+- NEUS Projects (https://neus-projects.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Sigrogana Legend 2 (OOC) (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Here we go again (/showthread.php?tid=10863)
RE: Here we go again - WaifuApple - 02-27-2024
My questions are regarding transparency. Ultimately, the announcement made only covers the fact that doxxing cases will be looked at retroactively and handled accordingly. But in general there have been other mentions of extreme cases that will have simply gotten lost in the winding passage of a really, really busy chat.
Does the GM team have any intention of a supplementary message open to let people know that this also applicable to other extreme offenses from the past? Something that's easily seen and not locked behind a lot of scrolling, word of mouth, and a search function (which would require knowing about it anyway). Can some examples be provided of what the GM considered a hypothetical extreme offense so people are able to easily understand what isn't and isn't going to be dug up, placed officially and at the forefront, so that restless concerns about the past can be put away, while also giving people who might have a case and not realise it the push they need to realise 'hey, maybe I should revisit this'? Because ultimately outside of the very obvious doxxing, and the vaguely mentioned financial exploitation, I am super unsure of just what the running definition for this is going to be.
Will this come to the site with the rules on it, and be enshrined? Because I'll be honest, we've had awkward run-ins with hidden rules before, and it's my full belief that official things like this SHOULD make it onto that site. It really sucks when you look at the rules and don't realise you're still missing information.
RE: Here we go again - Salsaccino - 02-27-2024
(02-27-2024, 02:00 AM)WaifuApple Wrote: My questions are regarding transparency. Ultimately, the announcement made only covers the fact that doxxing cases will be looked at retroactively and handled accordingly. But in general there have been other mentions of extreme cases that will have simply gotten lost in the winding passage of a really, really busy chat.
Does the GM team have any intention of a supplementary message open to let people know that this also applicable to other extreme offenses from the past? Something that's easily seen and not locked behind a lot of scrolling, word of mouth, and a search function (which would require knowing about it anyway). Can some examples be provided of what the GM considered a hypothetical extreme offense so people are able to easily understand what isn't and isn't going to be dug up, placed officially and at the forefront, so that restless concerns about the past can be put away, while also giving people who might have a case and not realise it the push they need to realise 'hey, maybe I should revisit this'? Because ultimately outside of the very obvious doxxing, and the vaguely mentioned financial exploitation, I am super unsure of just what the running definition for this is going to be.
Will this come to the site with the rules on it, and be enshrined? Because I'll be honest, we've had awkward run-ins with hidden rules before, and it's my full belief that official things like this SHOULD make it onto that site. It really sucks when you look at the rules and don't realise you're still missing information.
If I'm not mistaken, ban appeals and ban re-evaluations have always been something that people were open to doing. All it takes is a modmail with your concerns and we as the GM team can address them. One can easily make a request that a ban be either appealed or re-evaluated... but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
As I've said multiple times now, any case can be re-evaluated but it's only going to be similarly extreme cases like this one that are going to see any real action taken. Especially when there is new evidence laid out on the table for us to review and look over. This has even happened before in the case of Detty, in which there was outcry the ban was too short. Victims came forward with new evidence that assisted us in ensuring justice was carried out properly.
This is not a new concept, this is just the first time a ban this old has been re-evaluated in this manner. There is no attempts on our part to hide this fact or make this out to be a "Hah, Gotcha!" moment. All bans can be re-evaluated, but there is no guarantee any further action will be taken. It's the same way for ban appeals, and functionally works the same.
RE: Here we go again - WaifuApple - 02-27-2024
If it was always precedent, outside of those who've been banned being allowed to appeal on the grounds that they've learnt their lesson, it was never well spoken of, never really written down in any format or made clear that if you were unhappy with a ruling as the victim that you could, in fact, appeal this. If it's not new policy it's certainly the first time I've ever seen it officially acknowledged as one. Which is, again, why I do think having it written down in an official medium that "hey, if you're unhappy with how your case was handled, you can ask for it to be re-evaluated" is absolutely the right way to go. I checked the rules and only saw that you can get a second opinion if you feel you've been unfairly punished, which makes me feel like it's missing the other half of the coin. I think it should be written down, so that anyone - new people included - can see that it exists.
Currently it's only worded that these sorts of relooks or appeals exist for the perpetrator / punished. That's what I mean there. It's all well and good repeating that over and over again in chat or in here but it needs to be written down in the right place.
RE: Here we go again - Salsaccino - 02-27-2024
(02-27-2024, 02:16 AM)WaifuApple Wrote: If it was always precedent, outside of those who've been banned being allowed to appeal on the grounds that they've learnt their lesson, it was never well spoken of, never really written down in any format or made clear that if you were unhappy with a ruling as the victim that you could, in fact, appeal this. If it's not new policy it's certainly the first time I've ever seen it officially acknowledged as one. Which is, again, why I do think having it written down in an official medium that "hey, if you're unhappy with how your case was handled, you can ask for it to be re-evaluated" is absolutely the right way to go. I checked the rules and only saw that you can get a second opinion if you feel you've been unfairly punished, which makes me feel like it's missing the other half of the coin. I think it should be written down, so that anyone - new people included - can see that it exists.
Currently it's only worded that these sorts of relooks or appeals exist for the perpetrator / punished. That's what I mean there. It's all well and good repeating that over and over again in chat or in here but it needs to be written down in the right place.
Valid, certainly. Definitely something we can discuss as a team to add a footnote of it in the rules if we feel it's as necessary as you say.
RE: Here we go again - PossumParty - 02-27-2024
(02-27-2024, 12:59 AM)Anhita Wrote: Apologies for the somewhat pointed topic. But I feel Hoot has shown remorse not only in that post from 2+ years ago, but from their actions since being unbanned the first time. And the GMs feeling the need to dig up old skeletons is a constant thing that I have always not been a fan of. And it felt like it happened all the time with harassment cases in particular for a certain period of time.For my two cents, it doesn't matter how long ago this happened. 'They put someone's life in danger- but oh yknow, it was years ago so it's fine.' HUH? No, it's not fine, it'll never be fine. And Hoot isn't the victim here. You, Hoot, nor anyone else can tell the victim how they're supposed to act or feel.
And for the part on remorse- are you absolutely sure? Immediately after the ban Hoot was trying to start something with Drez in a public chat, to which a GM responded on and told her to not do that, followed by her saying things like 'I don't have any grievances with him at this point' and telling the GM they were overstepping themself by doing that.
My personal opinion? They should've been banned from the get-go and this is just correcting what should have happened from the start.
People that are Hoot's friend defending her over doxxing, seems like they'd defend her over anything. And they're either missing a lot of information or ignoring a lot of it. That or morals.
SL2 is not your entire world. It's just a small niche corner on the internet. You can continue to be friends with Hoot, DM them, talk to them, play games with them, go find another little niche corner out there somewhere. People are acting like she just got hanged by a council. No, she's still just right there.
RE: Here we go again - WaifuApple - 02-27-2024
That's all I ask for, really. I recognise there's really not going to be any change in the stance, and ultimately as iffy as I am about touching things that far back, doxxing is, in fact, doxxing. It should have been a permaban then, and now it is. I don't have any problems with a no tolerance verdict on doxxing. I've seen it's effects, not been hit by it personally but I've seen someone close go through it. Ultimately you can't take that back, and going forward that's just what I expect from those cases.
I do value communication above all else, however, and a stance that won't budge belongs written down where it can be seen so everyone knows and understands that stance, and knows what is and isn't available to them. I'm sure there may have been tons of cases that could have been re-evaluated if this was written down and people knew about it. Admittedly I'm pretty sure with Detty that never felt like an official stance thing, that felt like another case of a lot of people making a lot of noise publicly until a branch was given. Similar happened with the ban wave mid-war, in which a stance was taken and outroar happened. That, at least to me, doesn't feel like official policy at work, just noise leading to new doorways. I figure the outcry here is because it sometimes leads to something, like in those outcomes. I don't think people genuinely intend disrespect to the victims. Just in some cases uproar has been the move to pave the way when there is serious strength of feeling. Sometimes it ends like this and is super messy and icky.
But yea, official stances. Write them down somewhere accessible easily. It is arguably SUPER important that new / returning players understand what their rights are when working with staff.
RE: Here we go again - Cogster - 02-27-2024
This was an expected development. Setting aside my personal opinions on the ban, I will thoroughly review each point you've raised and provide a summary of the moderation team's shared opinion in response.
Quote:Except that isn't the case, actually! Y'see, These crimes were committed around 2+ years ago!
https://neus-projects.net/forums/showthr...p?tid=8764
Now I get it. Doxxing is bad. Its one of the worst things you can do on the internet. But this sets a precedent. And quite frankly rather than watching the GMs flounder around giving multiple statements in the midst of chaos and outrage, Discussion around the subject would probably be better spent with them being able to speak in solidarity. Even if its going to be more of the same. Theres never really any discussion to be had with the GMs in any meaningful- its their word, and its always final. Theres never "we'll do better next time" or "maybe we were wrong."
Whether these crimes occurred two years ago, last year, in the past month, a week ago, or even yesterday, the focus should not be on the timing to absolve the wrongdoer. Instead, we should consider the timing alongside the nature of the crime. For two years, someone's information was leaked to the public, for two years, those affected had no safety or privacy online, and for two years, the case remained 'closed,' with the only comfort for the victims being that their perpetrator would face a mere 3-month ban from a video game.
By stepping back and considering both sides, it becomes abundantly clear how unfairly Drezdin and Kitkat were treated throughout this entire incident. Regarding your complaints about a perceived 'wall' and the fruitlessness of discussing matters with the GMs, despite being directed to communicate through Modmail, I'm unsure of what else we can do, show, or tell you to satisfy you. We won't simply say 'We will do better next time' or admit fault where we believe there is none.
Quote:Apologies for the somewhat pointed topic. But I feel Hoot has shown remorse not only in that post from 2+ years ago, but from their actions since being unbanned the first time. And the GMs feeling the need to dig up old skeletons is a constant thing that I have always not been a fan of. And it felt like it happened all the time with harassment cases in particular for a certain period of time.
Why do we need to stir the pot for something that, in this case, over half the community weren't even *here* for? I dont even some of the GMs were present for this particular incident, even.
You don't need to apologize for restating the purpose of the thread. Now, regarding your implication in this portion, I fail to see how either the GMs' or the current community's involvement with the case affects whether it should be re-reviewed. I believe it stands to reason that with how uninvolved the GMs may appear to you, it supports, in a way, the impartiality and fairness of our judgment after reviewing the evidence, both old and new.
Regarding your characterization of this as 'stirring the pot,' it comes across as somewhat disingenuous and even personally insulting. Never have I, during my time as a GM, considered that I took this position to fracture or dissociate myself from this community. Never have I been motivated to act for the sole purpose of inciting drama, and neither has anyone else who joins me in this position.
Quote:Maybe Im not the most level headed person to be starting the discussion at the moment. Im not even the victim. Heck. I have absolutely nothing to do with either party in terms of the accused or the victim. I certainly dont want to downplay their struggles. And I genuinely think what the had to go through was rough. One of the worst things I can probably imagine happening to somone on the internet. You can get harassed, threatened, or even worse even offline as a result of such things.
The reason why laws change retroactively irl is usually because it serves some benefit for the victim. The victim is who matters the most in this case, With my limited knowledge and understanding of the situation as a whole, I dont understand how this helps the victim at all, unless they felt Hoot was going to do it again.
Laws do not change retroactively; they evolve as our way of life and work changes. With these shifts, laws can become outdated, new laws can emerge, and existing laws can be reaffirmed. In this case, a new law was referenced: the disclosure of private information to the public, or doxxing, is abhorrent and unacceptable. Any such act will be met with swift and harsh punishment, as we have pledged to enforce more rigorously.
Mismanagement of how this issue was handled and a failure to grasp the severity of their actions have plagued this case. Our current actions demonstrate two things: we are remaining consistent in our rulings, and we are taking steps to mend the trauma experienced and resolve the distrust harbored by the victims involved.
Quote:But its also kinda fucked to go back to a years-old case, where it atleast *seems* like both parties have moved on. Hoot, having grown past their mistakes from all that time ago, I feel, from my limited interaction with them atleast. This was one the weird times where a person actually self-reflected on their ban! They knew what they did wrong, as opposed to the usual harassment cases where one is usually hit with it with no idea what their crime even is.
Then they got double-jeopardy'd.
The thing I dont like about this is the fact that if this can happen to Hoot. Whos to say it cant happen to any of the previous bans that we can view today in the now defunct Unban appeals? Or those that happened afterwards? Even the ones before which have no official public record?
You can do one thing wrong and now have it held over your head for the rest of your entire life in this community, even if you've already been punished for it. Admittedly it felt like this could happen already for some. But now, You can get punished *twice* for something you've done. And that punishment? It very well could be a permenant affair.
Do I expect this to actually happen? Well, I'd like to hope not. But I've had more than my fair share of both good and bad experiences from this community alone myself, and its starting to make me feel bitter in general. Right around when I was getting my passion back, I see another thing like this that absolutely needs to be discussed.
I'll be brief because this needs to be said plainly. You are welcome to argue the nature of the ban and present new evidence, but you have no right to presume how either party feels about the ruling. Regarding the notion of 'double jeopardy' that keeps coming up: case reviews have always been a possibility. However, it is rare for a review to result in a change. If there is fear that reopening an older case will lead to harsher punishment, then the nature of the case itself would have warranted such an outcome.
Quote:One of the GMs, amidst the chaos of the discord discourse, mentioned that the information is already out there, and that you cant really take that back. Theres no taking back the pain of things that happened in the past-- or could possibly be happening now. I think Doxxing should absolutely be a permenant ban without any tolerance. However, Back then, it -was- tolerated. Going back and changing that now opens a whole can of worms, And I am unsure who it really helps. I feel going forward, Firstly, The ban on Hoot should absolutely be reversed if they were not using the information in question from the doxxing since their ban.
Secondly, If anyone -was- using the information in question other than Hoot, it'd probably be a better avenue of punishment. I cant exactly say whats right or wrong. Im not really a GM, But I feel this is the most fair. But my opinion, in all honesty, after all this time of trying to appeal these things, probably doesn't matter whatsoever.
You are entitled to your opinion, as is your right, just as it is your right to have created this thread. However, to suggest that doxxing was ever tolerated in the past is irresponsible and appalling. It was not. The case was mishandled, and we have rectified that today.
If you fail to understand who benefits from this decision, what this ban signifies, and the reasons behind the ban, then perhaps this thread was unnecessary and a ban appeal would've served the intended goal.
RE: Here we go again - ItsSomeone - 02-27-2024
Doxxing is crossing a fucking line and its ridiculous it took this long to get a proper punishment for it. Better late than never I suppose.
It's also disgusting that there are attempts to defend or deflect this. But I'm not surprised either.
RE: Here we go again - matthewmwps - 02-27-2024
This ban was rather ‘sudden’ to the unaware, with concerns and issues raised of proactive judgements being valid. However, I echo the sentiment of Drez, PossumParty and the GM team as a whole. Doxing is fundamentally different to anything simple like harassment or gatekeeping, you do not simply wash yourself clean of damage that is always there. Any argument of ‘change’ will not stop this fact. Unless a similar case involving an objectively illegal and horrible act like this is mentioned to the GMs for repeal, I doubt anyone can worry about sudden permanent bans for previous things.
While not directly the same, I recall a rather large ban wave happening a few months in the past, hitting people for things that lasted weeks, months or years(?) ago. In a way that situation was just as ‘controversial’ as this, but I think it was a big positive step towards the community. This feels like acting upon that same principle, and just the same I think that this will bring more positive change and improvement.
RE: Here we go again - Pyro - 02-27-2024
ohhhghh nooo the next persosn could be me what could i have ever done to deserve this! I hope it wasn't the dozens of horrible things I performed behind closed doors that I hope no admins ever find out about!