*points at the hammy dialogue used as the header of the Tribunal section*
That one was a superb joke. Heh. ;-)
-
For all readers and writers
After much ado, our new tagging system is here and being rolled out to the userbase. Read more here!
- Status
That one was a superb joke. Heh. ;-)
You're kinda getting the same treatment all our other shitty trolls get dude.
- Location
- Brittany, France
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I want to emphasize this: this tribunal is not exceptional. This situation is not exceptional. There is no great secret that is going to be covered up by the staff that you can reveal like a brilliant martyr.
You've been trolling and, when offered to provide your defense - twice - you just made bizarre outbursts. This isn't particularly unique, and will not go down in history as a specifically terrible or damaging incident.
It's just a permaban tribunal for a demonstrated troll who provided no good defense and tried to use the appeal as a venue for soapboxing, neglecting to actually defend their case in the process.
It's Thursday.
FaeGlade Plural
Semper Legens
- Location
- Land of Bureaucracy
- Pronouns
- Plural/They
Foreword:
As usual in a permaban tribunal, it falls to us to examine the staffs argument for it, and see if the users conduct matches that argument and warrants the permanent ban.
In this tribunal, we ought to consider whether @Rufus Shinra previous conduct - before his 17-month absence - should be figured into the assessment of his overall conduct. To elaborate:
The last regular post by @Rufus Shinra was on the 18th of June 2015. Until the 11th of November 2016, he posted nothing at all anywhere on this forum or on his profile (other than a short "please don't contact me here") message).
In addition, there was an appeal by him that was likely in bad faith.
So now back to my question: Should @Rufus Shinra previous conduct actually be figured into this appeals-process?
The main question for any permanent ban should be this: Can we reasonably expect the user to improve their behavior?
It's clear that @Rufus Shinra is capable of much better behavior. He was a member in good standing, even a member of the community council. Whatever his political stances back then or now, he was apparently able to express it in a useful manner.
So he clearly has the capacity to behave better. But can we expect him to?
So far, in this tribunal, he's said several times that he's just here to get a reaction, show us up, stir things up - in other words, he's here to troll.
Capacity to behave properly is necessary, but useless if one is unwilling to do so.
I could now post an appeal (pun intended) to @Rufus Shinra to behave better. Something along the lines of "the label on that one infraction was in mistake, I can see where you were coming from with your appeal, but you gotta stop treating this as some great injustice that you can only fight via mockery".
Frankly, he doesn't need an explanation like that. He's a former councilor (or if I got that wrong, staff member), he should be aware of how reports and infractions are handed out, and should be smart enough to figure out that labeling error on his own. He should be aware that his behavior here isn't doing him any favors, that you can actually reason with people here, and that all it takes to avoid this permaban is just say "okay, so I posted to rile people up, but I can stop doing that".
I was tempted to argue for a time-limited ban, because he can clearly do better. A few months maybe, to give him time to cool off.
But, well - he shouldn't need that, he should know better. As such
[X] Uphold Permaban
As usual in a permaban tribunal, it falls to us to examine the staffs argument for it, and see if the users conduct matches that argument and warrants the permanent ban.
In this tribunal, we ought to consider whether @Rufus Shinra previous conduct - before his 17-month absence - should be figured into the assessment of his overall conduct. To elaborate:
The last regular post by @Rufus Shinra was on the 18th of June 2015. Until the 11th of November 2016, he posted nothing at all anywhere on this forum or on his profile (other than a short "please don't contact me here") message).
In addition, there was an appeal by him that was likely in bad faith.
His reason for appeal was basically this:
"The infraction said it was for violating a warning, but the warning only happened afterwards".
Well, as someone who can see the report-queue, it's easy to explain what happened:
The post, along with several others, got reported. Time elapsed until staff could handle that report (made on the 12th), so it was only infracted at the 24th. The infraction was then labeled "violating a mod warning". Instead, he should have been hit just for the shitposting/trolling.
So ironically, we have a procedural error here - but since we aren't actually engaging in lawyer-RP like that, we don't care, and only care whether the infraction was warranted. Which it was.
Now, why call the appeal itself "trolling"?
Well, that appeals can only be made within a 72-hour window doesn't strike me as terribly relevant - we CAN grant extensions.
But to get one, you actually have to put up an appeal. This wasn't. It was just "oh look, inconsistency! Timetravel! lulz!" That's basically textbook trolling - just posting meaningless stuff to get a reaction. Certainly, it wasn't in good faith
"The infraction said it was for violating a warning, but the warning only happened afterwards".
Well, as someone who can see the report-queue, it's easy to explain what happened:
The post, along with several others, got reported. Time elapsed until staff could handle that report (made on the 12th), so it was only infracted at the 24th. The infraction was then labeled "violating a mod warning". Instead, he should have been hit just for the shitposting/trolling.
So ironically, we have a procedural error here - but since we aren't actually engaging in lawyer-RP like that, we don't care, and only care whether the infraction was warranted. Which it was.
Now, why call the appeal itself "trolling"?
Well, that appeals can only be made within a 72-hour window doesn't strike me as terribly relevant - we CAN grant extensions.
But to get one, you actually have to put up an appeal. This wasn't. It was just "oh look, inconsistency! Timetravel! lulz!" That's basically textbook trolling - just posting meaningless stuff to get a reaction. Certainly, it wasn't in good faith
So now back to my question: Should @Rufus Shinra previous conduct actually be figured into this appeals-process?
The main question for any permanent ban should be this: Can we reasonably expect the user to improve their behavior?
It's clear that @Rufus Shinra is capable of much better behavior. He was a member in good standing, even a member of the community council. Whatever his political stances back then or now, he was apparently able to express it in a useful manner.
So he clearly has the capacity to behave better. But can we expect him to?
So far, in this tribunal, he's said several times that he's just here to get a reaction, show us up, stir things up - in other words, he's here to troll.
Capacity to behave properly is necessary, but useless if one is unwilling to do so.
I could now post an appeal (pun intended) to @Rufus Shinra to behave better. Something along the lines of "the label on that one infraction was in mistake, I can see where you were coming from with your appeal, but you gotta stop treating this as some great injustice that you can only fight via mockery".
Frankly, he doesn't need an explanation like that. He's a former councilor (or if I got that wrong, staff member), he should be aware of how reports and infractions are handed out, and should be smart enough to figure out that labeling error on his own. He should be aware that his behavior here isn't doing him any favors, that you can actually reason with people here, and that all it takes to avoid this permaban is just say "okay, so I posted to rile people up, but I can stop doing that".
I was tempted to argue for a time-limited ban, because he can clearly do better. A few months maybe, to give him time to cool off.
But, well - he shouldn't need that, he should know better. As such
[X] Uphold Permaban
- Pronouns
- He/Him
If you mouse-over the timestamps, they will reveal the absolute date and time in your timezone, down to minute resolution. For me, that profile post was made on Nov 11 7:54 AM; the warning was issued Nov 12, 3:42 AM. So the profile post occurred first.
Whiskey Golf
Being of Editing & Technical Assistance
- Location
- Chained to my desk
What the fuck, Rufus.
So I'm going to speak on two issues here: Rufus's recent failed appeal, and Rufus's Permaban proceedings here. I have no real dog in this. I just call it as I see it. I'm going to speak my mind. If that makes it lawyer LARP, well, okay then.
@Rufus Shinra believes that the administration of SV is persecuting him for thoughtcrime and retroactively punishing him for violating a mod warning, before said mod warning was issued. The facts have already been well established by the staff and other councillors. Put simply, mistakes were made. Rufus received a higher punishment because the staff wrongly believed he had violated a moderator warning, and so escalated the punishment.
This does not mean that the post was not infracticable on its own merits. It was. I believe that the infraction was issued correctly.
And Rufus? You complain that good faith wasn't shown to you in your appeal, but put yourself in the other party's shoes. To me, it doesn't look like you were approaching the appeal in good faith. Nevermind how it wasn't formatted properly, it didn't have any substance to it. Instead of explaining why you thought the infraction was wrong, of even saying "I got infracted on Nov 24 for a post that I made on Nov 11, that they said broke a warning on Nov 12, a day after," you just jumped into an almost incomprehensible rant. If I were handling your appeal, I'd have rejected it for the same reasons @Pale Wolf did.
My recommendation is that the infraction stands, but be Reduced to 25 points. Despite that shitpost of an appeal.
The second issue is the whole Permaban. Rufus, you seem to think you're being permabanned because you're not following SV's appeals rules. That's not the case. I refer you to the Permaban Policy, which you're unaware of because y'know, you weren't here when it was announced. I'll read it:
Note, the bolded, by the way. If you want this tribunal to see the light of day, all you have to do is say so explicitly.
Now, the Directors argue for your permabanning based on your behaviour. And quite frankly, Rufus, I can't defend you. Hell, I called you out on your behaviour even. You left SV in a huff, 17-odd months ago, and when you return you begin smugly gloating and shitposting threads, shitposting your appeal (after appealing late, even!) and you're shitposting this review. C'mon, man. You're not being persecuted. You've gotten infracted for similar behaviour on SB. Hell, TheJamesRocket got infracted for going on your profile to gloat smugly at you. Your being infracted in the normal way for shitposting in the normal way. The difference is that the sum totality of your return to SV has been shitposting and trolling. Can you not see how that looks to others? As I said: you demean others and you demean yourself.
We are, if not friends, at the very least friendly, @Rufus Shinra . I used to like and respect you. And now I just feel disappointment. I would have liked to be able to speak for you more stridently, but you've made that very difficult by your own actions. You don't get to shitpost your appeal and then claim that good faith wasn't shown to you, Rufus, not when you didn't show any good faith yourself.
You talk about jokes, how this review is a joke, how SV is a joke, a hugbox, a safe space. The joke is that for all SV has a reputation of being a hug box, the only people who seem to think this are the ones who left because no one hugged them. You left SV in a huff, Rufus, looking for your safe space on SB. You go on and on about a narrative being formed, but you're the one who's actively pushing a narrative outside this review. You insist that you don't want to be on SV - and yet you return to shitpost. You say people wouldn't care to format their appeals following SV's practices, but you didn't even put anything of substance into your appeal, just a shitposting rant. You insinuate this review is going to be hidden and thus you'll need to spread the word of this injustice - but all you had to do is say you wanted it so, and this review becomes public.
You talk about hypocrisy of SV's rules, while ignoring your own hypocrisy.
(Also the actual tale is about Qin dynasty soldiers, not Roman legionnaires. :/ )
In the end, I'm left asking "Why?" Why do all this? Why have this grandstanding? Why keep you around?
I want to defend you. I want to support you. But I look at the totality of your actions on your return, and I cannot agree to keeping you here, Rufus. You don't want to be here. You have no respect for the rules or what we're trying to do. Your only action has been shitposting - and I note again, you are shitposting in this very thread.
You claim you don't want to be here. After what I've seen, I don't want you here either. And that saddens me. I used to like and respect you.
I don't want a shitposter here.
With a tired and disappointed heart, I vote to Uphold the Permanent Ban.
So I'm going to speak on two issues here: Rufus's recent failed appeal, and Rufus's Permaban proceedings here. I have no real dog in this. I just call it as I see it. I'm going to speak my mind. If that makes it lawyer LARP, well, okay then.
@Rufus Shinra believes that the administration of SV is persecuting him for thoughtcrime and retroactively punishing him for violating a mod warning, before said mod warning was issued. The facts have already been well established by the staff and other councillors. Put simply, mistakes were made. Rufus received a higher punishment because the staff wrongly believed he had violated a moderator warning, and so escalated the punishment.
This does not mean that the post was not infracticable on its own merits. It was. I believe that the infraction was issued correctly.
And Rufus? You complain that good faith wasn't shown to you in your appeal, but put yourself in the other party's shoes. To me, it doesn't look like you were approaching the appeal in good faith. Nevermind how it wasn't formatted properly, it didn't have any substance to it. Instead of explaining why you thought the infraction was wrong, of even saying "I got infracted on Nov 24 for a post that I made on Nov 11, that they said broke a warning on Nov 12, a day after," you just jumped into an almost incomprehensible rant. If I were handling your appeal, I'd have rejected it for the same reasons @Pale Wolf did.
My recommendation is that the infraction stands, but be Reduced to 25 points. Despite that shitpost of an appeal.
The second issue is the whole Permaban. Rufus, you seem to think you're being permabanned because you're not following SV's appeals rules. That's not the case. I refer you to the Permaban Policy, which you're unaware of because y'know, you weren't here when it was announced. I'll read it:
Article: As has been the case since the revamp of the infraction system last December, permabans may occur after a Director-level review of a poster's behaviour, usually with the input of the rest of the @Staff. This discussion is provided to the @Council in archive form, so they have access to it for review.
The @Council, as always, is free to tell us we have made a mistake. However, a public Tribunal will occur only if the person who is permanently banned requests it, through the Contact Us link at the bottom of all the pages on Sufficient Velocity.
Note, the bolded, by the way. If you want this tribunal to see the light of day, all you have to do is say so explicitly.
Now, the Directors argue for your permabanning based on your behaviour. And quite frankly, Rufus, I can't defend you. Hell, I called you out on your behaviour even. You left SV in a huff, 17-odd months ago, and when you return you begin smugly gloating and shitposting threads, shitposting your appeal (after appealing late, even!) and you're shitposting this review. C'mon, man. You're not being persecuted. You've gotten infracted for similar behaviour on SB. Hell, TheJamesRocket got infracted for going on your profile to gloat smugly at you. Your being infracted in the normal way for shitposting in the normal way. The difference is that the sum totality of your return to SV has been shitposting and trolling. Can you not see how that looks to others? As I said: you demean others and you demean yourself.
We are, if not friends, at the very least friendly, @Rufus Shinra . I used to like and respect you. And now I just feel disappointment. I would have liked to be able to speak for you more stridently, but you've made that very difficult by your own actions. You don't get to shitpost your appeal and then claim that good faith wasn't shown to you, Rufus, not when you didn't show any good faith yourself.
You talk about jokes, how this review is a joke, how SV is a joke, a hugbox, a safe space. The joke is that for all SV has a reputation of being a hug box, the only people who seem to think this are the ones who left because no one hugged them. You left SV in a huff, Rufus, looking for your safe space on SB. You go on and on about a narrative being formed, but you're the one who's actively pushing a narrative outside this review. You insist that you don't want to be on SV - and yet you return to shitpost. You say people wouldn't care to format their appeals following SV's practices, but you didn't even put anything of substance into your appeal, just a shitposting rant. You insinuate this review is going to be hidden and thus you'll need to spread the word of this injustice - but all you had to do is say you wanted it so, and this review becomes public.
You talk about hypocrisy of SV's rules, while ignoring your own hypocrisy.
(Also the actual tale is about Qin dynasty soldiers, not Roman legionnaires. :/ )
In the end, I'm left asking "Why?" Why do all this? Why have this grandstanding? Why keep you around?
I want to defend you. I want to support you. But I look at the totality of your actions on your return, and I cannot agree to keeping you here, Rufus. You don't want to be here. You have no respect for the rules or what we're trying to do. Your only action has been shitposting - and I note again, you are shitposting in this very thread.
You claim you don't want to be here. After what I've seen, I don't want you here either. And that saddens me. I used to like and respect you.
I don't want a shitposter here.
With a tired and disappointed heart, I vote to Uphold the Permanent Ban.
- Status