yes, because he didn't trust you guys to handle the situation appropriately. which is why it was brought up in that thread. and now we have this thread proving that true.

Whether he trusts them or not, he can't just bring up that accusation publicly for literally everyone including search engines to read and then blatantly reveal who he was talking about in the very thread in which he (and everyone else) was told not to do that shit.

before I reply will you promise not to delete your post or tell me to fuck off like you usually do?

...but I do think you guys aren't very transparent when it comes to telling people who have reported things that you have talked to or addressed the other person. Often you will only say you addressed it when I or someone else asserts that you haven't responded to their concerns in discord.

I think this is a fair point. That specific example I was not really involved with but I feel like it could have been handled with a lot more transparency (not even other staff knew the member was talked to about that, tbf).

In generally that is partially why I keep saying that we ARE discussing the allegations made even though we did not like the means used to make them initially.

I understand viewing this thread negatively without context from the Discord and the sort of DMs staff was getting from several users. It seems like it comes out of nowhere and is unusually harsh on Drei without it all.

What happened, which is entirely what this thread was about (I tried to stress multiple times that the report was NOT the issue, I am thankful that Drei actually came forward to staff with what information he did have, it was just decided that what he personally had was not enough to merit action) was that Drei managed to stir up a big storm with a sudden post about there being an active groomer on the site in a thread at a peak time where saying such would turn public discussion in the favor of the direction he wanted. In the post itself he openly says he had been sitting on this information for years, and the "staff discussion" he mentioned wound up being, to my understanding, discussing the member in question being offputting to those around them without the direct grooming angle with FWD in the distant past, without any large impetus for action. So yes, many people on Discord were raising questions and wondering about who it was, upset that Drei would pull something like that, etc.

This prompted a public response from staff as multiple DMs flowed in asking for us to not allow major public accusations against members that could tarnish them forever, thus this thread. I'll admit that the wording regarding Drei could have been better, and the bit about the stunt angle (while it is why many people had a problem with the post) could have probably been left out as it paints the situation in an odd angle . I was trying to provide full context as for WHY such a rule against this sort of thing was necessary, and you can see that the public reception towards such a call was overwhelmingly positive with the amount of good sh*ts on the post.

Now, as for Drei's ban, he proceeded to unmask the member he was accusing literally right in this thread, directly after everyone was asked to NOT drop bombs like that in public. He was NOT banned for reporting anything, and he was not banned for his vaguepost. The vaguepost did not violate any rules at the time hence why one had to be made with it as the impetus.

Kyle's big post was also good as hell and I believe other staff have largely addressed this all too.

This post was last modified: Jan 23, 2021 at 6:04 PM by Draku.

Things become public like that when people feel like real concerns aren't being addressed. Which is exactly what the point was in the thread anyway.

And the specific thing stir reported may not be actionable, but we've certainly had discussions _in this very thread_ about related red flags the staff currently lets slide.

To clarify, regarding current red flags, staff is currently involved in discussion on dealing with these kinds of things right now as we speak. We are actually talking about it and how to handle this situation among others in the future.

But that cuck Draku isn't around so we must wait.

Would like to confirm right now that action has been taken, and while Drei's initial report itself was not concrete and what he personally submitted did not entirely apply (as was mentioned and was the issue this thread was initially about), it DID lead to further investigation on the matter, which lead to discovery of several previously unknown elements which were tangentially related. Contact with another member was made which resulted in new light being shed on matters for staff which assisted with this investigation. This took a lot of time and deliberation across staff members, which is part of why matters like this should be kept private until further and final action is eventually taken.

Diantha has personally agreed to leave the site and Discord when approached by a staff member regarding the information acquired from her Discord server after a staff consensus was reached and reasonable conclusions were made. In this particular case, she stayed fully agreeable on the matter and I do not believe Diantha would have made a move to cover up any of the evidence that was examined. However, some of the elements used to make a final decision in situations like this can easily be swept under the rug by a suspect before staff can obtain them for use in putting together a solid case as a result of the suspect being publicly outed, and I believe that too backs up the merit in keeping these sorts of reports private.

This was not handled particularly amazingly by us, and we accept fault for the matter. However, due to the sheer sensitivity of the material and decision, we had to keep a thick blanket over it until we had made a final call. I apologize fullheartedly on behalf of the entire administration that this turned into such a mess. We will strive to handle such matters better in the future.

EDIT: Hiding details on the subject for Diantha's sake apparently was not the best decision, as it caused people to simply assume the worst. Again, learning process here of mistakes. Therefore, some additional information:
The evidence found was regarding logs from 2017. The intent can never be known, but that unfortunately does not matter in a circumstance such as this. She was in contact with a 16 year old to whom she exposed and encouraged viewing of particular types of explicit material, and then later entered into a proper relationship with that person at a different point down the line. Unfortunately, this is more or less textbook grooming.

It is worth noting that the laws of Canada state that the age of consent is 16, and thus Diantha's morals on the subject may be shaped by this. However, it is clear from the community response to the 18+ rule that MW's members, on the whole, would be incredibly uncomfortable and/or outright against such an action, law or not, hence the decision made by the staff.