full 8 months of data from #safurs; copies of documents you have posted to other websites and and whatever other information I had at hand to the administrators of this mailing list. In fact I have actioned every single request that has been presented to me in a prompt and courteous manner and produced logs to support my position (usually at your request). 7. I am on the network 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Due to the nature of my work I monitor and am active on the network well in excess of most other administrators. It may appear that I seem to do a large number of administrative actions but spread over the amount of time I log on the network it is barely 1 action a day (actually since you were removed as an administrator I have not had to ban anyone - an odd coincidence). Except when of course the miscreants of a particular channel decide to go and have fun in a few channels. The fact I can keep up with them is only a problem in the fact it is a waste of my time. Certainly the users of the channels I remove them from appreciate the efforts. 8. In the end I was not the administrator who was the protector, founder and effective leader of a group of furs who occupied such delightful channels as #aryanfurs, #safurs and #eatshitanddie (love the current topic in that one BTW - - curently set to "DE-LINK MARGAY, BAN SNOWPONY | LONG LIVE LION | [04:39] - -Global- [Logon News - Jan 28 2004] Margay.furnet.org currently has a hardware issue; if you have problems logging in to it use another server for now. :]"). Channels that fostered trolling, spamming of users with sites for copyrighted material and inciting hate crimes. Channels that could have landed us in a lot of hot water legally, certainly cause no end of disharmony on the users mailing list due to their actions and yet you were determined to keep open. Through all this I have maintained a professional attitude (even if rather blunt at times), detailed my actions to this administration list as per your *own* requests and performed what I regard as my duties to try and maintain a friendly environment for the furry fandom to use as an effective communication tool. If you want someone to blame; I would suggest looking at yourself. This could have all been avoided if it was not for your deliberate attempt to destabilize and cause havoc on the network under the supposed idea of "Freedom of Speech" (The ideal of freedom of speech is noble in itself however it was not meant to allow someone to slander, incite hate and violence and illegal activity). You decided to turn this into a war against me; you were the one who shot yourself in the foot with your actions. I am not a perfect administrator; I make mistakes and I do my best to make sure those mistakes do not happen again. I have and always will apologize to those I have inconvenienced in the course of any mis-actions I may have taken. I learn from my mistakes and work on improving my skills and abilities. You can ask those I work with on my work ethic and how I address a situation. I am sure you will find their response in line to what I have said above. I am sorry you had to go - it is always a shame when we have to lose resources over things that could have been changed but in the end of the day you pushed this situation to the point where there could be only one action left to take. This is my personal response to your request. I imagine any others who have an opinion will make their own as well. - -- Snowy "Snowpony" Angelique Cerise Maslov -- http://snowy.org/email.signature PGP (GnuPG) fingerprint = 5280 6EBC D281 A9D2 564B E274 B2EC 54C3 8325 CECD Email not addressed/CCd to [address redacted]@snowy.org BOUNCE. READ URL for disclaimer! "Ignorance killed the cat, sir. Curiosity was framed." ---C.J. Cherryh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQFAKx1MsuxUw4Mlzs0RAjruAJ0aZY8I28oKYLH7Ox2794sdX4D/NwCeNb2N HF7XAdtgFSo4D+dmNeDe22g= =+Tp9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From [address redacted]@pridelands.org Fri Feb 13 12:11:44 2004 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:51:00 -0500 (EST) From: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> To: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Life's not fair, is it? On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Snowy Angelique Maslov aka 'Snowpony' wrote: > 1. The letter sent to the users mailing list was not penned solely by > myself but was in fact a collaborative effort and was agreed upon by > myself, Hurga and Aeto before being sent. The action of removing your > server was a combined effort. It could not have happened had it been > otherwise. Aeto told me on the phone that he basically took a hands-off approach. It was down to just you and Hurga making the decision and typing the commands at that point. He didn't object to it, I know, but he was burned out on diplomacy after FC and didn't really want to have to deal with it. Plus, like Hurga, he wasn't working with all of the facts, and certainly wasn't working with my side of the story. I have method to my madness. You were too dense to figure it out, and Hurga and Aeto were too busy. > 2. Whilst I had partially instigated the action to have you removed; > I was not the only administrator who had issues with your style and > management. I was also not the only administrator whom had issues > with various actions taken by you in terms of breeches of trust in > regards to the confidentiality of this list, conspiracy to cause the > network undue stress by the protection of miscreants and the lack of > professionalism shown in your "conversations" with myself. HI THERE FOLKS! HUGE POINT MAKING TIME! If people had issues with my "style and management", it would have been SO MUCH EASIER on all of us if they had spoken up about it. When I'm only dealing with the opinions of one person, a person whom I think is consistantly stepping over the line in her own duties, I'm going to continue handling things the way I was. My "breeches of trust in regard to the confidentiality of this list" were made ONLY after I wasn't getting any responses except by yourself. While this may not make it RIGHT, per se, I had nowhere else to turn for feedback, either positive or negative. The feedback that I received UNANIMOUSLY from my friends after showing them the logs of the admin list was nothing but reassurance that I was doing the right thing. If the rest of the administrative staff thought that I wasn't doing the right thing, THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING TO ME ABOUT IT! The MOMENT Lymril said, "Snowpony showed me some of the things posted on the admin list that you made public on a web page. Personally, I don't think you should be doing that", I IMMEDIATELY put an .htaccess file in the directory it was in and made it so that the only way you could view it was if you had a username and password. At this point, it was no longer on a "public" web page. I still left stuff there so that I could ask for reassurance from the only people who were giving me feedback (my friends), but the only way they could get to it was if I had given them the password. The people whom I _HAD_ shown it to and asked for feedback on it were usually along the lines of, "Holy shit! What a bitch!" THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE. And before you go all saying, "The only people you were asking feedback from were your 'friends' in #SAFurs", let me spell out an emphatic "no" to that assumption. These are people who range from having little or no involvement in IRC to having quite a bit of involvement and know how IRC works inside and out. I know and hang out with them in real life. Particularly Lynxcat, FlyingFox, DevinFox, Harik, Raini, Kuddlepup and a few others. They _ALL_ thought you were being unreasonable and going way out of line. They _ALL_ thought that I was doing the right thing and making the right arguments. Since this was the only feedback I was getting, I continued to stick to my guns, so to speak. And I LOVE how you twisted my actions into "conspiracy to cause the network undue stress by the protection of miscreants and the lack of professionalism shown in your 'conversations' with myself". NEWS FLASH! The network HASN'T SEEN STRESS. It has seen a few, playful, childish games, but not stress. It hasn't seen any floods and netsplits caused by floods. It hasn't seen hacking and other exploitatious acts on the servers. It hasn't seen any ACTUAL networking stress related to ANYTHING in this whole debacle. The only "stress" that is HAS seen is only due to the fact that you and I have been constantly stressed because people who are supposed to be responsible for this network DON'T SEEM TO GIVE A DAMN, and aren't participating in establishing a solid set of guidelines for us to act under. You have been working under your own perceieved set of guidelines, and I have been working under mine. At least MINE are documented all over the 'net in pretty much every other network's published code of oper conduct. You seemed to have conjured up your own. My "protection of miscreants" was ONLY done to keep you at bay until a collective decision could be reached about our need to be involved AT ALL in the first place. IT HAS BEEN 8 MONTHS and instead of collaborating as an administrative body on what we do and do not get involved in, we collaborate to remove my server because I'm the only one trying to get us to come up with policy and handle things diplomatically until we do? What? There's some REAL absurdity there, for ya. > 3. This action was not taken lightly; in fact it has been under > review nearly two months. I had previously voiced my concerns as to > your handling of #aryanfurs and both Hurga and Aeto took a > considerable amount of time to gather information from their own > sources before acting. Suggesting I had somehow managed to co-erce > Hurga into a decision is at best laughable. You obviously have not > talked to him much at all. And YOU'VE been under MY review for EIGHT months. I was just about to post something to the admin list about your gross abuse of your adminship after I calmed down the users list, and blammo, I'm delinked and suddenly have no credibility. You forced me to post my case before I had a chance to correctly compile all of the information that I had gathered about your misbehavior into a more comprehensive format. I guess my mistake there was that I waited too long to mention that you're causing more harm to the network than even Sibe could ever possibly imagine doing. All I do is say a few choice words to you, and I get booted. You do all of this horrible abuse of the network tools, and you're somehow left in some kind of high regard. That's so absurd that it's laughable. > 4. Of all the AKILLS in my alleged rampage of irresponsibility, I > have justified each and every one - anytime you have requested it I > have details my actions for approval/disapproval to the administrative > mailing list. I regularly cite the email address of this mailing list > if people have objections to how I have treated them. I regularly > seek the advice of fellow administrators (excluding yourself due to > personal issues of course) in determining how to deal with a situation > or to seek advice on whether they feel I handled a situation in a fair > manner. No, here's where you're flat out wrong. You are NOT justified in doing the things that are doing. You have NOT waited for the collective approval of the administrative staff for your actions. In fact, you have repeatedly received OBJECTIONS to your actions (from me, another site administrator), and yet you continued to do them. If you "regularly seek the advice of fellow administrators and seek advice on whether they feel you handled a situation in a fair manner", WHY HAVE I NEVER SEEN THEIR RESPONSES?! I had been working at this from the point of view that nobody was commenting and approving OR disapproving your actions. I WAS disapproving them, and instead of waiting for a collective agreement on whether or not you should continue with them, you continued with them anyway. That right there should be grounds for your removal alone. As far as "I cite the e-mail address of this mailing list if people have objections to how I have treated them" goes: People weren't posting here, 'cause they were coming to me first. I told them that I'd take care of it, and was building a case against your continued abuses. After you kept blatantly disregarding my objections and not waiting for other admin approval, the only course of action I had was to build and present a case to have you removed from the admin team. Of COURSE they weren't going to post their objections here when they had an admin posting their objections for them. They figured that I'd be able to get further than they would. > 5. In incidents where my response has either been in excess or in > error I have apologized to the individuals involved and removed the > ban. These are very rare. And from the lack of complaints to the > mailing list obviously accepted. My banning of myself was seen > comical by most (I know I laughed), I certainly am not infallible. I > would question the sanity of anyone would said they were. I have even > made apologies on this very mailing list. ALL of your responses have been in excess and in error according to the code of conduct which I was following. To your statement, "and from the lack of complaints to the mailing list obviously accepted", I have to laugh and laugh hard. EVERY TIME you posted something to the admin mailing list about your actions, there was a complaint. The complaints were made by me, and I would not allow you to continue abusing your adminship until there was further approval or disapproval. There were NO OTHER RESPONSES, which means that you neither received approval nor disapproval. In fact, at that point, all that you DID get was disapproval. If you got approval in private from other folks on the admin team, SHAME ON YOU for not posting the logs of that approval and keeping me to believe that nobody cared about what was going on and leading me on this wild goose chase. SHAME ON THE REST OF YOU for letting this go on like it was. > 6. When asked I have presented copious logs of all situations; > including the full 8 months of data from #safurs; copies of documents > you have posted to other websites and and whatever other information I > had at hand to the administrators of this mailing list. In fact I > have actioned every single request that has been presented to me in a > prompt and courteous manner and produced logs to support my position > (usually at your request). That's correct, and thank you for providing them. I examined those logs and found that you were continually abusing your administrative tools instead of helping users help themselves. That's why I continued to object to your actions on the mailing list. > 7. I am on the network 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Due to the > nature of my work I monitor and am active on the network well in > excess of most other administrators. It may appear that I seem to do > a large number of administrative actions but spread over the amount of > time I log on the network it is barely 1 action a day (actually since > you were removed as an administrator I have not had to ban anyone - an > odd coincidence). Except when of course the miscreants of a > particular channel decide to go and have fun in a few channels. The > fact I can keep up with them is only a problem in the fact it is a > waste of my time. Certainly the users of the channels I remove them > from appreciate the efforts. The "since you were removed as an administrator, I have not had to ban anyone - an odd coincidence" is both false and absurd. Karna has been akilled at least once since my removal, but that's neither here nor there. Since I've spent a large amount of time interacting with those you have issued akills on in the past, and getting to know them, I have also gained their trust in that I'm a reasonable person. I first found out about my removal because one of the people I know in #SAFurs called me on my cellular to tell me. I was out for a nice, quiet evening of sipping Chai Tea Latte with Herbie, Mach, and Cooner at the Barnes and Noble Cafe and get interrupted with IRC drama. Not only did that toally ruin my night, I was utterly pissed off that it seemed to happen suddenly and without warning. Nobody but you was questioning me about my actions and all of a sudden, I'm delinked? Nice. My immediate reaction when I received that phone call was to tell the person on the other end of the phone, "Good. I don't care any more. You guys go off and do whatever you want to the network, 'cause now nobody is left that cares about what happens any more." It took my mind TWO SECONDS to completely retract that sentiment and realize that I _do care_ - more for the rest of the users on the network than the administrators at that point, but I do care. When I came to that realization, I immediately said, "No. Wait. Please don't do anything and ask everyone else to lay as low as they can right now. I don't have all of the information about this, and I want to get all of it before I tell you that I don't care one iota about this network any more. I'm going to give Aeto a call when I get home, and we'll take it from there." They listened to me because I'm the only one who's been the slightest bit reasonable to them for 8 months. They had also indicated that they had some respect for Hurga and Zetawolf as well. When they heard that Hurga's only complaint about them was that he could get in trouble with by German law, they didn't want to see him or his place of business raided by the Polizei any more than anyone else did, and agreed to not post hate-related speech in their topics. Almost immediately after I gained that leeway with them and got them to agree to that, you come in with blazing guns, breathing fire, won't listen to them try to reason with you, threatened akills just for them merely being there, and dropped and forbade the channel. Want to know why I was pissed off enough at you to post nothing but inflammatory, colorful remarks about those actions? Consider my position in that. I'm working _really hard_ to uphold this balance and gain their trust, not only in me, but in the rest of the Furnet staff, and you come in with one fell swoop and destroy almost all of the headway that I had been making. Their first question to me was, "did the rest of the admins really say to akill us all? Who approved that action?" Since it's not my style to lie, I had to be truthful and say, "yes, and it was Hurga." Of COURSE I was pissed beyond that which any of my closest friends had ever seen me be before. I had managed to impose some faith in Hurga upon them as a reasonable, sane, level-headed individual, and now they find out that he's just as over-reactive as you are. Using pure reasonability and diplomacy and by giving them enough information about the overall reasonability of the Furnet admins, I had gotten it to the point where if any one of us three (myself, Hurga, or Zetawolf) could have approached them directly when they were doing something that we thought was over-the-top. All we'd have to say to them would be something along the lines of, "Hey guys... I'm starting to get complaints, and from the looks of things you're going just a tad bit overboard. Could you please tone it down a little?", they would have gladly backed down from whatever it was that they were doing. This approach wouldn't have worked, coming from you, because you've proven to them, time and time again, that you're just there to make their lives miserable, won't listen to reason, and abuse your administrator tools just to get your way. In response to, "Certainly the users of the channels I remove them from appreciate the efforts.": Maybe, maybe not. I have at least one logged occasion where the FOUNDER of a channel thought you were out of your mind for interfering and told the rest of the users in her channel, "If Snowpony ever comes in here again, DO NOT GIVE HER OPS!" That one particular incident is neither here nor there, 'cause all you're going to say is, "well, I apologized for doing it, so that makes it all better." The real reason for me responding to this statement you make is thus: MOST of the time, you don't just "remove them from a channel". You remove them from the NETWORK with an akill, instead of just helping those users help themselves do something that they already have complete control over. Time and time again, you go the most extreme route, and use administrator-only commands on a problem that can EASILY be rectified by user-accessible tools alone. This is the behavior and mindset that my case against you is based on. You completely overdo everything, and it's eventually going to come around and bite us all in the ass if you don't stop. I called upon a favor, using the respect and trust that I had gained from them, and asked them not to react to my server delink. I told them that I could handle it diplomatically. They sooo wanted to show you the difference between actual network abuse and playful, immature, completely harmless games because they felt if you could abuse your tools, they could too. They felt that the Furnet staff were nothing but backstabbing, petty, unreasonable beasts. I asked them not to do anything because I still had faith and trust in the rest of the opers and admins on this network and also because I really didn't want the rest of the user base to have to suffer any more than they already were when they lost a server. I still thought that it was just a big misunderstanding, and I imposed that thought upon them. I asked them to lay low until I had a chance to present all of the facts, in their entirety, to the administrators for one last review. If it's proven to me (and therefore them) that you guys really are that petty, uncaring, backstabbing, hateful, over-reactive and unreasonable, I'm not going to be able to get them to trust my judgement any more; mostly 'cause they know that I can't help them any more. If you all prove to me that they're right about you, I'm not going to call on that favor any more. Show them that you can be reasonable, and they'll be reasonable back at you. Show them that you're all complete, over-reactive idiots who can't see past the nose on your face and can't comprehend reason, you'll get no end of grief. I don't want to believe those sentiments about you guys, and I hope that you can prove to me that they aren't true. > 8. In the end I was not the administrator who was the protector, > founder and effective leader of a group of furs who occupied such > delightful channels as #aryanfurs, #safurs and #eatshitanddie (love > the current topic in that one BTW - - curently set to "DE-LINK MARGAY, > BAN SNOWPONY | LONG LIVE LION | [04:39] - -Global- [Logon News - Jan > 28 2004] Margay.furnet.org currently has a hardware issue; if you have > problems logging in to it use another server for now. :]"). Channels > that fostered trolling, spamming of users with sites for copyrighted > material and inciting hate crimes. Channels that could have landed us > in a lot of hot water legally, certainly cause no end of disharmony on > the users mailing list due to their actions and yet you were > determined to keep open. Wow, even after all of this, you still don't get it. It's so amazing to me the level of incomprehension that you possess. Even after I've spelled it out to you, you still don't comprehend what's actually going on. Let's take this statement apart, piece-by-piece: 1. "... who was the protector," My "protection" of them was only waiting on consenting approval or disapproval of any actions that we took upon them. Didn't I just explain that in my last e-mail? 2. "founder" Yeah, I had been set as the founder because that was the only way to keep you at bay until things were hashed out collectively. 3. "and effective leader" Nobody is leading these people. They're all rational beings capable of handling themselves. 4. "of a group of furs" Sweet, at least you admit that they're furry. Before, everyone was all like, "OMG THEY HATE FURRIES AND ARE A NON-FUR GROUP. BANNED" We have some progress here. 5. "... delightful channels as #aryanfurs, #safurs, and #eatshitanddie" So, wait... You think they're delightful, now? I thought you hated them. Ooohhhhh... sarcasm, ... right. Actually, they ARE pretty delightful. They're a laugh a minute, if you can comprehend their style of seemingly unsophistocated, but actually highly sophistocated humor. 6. "(love the current topic in that one BTW - - currently set to "DE-LINK MARGAY, BAN SNOWPONY | LOVE LIVE LION ... " I want you to know that I had no part in setting that topic. I did have a part in setting the current topic for #aryanfurs3, though, 'cause it's absurd and lol. Also, to anyone who has no sense of humor and reads it, before you over-react, let me spell it out for you: It's meant to be funny and absurd. Don't take it seriously. Have you EVER done playful jabs at your friends before? Think of it like that. 7. "Channels that fostered trolling," This is the part where you start to exercise your complete lack of ability of comprehension EVEN AFTER having it spelled out. But, what the hell, I'll spell it out again anyway. Maaaaybe I'll give it to you that it was fostering trolling. Yes, "trolling" did happen from time to time. Was it anything extreme that warranted the use of admin-only comands? No. Was it playful and harmless and warranted the use of user-available commands? Yes, if the users found that they couldn't handle it otherwise (witty retorts). Could it have been handled with a more diplomatic approach other than, "LOL AKILLED FOR TROLLING"? Yes. Could _you_ have handled it more diplomatically? Probably not. You seem to be incapable of doing anything but gross over-reactions and abuse of your admin commands. 8. "spamming of users with sites for copyrighted material" What? When did that happen? Oh, you mean Sibe hangs out in there sometimes, too? "OMG THE WHOLE CHANNEL IS BAD BECAUSE SIBE HANGS OUT THERE! OMG FORBID" 9. "and inciting hate crimes." Did you *read* all of the e-mail on the users list after Ashen mentioned #aryanfurs? Did you comprehend it? Do you have cotton in your brain? IT IS A _JOKE_. IT IS ABSURD. NOBODY IS GOING OUT AND KILLING JEWISH PEOPLE OR LIGHTING FIRES OR BURNING FLAGS OR _WHATEVER_ PEOPLE WHO HATE OTHER PEOPLE DO TO PEOPLE AS A RESULT OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN IRC! Freakin'... INTERNET! aggppthef;late'k372fey * knocks at your head as to try to shove information into it * 10. "Channels that could have landed us in a lot of hot water legally," Yup. And what have I told you about that? As soon as it was confirmed by active participation on the admin mailing list that this statement was true, the channel was then forced to be put into a state where topics with "illegal" content would be screened for their legality first, before being allowed to be posted. * knocks on your head some more * Didn't we already go over that? Diplomatic approach to an actual problem. Hooray! Yes, folks, we _are_ having rational thought. * amaze * * excite * * fanfare * * woo * * sheesh * 11. "certainly cause no end of disharmony on the users mailing list" Umm... the disharmony ended pretty quickly, actually. Even the original plaintiff retracted his statements when he had a better idea of what was going on. He even agreed that my approach was probably the most effective approach that there is available. Even *HE* comprehended the situation more fully than you seem to be able to. 12. "yet you were determined to keep open" Yes. Because A. If you close it, they'll just create another one and B. I wasn't going to let any action take place until the admins agreed on it as a team and as a system of policy. I think I mentioned that somewhere else. I'm not sure. * thinks * Oh yeah! In almost EVERY e-mail and statement that I've made about this. * slaps forehead * Tshhesh DUH * knocks again on your head * Anything seeping in there yet? Anyone else getting this? Yappy? Frysco? C'mon guys. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS ON THESE MATTERS?! > Through all this I have maintained a professional attitude (even if > rather blunt at times), detailed my actions to this administration > list as per your *own* requests and performed what I regard as my > duties to try and maintain a friendly environment for the furry fandom > to use as an effective communication tool. Same here. For once, we agree on a common goal. D'AWESOME! > If you want someone to blame; I would suggest looking at yourself. > This could have all been avoided if it was not for your deliberate > attempt to destabilize and cause havoc on the network under the > supposed idea of "Freedom of Speech" (The ideal of freedom of speech > is noble in itself however it was not meant to allow someone to > slander, incite hate and violence and illegal activity). You decided > to turn this into a war against me; you were the one who shot yourself > in the foot with your actions. Ugh. I don't want to take apart your statements and point out how absurd, biased, incomprehensible, and twisted they are. But, I guess I have to. 1. "This could have all been avoided if it was not for your deliberate attempt to destabilize and cause havoc on the network under the supposed idea of 'Freedom of Speech'" Good grief. Do you REALLY think that my intentions were to deliberately destabilize and cause havoc on the network? Are you really that blind and unable to comprehend anything that I've said? Havoc on the network is what I'm trying to *AVOID*! Do you even have any comprehension of what would happen to the network if you prove that the administrative staff are uncaring, belligerent, hateful, discriminatory, over-reactive, foghats, bent on catering to whiners and not able to exercise a little diplomacy and restraint on yourselves? You're going to have this scenario posted on PoE and possibly SA, and you're going to have upwards of 20,000 ACTUAL clients (not proxies or clones - we're talking real people here) attempting to connect to the network, join every channel, and spam the ever-living-shit out of the network with messages consisting of belligerent, unrestrained, immature, petty content just to prove to you that you have no comprehension of what ACTUAL abuses to the network are. Prove to them that you're petty and abusive, they'll prove to you that they can be petty and abusive back at you. I'd rather not have to put up with that kind of ACTUAL network abuse, and I sure as hell hope that you all don't want to, either. What REALLY would have avoided all of this is SOME PARTICIPATION FROM THE REST OF THE OPERS. Quit trying to change the root of the problem. What you're basically saying is that any opposition to your infallable actions causes destability and havoc on the network. I have yet to see any netsplits and spam-floods happen due to me offering an opposing opinion and not letting you take actions until they were approved as sanctioned actions by the rest of the team. When that happens, please let me know. 2. "(The ideal of freedom of speech is noble in itself however it was not meant to allow someone to slander, incite hate and violence and illegal activity). Here, you're being delusional and non-comprehensionable again. To save myself from repetition, I'll just cut and paste what I said in response to this above: IT IS A _JOKE_. IT IS ABSURD. NOBODY IS GOING OUT AND KILLING JEWISH PEOPLE OR LIGHTING FIRES OR BURNING FLAGS OR _WHATEVER_ PEOPLE WHO HATE OTHER PEOPLE DO TO PEOPLE AS A RESULT OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN IRC! Freakin'... INTERNET! aggppthef;late'k372fey BTW: "Freedom of speech" is to allow someone to say whatever the hell they want to, regardless of content. People should be judged by their actions, not by what they say. > I am not a perfect administrator; I make mistakes and I do my best to > make sure those mistakes do not happen again. I have and always will > apologize to those I have inconvenienced in the course of any > mis-actions I may have taken. I learn from my mistakes and work on > improving my skills and abilities. You can ask those I work with on > my work ethic and how I address a situation. I am sure you will find > their response in line to what I have said above. You're damn right you're not a perfect administrator. You're quite possibly the most horrible, non-rationally-thinking, unwilling-to-comprehend-reason, over-emotional, over-reactive administrator I have yet to come across in all my contact with administrators. Since I work in the field of Internet access, have been an administrator for a LOT of things, and have been using on-line forums since I was 7 years old, I KNOW A BAD ADMINISTRATOR WHEN I SEE ONE. You can start your quest of improving your skills and abilities by waiting for approval before doing things that can possibly affect the entire network. You need to work more on your people skills than anything, though. Most of the things that you're being called out on have to do with social skills and emotional control. I do too, for that matter. The only time that I get this emotionally involved is when I think someone is being completely irrational and unjust and I feel that I'm alone in rectifying it. It doesn't happen often, and I'm sure that if you ask Yappy if he's ever seen me get this way before, he'll probably tell you "no. I don't know what's gotten into him." He's known me for about 6 or 7 years now. > I am sorry you had to go - it is always a shame when we have to lose > resources over things that could have been changed but in the end of > the day you pushed this situation to the point where there could be > only one action left to take. Gah! "The only action left to take", she says. How 'bout taking action to begin with? How 'bout starting from step 2? (You took step 1, I took step 1a.) You guys jumped right to a step which isn't even in a proper problem-solving schedule. What happened, from the beginning, is absurd and unthinkable, but it still happened. Ideally, and in every other administrative situation I've been in where no one person is a "leader", here are some basic, reasonable steps of action when dealing with a situation like this: 1. Propose a solution for a problem to the team for evaluation. a. If you receive an objection to your solution, take no action on that solution until consenting approval can be reached. b. If no objection, proceed with the solution to the problem and write it in to the written policy. Stop here. 2. Hash out the details of the consequences, effectiveness, and reasonability of the solution with the members of the team which have information regarding the consequences, effectiveness, and reasonability of the solution. 3. Refine the solution into an effective action. 4. Motion for all in favor of the refined, effective action. 5. Write the solution into policy and guidelines and post it publically to your AUP. We barely made it to the beginning of step 2. Somewhere else in the guidelines, it would state something similar to following: a. Once a solution to a problem is written into your guidelines, anyone who comes across the problem shall be able to effectively and efficiently handle it. b. If a team member goes against written policy and abuses their privileges as a part of the team by enforcing policy that doesn't exist, evaluate their actions and allow them to explain their actions. If it is determined that they are consistantly not following policy and their reasons are invalid, remove them from the team. c. If a team member takes actions which are currently under team evaluation without consenting approval, reverse the actions until consenting approval is reached. > This is my personal response to your request. I imagine any others > who have an opinion will make their own as well. I'd *LOVE* to see a response from others. Particularly, I'd like to see responses from Yappyfox, Frysco, Zetawolf, and even Hurga. These are all folks whom I trust to have a reasonable head on their shoulders because of my own personal interactions with them in real life. Aeto also falls into that category, but he's already told me that he's pretty much hands-off on this whole issue because of diplomacy burn-out from FC. I'm not expecting a reply from him. If you can't tell, I'm extremely disappointed in Yappy, Frysco, and Zetawolf for not posting their thoughts. I regard their usually very well-conceived thoughts with a lot of respect. Any one of them could have helped bring this to an end post haste. I can't believe that they've let this all go down this way without so much as a single comment. Had they come in from the beginning and told me that I'm completely in the wrong, being the slightest bit unreasonable, and that they've lost all trust in me the way that Cheetah thinks that everyone has lost all trust in me, I'll saunter off and never touch IRC again. It's not worth losing their friendships over, and I hope that I can regain at least some of it. :/ As for the rest of you, I really haven't spoken much to you in the past or gotten to know you. For that, I'm sorry. I'd like to think that by being on the oper team, you must have a reasonable head on your shoulders too, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on the entirety of the matters at hand. Having an O: line means you have the responsibility to do this from time to time. Teamwork, guys. That's all I'm asking for. --- Scott 'Simba' G [address redacted]@pridelands.org