Administrative Tribunal Commentary Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Zedalb said:
No I don't which is why I haven't done it, I'm just surprised as are others, that apparently that is an infraction.

I would assume spam filters would know that any site getting to a certain size will get a number of emails reported as spam, by dint of numbers.

I've reported blizard as spam, I doubt they are getting auto spammed anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It probably depends on volume.

Also, what I mean is literally the default is receiving no emails. You have to go, "Yes, I want to get emails for this thread" and then go, "And now I will report the emails I requested as spam."
 
Zedalb said:
Yeah but many people wouldn't know that, and all I'd really want is "Ignore emails from this person" function which spam does I can always go into the spam folder, my phone doesn't need to give me an alert and the whole nine yards for SV.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But... then why sign up for emails? It's largely optional and I can't even remember the last time I've gotten an email from SV, since pretty much all my settings on SV are configured like that.

[edit]: DAMMIT LAURI YOU NINJA!
 
The Englanderish said:
But... then why sign up for emails? It's largely optional and I can't even remember the last time I've gotten an email from SV, since pretty much all my settings on SV are configured like that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well I presume you have to give your email at first to create an account.

But yes you would have to ask for them then report them as spam.

I'm just saying I can see it as something you could do without thinking about and it isn't clearly listed against the rules making it an odd infraction.
Hell given the assumption that the rules only exist on the forum I'd be surprised to see I even got an infraction for it at all.

My point is more it would seem to be an honest mistake from not knowing what the spam button does in full (most of the time) and isn't clearly listed anywhere according to a few people who looked.

Like hey staff, update the rules or TOS to call that out, because several people were surprised and that doesn't seem obvious for a casual internet users less familiar with the functions.
 
This argument isn't productive.

There was no "marking of spam" on my end to clear this up. My inbox redirected the SV mail to my junk folder automatically as per my settings which were screwed up at the time - it was moving everything not marked as safe away from my normal folder. I was moving the mail manually to my inbox and got lazy when it came to putting in the time to whitelist and set up a folder for SV mail, assuming it wouldn't be a major issue and thinking I could take my time.

As far as Xon knew I was doing it on purpose. I didn't contest or take any action for several reasons, and while trying to make sense of what it was I "did" the appeal window passed. According to the person in question it could have ended much worse on a whim, either a ban since it's violating the terms of service or some unspecified number of points plus email would be disabled permanently. Staff has apparently set their foot down on this issue.
 
The Laurent said:
It's because marking it as spam can have potentially disastrous effects, because these services keep track of that, and if enough people mark it as spam, suddenly all SV emailed alerts for everyone go straight into the spam folder. If I'm getting it right.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This bothers me for two reasons: First, many people may assume that it only has an effect on their own spam filtering, and/or that it operates mainly on the content of the message, and for some that may even be true. Second, that it's disclosed to SV with enough identifying information to allow the infraction seems like a massive violation of those users' privacy by the email provider.

(I also haven't gotten any from SV, but I have occasionally received actual spam through the PM notification feature on other forums)

FortePlus said:
As far as Xon knew I was doing it on purpose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Er... then it sounds like your email provider deliberately misled Xon about your actions (or he has grossly misinterpreted whatever communications he received from them), which is much more serious than the privacy violation I suggested above.
 
Last edited:
Random832 said:
Second, that it's disclosed to SV with enough identifying information to allow the infraction seems like a massive violation of those users' privacy by the email provider.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The only "identifying information" generally returned ends up being the email address involved, which is intended to allow for subscription services (mailing lists or similar) to be able to process it as if it were a "remove this email address from your mailings" request.

This isn't really a whole lot of information, and it's less than the information available to the sending system if the message is outright rejected for being spam (where the entire message is now available).
 
Random832 said:
Er... then it sounds like your email provider deliberately misled Xon about your actions (or he has grossly misinterpreted whatever communications he received from them), which is much more serious than the privacy violation I suggested above.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't know what exactly happened. At this point I don't particularly care.

Not to say that you don't have a point, but it might be better served as a different conversation altogether. I don't have enough knowledge to make any sort of argument.
 
EmpressSquishette said:
Your email provider just packages the email you mark as spam up and sends it back to us with a note reading "email abuse report for an email message from sufficientvelocity.com".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We also need to sign something like a +10 page legal agreement per email provider to get those notification emails.

Which I just hand to @EmpressSquishette to review and sign and advise me :V


FortePlus said:
As far as Xon knew I was doing it on purpose. I didn't contest or take any action for several reasons, and while trying to make sense of what it was I "did" the appeal window passed. According to the person in question it could have ended much worse on a whim, either a ban since it's violating the terms of service or some unspecified number of points plus email would be disabled permanently. Staff has apparently set their foot down on this issue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Generally if people explain it, I'll remove the warning. Honestly the only reason I issue the warnings is to track when someone is repeatedly doing it. It is also a highly reliable way to ensure people see the message
 
Last edited:
Zedalb said:
I do think blatant falsehoods are infractable.
If I started calling users pedophiles I suspect I would find myself infracted quite quickly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They aren't in and off themselves. There is no rule against saying things that aren't true; instead if you were to get infracted for it would be for something like, using your example, harassment. In the case of something more commonly seen, like a someone in a debate repeatedly posting something they know to be untrue they MIGHT get hit with bad faith debating, but the enforcement of that kind of thing is generally pretty soft. It wouldn't really be workable as a hard and fast rule because 1) people are sometimes wrong about things without causing any harm, 2) the staff don't have the resources to litigate the truth for several thousand users on any given day, especially once..., 3) users will weaponize it against one another to "win" debates (reporting typos, irrelevent minutiae, subjective observations, imprecise estimates, etc).

CV12Hornet said:
Props to Ralson here, and I completely agree with his line of reasoning wrt the pattern of behavior. The good policy is to first determine whether an infraction is needed on its own merits, and only then do you apply a pattern of behavior. It affects punishment, not guilt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think a pattern of behavior can be used to determine if an infraction is warranted. If someone repeatedly engages in a behavior, then that can fundamentally alter how people interpret it. If someone has been tiptoeing around the fringes of a behavior, then trips up and goes over the line once, I don't think it is inapproriate to look at the totality of their behaviors to give weight to the position that it wasn't an accident/misunderstanding or whatever.
 
poaw said:
They aren't in and off themselves. There is no rule against saying things that aren't true; instead if you were to get infracted for it would be for something like, using your example, harassment. In the case of something more commonly seen, like a someone in a debate repeatedly posting something they know to be untrue they MIGHT get hit with bad faith debating, but the enforcement of that kind of thing is generally pretty soft. It wouldn't really be workable as a hard and fast rule because 1) people are sometimes wrong about things without causing any harm, 2) the staff don't have the resources to litigate the truth for several thousand users on any given day, especially once..., 3) users will weaponize it against one another to "win" debates (reporting typos, irrelevent minutiae, subjective observations, imprecise estimates, etc).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thank you, that is a much better way to put it.

I meant something a long those lines, that blatant false hoods about other users would probably fall under something infraction worthy.

Except for comedic effect presumably. Like saying squishy is going to ban me for my browser history.
 
poaw said:
I think a pattern of behavior can be used to determine if an infraction is warranted. If someone repeatedly engages in a behavior, then that can fundamentally alter how people interpret it. If someone has been tiptoeing around the fringes of a behavior, then trips up and goes over the line once, I don't think it is inapproriate to look at the totality of their behaviors to give weight to the position that it wasn't an accident/misunderstanding or whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah agreed. If you follow the proposed methodology of only looking at the pattern after you've recognized an individually actionable post, you'll miss people who create low key trouble below the actionable level on a post by post basis but do so consistently to the point that it is still detrimental to the forum. One problem I think SV suffers from at times.
 
2019-AT-16: Staff and Chaotic Awesome
  • Threadmarks
    • forums.sufficientvelocity.com

    2019-AT-16: Staff and Chaotic Awesome Overturned

    Your appeal must include, in its title, the name of the thread in which the staff action you are appealing occurred (or if there is no thread, what the action was); See Title. Your appeal must include a brief summary of the facts, including the details of the staff action - which moderator...
    forums.sufficientvelocity.com forums.sufficientvelocity.com
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Seeing that word used every day in every corner of the internet is wearing a hole through my brain. Aaand, just got to the judgement. That's an interesting precedent to set.
     
    I just write said:
    My brain glazed over that whole thing. Can someone please summarize what in the world it was about?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Someone argued that the mods are bigoted because they are too harsh in enforcing rule 2 against individuals who use the slur 'traps'.

    This was hit under rules 2 and 5, under the reasoning that it tacitly encouraged people to break this rule and thus a) promoted bigotry and b) made the staff's job harder.

    This was appealed. The appeal was overturned, then went to the council, who concluded that it should be upheld. Then Squishy overturned it, on grounds that nothing that the appellant did actually broke the rules- meaning that it's now a matter of public record that suggesting that the mods are bigots for enforcing the rules against people for using 'traps' to refer to trans women is not rule breaking behavior.

    All very straightforward, to be honest.
     
    I'm still going to report someone every single time I see that term being used.

    Also this ruling is kind of fucking stupid.
     
    Vindictus said:
    Someone argued that the mods are bigoted because they are too harsh in enforcing rule 2 against individuals who use the slur 'traps'.

    This was hit under rules 2 and 5, under the reasoning that it tacitly encouraged people to break this rule and thus a) promoted bigotry and b) made the staff's job harder.

    This was appealed. The appeal was overturned, then went to the council, who concluded that it should be upheld. Then Squishy overturned it, on grounds that nothing that the appellant did actually broke the rules- meaning that it's now a matter of public record that suggesting that the mods are bigots for enforcing the rules against people for using 'traps' to refer to trans women is not rule breaking behavior.

    All very straightforward, to be honest.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    And once again, I find myself facepalming at one of Squishy's more questionable decisions.
     
    I just write said:
    My brain glazed over that whole thing. Can someone please summarize what in the world it was about?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Very roughly paraphrased the case wasnt about some using the term trap but someone arguing about whether rule 2 is good and calling the staff bigots, and Squishy felt Brokenbase was applying rule 5 too broadly since rule 5 isnt dont argue about mod actions but agrue about mod actions in the right place ie not in the thread where it happened and Squishy found calling the staff pathetic or bigoted for enforcing rule 2 is not a rule 2 violation.
     
    That judgement will certainly promote such varied and valuable discussion. /Sarcasm

    Something spirit of the rules, something, "You know how people who love using certain language in a space where that language is unacceptable, also love having 'discussion' about why it should not be considered unacceptable?"
     
    Reader mode
    1,084 more messages…
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top