[DerpyMcPandos]

Salutations,

I will first preface this by saying that this appeal review has been looked over by a majority of the Moderation team and that they have likewise provided input and commentary before this has been published.

If you would prefer a short summary of the stance that will be taken on this, then it is as follows: Our policy will not permit the publishing of details. This has been the case for the better parts of two years and will not change for the sake of protecting those involved from backlash, be them victim, bystander or corroborator. Likewise, there is no interest in exposing them to the public. The rest of the appeal's contents are insufficiently reasoned for there to be any change in our stance, nor will further commentary be provided.

However, because I have taken the chance to provide a short-hand summation, I will to take the chance to provide a more in-depth reply. This will be a Quote-Reply format initially.

---

I would first like to point out that this is a majority of someone's (Me.) freetime, between those two times and don't really have the opportunities available to me to direct an 'IC' as you state towards another player with such intent.

Using an argument such as this has two issues. Firstly, it's fallacious to argue that a lack of time to engage with the IC of the game absolves someone of engaging in targeted behaviour against another. It should go without saying that in a hypothetical scenario, someone can take fifteen minutes a day and receive a ban due to how they choose to engage in their actions, maliciously or otherwise. The second issue is that by arguing a majority of your time has been taken up, you are (perhaps accidentally) insinuating the staff are operating off of limited evidence or some arbitrary measure. This is not the case.

There has been a case built up against me to warrant a ban of significant length. ...I still believe it to be with error and against circumstance. (To say you have not considered every detail.)

Now there are some interactions present in game ... that would give way to some conclusion that it was derived from ire. I assure you it was not.

I have chosen to lump these two, as well as other allusions to this together under the broad category of believing that there was an erroneous decision made by staff in coming to the conclusion seen here. While what our reasoning has been based on will not be given, as mentioned above, it was very clear and corroborated from multiple accounts across a period of time that showed very damning evidence.

Which, neatly enough, leads into the main point. The sentiment regarding the disclosure of the evidence behind and perceived injustice of the system.

For this I will be making a minor detour for the sake of historical context for this analysis. In approximately November 2020 a large furor had arisen regarding issues of harassment in the community and GM transparency, to the point that it required a large intervention by staff in order to address and quell concerns. This intervention was predominantly done by Balthie, in a thread of the same name, Harassment and GM Transparency, which I will link below.

https://neus-projects.net/forums/showthr...p?tid=7387

A lot of the points raised in that thread are critical to the discussion here, though I will pre-empt and make it absolutely clear that I am not labeling anyone a harasser by virtue of this response. Instead, it is the risk of such behaviour occurring that we are concerned about.

Balthie's address was quite clear in how the GM team had decided treat the situation of harassment. In particular, the adoption of a Zero-Tolerance policy towards any and all such behaviour, as indicated by the following:

We have elected to take on a harsher, zero-tolerance stance on cases of intentional, targetted harassment.
...
If we are presented with adequate evidence that any specific person has been exhibiting behaviour of targetted, malicious harassment or hostility at another player or players, and a further investigation corroborates as much, that person will be met with mechanical punishment swiftly, decisively, and thoroughly.

This change in policy, in my humble opinion, has proven to be for the benefit of the community in no uncertain terms, if only by virtue in the decline of such behaviour. Though further discussion of its efficacy should rightfully be reserved for a future discussion. Part of this policy also included three caveats that were attached to it in light of behaviour that was witnessed by staff in the lead-up to the address. These can be summed up as follows:

Staff members are not blind to attempts made by people to pull the wool over their eyes and to create 'thin veils of plausible deniability'
Staff members are aware of the pressuring of others, or in other words, a pattern of people being 'scrutinized by their actions'
Staff members have witnessed a tragically common behaviour where-in those who witness, report or otherwise aid in staff investigations into behaviour are often targeted for their actions. To quote Balthie directly: "Discretion has been and continues to be a distinct concern in harassment cases, and there is a danger when providing logs that we can put existing victims at further risk of hostility."

None of the current staff have an interest in disclosing the particulars of this case to you, given personal conversations several staff members have had with you, we are not of the opinion that sharing details would provide any amicable outcome. The wording and timing of your ban appeal has me sincerely doubting that you took the chance to be reflective as we had hoped when issuing the ban, and that you are more interested in arguing to a bitter end. This argumentative lens is not one I wish to feed into, so do not expect any further commentary.

---

In closing I think it is pertinent to touch on the analogy you attempt to draw between the moderation of an online videogame with that of criminal court procedure:

Rather, no information was brought to light. This is like going to jail after a jury granted their verdict. Like the Prosecution had not even offered their discovery prior to the case and not disclosed it during this time of my post.

The core premise of this argument is flawed. As mentioned before, the team saw sufficient evidence, and there is no room to mount a defense. Unlike a Judge in a court of law, GMs are intimately aware with the goings on and the context of issues as they are brought before them. No amount of context will change what was seen. This is due to a combination of playing the game ourselves, hearing issues from various members of the community, surveying logs that are either provided or self-mined and from discussion in amongst ourselves. There is no need for evidence to be yielded up beyond the burden of proof which was amply exceeded here. Your chance to offer a counter was provided here through this appeal system, which was lackluster.

We have seen what we needed to see and we are convinced that the ban was to the correct length, in response to a true and un-distorted set of behaviours and that your behaviour following said ban has not given us cause to minimise its length.

And, as an addition, do not antagonise staff by sending us such things as we process these matters:

It only serves to make us more certain that this is the right course of action to take here.