Rethinking how we manage TotalFreedom

[Telesphoreo]

As I'm sure some of you have suspected, the executive team is in talks of potentially bringing a new life to TotalFreedom. However, it would be completely naive to spin up a new server and keep the status quo. There will be radical changes, which @videogamesm12 has already alluded to with the whitelist. While that decision is not finalized and that thread is open to discussion, I'd like to talk about something different: reimagining the ranks on TF. Every single one. All the way from admin to owner. I think there should be a different governance model for Total Freedom as well. I can't say that I know the answer at the moment, but the goals are this:
- Good decision making that is quick and efficient
- Clear roles with purpose. Every role, and person within a role, should have a "why?". This is a complete shift from the goal of wanting to be an admin for more power
- More effectively measure emotional intelligence and capability rather than simply skills
- Gauging how well you can handle the hardest scenarios you will face. This is a direct opposition to the fact that becoming an admin is largely a popularity contest. I want to eliminate that.
- Mandatory training for admins after the application process and making it a mentorship experience. In the current state, once you become an admin, that's it. You're added to the rank and there's no continuous evaluation of how well you're actually doing. I want to change that. I want a consistentcy throughout which includes application of the rules. Too often the rules and leniency is determined by who's online at the time. I believe this is a major cause for disputes. However, I still want to preserve the uniqueness of every admin rather than making it feel like corporate responses every admin is forced to say. I believe more thorough mentoring of admins is an effective solution rather than trying to use numbers or metrics.

I think the idea of admins and senior admins needs to be radically rethought. I also think the executive team needs to be rethought as well. I do intend for admins and senior admins (whatever the replacement is) to be global. However, I have yet to figure out how much scope each executive should have and the sweet spot for number of executives.

You can expect a significant overhaul to how the server is managed, but also especially what we'll be looking for in admins in the future.

I'll leave this thread open to discussion to gauge feedback, however I will also have something more concrete for a governance model soon. The purpose of the thread at this time is to gauge agreement or disagreement and if you have any suggestions that you'd like incorporated in the first draft.

 

[videogamesm12]

What if we were to do this evaluation and gauging ahead of time by being proactive with deciding who should become an admin? Instead of having admins apply, we could seek out ideal applicants based on how they handle these scenarios and then if we find some, ask them if they'd like to become an admin?

 

[videogamesm12]

Something else I haven't seen much thought given to (at least in public), is what the fuck TF(R)(R) even is anymore. Like yeah duh obviously creative free-build, but other than what, what? OF is creative free-build too. So are a few other servers (allegedly lol, half are just plots).

What level of freedom is realistic nowadays? How will TFRR handle the relatively completely changed landscape of NBT/Component attacks? Obviously TFRR isn't pussy creative where you're barely trusted to place a few blocks down, but how far is it willing to go? Has a separate creative anarchy server (akin to NBT Archives freeop/freeopanarchy servers, or even TFs original server model more-so than Kaboom) been considered?

While we do allow lots of access here on Odyssey, I personally take the stance that Odyssey is more just a truer implementation of "creative free-build" than it is any sort of "freedom" server (yes, despite the name). Will TFRR be taking a similar stance? If so, I really must argue that TFRR should give the "TF" name a proper funeral, and find a new fucking name already (I'm willing to find Odyssey a new name too, FWIW). Yes you'd be losing the historical meaning, community and connotations of the name, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, and you wouldn't be losing the literal community.

You might not think this to be important, or may even knee-jerk push back against laying the "TF" name and concept to rest (or at least its current/latest form), but I am personally of the opinion that if TFRR continues with the "TF" name and a similar implementation (specifically regarding the actual functioning of the server, not so much how the community is handled) as the past couple iterations, it's just going to die again, and probably quicker than before. Addressing the toxic as fuck community is certainly a step in the right direction, but until you address and contemplate the base idea of the server, it's not enough.

And yes, I'm fully aware that saying all that is slightly hypocritical since I help run Odyssey Freedom, which is technically a bastard child of Total Freedom, bearing a similarly misleading name, and a substantial amount of the flawed ideology of Total Freedom, but at least I'm capable of recognizing it, and have historically taken the stance of trying to implement a better, more fun and enjoyable creative free-build than most servers, without adding in needless barriers or focusing too much on "freedom".

 

[Luke]

I do intend for admins and senior admins (whatever the replacement is) to be global.

what does this mean for discord staff?

 

[Panther]

If you really believe in all staff having some kind of function, I would just stick to developers, sysadmins, and owners/maintainers as staff. Let's not pretend admins on a creative server are really all that necessary anyway...especially if you are going to make it whitelisted, you won't need people to moderate all 2 approved players online. In a non-whitelisted environment, perhaps moderation is somewhat necessary, but I wouldn't appoint more than a few additional staff because of that.

 

[Luke]

you won't need people to moderate all 2 approved players online.

know from experience, do we?

 

[Panther]

know from experience, do we?

Nobody plays there, lol. Maybe a couple per week. But honestly, that sounds like a realistic activity expectation for the server you guys are talking about re-re-making, especially if it's "private." So maybe I do know from experience.

Just throwing this out there, you guys heard peer-to-peer is soon to be added to Minecraft, right? Now you guys could play together without even needing to inconvenience yourself with any of that pesky server setup.

 

[Luke]

it'll probably will be more active than whatever you guys make anyway, as long as it's "private."

yeah i completely agree with this bit but also why are you telling us 'make tf anarchy or itll die' as if you're the prophet muhammed when in reality you actually tried it and got less people on there than on esotalk, and esotalk was just one guy with schizophrenia

 

[shdwo]

Nobody plays there, lol. Maybe a couple per week. But honestly, it'll probably will be more active than whatever you guys make anyway, as long as it's "private." So maybe I do know from experience...

Just throwing this out there, you guys heard peer-to-peer is soon to be added to Minecraft, right? Now you guys could play together without even needing to inconvenience yourself with any of that pesky server setup.

you’re confusing what the community wants with what you want. there’s no need to be so self-centered panther.

 

[zrfv]

I have an Opinion on all of this:

NERDS

Thanks for listening be sure to like and subscribe and hit that bell to not miss another Opinion

 

[Panther]

but also why are you telling us 'make tf anarchy or itll die'

Off-topic, but to sum it up, I keep saying that because the community already was anarchy. In fact, so much so that the toxicity and chaos overrode the desire to run the server and it shut down.

you’re confusing what the community wants with what you want.

Could you please explain to me how my reply to a toxic comment has anything to do with "what I want?"

 

[shdwo]

Could you please explain to me how my reply to a toxic comment has anything to do with "what I want?"

my bad for not being clear enough, I meant to reply to you shoving TF anarchy down our throats.

 

[Panther]

I meant to reply to you shoving TF anarchy down our throats.

In that case, it's pretty clear to me (at least given we're still talking about TF in May of 2026) that people want the server/community to keep running. Thus, I continue suggest what I believe might be the only sustainable way to do so.

 

[jamietehvaporeon]

In that case, it's pretty clear to me (at least given we're still talking about TF in May of 2026) that people want the server/community to keep running. Thus, I continue suggest what I believe might be the only sustainable way to do so.

if next to nobody in the community besides yourself wants anarchy then how would anarchy be sustainable? wouldn't that just get less people to join since many wouldn't like the fact that it was anarchy?

 

[Panther]

if next to nobody in the community besides yourself wants anarchy then how would anarchy be sustainable? wouldn't that just get less people to join since many wouldn't like the fact that it was anarchy?

That's a great question. I've explained this in more detail elsewhere but the gist of it is that it changes the management's focus from attempting to stifle the inherent chaos of the community to finding ways to create a server where people can interact, create, and play together, ignoring the chaos instead of reacting in an irritated manner to it. At its core, it's the simple "don't feed the trolls" philosophy that has been passed down through TF's staff for over a decade. I even think it's likely that some of the chaos will naturally die down as the chaos-makers struggle to find ways to make people upset, which is what they want.

I believe this philosophy to be more important toward fostering an enjoyable server/community experience than adhering to more specific rule-based creative gameplay that the community prefers to anarchy at the moment. It's definitely unpopular, and especially so because I am the asshole endorsing it, but so are a lot of ideas being considered by management right now that they believe will reduce toxicity in the community.

 

[Taah]

Off-topic, but to sum it up, I keep saying that because the community already was anarchy. In fact, so much so that the toxicity and chaos overrode the desire to run the server and it shut down.

Could you please explain to me how my reply to a toxic comment has anything to do with "what I want?"

that's with the assumption that we'll cater towards the community and allow the toxicity to stay rather than properly moderating it, getting rid of the people starting it, and wanting to attempt to build a new community and bring in new players. just saying, when this topic came up to bring the new server back, some of us agreed on a no bs policy meaning we won't tolerate toxicity and anarchy. follow the rules or leave, or be forced to leave. simple as any other server.

 

[Panther]

that's with the assumption that we'll cater towards the community and allow the toxicity to stay rather than properly moderating it, getting rid of the people starting it, and wanting to attempt to build a new community and bring in new players. just saying, when this topic came up to bring the new server back, some of us agreed on a no bs policy meaning we won't tolerate toxicity and anarchy. follow the rules or leave, or be forced to leave. simple as any other server.

Respectfully, I don't understand how you can actually believe having this mentality for like the eighth time is actually finally going to work. The idea of not allowing toxicity and a "no bs" policy is 100% not a new idea for this community. Every previous owner has tried this in some form before, they all wanted to cut down on toxicity just like the current management. And it's not as simple as any other server, that's literally the issue here. Most of the community, even the current community, joined the server one day, perhaps far in the past, with a shit-eating grin on their face and tried to mess around on the server. It's literally what brought most of us here in the first place.

For your sakes as an administrative body, I can't recommend that approach. I'm near certain it's going to go wrong in the exact same way it's gone wrong again and again in the past. You're going to get burnt out when your attempts to eliminate the toxicity are drowned out by the people who walk the line, the people who want to mess with you, etc, and when those people create tension and drama and bickering as they always have.

And again, respectfully, if you believe that isn't going to happen or you can prevent it, you're coping. If you really don't want to just allow that type of behavior and move on, I don't think you should reboot this server at all.

 

[shdwo]

Respectfully, I don't understand how you can actually believe having this mentality for like the eighth time is actually finally going to work. The idea of not allowing toxicity and a "no bs" policy is 100% not a new idea for this community. Every previous owner has tried this in some form before, they all wanted to cut down on toxicity just like the current management. And it's not as simple as any other server, that's literally the issue here. Most of the community, even the current community, joined the server one day, perhaps far in the past, with a shit-eating grin on their face and tried to mess around on the server. It's literally what brought most of us here in the first place.

For your sakes as an administrative body, I can't recommend that approach. I'm near certain it's going to go wrong in the exact same way it's gone wrong again and again in the past. You're going to get burnt out when your attempts to eliminate the toxicity are drowned out by the people who walk the line, the people who want to mess with you, etc, and when those people create tension and drama and bickering as they always have.

And again, respectfully, if you believe that isn't going to happen or you can prevent it, you're coping. If you really don't want to just allow that type of behavior and move on, I don't think you should reboot this server at all.

i think your argument hinges on the assumption that the community is incapable of changing, which i have to disagree with.

a lot of us are proof of that. when i first joined TF, i spent plenty of time breaking the rules and being annoying. the same goes for a lot of older community members. eventually, the novelty wore off and people matured. that's why i don't buy the idea that toxicity has to be accepted rather than effectively managed. people change, communities change. the people causing problems today aren't necessarily going to be the same people causing problems a year from now.

what i don't understand is why you treat anarchy as the only sustainable option when the majority of people still interested in TF clearly aren't asking for it. the community today isn't really comparable to the one from a decade ago. you're proposing a solution to a problem that most people don't seem to agree exists in the way you're describing it.

i'm not saying reducing toxicity will be easy, but i don't think it's nearly as impossible as you're making it out to be.

also... true alphas never submit.

 

[Panther]

i think your argument hinges on the assumption that the community is incapable of changing, which i have to disagree with. a lot of us are proof of that.

Nobody is going to want to hear this, but there's tons of evidence that the community has great difficulty changing, and like you said, many of you are proof of it. You chose yourself as an example of change. You are an example of the opposite. In your case, I recall you leaving to avoid being suspended for hate speech as recently as the TF-R period, as explained here. You then bypassed your discord/server bans to cause additional issues, very similar to the way you acted in your "StationaryHotDog" days when you first joined. I pointed this out a while ago and you were very upset about it when I did.

I'm sure you've made your amends since that point, but like, what happens when issues like this pop up again? The evidence is stacked against you here with your history. Would you be willing to deal with being permanently ousted from the community because they're "actually for real this time 100%" going to clamp down and get rid of the toxicity? Or would you want them to give you another chance?

The good news for you is that you aren't alone. So many people here have similar histories, you are merely one of dozens of examples. And that's why I know trying to remove the toxicity with zero-tolerance policies and permanent bans isn't going to work. If anything, it'll cause even more whining and drama when people inevitably upset the community and are removed from it.

i'm not saying reducing toxicity will be easy, but i don't think it's nearly as impossible as you're making it out to be.

A big goal of the anarchy route actually is to reduce toxicity. As I've explained several times already, when troublemakers find out they don't have people to make upset and structures to knock down, toxicity and drama will likely die down naturally. And frankly, I think that can be done pretty easily. In your case, there would have been no drama over a suspension, people probably would have just cut you off for a bit for saying some racist shit. It probably would have been way less talked about without the whole song and dance of admin roles and suspensions and bans that in reality didn't carry much meaning. Because guess what: even though you were banned, you bypassed it anyway, as if it really had been anarchy and you had never been banned.

 

[jamietehvaporeon]

A big goal of the anarchy route actually is to reduce toxicity. As I've explained several times already, when troublemakers find out they don't have people to make upset and structures to knock down, toxicity and drama will likely die down naturally.

the thing is tho the way i see it there would still be people to upset, as most of the community is already more used to the environment TF was before - bad actors would likely just resort to upsetting individual people rather than the structure of the server as a whole, which would likely also cause some members to be more distanced from the server if there was nothing to actually stop people from just poking at them
dont know how much i can say for others but i know for sure in that sort of environment i'd most likely end up targeted quite a bit still
generally the way i see it is that if people want anarchy then they'd go to an existing anarchy server, but a lot of the tf community just doesn't really want that as far as i can tell
sure it might well work fine as a server in general cases but for tf in specific it kinda becomes a ship of theseus situation imho

 

[videogamesm12]

I'm slightly sleep deprived as I've been up for almost 14-15 hours at this point and I'm about ready to get some sleep.

yeah i completely agree with this bit but also why are you telling us 'make tf anarchy or itll die' as if you're the prophet muhammed when in reality you actually tried it and got less people on there than on esotalk, and esotalk was just one guy with schizophrenia

my bad for not being clear enough, I meant to reply to you shoving TF anarchy down our throats.

To be completely fair, Panther isn't shoving the idea down our throats, he's merely reiterating his vision as for how he believes TotalFreedom should be run in the same way that Alco and I have done in our own threads. While he's certainly more pushy about it and clearly believes that it's the only real way for a place like TotalFreedom to survive in today's day, that's his opinion, and it's still a valid, legitimate vision for a possible direction that TF could be taken.

that's with the assumption that we'll cater towards the community and allow the toxicity to stay rather than properly moderating it, getting rid of the people starting it, and wanting to attempt to build a new community and bring in new players. just saying, when this topic came up to bring the new server back, some of us agreed on a no bs policy meaning we won't tolerate toxicity and anarchy. follow the rules or leave, or be forced to leave. simple as any other server.

I wanted to discuss this approach and my main issue with it: it simply doesn't account for nuance and I can't trust that it'll be implemented effectively. You can say you'll be stricter and more harsh with your punishments, but when it comes down to the wire I'm not confident that 1) it'll actually be as effective as you think it will be and 2) you can actually do it. Not every case is going to be a simple one and trying to treat complex cases as simple cases is only going to lead to more issues.

Furthermore, how does one determine "toxicity" in an objective sense for such a policy to work? Would it apply to people who simply question the decisions the executive/staff team are making? Would it apply to people who disagree with us? I agree that toxicity should be clamped down upon, but identifying such toxicity with precision is the key to implementing such a policy effectively. Furthermore, as Panther said, we still need some form of leeway because people are capable of change.

i think your argument hinges on the assumption that the community is incapable of changing, which i have to disagree with.

a lot of us are proof of that. when i first joined TF, i spent plenty of time breaking the rules and being annoying. the same goes for a lot of older community members. eventually, the novelty wore off and people matured. that's why i don't buy the idea that toxicity has to be accepted rather than effectively managed. people change, communities change. the people causing problems today aren't necessarily going to be the same people causing problems a year from now.

what i don't understand is why you treat anarchy as the only sustainable option when the majority of people still interested in TF clearly aren't asking for it. the community today isn't really comparable to the one from a decade ago. you're proposing a solution to a problem that most people don't seem to agree exists in the way you're describing it.

i'm not saying reducing toxicity will be easy, but i don't think it's nearly as impossible as you're making it out to be.

Nobody is going to want to hear this, but there's tons of evidence that the community has great difficulty changing, and like you said, many of you are proof of it. You chose yourself as an example of change. You are an example of the opposite. In your case, I recall you leaving to avoid being suspended for hate speech as recently as the TF-R period, as explained here. You then bypassed your discord/server bans to cause additional issues, very similar to the way you acted in your "StationaryHotDog" days when you first joined. I pointed this out a while ago and you were very upset about it when I did.

I'm sure you've made your amends since that point, but like, what happens when issues like this pop up again? The evidence is stacked against you here with your history. Would you be willing to deal with being permanently ousted from the community because they're "actually for real this time 100%" going to clamp down and get rid of the toxicity? Or would you want them to give you another chance?

The good news for you is that you aren't alone. So many people here have similar histories, you are merely one of dozens of examples. And that's why I know trying to remove the toxicity with zero-tolerance policies and permanent bans isn't going to work. If anything, it'll cause even more whining and drama when people inevitably upset the community and are removed from it.

You're both measuring lightyears by time instead of distance. While it's true that members of the community have individually changed over time, that doesn't mean the community itself is or isn't capable of change. The community's capability of changing is best measured by its history and how it changed over time in its 16+ year lifecycle. In my eyes, we should be measuring the changes in atmosphere, priorities, visions, direction, and attitude that gradually happened over time.

This is a rough measurement as someone who was actively part of the server for more than a decade:

• In the Mark administration, the community focus at first was to create a fun, one-of-a-kind server that was all about maximizing permissions and trying to be as free and equal as possible. With time, the focus shifted more or less to contain the chaos with the establishment of policies, rules, and a rank system. The later years were plagued with initial signs of distrust towards the active administration as people felt that Mark was being too forgiving and yet also "biased". Mark termed the growing toxicity as "nasty drama".
  
  
• In the Windows administration, the community initially focused on stabilizing and improving the server's infrastructure. This was soon thrown into disarray as the community became deeply divided after UYScutix, Marco, and Savnith had their skirmishes. The lack of transparency at this point fueled the growing distrust in the administration. Once that settled, they focused on healing from the wounds of such a skirmish and continuing where they left off before with improving infrastructure. Later on, the community became frustrated with the lack of changes and the opaqueness of its active administration, which led to its complete and utter collapse.
  
  
• In the Seth administration, the community initially focused on rebuilding the server, trying to introduce democracy, and adding new features to the server. This was actually relatively successful, but it wasn't without its own skirmishes from time to time as more conservative and vocal users were occasionally deemed to be inconvenient and annoying. Corruption in the later part of the first half poisoned the integrity of management and the community's trust in it, and after such corruption was aired out to the public the community's focus then became transparency and democracy at all costs. Seth usually didn't have a backbone and just went with whatever parts of the community wanted, leading to him getting blasted by the other parts of the community. When he would set his foot down and make his own decisions, he was blasted for it. This wasn't as much of an issue at first but it eventually led to the complete and utter collapse of the administration as Seth had a full blown mental breakdown which almost led to almost a decade of server history being wiped off the surface of the Earth.
  
  
• In the Ryan administration, the community initially focused on rebuilding everything from the literal ashes it was left in by the previous owner. The trust and general respect between management and the community started to erode with Ryan's attempts to corporatize the network. Incident after incident, Ryan became increasingly jaded with his ambitions for the server and his team's ability to actually move forward. It didn't help that whenever literally anything happened, Ryan was usually blamed and mocked for it instead of the retard Executive Admin Officer named Video. He realized at some point that the community was too toxic for his taste and hung up the towel, then refused to give the keys to anyone else because he felt that nobody deserved the treatment he got. He was right.
  
  
• In the TFR administration's first attempt, the initial focus was getting something up and running and (honestly) trying to prove Ryan wrong. While it was successful in not being corporate whatsoever, everyone in management had jobs and lives. It was increasingly annoying to have to deal with cases like someone getting banned for streaming a video in a voice chat of some guy having sex with their Xbox, Declan/Aurura/WhateverTheFuck, myself complaining about things that didn't really even matter like forum themes (sorry Packs, that was on me), a legitimately deranged asshole with a history of threatening us (at one point claiming we angered the Ukrainian Mafia, lmao) trying to threaten us again with false reports to providers, and just people complaining about every little thing that came up like FAWE not working and being cunts about it. We ended up maintaining the status quo instead of making drastic changes and it led to everyone involved becoming fatigued to hell. The brief anniversary event really exemplified the distrust between management and the community.

The community is capable of changing, it's just a matter of how we get it to change if we even can. I honestly think that if we do revive the server, we need to collectively (both management and community, which should ideally be unified) calm the fuck down and realize that this is a fucking block game server, meaning we should handle things a lot more casually instead of treating it like we're trying to govern a country. Whether we do this by whitelisting the server or by loosening restrictions and rule enforcement, that's up for debate.

I'm going to bed now I spent hours writing this and my sleep schedule is completely out of wack.

 

[Luke]

like TotalFreedom to survive in today's day, that's his opinion, and it's still a valid, legitimate vision for a possible direction that TF could be taken.

i agree he is just saying his opinion but also his opinion is fucking stupid. let's use an analogy.

"The only way to keep this plant alive is to overwater it. Yeah, sure, MY plant died from overwatering, but the only way YOUR plant will survive is if YOU overwater it."

panther's view prior to his server being made was hypothetical, right now his view is a weird blend of cognitive dissonance, sunk cost fallacy and just cope

 

[Panther]

"The only way to keep this plant alive is to overwater it. Yeah, sure, MY plant died from overwatering, but the only way YOUR plant will survive is if YOU overwater it."

panther's view prior to his server being made was hypothetical, right now his view is a weird blend of cognitive dissonance, sunk cost fallacy and just cope

So you think anarchy wouldn't work here since the idea didn't cause a server I spent like 30 minutes setting up to blow up and gain players? You previously were in the camp that that same server wasn't officially "TotalFreedom" because it wasn't the original community nor maintainers that approved/ran it. If you want to be in that camp, you must also acknowledge that the reason why nobody played there is because nobody saw it as TotalFreedom in the first place.

I personally think it's even simpler than that. People really just want to see other players on a server called "TotalFreedom" and they will join. They probably would have even done it with my server, had I had the time to really market it and scale it. But I haven't. This line of reasoning is also why I previously brought up concerns about Grant's server—he has plans to absorb another active community that the owner no longer wishes to maintain. That will 100% cause his TotalFreedom server to have activity, and if I'm right, I think people will just end up going there. This is a pessimistic view, but that is going to make things awful for this community if they choose the whitelist route.

In the Mark administration, the community focus at first was to create a fun, one-of-a-kind server that was all about maximizing permissions and trying to be as free and equal as possible. With time, the focus shifted more or less to contain the chaos with the establishment of policies, rules, and a rank system. The later years were plagued with initial signs of distrust towards the active administration as people felt that Mark was being too forgiving and yet also "biased". Mark termed the growing toxicity as "nasty drama".

This is a huge part of the evidence pointing toward anarchy as a feasible solution. Mark was by far the longest tenured owner of TotalFreedom, and you perfectly described the reason this was able to happen: "the community focus at first was to create a fun, one-of-a-kind server that was all about maximizing permissions and trying to be free and equal as possible." Doesn't this sound like something that would happen if we pivoted to anarchy? Instead of constantly plaguing ourselves with ridiculous rank bureaucracies and trying harder and harder and harder to clamp down on toxicity, we could just nip it in the bud instead by eliminating the things that create it. WIthout the "policies, rules, and a rank system," there probably would have been no "nasty drama."

Every owner past Mark always wondered how he had run the place for so long. I believe this is the answer, and if the history and application to this community serves as evidence, the management should be trying their hardest to approach this answer.

I honestly think that if we do revive the server, we need to collectively (both management and community, which should ideally be unified) calm the fuck down and realize that this is a fucking block game server, meaning we should handle things a lot more casually instead of treating it like we're trying to govern a country. Whether we do this by whitelisting the server or by loosening restrictions and rule enforcement, that's up for debate.

100% agreed. However, I still want to point out that I don't think a whitelist can achieve this as long as there are still rules, ranks, and policies. The bureaucracy is what fuels and allows the toxicity here. A whitelist will definitely reduce the amount of drama-causing individuals, but it won't nip the issue in the bud.