Flipmoo: I’ve realized that the post that I published was ‘sloppy’ and rushed, which has caused many misinterpretations and misunderstandings. For this I apologize to any of the people whom I have unintentionally insulted or disrespected. We are glad to have knowledgable retirees on our chat, but the post in general was mainly directed to those retirees who were mean or unpleasant to other ACP troops or commanders. I’ve replied or intend on replying to any of your concerns on either the original post, this post, or in private chat on xat.com/TheACP. Again I apologize for any misunderstandings that this post may have caused, but I am happy to say that many of the retirees are now much more friendlier than before. Thank you for understanding and trying to be nicer, it means a lot to us and I’m glad that we’re currently running an army with such wonderful retirees. I have also changed the time prior to leaving an event to 15 minutes instead of 30~40.
Hello, Retirees. Before I begin, I want to state that in no way I’m trying to insult or disrespect you in this post. I respect you for your deeds in ACP and wish you good luck in life.
I’ve seen there’s been quite a scandal regarding the latest post, and I think you misunderstood our purpose. By that post, we tried telling you that there are a few retirees that bully the new troops and cause disaster in general, instead of helping us and being friendly.
Lately, one of our former leaders, who’s known for having a bad personality, told Cas, a CPAC Editor in Chief (I believe) that the Triumvirate is soon getting couped, just to hope that CPAC will post it and cause a disaster in ACP.
Some of the retirees just like to make our job as ACP leaders harder, making petitions against bots for banning them(which is usually because they broke a rule or whatever else) and scaring our troops away. We did not mean to insult you, or disrespect you, and I highly apologize for that.
Now, regarding why we asked you to leave chat, before each event, I’m sure I told you guys to stop talking about off-topic stuff, did that stop? Nope. And that’s a problem- you start subjects such as history, politics, sports, which catch the attention of our soldiers and ends up making troops go AFK while in events, not listen to us, and also floods the chat when people should see easily what the the leader is ordering.
In conclusion, there are some of you which we consider not worthy of being mods, legends, or whatever else, the reason is because having such a right in ACP must be hard to obtain, if you can simply get legend for being 2nd lowest mod and friends with the leaders, like it is the case for one of our current “legends”, then the ACP chat will soon be flooded even more with unnecessary mods.
Imagine, ACP keeps going like this for 10 more years, every simple person gets legend status for being good friends with the leaders, and other simple reasons like this, and get permanent mod. What happens? Chaos.
Therefore, we are doing what is necessary, we will be taking away that right from the people that don’t deserve it, who are being mean to our troops, who’ve generally caused more harm than good to ACP after their retirement.
I thank you for taking the time to read this post, it may have some grammatical errors, but take in mind that English is not my main language, just a second language I’ve learned at school.
Filed under: ACP |
Excellent post.
Inb4 complains about singling out cait.
That explains it in a more relaxed manner, and even though you have indirectly singled out people again (be quiet Sky), it’s better than Flipmoo’s attempt.
If you have to make stickied posts about it, then you’re doing something wrong. This could all be handled simply on Xat. I don’t see how making a petition is worthy of de-modding, as people do that IRL and they don’t get their citizenship removed, per say.
It’s understandable that the bot is there to do a job, but then if we have a bot, what’s the point in having moderators? In my eyes, it’s one or the other. If you’re going to keep the bot AND moderators, I suggest that you relax the bot a lot in order to allow the moderators to do their jobs too. Moderators are only moderators in order to keep rules and prepare them for ownership. If they’re not moderator, they’ve lost half of the reason to be that rank.
Also, it’d be great if some of the others in the leadership didn’t twist events to make them go their way. I’ll do it in the same respect as you have, and not pick out any names, but I’m sure you’ll be able to identify whom in one of your little meetings.
Thank you for clarrifying this. Although if the second last paragraph mentions the people who were on the list previously, then I find it a bit offensive (However I may have just interpreted it wrong)
“Therefore, we are doing what is necessary, we will be taking away that right from the people that don’t deserve it, who are being mean to our troops, who’ve generally caused more harm than good to ACP after their retirement.”
Again this is assuming it meant me and the others on the list, then I wouldn’t say any of the people on the list have caused more harm than good at all. All I’ve notably done in the past month is create a petition to remove the bot (Which was mainly just a joke but actually seriously got quite a few signatures) because the bot was broken.
Anyway, please do correct me if you meant something else by that paragraph.
Thanks,
– Kieran
“Lately, one of our former leaders, who’s known for having a bad personality, told Cas, a CPAC Editor in Chief (I believe) that the Triumvirate is soon getting couped, just to hope that CPAC will post it and cause a disaster in ACP.”
I think that’s trying to reference me, all I did was jokily say to Cas that Flipmoo was getting couped just to see if he would believe me and post it, I definitely didn’t want to cause a disaster in ACP but the way your handling these situations and behaving I wouldn’t mind a disaster in ACP these days.
Next time don’t spin a little joke into something massive, trying to make it appear as though everyone wants to coup you, stop being so paranoid, and I appreciate the little jab about me having a bad personality
Uh… I don’t mean to be nitpicking this topic but this post is even worse than the one Flipmoo made. I think you should really take this post down (Don’t delete it permanently though) and let me talk to you on chat before posting it again please. I cringed while reading this post. I’ll tell you why in a bit.
Edit: Nevermind, Flipmoo made appropriate changes to the post.
Max is CPAC VP btw.
In regards to the bot, I just wanna be able to play it with it. As opposed to having virtually every command locked up to anyone who’s not an Owner. Oh, and I wanna be able to tell people to GTFO. Is that really to much to ask?
Once again as I went through this post I found a number of conceptional problems rather than grammatical errors stated at the end of the post.
I’d like to begin with the statement “that there are many retirees, who instead of helping us and being friendly, bully the new troops and cause disaster in general”. I disagree with this, retirees do not go out of their way to bully troops and neither to cause disaster, it is not their purpose, you will probably ask me to look at the next paragraph but I do not find one example of a former leader accountable to all retirees, I don’t think there are many examples. Retirees do not bully troops or try to cause disaster. Period.
“Some of the retirees just like to make our job as ACP leaders harder”. Once again I disagree, retirees do not try and make your job at ACP harder, you give the example of the petition of the bot however this is not an effort to make your job harder, from what I gather it is rather that the bot is flawed which you can see in Michael’s comment on the previous post. I’d also like to highlight that the bot actually has increased the amount of swearing on the chat, which is a fact if you were to argue it. Also I do not believe that it causes troops to be “scared away”, I don’t find evidence of this anywhere, its an urban myth.
Regarding the issue of leaving the chat to a different pool, from what I gathered no problems arose and it went down well with all. So I therefore agree with the policy with leaving chat 5-10 minutes before a battle.
Now comes the real problem I gathered from this post, its hard even to condense this but its regarding the classic “legend problem”.
“In conclusion, there are some of you which we consider not worthy of being mods, legends,” I find this conclusion weird as you conclude with the issue of legends while you have not mentioned legends anywhere in the post before the conclusion. Therefore I find this is an unjustified attack on “legends” which I find no excuse for, its undeniable and outrageous, this topic being discussed had nothing to do with legends yet you manage to intertwine it into this argument, which is just plain wrong.
While the author has somehow got onto the topic of “legends”, he mentioned “such a right in ACP must be hard to obtain, if you can simply get legend for being 2nd lowest mod and friends with the leaders,”. Now this clearly shows someone who doesn’t understand the concept of being a “legend”, for me and I think universally within CP armies it should be someone who has significantly contributed towards the army. Now, I believe it is therefore easily possible for any rank to achieve “legend” status including the rank of “General” which it is a different rank from what it means today as it was much more commendable. For example “Tomtwelve: Achieved the rank of General” and Kpkrocks1: Achieved the rank of Lt. General”, two of the most accomplished soldiers in the whole of ACP history that have contributed more than most on the current legend page yet only has their legend status as achieving a single rank.
You compare this to recent additions to the legend pages under ironically this leadership (the one complaining about it) and recent leaderships, where retired leaders, 2ic’s and 3ic’s have been allowed to put their names down on the page themselves or had others put them down on the page because of friendship with no scrutiny, the very problem you complaining about, this screams hypocrisy and irony. I think the current leadership are under the illusion that being an owner makes you eligible to be on the legends list, that is false. Focus on those you are making legends now, a bit more than those in the past, maybe even make sure you, yourselves are legends. I’m sure some member ranks have contributed more than some former/current leaders.
Legends should rather have a personal status written for them to prove they are what they say, rather than a single rank and worst these silly titles which amount to and mean nothing. How do we know within these titles which this “legend” has accomplished that it really means anything, if I were ACPTR leader 3 times while it was dead and inactive is that really worthy of legend status, this is similar to SSACP and The Senate and the rest of these apparent legend worthy achievements. A personal status should actually highlight specifically what you did and maybe sort the problem you fail to understand in regards to “legends”. Maybe an organised body would do the trick in deciding who are legends and writing a personal status for each but then again they would probably add that title to part of their own legend status.
I’d appreciate feedback,
Ollie
A lot of words with not a lot of points < less words with more carefully chosen meaning.
And also the fact you would get better feedback/response in a 1 on 1 basis. Flipmoo opened up to retirees to approach him with your issues, yet you continue to write 500 word responses.
“Not alot of points”- I count seven, I regard as enough.
“less words” – Making seven points in 500 words is fairly good.
“more carefully chosen meaning”, are you sure you read what I wrote, too vague of a point to understand.
“1 on 1 basis” – 500 words in a PC is sort of difficult and writing a comment allows more people to input.
When I say feedback I mean on the actual points/problems I made in my original comment.
Ok, but still 80 words per point seems a little overkill, almost like you were trying to make it long on purpose to either intimidate the leaders, or make it seem more grandeur if I may.
Either way, the less time consuming (especially for each reader) and more logical way would’ve been to take up the 7 reasons with a leader. In sure the leader would appreciate the conversation. After all, a big point in Flips last point was communicating with the retirees personally.
Each one of you has deserved the right to take your issues up with the leader
Mike this is CP armies. Dont we all try a little to be more “grandeur”? Although I do agree Olie’s comment is overkill, you gain nothing by articulating that.
I wasn’t really trying to gain anything.
Flipmoo really improved this post ten fold with his edit (Wary)
…okay, I sorted all my issues out this morning with Flipmoo, but now I’m confused.
Both in the original post and the edit it’s mentioned that the mods targeted by this post and the last are “mean or unpleasant to other ACP troops or commanders.” This morning it was made clear to me that the reason I was on that list was because my achievements in ACP had been questioned (still not entirely sure why the legends page didn’t clear that up before my name went up on a stickied post, but whatever.) That’s not to mention the multiple false allegations made in this post, which are too many to list right now because, forgive me, I am exhausted. Long day.
I think Kieran already picked up on the paragraph of the original post which most irked me – the implication that my friends and I have done more harm than good for this community. That’s not true. I cannot even begin to comprehend how you came to that conclusion about any of us, and would be interested in hearing from you why exactly you think I’m a detriment to ACP. (PRIVATELY, PLEASE. This is ridiculous.)
In short, I am further confused by this post about an issue which I thought we had for the most part resolved (and would kind of be interested in hearing what my fellow retirees think, whether they want to comment here or hit me up on chat.)
I’ll repeat this again.
Some retirees are being nice to new recruits, engaging in (mind you that they were friendly ones) conversations with them, and showing them where the Join page is and how to join.
Some retirees haven’t done anything wrong to be on that list, which I find rather amusing. One question I’d like to ask though, do you think it’s more appropriate to talk to these individuals in private, instead of publicly humiliating them? Otherwise, I don’t see a reasonable explanation as to why this post was necessary.
As for leaving the chat, just recently, the retirees were asked to leave while an event began. If I recall correctly, we never argued the fact that we were asked to leave chat. Instead, we simply went to another chat and continued our conversations there. Unless you are talking about another group of retirees, then ignore that.
Now onto the haven’t-earned-mod issues. The people on the list must have done something to get mod in the first place, right? Check the Legends page, and ask them yourselves. I’m sure they’ll be happy to tell you what they did to get where they are now.
The retirees that I’m referring to are: Buck, Kieran, Michael, Cait, and Jack – the ones who are on the list. These are genuinely good people, and I don’t see why there’s a problem with them.
Oh, and I didn’t mention Fox because I saw that she was taken off the list. However, she does the same as the ones I just mentioned. She is a very nice person.
d’aww thanks Tori
anytime <3
Flipmoo improved this post so much.
I read this post this morning before any of the edits were made and I was extremely disappointed and I still am after briefly going over it again. This situation has been handled very poorly and every additional post, comment, and reason for the original claims and punishments being spit out by leaders is just making the whole thing worse.
All of the obvious problems with the string of attacks against the retirees (especially this post) have probably already been covered by other people, both members of the list on the previous post and others who feel it was wrong as well, so I apologize for any repetition. However, since I was included on that list I believe it is necessary that I defend myself, yet again, because the reason for that post has (yet again!) been changed.
The first reason was apparently because I (and others on the list) broke the rules of the chat and were deemed inappropriate moderators for the chat. That claim is ridiculous because the majority of the people on that list are the among those who don’t engage in conversations that include sexuality, drug-related, ethnicity, and vulgar behaviour. Of course, none of the people on that list are flawless, but neither are the members, moderators, and owners who were not included on the list. Once the idea of us retirees being the cause of the inappropriate behaviour was shot down, the arguments that have been taking place were thrown on our shoulders.
There are two sides to every argument. If there was only one, it wouldn’t be an argument, would it? It is very one-sided to claim that the moderators on that list (mostly the people with asterisks beside their names) are the instigators for every argument that takes place on chat. In fact, I don’t believe that we start 50% of the fights, or anything close to that. Last night, without mention of the post, retirees who either commented or were listed were being hounded constantly by current troops. We told them to go comment like we did and to stop talking about it, but they refused, so some fought back. There was a leader there who refused to acknowledge the effort by the retirees to not fight or to at least confirm that he had seen the fight start and would not blame it on the retirees. In the end, we’ll probably get blamed for it, but anyone there could tell you that it was not the fault of the retirees and that we did not engage until it was a last resort (for the most part). Honestly, we don’t start many fights until some sort of comment is made and that’s generally a problem between leaders and retirees, not mods and retirees. However, I, nor anyone else, will deny that we fight back when we are told to leave the chat when there are no events going on or when nobody else is speaking. When events are going on, nobody has a problem with going somewhere else because we don’t like the battles getting in between our conversations as much as the leaders dislike us disrupting theirs. It is the ACP’s chat and nobody ever argued against that. It is 100% in the way that we are approached. There are no friendly suggestions for us to go somewhere else. There are no PC’s saying that it would be greatly appreciated if we could move somewhere else. We are called a disturbance, a poison, and an inconvenience before we have even spoken. I heard that Shab made the retired pool, but I could be wrong. If it was him, I find it sad that, once again, a retiree has to be the one who is logical enough to figure out how to deal with the other retirees! On the other hand, if it was an active member, thank you for being the one to finally act instead of complaining and being rude.
The second accusation was that the retirees on the list were acting ill-mannered and unwelcoming towards new ACP recruits. This one is not quite as bad as the first claim, but still not true. First off, it is not the responsibility of the retirees to tell the new recruits how to join ACP. Chat always has ranked moderators and owners on it, but nobody seems to ever be available to anybody with a blue pawn and no nameglow asking a question. If troops leave because nobody is around to tell them where to join, it’s not our fault. Even though we all know this, we still tell them “go to the join page,” or “click the word ‘join’ on chat and leave a comment.” Why? Because it’s way easier to just help them ourselves instead of complaining about other people not doing it, like you’re doing to us. Yesterday there was a ‘test’ to see if anybody would help the new recruit join and who that person would be. If you could take a guess, who would you say? A lazy, disruptive, rude, inappropriate mod like myself, Cait, Jack, etc, or a current moderator/owner who serves with passion? If you guessed a retiree, you’re right! Again, a retiree is doing the job of a ranked soldier because we don’t mind doing it. Nobody is asking for a medal, we’re just asking you to stop saying we don’t help out, because we do.
I’m also not sure if the multiple PCs I get daily are tests because I don’t usually get PCs from members, but regardless, I don’t have a problem answering those, no matter how ridiculous the question is, because it’s really not a big deal. Leaders, however, are known for not doing the same. Obviously the leaders get ten times the PCs I do and they probably aren’t about the same topics, but as a leader, you should be more than willing to answer any question thrown at you, and that is not the case.
The third reason for our demodding was the fact that we do not moderate chat and therefore do not deserve to be moderators. Okay, that could be a valid point. Sadly, it’s not, because we do moderate the chat. If you were to go through the ban logs, (if they have them, I don’t know how it works) you would be able to see that the people on that list do, in fact, moderate the chat, and they do it pretty well. Moderators have partially lost their power due to the bot being an owner and an extremely fast kicker/banner, but the effort is still there. We don’t want to the disturbing, annoying, inappropriate, rude comments anymore than people who are in the army do. We may not be soldiers, but we are still people who have enough common sense to know what is okay and what is not. Yet again, the retirees find themselves doing another one of the ranked moderators/owners jobs and yet again, much like with the previous claim, it not only goes unnoticed, but we get punished for not doing it.
The fourth allegation was that we are not qualified enough to be moderators on chat because our contributions to the ACP have not been significant enough. First off, to make that claim public was both very rude and inconsiderate. I understand that Flipmoo made a comment and then copied and pasted the same comment 50 times to every veteran who was offended by it, but that is nowhere near enough. Secondly, if that was the problem, the names we have on the Legends Page should have been used, not our chat names. If you were to do that, it would have shown that maybe you at least put in a little bit of effort to see if we were in fact qualified enough. I think that the fact that the name ‘Foxtails’ didn’t ring a bell as a former 2ic (or at least an owner rank) says enough about the amount of effort and research that went into this claim before it was made.
However, I do not believe for a second that this is the true reason the post was made. Why? Because in the first post it talks about how multiple people complained about our success as moderators. When I tried to ask for evidence of that happening, I was told to wait an hour, ignored for another, and then on the third hour, I was told that there was no evidence because they got enough complaints. That was the story from one leader. Another leader didn’t have a clue what the post was about and didn’t see it until after I did. That same leader was almost as baffled as the people on the list when they saw some of the names because we both knew that the people on that list were innocent. The third owner said they weren’t sure but they wouldn’t be able to get information from the main leader. A little while later, they informed me that multiple moderators and members had reported me.
I find this entire situation very confusing and sloppy, as I’m sure others do. I’m not exactly sure what allegation we’re supposed to be defending at this point because the story changes every time I open the ACP site. The multiple reposts, edits, and clarifications are not helping the situation one bit. For me, personally, they are making it worse. They all look like a massive, poorly-planned, sloppily executed cover up to me. I have a feeling that none of the reasons listed on the posts or in my comments have anything to do with the real underlying issue here. If that’s the case, this entire situation makes complete sense, but since nobody will come out and say it, the whole thing is an unfair mess. You can’t fix what you’ve said five times by making edits after more people tell you what you’re saying is wrong. Instead of replacing your issue with us, it seems like you’re making it longer and then trying to decide which one you want to go with to cover up the fact that you simply do not like us.
I could accept being disliked personally more than any of the reasons above because I’m extremely dissatisfied with the lack of appreciation and notice towards both retirees and current soldiers who put a lot of effort into keeping the chat appropriate and welcoming for people both new and returning to the chat. I don’t break the rules more than the next guy and neither do the other people on that list, for the most part. I am embarrassed for everybody involved in this situation that it was made so extremely public. If you think it’s not catching the attention of other armies, you’re wrong. It makes ACP and its leaders look weak and it makes its retirees (who were part of some of ACP’s best era) look like tools.
Every bit of support and respect that is being given to the retirees is tremendously appreciated by myself personally and all of the other veterans involved, I’m sure. It’s definitely not going unnoticed that people who don’t have to stand up for the ones that have absolutely zero power or command over them are doing it because they believe it’s right. Hopefully the leaders see it and recognize that the retirees aren’t the only unhappy ones. There are a lot of great soldiers who are going to walk away if a change isn’t made if they don’t get punished for trying to make it themselves.
If you want to tell me that I’m not qualified enough to be a mod on chat, that’s fine. But I don’t believe for a second that that’s why the first post was made. The leaders know that they’re not sitting pretty right now and so does everybody else. If this is how you feel you will best secure your power, go for it. At least have the decency to be upfront about it.
The only reason I argue on chat is because I am very unhappy with the current state of the ACP. If that doesn’t prove enough that I am a mod for the right reasons, I don’t know what does. I haven’t been in ACP since 2010 and if I’m still here arguing over its success, I must not be a complete monster. The highlight of my ACP ‘career’ may have been on one good day with good troops and a solid division, but I know for a fact that I cared for the ACP and enjoyed my time so much more than any of the leaders right now. So make your decisions, I don’t care what you do to me. Just know that you’re doing it for the wrong reasons and it is blatantly obvious to everybody who is not tangled in this situation. I am ashamed of the immaturity, insensitivity and inability to think logically by the leaders and I hope that you can open your eyes enough, stop pointing fingers and realize who the real problem and the real enemy is, because it certainly is not the people who have spent the past five years of their lives on ACP chat and in the army itself.
Thank you,
Michael
We’ve talked for a while on chat about this issue, but since I promised that I would respond to this comment as well that’s what I’m going to do. (But it’ll be a bit brief)
Firstly, Michael, Cait, and any other retired moderators with the stars ( * ) besides their names are not considered as one of the abusive/mean moderators. Those people were only asked to comment why they should stay as a moderator since they had never became an ACP owner. Caitlyn explained to us in a comment on the original post, and Alexa explained to us why you should remain as a moderator as well.
Regarding Alexa, she was not meant to be on the list at all. That was our mistake, and I apologize once more for making such a blunt error. I also now believe that the modship of the people with the stars besides their names should’ve been dealt with privately. That was our mistake, and for that we deeply apologize.
I hope you don’t think that we hate all of the retirees, because we don’t. We appreciate the people who still help out even though they’re retired. In the original post, we were talking about those stubborn retirees who act like a complete jerk towards us and the ACP troops (like the one I mentioned in the original post [the conversation with a retired 2nd in command]). Clearly, you aren’t one of those people and we’re all well aware of that.
As an ACP leader, I do my best to interact with all of the ACP troops and retirees, and I’m sure the other leaders and owners are doing so as well (or are at least trying to).
We can change our ways if you specify what needs to be changed, but please keep in mind that we can’t do everything you tell us to do. It’s our duty as leaders of the ACP to respond to what everyone in the ACP tells us (retired or not), and I intend on fulfilling that obligation.
I’m not sure if this was the answer you wanted or not, so please feel free to reply below any other questions you have. (It would help if you made it a bit shorter than the one above 😆 )
Best regards,
Flipmoo.
I’m a bit late onto this but I’ll just say that ACP has always had a good tradition of treating retirees with a lot of respect. It’s a shame that often, ACP’s treatment of retirees is considered a bad thing for the army. It’s practically unique in all of armies and probably a fantastic incentive to current troops. Personally, it’s nice to be respected, listened to, and be given responsibilities after I’ve retired.
It would be a great shame to lose this.