Administrative Tribunal Commentary Thread

[Gadjo]

They are statements of thought.

...Or they could just talk about baseball, live and let live, as long as a person is only thinking and not acting on those thoughts then they are doing nothing wrong.

I'm done with this conversation, you are overtly supportive of thought policing and that is absolutely morally unacceptable. End of story.

Click to shrink...

"I think jews are sub-human pests upon the human race" is also an expression of thought, and you'd have to forgive any jewish people for never wanting to be around the asshole that said it again. Speech *is* the expression of thought.

 

[mesonoxian]

They are statements of thought.

Click to shrink...

All posts are statements of thoughts. So unless your policy is just "FReeze Peach!" some "statements of thought" are going to be restricted.

Your argument is just "But I was being polite, so you have to tolerate my bigotry". To hell with that.

 

[foamy]

stop

Yeah, they pretty much have. Council rulings are a major item that influences their decisions in the smaller items, and without a good grounding in the low end they can't really work at the high end. That or we get a Revolt of the Moderation, which would probably make the cunts in administration rather peeved.

Also, fun fact: For some reason, the word "cunt" is not a slur on this site due to Word of Ford. Why? I don't know. However, until such point they rescind that, it's basically open season to use in debates like this.

Click to shrink...

Without reopening the debate on whether it should be treated as we do other slurs, we do still infract it as an insult when directed against other posters. That includes staff members. As such, you've received one, and been threadbanned for two weeks.

 

[foamy]

Being told the person you are speaking with hates you is about as unwelcoming as possible.

Click to shrink...

Remember when the last Council came to the conclusion that directly telling someone "I hate you", in those precise words, wasn't a rules breach?

It does, however, enable them: it makes it acceptable to post "I wish I was allowed to act hateful towards this group!". Which, ultimately, has the same effect as outright saying that one hates that group.

Click to shrink...

A post that said that in so many words is not a simple dispute with the rules. I would still infract it on Rule 2 grounds.

 

[mesonoxian]

Remember when the last Council came to the conclusion that directly telling someone "I hate you", in those precise words, wasn't a rules breach?

Click to shrink...

I don't think they made the right call, but even if they did, there is a difference between animosity between two posters and a single poster expressing hate for a large class of users on the board. The former can probably be handled with judicious use of the ignore function. The latter is best handled with an application of the boot.

 

[Mendel]

The issue is hate speech.

"cunt" is hate speech because you are using a word that refers to woman's genital as an insult. This works like using "retard" as an insult even if no people narrowly defined as "retarded in their development" are involved, or using "like a girl": the fact that you can use a gendered word as an insult transports a demaning view of that gender, and is therefore hate speech.

The same goes for the word "trap": it is demeaning to transgender people no matter which context it is used in, and therefore hate speech.

(There are some exceptions: e.g. the use of "nigger" or "queer" by people from these communities is typically ok, because they can't be perpetrator and victim at the same time. People don't usually hate themselves.)

"genocide" is not a hate word. It doesn't demean a specific group, but advocating a specific genocide does. "Pee on the street" is inappropriate, but not hate speech.

The issue that Empress Squishette and others appear to have is that you can use hate words without intent to hate the group in question. CA intended mainly to support the other user in a moderation conflict. The thing about SV policy enforcement is, though, that intent does not usually matter, because most sanctions are levelled on appearances. The whole tribunal system is set up to discourage exploring the intent of perpetrators. They are judged on the effects of their actions, not on the intent.

If Empress Squishette now says that you can use a word that makes transgender SV users feel hated if it is justified by a certain unhateful intent, that is breaking a core principle of how SV rule enforcement works.

Maybe it is worth discussing whether this core principle needs an overhaul, which would also bring SV more in line with how IRL law works. But I don't think it was wise to start this discussion by disregarding a near-unanimous council decision recommendation without addressing and debating these underlying issues first.

SV has previously banned hate words in any context, regardless of intent, because of the effect they have on people who read them. The council supports that. I don't think it is good to brush that aside.

 

[Madam Carstein]

This is a transfriendly forum, yeah, but it's not a forum exclusively made for trans folks. If SV is inclusive then it has to be for everyone.

Someone made a point a few pages back about how beings trans often meant re-explaining the same thing over again to those who are uninformed and how that sucks. It's a valid point, one that I never really thought about.

Unfortunately, if we're going to welcome everyone, that means having people who aren't familiar with the trans community, people like me who don't have daily contact with that community. Hell, two years ago I'd never spoken to a trans person (that I'm aware). I still haven't met someone transitioning irl.

So yeah, like a person travelling to a new country I expect to make some blunders, to be surprised by parts of the culture. I'm glad that SV is an open place where we can have open discussions like this.

I'm learning a lot just reading this thread.

Click to shrink...

Mandatory preface that I am not speaking for the trans community specifically on this issue, but this kind of thing of "helping to educate outsiders who are uninformed but willing to learn" is actually something of a pleasure for me. I'm not trans, but I am bisexual and I'm always willing to share my experiences of life as a bisexual and just generally offer a less-common perspective into various issues, pop culture, or my own experiences with the LGBT+ community, things like that.

For my part, anyway, although I understand those who are, for my part, I'm not terribly exacerbated by encountering people who simply don't know that much about the LGBT+ community or don't consider things like say, LGBT+ representation in movies because they're not part of the community so these considerations aren't something that comes to mind for them.

Frankly, this process is the kind of thing that actually really helps the LGBT+ community because it helps sway the opinions of the majority of the population into sympathising with and encouraging allies to actually speak up for our rights.

Most major social changes basically involve a process of persuasion to sway the majority of the population to actually support/sympathise with a given cause: women's rights, racial equality, gay liberation, etc. Each of those causes has had its successes precisely because of this process of winning hearts and minds.

 

[The Bird]

A post that said that in so many words is not a simple dispute with the rules. I would still infract it on Rule 2 grounds.

Click to shrink...

The tribunal we just had indicates such an infraction would be short lived.

 

[foamy]

The tribunal we just had indicates such an infraction would be short lived.

Click to shrink...

I don't believe it does, though I understand why people have that impression. But even if it did, sometimes you make a mistake and you change your plans when it blows up on you, too.

 

[Choo Choo]

I don't believe it does, though I understand why people have that impression. But even if it did, sometimes you make a mistake and you change your plans when it blows up on you, too.

Click to shrink...

This typically goes over a lot better when the person who made the mistake admits it was one and apologizes, rather than sneers and condescends at the people understandably upset with them...

 

[The Bird]

I don't believe it does, though I understand why people have that impression. But even if it did, sometimes you make a mistake and you change your plans when it blows up on you, too.

Click to shrink...

That requires the admission that it was, in fact, a mistake, and going by Squishies behavior here, I don't think they will. And, like, either way, it still shows an incredibly lack of sensitivity towards the LGBT community of the site, especially considering, again, Squishies behavior in this thread and how he's responded to criticism and concerns.

 

[Madam Carstein]

I don't think they made the right call, but even if they did, there is a difference between animosity between two posters and a single poster expressing hate for a large class of users on the board. The former can probably be handled with judicious use of the ignore function. The latter is best handled with an application of the boot.

Click to shrink...

Also, in light of this thread's topic. I do wonder how much leeway there is against expressing dislike of someone who has expressed say, transphobic views.

If there were a poster who had said, for example, that "gays should stop complaining about everything" or some other rubbish like that, I would definitely take that personally and definitely make a point of calling out that person's homophobia.

Although I know the staff doesn't tend to punish people for calling out bigotry (which is one thing that separates SV from AH that I adore) at the same time, I wonder how one would draw a line between "I dislike you for your hateful sentiments" and "I dislike you and am going out of my way to personally insult you because of said dislike."

 

[azoicennead]

Also, in light of this thread's topic. I do wonder how much leeway there is against expressing dislike of someone who has expressed say, transphobic views.

If there were a poster who had said, for example, that "gays should stop complaining about everything" or some other rubbish like that, I would definitely take that personally and definitely make a point of calling out that person's homophobia.

Although I know the staff doesn't tend to punish people for calling out bigotry (which is one thing that separates SV from AH that I adore) at the same time, I wonder how one would draw a line between "I dislike you for your hateful sentiments" and "I dislike you and am going out of my way to personally insult you because of said dislike."

Click to shrink...

I'd wager somewhere around the insults.

edit: To avoid just being pithy, there's a difference between saying you dislike someone for [reason] and going out of your way to engage with that person specifically to express that dislike. Insulting them is just doubling down on poor behavior.

 

[Madam Carstein]

I'd wager somewhere around the insults.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I suppose I made a rather unambiguous situation but I guess for me, as someone who is not a member of staff, I nonetheless have to wonder how much of a line there is between expressing righteous indignation at those with offensive views and simple insults.

 

[Mendel]

I wonder how one would draw a line between "I dislike you for your hateful sentiments" and "I dislike you and am going out of my way to personally insult you because of said dislike."

Click to shrink...

You draw the line by how much the statement allows for reasonable discourse. A mere ad hominem is disruptive and nothing else; but an objection to someone's sentiments can be a contribution to a fruitful debate.

 

[Madam Carstein]

You draw the line by how much the statement allows for reasonable discourse. A mere ad hominem is disruptive and nothing else; but an objection to someone's sentiments can be a contribution to a fruitful debate.

Click to shrink...

I guess, for me, I'm so used to the general environment of Alternate History where I engaged in a lot of self-censorship, even to the point of not calling out people with genuinely bigoted views for fear that I would get reported and infracted.

So it's such a refreshing change to, if I'm to be quite forthright, be on a site which, while by no means perfect, is nonetheless a site that generally doesn't silence those who call out hateful views.

 

[Avernus]

In widespread American usage?

Women.

Click to shrink...

eyyyy no?

Like, just no?

Click to shrink...

Um, yes? I live in the US, and had no idea it was anything but a slur against women until some Australian on a webforum got in an argument about it. The sort of word that gets referred to as "the c-word" to avoid setting off any woman in hearing; if somebody wants to make a lot of female (and not a few male) enemies really fast in the US, just go around using that word and it'll happen.

Unless by "just no" you mean "don't use that word", in which case I agree with you.

Cunt isn't a racial slur. It's not targeted to one specific group. Your skin can be anywhere from ultraviolet to infrared, you can be male or female or in between, it doesn't matter. You can still be a cunt.

Other listed slurs are targetted towards specific groups.

Click to shrink...

In the US it's a slur against women; when used against men, it's an insult because it's comparing them to women as an insult. It's used as a way of dehumanizing women, of calling women subhuman and claiming that their only worth is as a sex toy.

 

[Hykal94]

I have known @Artificial Girl for a long while. I know her as a competent, reliable and professional fellow Councillor, and while we are not the closest of two people, I would consider her a friend.

AG has come up and said that she does not feel right about this tribunal. That she as a trans person feels that the ruling was unfair and unjust. No doubt that many trans users on SV has voted her not only as a fellow trans person but also because she is liked and trusted by the userbase regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.

She voiced her concerns, then Squishy uses personal information, his lawyering skill, to more or less demean and insult her.

This is unacceptable.

It doesn't matter if I know AG or not, this is the very definition of unprofessional. This has breached into bigotry and transphobia. This is what regularly happens to minorities: sexual, racial, religious, etc. They voice their concerns and the powers that be act maliciously, indifferently, which can be just as harmful. This is what happens on a regular basis in the real world, and the fact that the owner of the site has acted like this, brushed off their legitimate concerns, to me says one thing:

SV is not welcoming to trans people.

A while ago Squishy made a thread about genocide and slaughter in a quest. Squishy said no to those who said slaughtering Arabs and Muslims are acceptable. The support from the administration and to the userbase to me, as a Muslim, was heartwarming. I am very thankful that SV does not tolerate bigotry against people of the Muslim faith. Because let's be real here for a moment, the Internet fucking hates us. Bring the subject up and I'll hear lies about my faith that is literally 1400 years old.

So then I must ask the directors, why can't you do the same to trans users? If you can stand for Muslims and Arabs and other Middle Eastern people, why not do it again to another group? Unlike Muslims, trans people are not a huge majority. They don't get countries for themselves.

I don't know what will happen in the future. I'm not happy with this ruling. I'm not happy with how Squishy has returned to their bullying ways. Regardless of what will happen, I stand by Articial Girl, and for anyone else who thinks their voices aren't heard.

My inbox is always open. If you aren't comfortable, PM me anyway and we'll chat on Discord. It might take a while to respond however, my house has been hit by a storm and it ain't pretty.

 

[Guilliman]

To be honest, I'd just like to say that this ruling bothers me. The council seems United on action but then it is overruled on somewhat of whim? That doesn't seem wise or fair in my opinion.

 

[We Just Write]

Honestly, for some time it has been clear that Squishy is a problematic individual in many, many ways. They are a petty tyrant at the best of times, and while they ban enough bigots to maintain a surface-level appearance of tolerance, incidents like this highlight that they remain biased against certain marginalized groups. Further, there have been incidents of gross abuse of power, such as a time when Squishy threatened to perma-ban everyone in a Madoka-themed chat thread the next time anyone mentioned lesbians. Another incident involved Squishy driving everyone in a discussion up the wall by refusing to give a straight answer to questions, behavior that would have likely gotten Squishy infracted had they not been a member of the site's staff.

And if Squishy infracts me for saying this about them, all they will have achieved is proving me right.

 

[THatWhichWillBe]

Was there discussion between Squishy and the Council as a whole over this before the ruling was overturned? While the end result is the same, by speaking with Councillors prior to overruling them the Administration could, at least, make it clear that the Council was acknowledged. That they did, in fact, have a ruling of weight and import. Which is a rather important message to make, at least assuming the Administration considers SV's traditions of user democracy something to uphold.

Quite frankly, that principle is coming into question with Squishy's response to Artificial Girl and the whole 'I have elected to ignore the council' deal.

 

[Reveen]

Yeah, like, if Squishy not making boneheaded policy descisions without the knowledge or input of staff is absolutely 100% out of the question can he atleast treat people with atleast a modicum of respect and consideration?

No? Am I in the wrong here? Is people asking this an example of us acting entitled, or a pearl clutching wokescolds, or taking the forum too seriously or whatever other reason to dismiss our concerns as fundamentally silly and baseless these days?

 

[ATL]

Well, I never thought I would be @'ing staff before, but @EmpressSquishette could you please explain why you decided to act in an unprofessional manner towards a councilor? A councilor who justifiably had legitimate concerns on how your intervention in a standard open-and-shut tribunal would possibly make Sufficient Velocity an unwelcoming place for the trans community that calls this site home. You had a number of responses to address the councilor in question in this thread, but instead, you decided to do this.

That's funny, because I know on at least one occasion you recieved a lengthy personal response from a member of senior staff to your concerns. Are you perhaps confusing "they dismissed my concerns" with "they did not agree with me about things should be handled"? I assure you, those are not the same thing.

Click to shrink...

Yes, you are a director. Yes, you are the site owner of this place and I have heard how you take criticism. I am absolutely livid at this though. I don't know why you thought using a conversation a councilor had with a staff member as some sort of gotcha moment would accomplish in here. But I highly disapprove of this, to say the least.

Look, I get it. You're the site owner of this place and also have a hand in how it operates, but your responses in this thread are not how you deal with nor address the criticism towards a decision you made. A decision that may have a negative effect on Sufficient Velocity's culture and make the work of your staff even harder.

I have a lot more to say but I think I'm done here and I wish you a good night.

 

[Redshirt Army]

Was there discussion between Squishy and the Council as a whole over this before the ruling was overturned? While the end result is the same, by speaking with Councillors prior to overruling them the Administration could, at least, make it clear that the Council was acknowledged. That they did, in fact, have a ruling of weight and import. Which is a rather important message to make, at least assuming the Administration considers SV's traditions of user democracy something to uphold.

Click to shrink...

Squishy did not discuss this ruling with us.

 

[THatWhichWillBe]

Squishy did not discuss this ruling with us.

Click to shrink...

So, essentially, Squishy acted as though the Council did not exist.

And then when someone raises the concern that they were ignored, a councillor part of a group that would be affected by the ruling, Squishy proceeds to implicitly state that it would be of less consequence if the Council was disagreed with on rules matters, than if the Council was ignored on rules matters. The Council, mind you, is the users' representative body.

Now, maybe I'm just reading too much into Squishy's dismissal of Artificial Girl and their actions here, but for some odd reason this does not read as though it was written by an Admin who cared whether or not the userbase of the forum they run agree with and understand the rules of the forum. Which seems a little bit unhealthy for a forum.