I appreciate your responses. There are some things said that I do agree with, and there are some things that I think need some clarification is needed on my part concerning what I posted above in response to last term's feedback.

To be fair, this is how the staff are often addressed in the Hogwarts RPG surveys. This does not apply to everyone that submitted a survey, but several of them blamed the staff for the low activity, being the reason why activities are being cut (which is true, but we base it on member activity, overall interest, and other contributing factors), making the wrong decisions with staff selection, plot decisions, how we handled things, etc.

Obviously things go both ways. I know this; I am not perfect. The staff knows this; they are not perfect. Rest assured that the staff gets their own time with me and get a "lecture" on the things I see with them/us and from there we discuss what we need to work on in the future. The issues that we noticed and were brought up to us are discussed in our designated area behind-the-scenes and we move forward from there. We are in the positions we are in and still sticking around because we enjoy what we do and understand that there is room for growth from all of us.

It was not my intent to put the blame entirely on non-staff members. It may only appear like I am because this thread is for the members, to inform you all of what the staff and I see collectively, the decisions that the staff team have made, and what we hope to see from all of you as a result so we can give back.

With some topics, however, it is important to realize that some things happened not because of the staff but because of members (eg: the removal of seminars, Duelling Club, Gobstones, Quidditch). We cannot continue having these things if drama (eg: accusing staff of picking favourites and not doing things the "right" way) and/or a lack of interest (eg: members expressed they weren't into Gobstones; posts in duels declined and left the person managing feeling like their time was wasted on setting things up for the majority who did not show up in the end and let the partner dueller down) is going to be the end result.

These "threats" that you alluded to are not threats. They are reality, and we are simply being completely transparent and communicating that with you all. There were a number of lessons last term that we had to pull teeth to get responses. It is difficult to run lessons when the response is limited. It is discouraging to put in a lot of time into planning our lessons, only to receive minimal participation. Duelling Club and Gobstones are not enjoyable running if proper participation is lacking. If the right amount of interest isn't there, then we are wasting out efforts to run those things until we know interest is back to where it originally was and many are ready to be committed participants again. It is something that the staff thinks about often, and we are thinking about alternative options should we need to adjust accordingly.

In no way was I intending to accuse anyone for not being active because of legitimate OOC or IC reasons. I was not intending to point figures at people who had real life to deal with or having IC reasons for not participating in a certain event/place/lesson -- the staff and I go through this as well. Nonetheless, there were periods in the term when activity died down drastically (it's been a pattern for a number of terms now). There were a number of people that did not play their Ilvermorny students. Activity in lessons isn't at its prime for many subject areas. These are just general observations that were taken into consideration while making the decisions we made as a team.

For the most part (and I do keep tabs on this as a Hogwarts RPG Admin), the staff are active and do lead by example. There are many ways for the staff to show that they are active. They can be present in the Hogwarts RPG and do behind-the-scenes work. I can see the mod logs; I know who's doing what on SS; I can confirm that the staff team is doing their job.

There were also a number of staff that did lead by example last term. They posted around with their professors. They posted around with red accounts. They posted around with their Ilvermorny students. The posts are there. Overall, I am pleased with our activity last term, even amidst all of the things that came up with many of us outside of SS and then with all of the moving parts we had to take care of behind-the-scenes.

Of course, there is always room for improvement. We know that. Each term we make it a goal to improve overall on our interaction. We have done this for the upcoming term and will in the terms to come so long you guys are sticking around with us and are going all #carpediem on the opportunities we make available.

I will be honest here, the staff and I are very proud about the plots we work on. We spend numerous hours planning it all out and executing it. We have fun doing it and feel that we do a fair job at it and that we're improving with each term. We can take criticism to the plots we run. The only time we get defensive is when people present their dislike of something in a way that is patronising and gives off the vibe that we failed miserably at what we did and shouldn't be in the positions we are in because other ways of doing things were "overlooked" or "not how I would have done it if I were in your shoes."

There may be some confusion here, but the "accusing RPers of confusing plot involvement with their character being in the spotlight" is not coming 100% from the staff. It was literally stated in a number of members surveys that they felt the plot revolved around certain characters, that they were left wondering how they were supposed to even be involved, and that staff provided minimal interaction opportunities. The inclusiveness section was clumped together and written in response to those specific survey comments -- some mentioned one of those, others mentioned all three areas, etc. In a nutshell, there was an event serving as a device in a more open-ended plot where you guys were, more or less, the driving force in what happened outside of the competition (relying on interactions with each other) while something else subtly happened on the side to purposefully stir some confusion/old-school theorizing.

This is something I agree with 100%. When we decided to let you all have the option of playing an Ilvermorny student in the Hogwarts RPG, we knew that there would be a lot of questions about Ilvermorny and its status in the 2090's. We took those questions and suggestions brought up to us on site into account and included those world-building details here. This is one of a few examples that I can provide, but I can vouch for how this type of process was incredibly smooth and those that came to me with the questions/suggestions were taken into account. Should moments like that happen in the future, this process is the way to go as it properly formalises and brings consistency to our RP universe. There are a million ideas out there, but some do clash with others so a decision has to be made and things finalised when it matters. We also encourage members to make stuff part of our canon on site, add to admin/staff-approved/controlled spreadsheets (like the extra-curricular spreadsheet that will be available to you all soon), and even make pages on the SSRPG Wiki, as that is where we, in my opinion, should be pooling our major canon components from because they are approved and acknowledged as SnitchSeeker's HP canon.

On a similar train of thought when it comes to communication, there is also a reason why in the final sections above it has been asked that complaints, questions, and suggestions be directed to the appropriate people in a respectful manner through specific mediums. Furthermore, we understand that there are sometimes inconsistencies in relaying information -- both from the staff and member perspective. Sometimes staff members relay the wrong information or aren't specific enough. Sometimes non-staff members relay the wrong information or aren't specific enough. We are hoping that addressing the correct people on site about any complaints, questions, suggestions, etc. on site will bring forth more consistency and accuracy with responses.

In regards to Quidditch, the whole thing about me and others pretending that Quidditch has been around Hogwarts has just been a private ordeal and is what pushed us toward finding a solution to the lack of Quidditch on site ever since I officially took over the Hogwarts RPG only a few terms ago. Before talk about Quidditch had been at a stalemate for the longest time. The stalemate is over, and we came up with a solution and are now ready to share it publicly. It also needs to be understood that the leadership torch had been passed around a few times since Quidditch was disbanded and that we all had different visions for the Hogwarts RPG. So something is being done about Quidditch now. It took a lot of time to talk it over and flesh the basics out, but it is finally happening.

To me and others, it made no sense for Quidditch to not be present at Hogwarts after 10 IC years because of a threat that was never resolved IC when it would have a long time ago in theory. To me and others, it made no sense for literally the most popular game in the wizarding world to still not be played at Hogwarts after so many years yet be present everywhere else. These thoughts have been around (it's even been in a number of member surveys in the past) but were not addressed at all IC because this was behind-the-scenes OOC talk. We didn't want to say it was officially back until we had a solution in place for it that wasn't "so-and-so just says what team wins and we don't bother with captains/teams" but rather one that involved member interaction in some way. The point of mentioning Quidditch above was to share this with you all and inform you of how it will look in the future.

As you said above, leaders need to lead by example. We cannot allow people to be leaders in the Hogwarts RPG if they themselves cannot act appropriately on or off SS -- this is imbedded in the site rules and has been since before I started off as a member here. Actions off SS speak volumes about a person and how they will treat certain people on site (even if it isn't as extreme/obvious on SS as it is off site). There are only two times when off-site actions can be used against them: when certain site rules are broken (eg: public/private harassment on site; public harassment off site) and when it comes to being hired as a staff member.

Constructive, respectful feedback is always welcome regardless of how anyone feels. There may be some things going on that you and others might not like, but in general decisions are being made with all members in mind. Some things are on a trial-and-error process. Nothing is set in stone forever, but current decisions are being made based on member feedback through the surveys, our own observations, etc. Our goal as a staff is the think of the masses and what will reasonably work in the current state of things on SS.

Not once did I label those who spoke up about last term on site as problematic or dramatic as long as those speaking up did so respectfully. Twitter/other social platforms, however, is a different matter entirely. It is very evident that there are a number of problematic and dramatic people there, and there are many who will agree on this. Speaking up is very different from pushing peoples' buttons or making them feel uncomfortable, attacked, bullied, etc. The screenshots that are sent to me show that, more often than not, there are people who start the drama and others that only add fuel to the fire.

Activity is also not being discouraged. A big message here is that changes are being made because we want everyone to be as active as possible. We're seeing in the upcoming term how extending our lesson timeframe will work for that reason and to accommodate for those who can't be on SS all the time, among other things. We're changing how we do our detentions so people with mischievous characters can have that RP opportunity. We will be posting our professors and red accounts to interact with you all. We're also providing the extra-curricular list to provide that avenue for member interaction between professors and students alike across the board. We have and always encourage people to interact with friends as well as people they wouldn't play with normally.

I do not believe that these are petty issues. They may be smaller than some matters, but they all add up in the end and are important. Again, I invite anyone to share their opinions to me in this thread or privately by PM. In order for us all to do better, we have to be upfront about everything in a respectful manner rather than holding things back and work with the solutions that are made.

I only have one Twitter account, my personal one. Feel free to search through it. It is public, and there isn't much going on there. I don't have any character accounts on Twitter as that just isn't my thing and the things I see going on there are solidifying my decision to not jump on the Twitter character account bandwagon. Twitter is a great tool to interact with each other. The problem with it occurs when people cause trouble or act like they're in charge when they really aren't.

I don't know about others, but I can speak about what I do when a rumour, issue, etc. is brought up. Whenever something goes down, I do ask multiple people who were involved with what was going on because their are multiple perspectives to consider. Eventually all sides and options overlap, revealing the root of the conflict. From there I make a conscious decision based on the things that do add up from what those involved share with me. Just because certain people say the same thing doesn't mean that it is necessarily. That can only be verified if every single person is saying the same thing. When there are differing viewpoints/opinions, a silver lining has to be found.

As for favouritism, I cannot speak to the past. Regardless, I support the decisions made by those before me who selected members to do certain things for the Hogwarts RPG -- they had their reasons. As for the terms I've been the Hogwarts RPG Admin and, more specifically, the last term, there are only a handful of members that have brought favourtism up (the same ones who always bring it up). I am still waiting on the evidence that proves favourites are being picked when it it has been consistently stated that members, most of whom I rarely talk to on a regular basis, were chosen based on their activity.

You did not put yourself at risk. Your feelings were expressed respectfully, which doesn't equate to being labelled a certain way or being a reason for banning.