- 13,139
- 20,847
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
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
- 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.
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'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.
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.I don't think we need to be so zealous. The guy is harmless 99.99% of the time.
Please refrain from commenting if you have nothing useful to say.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.
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.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.
I'm a prick off-site all the time, I suppose people just hadn't noticed. I await my permanent ban, Your Grace.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 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 mattersPlease 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.Please refrain from commenting if you have nothing useful to say.
It is an offense. I have explained in detail why.The off-site offense isn't an offense. It is evidence that we need to look at onsite offenses through a new lens.
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.Dread
Banned for having an army of sockpuppets, lying about qualifications for translating passages, and getting people banned on knowingly false information.and to an extent SeraEX
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.and even recently we've banned people for vouching creepy pedo shit.
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.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.
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.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.
They wouldn't REMOTELY be banned for those durations were it not for offsite factors.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.
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.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.
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.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).
I have explained why it isn't.It is an offense. I have explained in detail why.
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.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.
I do not think this can be construed as destabilization, at least not more than any other hiccup and discussion on the RVR.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.
Shmooply did not harm another user or do anything that could cause "undue distress".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 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.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.
This is not what he is reported for.Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).
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.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.
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.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).
I'm sorry, but in what world are: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.
Yes, it is worth fearing, and let me explain why.I'm sorry, but in what world are:
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.
- Openly admitting to said transphobia
- Intentionally misgendering one of our trans users
- Referring to Fujiwara as a "fake woman"
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
I genuinely apologise if that's the case then.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
I don't agree with that summary. And no, I don't think we are.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.