JKER Banned Discussion Thread

[Warma Sheen]

@mietze said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

I don’t understand. How is that NOT creepy-ass behavior?

I don’t understand how that is. Sending someone a link to a forum post doesn’t really rate for me, specifically in the context of the conversation being had.

In fact, it just kind of reinforces the argument that anyone can call anyone else creepy just to weaponize the term and expect everyone else to take it seriously.

Do I agree with anything that was said or done? No. But calling someone creepy just to trigger people’s alarms on them is also problematic. They can be held accountable for their more accurately described behavior.

[Pavel]

@Warma-Sheen said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

I don’t understand how that is.

Sending private messages to someone with whom you have no prior association, simply to dredge up an old discussion with vague allusions to how this thread makes a third party a bigot or otherwise horrible? That’s pretty fuckin’ creepy.

[helvetica]

@JKER said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

I suggest you either just ban them off the bat or you offer actionable advise which the sexpests will still ignore

Couldn’t have said it better. We’re witnessing a poorly executed attempt to start to a whisper campaign. Gotta say if this was a game we were all playing on, I would want to see this person gone.

But we’re not on a game? I’m on the fence, it’s early, and I don’t yet have my good words. I do know that I place a higher value on making sure two existing members of our community feel comfortable in this space than I do on being fair to some rando.

[Pavel]

@helvetica Agreed.

He hurt my friend, so while I’ve expressed my opinion in the admin group chat (not as exciting as it sounds), I’m not putting forward any official vote so as to avoid bias.

Were it up to me, I’d personally set this person on fire.

[BloodAngel]

[Warma Sheen]

@Pavel said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

Sending private messages to someone with whom you have no prior association, simply to dredge up an old discussion with vague allusions to how this thread makes a third party a bigot or otherwise horrible? That’s pretty fuckin’ creepy.

I don’t think most of that is anywhere near accurate. He was clearly responding directly to someone that argued a point he made with what he thought was evidence of that point. It was very direct.

That is basically the format of the forum. That’s what we all do here. One person makes a point. Someone else argues against it. The first person backs up the point they made.

If what makes it ‘creepy’ is that he decided to share his evidence privately through DM rather than try to blast IR publicly, then you might want to consider disabling DMs or change the policies to ban people from DMing others without prior permission.

[GF]

I have fairly specific definitions for creepy, so to me, JKER’s DM was not that. What it was is unacceptable, because:

-it took a public feud private, implying there’s something to hide about this particular action, which makes me feel complicit in something underhanded
-it drew me into a literal whisper campaign of character assassination–you know, the kind of thing certain people are so vehemently against allowing-- without my having expressed any interest in being part of one and with JKER knowing I wouldn’t be interested, as proven by their telling me not to respond to the DM because neither of us would enjoy it
-it offered no arguments, just an offensively transparent Barnum statement that whatever I read in that enormous thread that made me mad is the proof they were talking about
-it tries to get me to validate a year-old feud by using me as fuel for the metaphorical fire
-it does all these things about someone I like and trust enough to believe doesn’t deserve this level of disrespect. I like to believe I’d be this mad if they did it about someone I can’t stand, too, but they definitely went after the wrong person with me

This doesn’t rise to my personal standards of being creepy. The word I’d use is… actually, the word I’d use is probably not permissible under the terms of service, so let’s stay polite and stick with “unacceptable.”

[Testament]

On the one hand, I have no issue with letting the ban stand. I think it’s a shitty behavior to try and dig up ‘evidence’ on something that happened over a year ago. It smacks of something you’d see come out of the YouTube commentary community.

On the other hand, if this ban does stand, you’ll likely just reinforce the beliefs that this person somehow believes they’re being silenced and therefore ‘correct’ in their statement.

Now, maybe I’m just being extremely petty here, but I have little desire for that person to think they were in the right by using their banning on a forum as evidence to it.

[Wizz]

@Warma-Sheen said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

I don’t understand how that is. Sending someone a link to a forum post doesn’t really rate for me, specifically in the context of the conversation being had.

[Polk]

A perma-ban may SEEM harsh for the action, but trying to drag some other forum’s toxicity here smacks of bad faith.

Random attacks on a third party through unsolicited DMs smack very much of bad faith.

Bad faith posting is generally worthy of some sort of administrative action. Someone made one post here, went dormant, then suddenly goes on a tear 7 months later.

If it were a brand-new account, I’d say easy ban, and move on. But it’s possible this is a person who had a bad day. And that makes it a tougher call.

[Pavel]

@Warma-Sheen said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

I don’t think most of that is anywhere near accurate.

If the recipient and the subject both find it creepy, it’s creepy.

That’s what makes it creepy.

End of story.

[Pavel]

@Testament said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:

On the other hand, if this ban does stand, you’ll likely just reinforce the beliefs that this person somehow believes they’re being silenced and therefore ‘correct’ in their statement.

What someone believes about their correctness in petty drama is irrelevant when compared to the earnest feelings of our community. They can pat themselves on the back all they like, so long as they do it far away from here.

[Pyrephox]

After Admin discussion , during which @Pavel did not vote, JKER has been permanently banned. Using DMs to try and harass or intimidate other posters is not, in any way, acceptable posting behavior.

[Wizz]

@Pavel said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:

@Warma-Sheen said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

I don’t think most of that is anywhere near accurate.

If the recipient and the subject both find it creepy, it’s creepy.

That’s what makes it creepy.

End of story.

Y’all, I am going to suggest that just like before, Warma’s just here to stir you up and waste your time. This take in particular is too dense not to be deliberate and the timing is suspect, just my two cents.

(Edited to clarify who I was talking about after the discussion was moved.)

[Pavel]

@Wizz said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

he’s just here to stir you up and waste your time.

I help run a forum about internet game drama. Just how valuable do you suppose my time is?

[Testament]

@Pavel said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

@Wizz said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

he’s just here to stir you up and waste your time.

I help run a forum about internet game drama. Just how valuable do you suppose my time is?

[Pax]

I wrote a whole-ass post calling this guy out on his weird red flags and then thought to myself, “Pax, you’re going too hard, chill,” so I deleted it and just commented on the 10 year old/shotguns thing, and walked away and came back to this.

vindication intensifies

But while I’m here.

@Warma-Sheen said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

I don’t think most of that is anywhere near accurate. He was clearly responding directly to someone that argued a point he made with what he thought was evidence of that point. It was very direct.

If your earnest point is that this kind of behavior is not in bad faith, it makes me suspect you of bad faith shit.

That is basically the format of the forum. That’s what we all do here. One person makes a point. Someone else argues against it. The first person backs up the point they made.

If the point of this forum is to open yourself up to whisper campaigns and behind-the-curtain bullying with the presumption that admin will do nothing to take action against people doing that sort of thing, I’m gonna delete my account right fuckin’ now.

If what makes it ‘creepy’ is that he decided to share his evidence privately through DM rather than try to blast IR publicly, then you might want to consider disabling DMs or change the policies to ban people from DMing others without prior permission.

Once again, a recommendation is being flown out that a feature should be disabled, that rules should be changed, that the Overton Window of Online Harassment and How to Deal With It should shift because unless they’ve explicitly listed out all the ways that you shouldn’t harass someone, it’s somehow the admin’s fault. Wild. The deja vu is giving me whiplash.

We don’t need to delete features because a handful of bad actors use them in bad faith. It’s perfectly acceptable to say “no, that’s not how you should be using DMs, that is unacceptable behavior” without ripping out the drywall. Absolutely wild.

[Tez]

After I have had more time to think about this, I want to apologize to @IoleRae. The reason that this person was not immediately, permanently banned was largely because I had reservations about doing so. I am sorry that I delayed the admin team’s response and in doing so made you – or any other forum members! – feel unsafe, or that this kind of behavior was acceptable.

I got hung up on whether or not they had Violated The Rules with a strict letter of the law interpretation that ignored the spirit of the law. I think I have mentioned – and you guys have probably seen – that I have a tendency to try to over-legislate. I could blame it on staffing on Firan PTSD or working in HR, but REALLY, it’s just me.

Last night, I thought maybe that we might want to have a discussion on this as a community to see if there are additional guidelines or rules that we need to put in place. (See? Over-legislate.) This morning I think that probably I just need to be more willing to act. I take the hands-off approach to heart, so much so that Pavel teases me about it, but I don’t know! I would like to hear from you guys on this. Please do continue to discuss.

[KarmaBum]

@Testament said in JKER Temporarily Banned Discussion Thread:

you’ll likely just reinforce the beliefs that this person somehow believes they’re being silenced and therefore ‘correct’ in their statement.

i probably could care less what this person “believes”

but it would be difficult

[Pyrephox]

@Tez I’ll say that I have appreciated your perspective on the conversations we’ve had, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing that one of the three of us tends to be a little slow to pull the trigger, because it makes us have to sit down and make our case on why we think action should be taken. That’s never a bad thing, even if it does occasionally cause delays - but I would honestly rather have people who talk it out and feel confident about their final decision than have a whole bunch of “we banned —ooops, after thinking about this and getting more context, we fucked up” incidents.

The modding philosophy we decided on IS quite hands off, with people having a lot of latitude to be obnoxious. But that doesn’t mean that what felt like the start of a targeted campaign on a particular user was okay, and the sooner we nipped that in the bud, the better, is my feeling on it.