Please see the deleted post here:
Don't we have any rules for "beyond the point of no return" ridiculously extreme cases at least? If not, I think that we should institute them.
If we don't, please do. The fact that something like this can just be so easily handwaved is absurd
I've said it once and I'll say it again. Any kind of off site behaviour that reveals up straight up predatory and racist behaviour should be applicable on the forum in terms of taking serious action. I don't care if it wasn't on the site. If you know somebody is a predator/racist, why would you allow them on the site? Just because its on another site doesn't mean they're a totally different person on the forum. If we actually give a shit about our policies against that kind of stuff, then we need to actually prove it and take action against these people. Its legitimately disgusting that just because its off site, people will shrug and say "nothing we can do". We're better than that, like come on
We do have rules that promoting hate speech is demotion worthy, though not quite ban worthy. Likewise, we also should not do the opposite issue to take every out of context joke of poor taste people say and use it as a weapon to get basically anybody banned. And as for what's ban worthy, it's agreed that harassing people in DMs, threating someone's RL situations such as doxxing or commiting major cybercrimes (Piracy is not something considered extreme) but if we have people who either hacked others, committed phishing scams, or uploaded actual CP; those are all indeed permaban worthy offenses on the spot.
I have seen that post, and it's another post that has already been brought up numerous times and rejected. He was calling someone the N word in a joking context (And I'm not even sure if the person he called that was actually black). And the use of the word C***y or C***ies was just a general term for female body part. Which he was talking about fictional characters who "Looked cute and sexy." It's still been agreed that wasn't something we can really ban people over. Though my thoughts on the matter are similar to Maverick's. But I think deliberate trolling is a more realistic standard assumption when someone says slur words or hate speech as opposed to them actually being racist or bigoted. Though deliberate trolling is a serious offense for other reasons.
Those terms are a specific lolicon thing. One might just not be aware of that of course, that's the nature of internet language and memetic transmission, but given the context and the other stuff he said I... I wouldn't really assume that.
This is my reasoning here. We're not a government that must abide by its own laws, we're a medium-sized internet community that is capable of exercising personal judgement over things. Let's be real, a permaban isn't really that damning in the great scheme of things. We're not sending the guy to prison, we're just clicking a button and preventing him from interacting with the community on-site anymore. It's not going to ruin his life.
At this point I couldn't give a hot shit about what the site rule says if it means protecting our community from people like Chase. Shit like this is simply far too deplorable for anyone in good conscience to allow IMHO. It's not the content alone that's making me advocate for a permanent ban, it's the way he delivers them that angers me so.
Yeah fair. Initially, that post suggested "At least 1-4 weeks", which I revised down after some further thought. But now that you mention Neco's history of bad behaviour, a longer ban does seem more reasonable.
Hey now, that's not what I said. I think my previous posts make it clear that I was calling this screenshot tame.
I think it does. I think we should treat the statement "You're a dumb ****" quite differently from how we'd treat the statements "There's a few dumb ***** among the staff" and "Some of this verse's supporters are dumb *****". And from what I've seen, we typically do.
I don't so much think that we'd have people come forward with evidence, who also say "X user is {allegation}", and that we'd just ban the accuser and ignore the evidence.
Bit more of a minor point, but this is what I meant when I said the "disciples of Epstein" comment was shitposty. The laughable absurdity of such a claim is one of the components that makes it hard for me to take it too seriously.
I find this representation of it a bit sparse on context. That thread already had rampant derailing and shitposting for 10 posts beforehand. The way you say it makes it sound like Neco jumped into a serious thread to post jokes about it. Rather, a thread was already derailed, Monke brought up this situation to NecoScaler, and NecoScaler responded in kind.
Since this sentiment ended up being expressed in a lot of ensuing posts, I'll use this as a proxy for all of them.
I'd find such a concept pretty hard to judge, since I think whether they're past that point is more dependent on their age than the extremity of the statements. When I was a teenager I was immature enough to laugh about things like dead baby jokes, so I can easily imagine Chase's comments being in the same vein, but if Chase was a decade or so older it would be cause for significant concern.
I'm not looking forward to the deluge of reports, against both staff and non-staff users, such a change in philosophy would make, if applied retroactively. I've seen many users comfortable making bigoted jokes on Discord since they knew it was allowed.
Then I think you don't know our users very well.
That isn't "whataboutism". It is direct evidence to my previous point and counterevidence to the notion that we're all being overcautious. Thank you for the needless concern, however.
Why not add a clause which would refer to such cases which would allow staff to act against the person doing the report? Aka punish the one doing the report, if their report was targeting someone staff would find that the reporting person don't like ,so it would pretty much be a personal attack, and especially if it's based on shaky ground.
We are opening no floodgates here is my entire point. And I have considered how doing nothing has affected the community. It is not something I wish to prolong doing in this instance.
I understood that was the position you were arguing from, yes. The post above highlights the opposite, however- that our users will indeed jump on the opportunity to start trouble with unrelated cases, given the fuel to do so. That is the nature of slippery slopes.
Bambu makes very good sense to me above as usual.
The intial post on chases were just a shitpost intended for goofs, while i do think chases actions are completely digusting ( i have made that clear many times before on discord), i never planned to escalate things further ( or cause any drama) until someone made it an RVR issue. I think the overall tone of the messages makes that pretty clear.
Ant, WTF. Like, straight up, WTF.
i'd like to add, he isnt just attracted to the funny little anime drawings either, he's attracted to REAL LIFE PEOPLE who look like kids.
I’m for the ban to be clear.
The proposed rule text shouldn't aim to encompass every specific instance that counts as "crossing the line" imo.
I’m fine with that
That is not what I meant. I was speaking in general terms since we intend to make a general rule text, not just for a single case.
Also thanks for the clarification. I’ve updated the tally accordingly
