Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[CloverDragon03]

If we're going with 1-3 months, I'd at least advocate for the maximum of 3 months - going by the things we've given 1-2 month bans for in the past. That's just my take, though

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm fine with acknowledging permanent maybe was overboard, and would like input from other staff before changing it. But I believe DarkGrath has made it clear about being too lenient for something that is serious. And it's not just someone making bad jokes offsite, but a self admittance onsite as well as admitting malicious intent. I'd might say 3-6 months but 3 months is perhaps a middle. And I have a feeling others might actually find even that lenient; especially our transgender users.

 

[LordTracer]

Personally, I would keep the permaban. They admitted to being transphobic on-site, we don’t need people like that here, especially since we have quite a few transgender users on the site.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I suspect, owing to having instigated the recent revisions to the off-site rules, that my input on Shmooply's comments is expected.

Shmooply's on-site misconduct amounts to needless interjections in a rule violation report. This is punishable, but as a first time offense, would only warrant a warning - not an offense worthy of a permanent ban by any means. The core of our concerns here are evidently regarding Shmooply's off-site misconduct, and a permanent ban has already been instigated for this behaviour. So I believe the precedent needs to be set - with reason and with respect to the rules - as to how these situations should be handled in the future.

Merely the expression of legitimate beliefs, of the nature that are earnest but potentially offensive, should not be a basis for instigating on-site punishments. This was a point brought up in the discussion of the recent revisions, and it hasn't changed. But bigotry, of the nature that transphobia entails, I believe is quite distinct and falls under our off-site rules.

• Actions made off-site that could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety and/or wellbeing of a user, or a denomination of users, in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: threats directed towards particular demographics (i.e.: racial, gendered, sexual, and/or religiously motivated threats to commit violent acts), obscenities of an implicative nature (i.e.: rhetorical attacks on cultural groups, sexual comments towards minors), and involvement with known hate groups.

When an unreasonable attachment is formed and expressed in regards to a system of belief used to justify prejudicial actions against a discrete group of people, I believe this soundly meets the standard for an 'action made off-site that could reasonably be construed as inconducive to the wellbeing of a denomination of users'. In this case, expressions of transphobia are more than merely offensive - they are a distortion of truth used to justify behaviour that is degrading of the respect and dignity of the individuals to whom it is expressed. Those involved with the off-site revisions thread may see parallels here - I don't believe our transgender members should have to feel obligated to interact with someone who objects to their right to respect and dignity, and I don't think we should feel discontent with ourselves for standing up for those members in objection to those who would disrespect them.

I say this with awareness of the rationalisation inherent within it, and with my inherent biases on the nature of the matter. I am not concerned with exactly how long the ban should be, but I do believe a ban is warranted. What I want is not merely to ban according to some notion of severity, but to give Shmooply enough of an opportunity to re-evaluate his system of belief and change as a person. As such, I don't want a perma-ban for Shmooply, as this gives him no such opportunity - but I would also struggle to claim that 3 months is sufficient.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't have strong feelings on duration, but I feel that a) the transphobic sentiment expressed on site in an RVR report against a trans user and b) the additional transphobic sentiment made about another trans user, directly to a staff member as a taunt for their participation in assessing an RVR report fall very clearly under our jurisdiction, even if the latter was off site, given it's unmistakable nexus to forum matters.

For that reason I am not opposed to a permanent ban, but I will not oppose a reduction either.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm fine with acknowledging permanent maybe was overboard, and would like input from other staff before changing it. But I believe DarkGrath has made it clear about being too lenient for something that is serious. And it's not just someone making bad jokes offsite, but a self admittance onsite as well as admitting malicious intent. I'd might say 3-6 months but 3 months is perhaps a middle. And I have a feeling others might actually find even that lenient; especially our transgender users.

I acknowledge the behavior onsite, it's the sole reason I agree it's even a rule violation. I don't think we ought to bay for blood the instant we see any given user admit such a thing, though. People are imperfect. Shmooply doesn't just actively seek out transgender people to assault them all the time, because I've interacted with the man fairly consistently and never realized there were even allegations of the sort.

I don't think we need to be so zealous. The guy is harmless 99.99% of the time.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I acknowledge the behavior onsite, it's the sole reason I agree it's even a rule violation.

I don't think we need to be so zealous. The guy is harmless 99.99% of the time.

This is not an appropriate framework for interpreting offenses. We punish people for offenses even when they have otherwise not committed any for most of the time we have known them - to use your own phrasing, a person who is harmless 99.99% of the time can still be punished for an offense committed in the other .01%. This has always been the case.

It is, at most, a mitigating factor. We can judge, on the basis of otherwise good conduct, that an offense should not be treated as severely as it would be otherwise. It does not make the off-site offense no longer an offense.

 

[The_Impress]

Y'all insist on the worst ******* takes sometimes. We've banned users for being a prick before, on Discord and the like, hell for folks like Dread and to an extent SeraEX, all of their problematic shit was on Discord and even recently we've banned people for vouching creepy pedo shit, all offsite.

Those are horrendous takes and actions too, but what's your standard for inaction to transphobia? Some people disagree? Dehumanizing other people isn't really negotiable.

Unless you're gonna go all in and start unbanning offsite offenders like say, Violetvoid or ZacharyGrossman, offsite behaviour matters, especially when you out yourself as a prick on the wiki. We are a hobby site, nobody wants to peruse their hobbies in a forum of douchebags.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Y'all insist on the worst ******* takes sometimes. We've banned users for being a prick before, on Discord and the like, hell for folks like Dread and to an extent SeraEX, all of their problematic shit was on Discord and even recently we've banned people for vouching creepy pedo shit, all offsite.

Those are horrendous takes and actions too, but what's your standard for inaction to transphobia? Some people disagree? Dehumanizing other people isn't really negotiable.

Unless you're gonna go all in and start unbanning offsite offenders like say, Violetvoid or ZacharyGrossman, offsite behaviour matters, especially when you out yourself as a prick on the wiki. We are a hobby site, nobody wants to peruse their hobbies in a forum of douchebags.

Please refrain from commenting if you have nothing useful to say.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This is not an appropriate framework for interpreting offenses. We punish people for offenses even when they have otherwise not committed any for most of the time we have known them - to use your own phrasing, a person who is harmless 99.99% of the time can still be punished for an offense committed in the other .01%. This has always been the case.

It is, at most, a mitigating factor. We can judge, on the basis of otherwise good conduct, that an offense should not be treated as severely as it would be otherwise. It does not make the off-site offense no longer an offense.

The off-site offense isn't an offense. It is evidence that we need to look at onsite offenses through a new lens. But there are mitigating factors to that lens that must be judged as well. I do not think we should be banning people for a somewhat skewed view of the world.

Y'all insist on the worst ******* takes sometimes. We've banned users for being a prick before, on Discord and the like, hell for folks like Dread and to an extent SeraEX, all of their problematic shit was on Discord and even recently we've banned people for vouching creepy pedo shit, all offsite.

Those are horrendous takes and actions too, but what's your standard for inaction to transphobia? Some people disagree? Dehumanizing other people isn't really negotiable.

Unless you're gonna go all in and start unbanning offsite offenders like say, Violetvoid or ZacharyGrossman, offsite behaviour matters, especially when you out yourself as a prick on the wiki. We are a hobby site, nobody wants to peruse their hobbies in a forum of douchebags.

I'm a prick off-site all the time, I suppose people just hadn't noticed. I await my permanent ban, Your Grace.

 

[The_Impress]

Please refrain from commenting if you have nothing useful to say.

I am an ex-staff who helped build the case and am bringing up relevant precedent on the matter at hand from what has been the happenings on the wiki itself, please re-examine your definition of useful and recognize a content moderator isn't relevant authority in thread matters

Also Bambu we are not judging conduct, we are judging bigotry. Irrelevant, you literally fought back on this exact claim that you were a bigot.

 

[The_Yellow_Topaz]

Please refrain from commenting if you have nothing useful to say.

That is useful. It argues past infractions of similar or equal calibers and how they were handled as examples on how you should handle this very infraction. I don't subscribe to the implication that it's fine for someone to be transphobic as long as they "keep it to themselves". We have undenial evidence that the person in question is transphobic, as well as a blatant example of them bringing that behavior on-site as well.
It's extremely unsafe for me and others of the community if there are people who have transphobic mindsets and beliefs around the community I take part in. It opens up opportunity for these kind of people to interact with me off-site, just as much. I don't think it should be tolerated at all.

Also my request to add him to my blocklist hasn't been answered yet.

 

[GrathOfLux]

The off-site offense isn't an offense. It is evidence that we need to look at onsite offenses through a new lens.

It is an offense. I have explained in detail why.

 

[Agnaa]

Dread

Banned for making reports based on knowingly false information, lying to a user for the purpose of soliciting a relationship, and inappropriately spreading personal information.

and to an extent SeraEX

Banned for having an army of sockpuppets, lying about qualifications for translating passages, and getting people banned on knowingly false information.

and even recently we've banned people for vouching creepy pedo shit.

idk if we have, Chase was ultimately banned for faking translations. Although the whole "admittedly attracted to underaged people, putting any of our underage users at risk of being taken advantage of" probably pushed some people to be more harsh with that.

Those are horrendous takes and actions too, but what's your standard for inaction to transphobia? Some people disagree? Dehumanizing other people isn't really negotiable.

Unless you're gonna go all in and start unbanning offsite offenders like say, Violetvoid or ZacharyGrossman, offsite behaviour matters, especially when you out yourself as a prick on the wiki.

I think Angie was banned for some on-site issues, as well as relentlessly harassing people off-site by continuing to message them after being asked to stop.

I don't remember the other cases enough to comment on them.

Basically, I don't think it's contradictory/inconsistent to ban this way, since those users weren't banned for "being pricks", they were banned for on-site damaging lies and off-site harassment. Or more speculatively, for having the power and interest to endanger some users.

But if people wanna be harsher about this sorta thing, that's fine too, but can end up being a slippery slope (if you've seen some of the reasons people want certain staff members banned, you'll know what I mean).

 

[Agnaa]

@Propellus Impress' first post was fine, not sold on the second one. Don't re-delete that first one.

I think it added relevant info about how our rules in this area tend to operate.

Plus, it comes from the place of an ex-staff member, which we tend to give some amount of deference to in threads like these.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I am an ex-staff who helped build the case and am bringing up relevant precedent on the matter at hand from what has been the happenings on the wiki itself, please re-examine your definition of useful and recognize a content moderator isn't relevant authority in thread matters

Also Bambu we are not judging conduct, we are judging bigotry. Irrelevant, you literally fought back on this exact claim that you were a bigot.

You said "pricks", that is different. It's true, I am not a bigot. I don't even engage in that sort of language for fun. There are many who do.

This does not, of course, change my stance. Shmooply didn't go around urging for the erasure of your kind. He made a handful of jokes that put his other actions in a new light. That is all. I agree with a short ban.

 

[The_Impress]

Banned for making reports based on knowingly false information, lying to a user for the purpose of soliciting a relationship, and inappropriately spreading personal information.

Banned for having an army of sockpuppets, lying about qualifications for translating passages, and getting people banned on knowingly false information.

idk if we have, Chase was ultimately banned for faking translations. Although the whole "admittedly attracted to underaged people, putting any of our underage users at risk of being taken advantage of" probably pushed some people to be more harsh with that.

I think Angie was banned for some on-site issues, as well as relentlessly harassing people off-site by continuing to message them after being asked to stop.

I don't remember the other cases enough to comment on them.

They wouldn't REMOTELY be banned for those durations were it not for offsite factors.

Basically, I don't think it's contradictory/inconsistent to ban this way, since those users weren't banned for "being pricks", they were banned for on-site damaging lies and off-site harassment. Or more speculatively, for having the power and interest to endanger some users.

I think if you're making bullshit reports on other users motivated by your biases against their social status that is extremely problematic and damaging to the site, let alone a user's psyche, he actively humiliated a trans user, on thread for the wiki to see, via bullshit claims.

Which, likely falls under being a prick, like your other answers.

But if people wanna be harsher about this sorta thing, that's fine too, but can end up being a slippery slope (if you've seen some of the reasons people want certain staff members banned, you'll know what I mean).

Being a bigot isn't a slippery slope. Stop being a bigot. It isn't hard to draw the line there, I wouldn't really bother with all of the report if it was indeed, a bad joke.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It is an offense. I have explained in detail why.

I have explained why it isn't.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I have explained why it isn't.

You have not. You said 'transphobia itself is not a punishable offense' as an explanation for why it is not an offense. I have explained why this is in error.

 

[CloverDragon03]

What's most striking to me is the insinuation that Shmooply's off-site offense isn't actually an offense. Even if you want to strictly look at this in terms of our off-site rules, what we define as punishable is behavior "that can be considered inconducive to the safety or well-being of a user."

I would argue that blatant bigotry such as transphobia, like what DarkGrath has described, very much crosses that line. We have a number of trans users, and I highly doubt they'd welcome having someone like this around.

 

[GarrixianXD]

If we're having a debate then should we at least do it somewhere else?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You have not. You said 'transphobia itself is not a punishable offense' as an explanation for why it is not an offense. I have explained why this is in error.

Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself.

I do not think this can be construed as destabilization, at least not more than any other hiccup and discussion on the RVR.

Actions taken against another user off-site of such a nature that could reasonably cause undue harm and/or distress for the other user in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: harassment, threats of violence or similar harmful actions, unsolicited sexual misconduct, impersonation, hacking, and doxing.

Shmooply did not harm another user or do anything that could cause "undue distress".

Actions made off-site that could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety and/or wellbeing of a user, or a denomination of users, in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: threats directed towards particular demographics (i.e.: racial, gendered, sexual, and/or religiously motivated threats to commit violent acts), obscenities of an implicative nature (i.e.: rhetorical attacks on cultural groups, sexual comments towards minors), and involvement with known hate groups.

Shmooply has not endangered any groups anyone nor has he threatened them. He has mentioned no obscenities and, at least, has no evidence of being involved in a hate group.

Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).

This is not what he is reported for.

Transphobia on its own is not included in our rules, presuming Shmooply is indeed transphobic. When you were rewriting these recently, I made my stance on that particularly clear- that I would not uphold a system bent on destroying our users for private beliefs.

What's most striking to me is the insinuation that Shmooply's off-site offense isn't actually an offense. Even if you want to strictly look at this in terms of our off-site rules, what we define as punishable is behavior "that can be considered inconducive to the safety or well-being of a user."

I would argue that blatant bigotry such as transphobia, like what DarkGrath has described, very much crosses that line. We have a number of trans users, and I highly doubt they'd welcome having someone like this around.

I discussed that first bit above. I was afraid when we were writing those rules for offsite behavior that people would interpret them liberally, and I believe I am seeing that come true.

The evidence for Shmooply being transphobic amounts to three screenshots all in a joking context. I think there is reasonable doubt to be had there. I see many of you playing this as some affront to god and country when quite frankly we ought to extend this witch hunt to a huge amount of our userbase if something so simple as that can be construed as a legitimate, lasting harm to our users.

 

[CloverDragon03]

@GarrixianXD This directly pertains to the duration of Shmooply's ban, so I'm inclined to say no

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Banned for making reports based on knowingly false information, lying to a user for the purpose of soliciting a relationship, and inappropriately spreading personal information.

Banned for having an army of sockpuppets, lying about qualifications for translating passages, and getting people banned on knowingly false information.

idk if we have, Chase was ultimately banned for faking translations. Although the whole "admittedly attracted to underaged people, putting any of our underage users at risk of being taken advantage of" probably pushed some people to be more harsh with that.

I think Angie was banned for some on-site issues, as well as relentlessly harassing people off-site by continuing to message them after being asked to stop.

I don't remember the other cases enough to comment on them.

Basically, I don't think it's contradictory/inconsistent to ban this way, since those users weren't banned for "being pricks", they were banned for on-site damaging lies and off-site harassment. Or more speculatively, for having the power and interest to endanger some users.

But if people wanna be harsher about this sorta thing, that's fine too, but can end up being a slippery slope (if you've seen some of the reasons people want certain staff members banned, you'll know what I mean).

Commenting to finish this up. VioletVoid aka Corgi was banned for a number of reasons; harassing people + staff in DMs, saying transphobic and misogynist comments to staff member's faces, holding the record for onsite slur words and getting free passed via edited posts, and posting pornographic videos on Discord channels where minors were present with the "@Everyone" ping.

Though, Impress and DarkGrath are making valid points. He straight up admitted to being transphobic onsite and yelled out people to stop defending some of our transgender users calling them "Fake." Even if it doesn't have to be permanent since people can change; I don't think people who used to be bigots should be treated the same way as people who still are for example. But longer than 3 months and or possibly even 6 months sounds reasonable.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Are you advocating for 3 or 6 months or longer than those times? Your phrasing is confusing.

Also, I do need to clarify something: is Fujiwara transgender? I note that the evidence submitted included referring to Fujiwara as a "fake woman". I was not aware of this, and if he wasn't either, I would suggest a change in interpretation to the age-old internet rumor of women not really using the internet. If I was uninformed then so be it, but I'd like that cleared up for me, if possible.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I discussed that first bit above. I was afraid when we were writing those rules for offsite behavior that people would interpret them liberally, and I believe I am seeing that come true.

The evidence for Shmooply being transphobic amounts to three screenshots all in a joking context. I think there is reasonable doubt to be had there. I see many of you playing this as some affront to god and country when quite frankly we ought to extend this witch hunt to a huge amount of our userbase if something so simple as that can be construed as a legitimate, lasting harm to our users.

I'm sorry, but in what world are:

• Openly admitting to said transphobia
• Intentionally misgendering one of our trans users
• Referring to Fujiwara as a "fake woman"

things that are simply in a "joking context?" I cannot agree to that whatsoever. Nor do I believe that rightfully punishing such behavior falls under this liberal usage that's worth fearing.

(Edit: I know I edited this comment quite a few times. I was trying to make sure my wording was such that I didn't come off as more offensive than intended. Apologies)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm sorry, but in what world are:

• Openly admitting to said transphobia
• Intentionally misgendering one of our trans users
• Referring to Fujiwara as a "fake woman"

things that are simply in a "joking context?" I cannot agree to that whatsoever. Nor do I believe that rightfully punishing such behavior is something worth fearing.

Yes, it is worth fearing, and let me explain why.

Our rules describe an offsite rule violation as potentially, reasonably causing extreme duress to an individual- this is the crux of this particular discussion. If we accept that any given off-color comment about a group is a fair violation of that rule, then we do not ban people for making transphobic jokes alone.

Use of the R-word, use of the B-word, use of any given slur, use of any disparaging language against any given group of people (no more "America Bad" or "Russia Bad" jokes, for the Americans may be distressed by it and you will be banned). There are innumerable people that perform all of this casually, not out of malice but out of an interest in being funny- most of them fail at this but the point is the same. Humors calls upon negatives for most people, if you don't know that then you need help from a greater power than I- try George Carlin.

The slippery slope exists, and I will reiterate that if this is truly the core intended purpose of these rules we've made then I have no interest in upholding them.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Are you advocating for 3 or 6 months or longer than those times? Your phrasing is confusing.

Also, I do need to clarify something: is Fujiwara transgender? I note that the evidence submitted included referring to Fujiwara as a "fake woman". I was not aware of this, and if he wasn't either, I would suggest a change in interpretation to the age-old internet rumor of women not really using the internet. If I was uninformed then so be it, but I'd like that cleared up for me, if possible.

I suggested 3 to 6 months earlier, DarkGrath thought 3 months might be too soon but not hard feelings on exact length. She also said ban, but not make it permanent. I don't want to clutter up the thread too much, so I hope we can find a reasonable compromise. Agnaa also says it's fine if other staff want something harsher than 3 months, though he already suggested 1-3 months.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I suggested 3 to 6 months earlier, DarkGrath thought 3 months might be too soon but not hard feelings on exact length. She also said ban, but not make it permanent. I don't want to clutter up the thread too much, so I hope we can find a reasonable compromise. Agnaa also says it's fine if other staff want something harsher than 3 months, though he already suggested 1-3 months.

Gotcha. I personally agree with 1-3 months (perhaps swaying slightly away from 1 month and into 2), I just wanted clarification on whether your position had changed.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yes, it is worth fearing, and let me explain why.

Our rules describe an offsite rule violation as potentially, reasonably causing extreme duress to an individual- this is the crux of this particular discussion. If we accept that any given off-color comment about a group is a fair violation of that rule, then we do not ban people for making transphobic jokes alone.

Use of the R-word, use of the B-word, use of any given slur, use of any disparaging language against any given group of people (no more "America Bad" or "Russia Bad" jokes, for the Americans may be distressed by it and you will be banned). There are innumerable people that perform all of this casually, not out of malice but out of an interest in being funny- most of them fail at this but the point is the same. Humors calls upon negatives for most people, if you don't know that then you need help from a greater power than I- try George Carlin.

The slippery slope exists, and I will reiterate that if this is truly the core intended purpose of these rules we've made then I have no interest in upholding them.

See, this is all well and good, but like... The entirety of what your saying, quite frankly, doesn't at all cover what's actually going on here. Rather, it covers a completely different scenario that has yet to occur.

This is actively malicious. Self-admitted transphobia combined with intentionally misgendering one of our trans users and referring to her as a "fake woman" isn't an attempt at humor. It's just bigotry.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I am an ex-staff who helped build the case and am bringing up relevant precedent on the matter at hand from what has been the happenings on the wiki itself, please re-examine your definition of useful and recognize a content moderator isn't relevant authority in thread matters

I genuinely apologise if that's the case then.

 

[KingTempest]

I don't see anything wrong with what Impress is saying whatsoever, nor am I against the existence of the current discussion, but can we all please... take it down a notch?

 

[GrathOfLux]

Shmooply has not endangered any groups anyone nor has he threatened them. He has mentioned no obscenities and, at least, has no evidence of being involved in a hate group.

Those are examples which are, in the phrasing itself, '[inclusive], but not limited to'. I have explained why transphobia, and bigotry on a larger scale, falls under what constitutes threats to the wellbeing of a denomination of users. You have not acknowledged this explanation.

The evidence for Shmooply being transphobic amounts to three screenshots all in a joking context. I think there is reasonable doubt to be had there. I see many of you playing this as some affront to god and country when quite frankly we ought to extend this witch hunt to a huge amount of our userbase if something so simple as that can be construed as a legitimate, lasting harm to our users.

They are obviously not jokes. And we are not treating this as an 'affront to god and country'. We are treating this as we would treat any other offense of a similar nature, because of our understanding of our obligations to our users.

Your comments imply that dissent from this perspective is a product of irrational, emotional outrage. It isn't. And I'm pointing this out because I notice it a lot in discussions with you, and I believe it needs to be addressed civilly. You care a great deal about being rational, objective, 'stoic' in a sense, and on some level, I believe you want to be acknowledged and appreciated for your efforts in upholding those virtues. You want to feel as though your experiences have amounted to being those good traits that you admire, so being seen as such is important to you. This isn't a bad thing. But it's been increasingly clear that a product of this mindset is that you have to be seen as the 'more rational' one in any discussion - that you being rational must mean the dissenters are irrational. It's very common to see comments from you that denote, often in quite loaded terms, that the people disagreeing with you are necessarily biased and emotional. And this is not true. A staple of any legitimate, respectful discussion that moves towards a righteous end is the ability to recognise the earnest intention and reason of the person you are discussing with. Comments that frame your dissenters in such loaded terminology as just 'playing' an issue as 'an affront to god and country', or accusing them of 'witch hunting' are not appropriate. They don't resolve heated discussions - they make them worse.

I believe we have known each other for long enough for you to understand that I am not saying this to disrespect you. I just want us to be able to handle these matters appropriately, and I don't think this is the way.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Those are examples which are, in the phrasing itself, '[inclusive], but not limited to'. I have explained why transphobia, and bigotry on a larger scale, falls under what constitutes threats to the wellbeing of a denomination of users. You have not acknowledged this explanation.

Yes, and it is that element of the phrasing I feared would be creatively used in this way. Frankly, I do not believe this to be "bigotry on a larger scale". These are three screenshots, one of which is a private Steam discussion and two come from some Discord server unfamiliar to me (and one of which does not appear to be referring to a transgender female, rather a cis female). I'm aware that you may be referring to Shmooply's reports- but I have spoken on those, so perhaps not.

It is said that when you notice something like this, there's good odds that there's been more you didn't notice. I accept that this may be true, perhaps many of the man's comments are subtly laced with poison such as this. But I can't act on that, and I don't think these screenshots are as horrible as they are made out to be.

They are obviously not jokes. And we are not treating this as an 'affront to god and country'. We are treating this as we would treat any other offense of a similar nature, because of our understanding of our obligations to our users.

Your comments imply that dissent from this perspective is a product of irrational, emotional outrage. It isn't. And I'm pointing this out because I notice it a lot in discussions with you, and I believe it needs to be addressed civilly. You care a great deal about being rational, objective, 'stoic' in a sense, and on some level, I believe you want to be acknowledged and appreciated for your efforts in upholding those virtues. You want to feel as though your experiences have amounted to being those good traits that you admire, so being seen as such is important to you. This isn't a bad thing. But it's been increasingly clear that a product of this mindset is that you have to be seen as the 'more rational' one in any discussion - that you being rational must mean the dissenters are irrational. It's very common to see comments from you that denote, often in quite loaded terms, that the people disagreeing with you are necessarily biased and emotional. And this is not true. A staple of any legitimate, respectful discussion that moves towards a righteous end is the ability to recognise the earnest intention and reason of the person you are discussing with. Comments that frame your dissenters in such loaded terminology as just 'playing' an issue as 'an affront to god and country', or accusing them of 'witch hunting' are not appropriate. They don't resolve heated discussions - they make them worse.

I believe we have known each other for long enough for you to understand that I am not saying this to disrespect you. I just want us to be able to handle these matters appropriately, and I don't think this is the way.

I don't agree with that summary. And no, I don't think we are.

Not to be the contrarian, but you're mistaken, Grath. I have admitted to others the lists of people legitimately more rational than me. Even before he was a moderator I harped on Agnaa- plenty of us did, of course, but I firmly believe it. I do not see myself as the most rational man in the room. In fact, it can be a bit disheartening to walk amongst people such as you and Agnaa. I don't think I can compare, really. But that does not mean I don't have my stances and my opinions. It is my role here to stand for those opinions. As it is yours. And you're probably right- I rely on some level of dramatization in my speech. It's a bad habit, tough to kick- call it a holdover from DMing D&D for so long and reading a lot of Pratchett books. You do have me on that one- so I apologize.

I know you mean me no harm, Grath. I do not necessarily think that of all parties on this wiki, but you, you've earned more than simple trust. I respect you. But I don't think your way is the way to go, and I think it will harm us all, in the end.

 

[Kirbonic_Pikmin]

Whether or not I'm supposed to be messaging here in mind, I think that things really need to be evaluated under a different lens if its agreed upon that one person making sockpuppets or making fake evidence to make a character stronger is more grounds for a ban/permaban than someone being actually bigoted to others, which is vastly more harmful to individuals than any act of faking feats on a Versus site could actually be. I know many people that no longer interact on these forums because of the amount of toxicity or bigoted individuals that people can come across, and the fact that situations can lead to pages of debate like this over if it should be handled or not is frankly a little absurd.

 

[LordGinSama]

At this point this should probably be handled privately with the HR. All I'm seeing is people going back and forth about sensitive subjects like transphobia which doesn't seem appropriate to handle here.

 

[Agnaa]

I was planning on counting votes once the conversation came to a rest, but I'm going to be fairly busy the next few days, so someone else may need to organise that.

With Bambu deleting Impress' recent post, I'm going to take that as him having reached the conclusion that this branch of conversation is irrelevant to this thread, so I'll take the liberty of editing remnants of it out of existing posts, and deleting it from posts that only contain that topic of "Impress/Bambu bias".

EDIT: I've finished doing this.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As of her last post and some amount of apparent miscommunication, I'm speaking to Zark on Discord. Shan't keep you posted.

 

[GrathOfLux]

The three main perspectives that have been offered as to actions moving forward are '1-3 month ban', 'permanent ban', and broadly, 'something more than 3 months but less than permanent'.

For the final perspective, I would like to consider a 6 month ban, and to advocate for this conclusion. If others wish to offer their final opinions in the light of the discussion, you may say so below and I will add your stance to the tally.

1-3 Months: Antvasima, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000

6 Months: DarkGrath, DarkDragonMedeus, ByAsura, Damage3245, CloverDragon03

Permanent: Crabwhale, Maverick_Zero_X, LordTracer, Emirp sumitpo

​

 

[Agnaa]

I still endorse 1-3 months, and I think a count could go off of previously-established perspectives.