Community Manager Discussion Kicks Off...With Admin Blocking Discussion

Will there be Gamefaqs community input on Krystal's replacement? Probably not.

Courtesy of "the mod bias monitor" - a user who was warned for making a topic about the next community manager - comes this tip:

Allen later walked back this comment and said he was only talking to Krystal, who's under a non-disclosure agreement. Yet if this silencing was only meant to apply to Krystal, why did he lock all topics on the discussion and why were other users warned for starting new topics? The wording of the message itself is pretty clear it's meant to apply to everyone, since "any discussion" is, well, pretty much anything between two or more people, not just Krystal. For what it's worth, here's Krystal's comment about her termination before Allen told her to zip it:

More of that trademark condemnation of entire boards and some of the most active message board users on the site. Apparently the numbers aren't up to snuff for the higher ups, possibly due to things like staff hostility towards users or the site's trigger-happy moderation system driving people away, and Krystal's defense against this data was that her bosses simply don't understand how much the userbase sucks. With an attitude like that, it's really hard to see why she was let go. Said no one ever.

Anyway, since Allen seemed to distance himself from his early crackdown you can try to start a discussion on this subject and see how it goes. We'll keep monitoring it here. In the meantime, also be aware that posting a picture of Krystal that she herself provided a few months ago is now considered "harassment."

Krystal's Gone, and I'm Actually Sad To See Her Go

In a surprise decision - but not really, when you think about it - Krystal109 is no longer our community manager. Some would say she never really was. Krystal (also known as Stephanie Barnes, for you future employers doing an internet search) has appeared several times in this blog. Sometimes because we had a complaint, other times because the users at Current Events and other boards were upset with her performance. But I have to say, I was always cautiously optimistic or at least neutral about her overall. For her work as a FAQ contributor and behind the scenes I have no reason to criticize her. In fact I think she did an all right job keeping moderators in check, even though that's a little anecdotal. As for actually managing the community...a lot of users simply believed she wasn't cut out for it.

Krystal started off by making quite a few flubs that we've discussed here before, and she wasn't exactly known for professionalism or good grammar. One easy suggestion: please learn how to use the apostrophe correctly. Please. As for her interactions with the message board community, it seemed like a train wreck early on. This experience probably led her to post less because it just didn't seem to go well whenever she became involved in an argument. Krystal started off assuring us that she could deal with the criticism and trolling that came with the position, but those assurances appeared to be directly contradicted whenever she lost her temper and "had a meltdown" as some called it.

A quick summary: telling users it would be fun to troll everyone with her new powers and either close their board, or make everyone a mod for a day and watch the chaos. Telling users she wouldn't date a black person because of "cultural differences," a subject that's questionable for her to raise in the first place, and also a similar view that got a mod dismissed a few months earlier. Constantly closing topics she didn't personally like, even though she was supposed to be discouraging mods from abusing this same function. Misleading and belittling users when they started to complain that a moderator had stolen multiple accounts from other users - an accusation that turned out to be true and something that she knew was true for several days. Yet instead of waiting for the site's main admin to return and deal with the situation, and instead of simply declining to comment until the accusations were sorted out, she went out of her way to imply that long-time users were lying or pushing a "BS" conspiracy theory while calling some of the critics "whining babies." Declining to update the gamefaqs social media accounts on a consistent basis, until users began to call out that she had promised to make this a main part of her job. Possibly a decline in board traffic.

Whatever the reason, Krystal is no longer with us. I'm a little sad because despite her faults she did seem to do some things right, like mod oversight. As for the rest of the nonsense she did, I guess I'm also sad that we won't have this source of entertainment around anymore.

Perhaps the most telling verdict on her performance:

Finally, some additional testimony:

"She rarely updated the GameFAQs OFFICAL Twitter and Facebook except for when Hothlin called her out on it...She was good at bringing the community together at hating her though" -ToPoPO

"I remember when she first got hired she proclaimed to have thick skin and that's one of the reasons she was hired. Over time it was quite evident this wasn't the case." -WaterLink

"i had perhaps five or six interactions with her, and none were positive. the one that sticks out most in my mind is when i took 30 minutes out of my day to submit feedback on the beta for the new site UI, and i got back a reply from her that was nothing short of f***ing bristling. no "thank you for taking your time submitting feedback, we appreciate your interest in helping to make gamefaqs a better place" or anything gracious like that, just a temperamental message that amounted to "you opinion doesn't matter, our metrics show everyone loves the new UI." then the redesign went live and everyone lost their s***." -Mecha Sonic

"Right from the very beginning she spent so much time f***ing feeding the trolls on CE. Many users warned her that any thing she posted would just get trolled to death, since that's the nature of CE but she didn't even take that advice. But the fact that she needed to be told in the first place was already a death knell. What kind of professional needs to be told not to feed trolls, let alone someone who gets the job of COMMUNITY MANAGER, someone who should be intimately familiar with the community. It's clear she wasn't even familiar with interaction on the internet, let alone understanding GameFAQs' community." -4chan

"She did some good things, but she also put her foot in her mouth too many times to count. I feel kinda bad about CE treated her, but she treated a lot of CE with contempt as well, making it easier to dislike her. I didn't dislike her myself, so I'll just say that she was average." -PerseusRad

"'Wait, she bumped the topic to start and talk s*** and then closed it immediately after to get the last word? Wow that's pretty damn low, even for her.' she sounds like a 15 yr old teenage girl based on that topic. It is the equivalent of 'mom I hate u!' and then closing the door" -DomoArigatoMr

"She was absolutely miserable and made wrong steps at almost every turn" -Littlegator

"It's possible to be an authority figure and involve yourself with the community. She was just really s*** at it, was thin skinned as hell, and would troll and make petty spiteful comments when people would post their grievances. She was s*** at her job and it was a mystery how she even got it in the first place." -3rd_Best_Master

"for how much she made a big deal about running the gamefaqs twitter, she really let it go to s***. as a community manager, she was very hostile, offensive and let people get under her skin way too much." -D-Lo_BrownTown

"The problem is that she had no idea what the community was like. If you're going to be a community manager, you should at least have lurked for a month or two before being given the position. It was obvious that she had no clue about the community here, and people spoke up. But instead of listening, she just locked topics and banned people for not liking her. Glad to see her gone." -mfwahwah

I wonder if the higher-ups at Gamefaqs ever think about what inspires people to make site messages, lengthy blog posts and entire videos slamming the way Gamefaqs is run. Maybe in the future it'd be a better idea to have a community manager who listens, instead of calling long-time users a bunch of dumb babies.

Back by Popular Demand: DO NOT BLASPHEME!!

We return from the depths of Gamefaqs to demonstrate that, despite a lull in the action for the past several months, some moderators remain just as eager to clamp down on dissenting voices as ever. This time: opposition to the founder of Islam.

Is it just me? No, it's not. Many liberals on board 261 have already noticed that some people make a career out of smearing Christianity as the source of all problems, but criticism of Islam is severely lacking. Not only is there near total silence about it, but the far left goes out of its way to silence people who do speak up because not supporting a religion somehow makes you the same as a racist.

So I propose to the curious in those topics: the reason you don't see a liberal criticize Islam, at least on that board, is the same reason you don't see a lot of conservatives: the far left censors them. Offensive, hate crime, blasphemy, whatever you want to call it - it's just not allowed. Challenging any other religion besides Christianity is just mean. It's not fair. So you just can't do it.

Off to the source of my message. In a topic titled, "Prophet Muhammed warned us of ISIS" we were treated to a puff piece based off a Huffington Post writer's strange conspiracy theory, where Muhammed the all-knowing and kind philosopher knew ISIS was going to happen thousands of years later and he was so mad. He was mad because he knew they were just a bunch of fakers who would act like Muslims in their fasting, rituals, and so on, but were actually not doing what Islam demanded of them.

"The Quran would not go beyond their throats, meaning they wouldn't understand its essence at all, merely regurgitating it selectively. The Prophet then went on to describe these people as "the worst of the creation."

Meanwhile in reality, you might remember that Muhammed was famous for spreading belief in his cult through the sword. If he had a beef with ISIS today, it'd probably be a disagreement over how to kill the infidels. You might also recall that the two big sects of this great religion, the Sunni and Shia, arose not from religious disagreements but were an argument over which warlord got to take up the sword after Muhammed. A political struggle that has continued for centuries and with a lot more barbaric terror behind it than one group like ISIS can manage.

Here's my message:

2015-07-03 01:44:47: Prophet Muhammed warned us of ISIS
Mohammed was a butcher. He was talking down to moderate Muslims, not ISIS. He is describing people who do rituals but not the physical violence and conquering he stood for. Mohammed's definition of "heinous deeds" was probably being homosexual or a woman in public with no chaperone. He was fine with mass murder.

The towering intellect known as a volunteer video game forum moderator decided that this message warranted a suspension. Was my message history good? No, but you're gonna love why. The reason is that I had a prior warning on my account, which I appealed, which was reposted, after even a gamefaqs mod could see that it was not a violation. Yet due to the way gamefaqs operates, this warning remains attached to your account for a month no matter whether it got overturned or not. And no, you can't say anything in your defense because the idea is that you're so guilty and the mods are always so right, so there's no need.

To the administrator who's looking at this message, you might want to look at the following passages from the Koran:

2:191-193 - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" - this means against Christians (who believe in the Trinity)

2:216 - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

3:56 - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." - "in this world" obviously means through the sword and historically has meant the "choice" at gunpoint of either forced conversion, strict taxation, or death for any non-Muslim.

4:74 - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." - obviously jihad is not a lovey-dovey "internal struggle with faith" as moderates claim. It involves physical violence, either slaying others or being slain.

4:76 - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah"

4:89 - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

4:95 - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward" - are you listening? This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the claim that Muhammed would praise non-violence while supporting moderate Muslims, not the other way around.

5:33 - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" - punishments like crucifixion are EXACTLY what ISIS has been doing.

8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

9:29 - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." - again, the choice of conversion, submission, or death.

These are just from the first ten verses. We could go on. This is Muhammed and his legacy, it cannot be denied.

You might also consider that Muhammed wasn't just talking about this stuff, he was waging war whenever he had the chance. "Peace" agreements to him were only temporary arrangements to survive; when his enemy was perceived as weak, or when he managed to build up enough forces for another challenge, he would take to the battlefield again (such as modern-day Hamas "truce" periods with Israel, even as they continue to call for its destruction and have only used the time of "peace" to get more rockets and kidnapping tunnels set up to kill Jews). The caliphate was meant to be a global Islamic state, where Muslims fought against everyone else until they won over the entire world. Just because they failed the first time, and are confined to extremist groups now, doesn't change what Muhammed wanted and doesn't make them any less of a threat. Especially when ISIS is now the richest terror group and is by its own admission looking to spread Muhammed's legacy with global conquest.

Who do you think Muhammed would reject as "regurgitating the Quran selectively" - the extremists carrying out all the things the book says about jihad? Or the moderate Muslims?

You might also want to look at how terror groups like Hamas frequently cite other hadiths such as the following:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."

You might also want to examine how ISIS is following the earlier example of caliphate rulers and copying their methods. Abu Bakr, for example, was Muhammed's father-in-law and direct successor. His favorite punishment for homosexuals involved throwing them off tall buildings, a practice that ISIS picked up on. The leader of ISIS loves to refer to himself as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as well. In fact, we only wish Abu Bakr had been as merciful as ISIS. While ISIS merely does the first step and throws them off buildings, Bakr liked to follow that up with a stoning of the corpse just to make sure the message got across.

We say ISIS is backwards for a reason. It's not because they're inventing new ways to torture and kill people. It's because they're looking back on the punishments that Muhammed and his men doled out, and want to bring that brutality back.

But let's suppose you overlook these inconvenient facts and continue to disagree. Fine. But don't censor other people and tell them they can't have different opinions. Sharia law doesn't apply to gamefaqs, so please do us a favor and bugger off.

Cheerfully yours,

TaiIs82