2025-AT-08: Staff and Aleksey A E

Not really, because nobody is actually harmed by buying nazi merch or being accused of being the reason that someone bought it nor would anyone expect that to cause harm.
I would count buying nazi merch as self harm.

There's a sort of… you take bad social actions you know will get you ostracized 'to show them'.

's a type of destructive spiral.

Still… "What do you call a person who self destructively associates with nazis in order to destroy his own social standing? A Nazi."
 
Not really, because nobody is actually harmed by buying nazi merch or being accused of being the reason that someone bought it nor would anyone expect that to cause harm.
It does three things in my mind, if they're not a Nazi.
  1. Makes a ton of people scared to be around them.
  2. Normalize the extremely bad ideology.
  3. Gives money to that extremely bad ideology.
 
It does three things in my mind, if they're not a Nazi.
  1. Makes a ton of people scared to be around them.
  2. Normalize the extremely bad ideology.
  3. Gives money to that extremely bad ideology.
It also puts you on the Nazi merch store's customer list, which gets shared among all the Nazi orgs, which will try to recruit you. One or more will likely succeed, eventually.

Alternatively, if they have your information, they can also threaten you.
 
nobody is actually harmed by buying nazi merch or being accused of being the reason that someone bought it nor would anyone expect that to cause harm.
That's not really true though? It harms the person who bought it socially ("why would you do that?!") and funds Nazis. It should be pretty obvious how that's a terrible thing.
 
The question, of course, is 'should they have ?'

Eh, don't know. I don't think it's surprising that it wouldn't be considered sufficient in and of itself, because SV from what I can tell plays the one-shot ban card pretty sparingly, for what I think are some pretty good reasons. Datcord's wording implies that the linked posts are not an exhaustive list of their infractions, but what was posted skews pretty heavily towards mid-late 2024 and on. Perhaps the pattern of behavior wasn't yet a pattern at that point?

If there's a reason it can't be explained, like Rule 1 stuff, then just saying that too would also help!

It *was* a little over two years ago. Even -remembering- their reasoning at the time might be a long shot.

-Morgan.
 
I'm pretty sure, from the number of people who get permabanned without publicly available tribunals being greater than zero this year, that the answer is probably yes.

It would pretty much have to be a Rule 1 violation - at least based upon previous comments made by the Directors. Those, though, don't go Tribunal, it's a straight trip to banville, no appeal, no public commentary, nada, zilch, gone, goodbye, etc, etc.

Everything else should go to tribunal, and thus get assigned a tribunal number. We know - by the cunning process of looking at the numbers of the published ones- when an unpublished one happens. So far, there aren't any missing one in the 2025-AT series.

However, there are a number of reasons why a tribunal isn't made public - it's actually outlined in the rules in the relevant section:
The policy is that all Tribunal deliberations are made public where the appellant participates. If the appellant chooses not to participate - either because this is a permanent suspension or because this was a Staff appeal - an appeal is not made public. However, there are any number of factors which might influence your decision away from this default. If allegations are made of misconduct by a Staff member or other posters which are not borne out, if personally embarrassing information or personal details are communicated, or if the material itself is against the rules, consider making the Tribunal private and instead making public a short summary of your conclusion, instead. Be careful about redacting posts in the Tribunal. The optics of doing so are very poor, regardless of the reason.

So, it isn't just a permaban - where the person being perma-banned doesn't participate - that can result in the tribunal being hidden.

I guess that's a pro-tip to anyone else out there that is facing a perma-ban and doesn't want people to comment on it...
 
I'm pretty sure, from the number of people who get permabanned without publicly available tribunals being greater than zero this year, that the answer is probably yes.

AFAIK the ones I've noticed were also spamcleaned, which indicates there was no tribunal at all, and what I saw of their content prior to that suggested they deserved a permaban due to rule 2 violations.
Staff might say that a young enough account that is actively flouting rule 2 is also a rule 1 violation, since rule 1 does technically cover hate speech and all.

(My opinion on this is that there is no need to hold a tribunal for people who are fundamentally not members of the community at all and also clearly viciously hateful, but it 'should' be a rule 2 ban, unless it's like full-on legally actionable hate speech which I don't think the posters I saw had done.
 
It hurts seeing other people pull off social maneuvers that we can't. We try to imitate them. Fail. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong!!!"

Related to this I think a lot of it is that people do make correct inferences from incompletely communicated info all the time. It's like, one of the most foundational communication/social skills there are. And so I think (especially from the perspective of autism as in your post) it's tremendously frustrating to feel like this is a courtesy that is not extended to you specifically, that you are expected to constantly divine people's meaning but they will not do it for you in kind.

Of course, it's rarely that symmetrical in practice. The ability to make the inferences people do is borne from a shared context, not really drawn from the aether as it might sometimes feel.
 
It *was* a little over two years ago. Even -remembering- their reasoning at the time might be a long shot.
Honestly I would take that too tbh. "The decision was made long enough ago we don't recall the exact reasoning for it." And then maybe an explanation of why, generally speaking, they might extend leniency to a user who does something that extreme. Or any number of things that would go far in assuaging concerns people might have.

Having thought on it some more since my initial post the staff are probably taking the time to figure out the best thing to say. I just hope we do get an eventual answer, even if it's "I don't know why that happened." Could just be a straight-up mistake or oversight on their part, to which they could say it'll never happen again. I would also accept that.

I guess my mindset rn is more "something is better than nothing."
 
The actual reason is probably that staff doesn't like to second-guess moderator decisions - I believe they've said that somewhere - unless the moderator made a pretty severely egregious mistake or has a history of making poor decisions.

In general I think that's fine, that's why we have appeals and tribunals, but it does make user side recourse against cases of too lenient moderation practically impossible.

Which, in some ways, is a much nicer problem to have than too draconian moderation but, as seen here and elsewhere, does have its own pitfalls.
 
Honestly I feel like bringing IRL stuff online to the tune of taylor swift's 'look what you made me do' might be worth more than 25 points.

The thing that I personally find telling is that threatening suicide or saying you were forced to buy a nazi patch because someone was mean to you is the exact same behavior, and comes from the exact same mental place of treating yourself as a machine that only reacts to others, and others as having volition.

This is an extension of the tendency for humans to give themselves excuses for their own behavior, but not to extend those same excuses to others. If *I* have a bad day and snap at a barrista, I tell myself 'oops, I had a bad day. I'm not an asshole, I just made a mistake'.

The barista tells themself 'wow, that dude was an asshole'

Anyway, I don't like that mindset. I'm very autistic, so fairness is very important to me, but largely about things normal people don't care about (symptoms of autism 'a strong, but orthogonal to social norms, sense of justice and/or fairness').
I mean that's your opinion and it's certainly valid, I'm just saying that the moderation team decided it was only a 25 point infraction. We can do some basic deductions, we know that 50 points usually triggers a minor suspension, points are usually assigned in increments of 25- so this was probably only a 25 point infraction. This is about the smallest infraction that you can receive so relatively minor as things go. If we want to scrutinize it more, it's possible that this was a 50 point worthy infraction but staff extended Aleksey leniency as per datcord's op but this is theorizing about things we simply don't know.
 
The actual reason is probably that staff doesn't like to second-guess moderator decisions - I believe they've said that somewhere - unless the moderator made a pretty severely egregious mistake or has a history of making poor decisions.

In general I think that's fine, that's why we have appeals and tribunals, but it does make user side recourse against cases of too lenient moderation practically impossible.

Which, in some ways, is a much nicer problem to have than too draconian moderation but, as seen here and elsewhere, does have its own pitfalls.
It's why I'm against any attempt to restrict the council from increasing punishments. The council acts as a check on the moderation staff, and one of those checks should be "the staff are going too easy on incredibly toxic forum users." Admittedly this check only works if someone appeals to the council, but it should be there.
 
Honestly I don't feel great about this decision. Not claiming Alexei was a saint or anything, and his views on Islam were horrid and ignorant, but it felt to me that living under the threat of Russian attack was exacerbating his issues massively and making him massively overreact to anything he perceived as criticism of Ukraine. I wonder if a N&P ban might have been an alternative, although that was basically the only place I ever saw him post anyways.
 
Honestly I don't feel great about this decision. Not claiming Alexei was a saint or anything, and his views on Islam were horrid and ignorant, but it felt to me that living under the threat of Russian attack was exacerbating his issues massively and making him massively overreact to anything he perceived as criticism of Ukraine. I wonder if a N&P ban might have been an alternative, although that was basically the only place I ever saw him post anyways.
If he just did the N&P stuff, I would agree with just a N&P ban, and a "if you do this an again, bye." The thing is he was threating to kill themself to another user. That kind of stuff cannot be on a board.
 
Honestly I don't feel great about this decision. Not claiming Alexei was a saint or anything, and his views on Islam were horrid and ignorant, but it felt to me that living under the threat of Russian attack was exacerbating his issues massively and making him massively overreact to anything he perceived as criticism of Ukraine. I wonder if a N&P ban might have been an alternative, although that was basically the only place I ever saw him post anyways.
For better or for worse, Sufficent Velocity doesn't exist to serve as a therapeutic device.

And even if it did exist to serve as a therapeutic device, such therapy would, by the nature of the site and fairness, have to serve each user of Sufficient Velocity.

It's not our mission statement to voluntarily suffer harm simply to help serve as therapeutic tools in someone else's journey.

Alexei's actions could have harmed at least one other user in a fairly deep way. Said user had equal rights to expect safety and security on this site.

There are some people who get permanently banned who I think, earnestly, may have been better served by a more lenient approach. Alexei is not one of them.
 
Honestly I don't feel great about this decision. Not claiming Alexei was a saint or anything, and his views on Islam were horrid and ignorant, but it felt to me that living under the threat of Russian attack was exacerbating his issues massively and making him massively overreact to anything he perceived as criticism of Ukraine. I wonder if a N&P ban might have been an alternative, although that was basically the only place I ever saw him post anyways.

Time Line:
* Mar 2022 - Anti Roma Incident
* Jan 2023 - Nazi Patch
* Dec 2nd 2024 - Anti-Muslim Bigotry
* Dec 9th 2024 - Anti-Muslim Bigotry and Transphobia
* Jan 20th 2025 - Wishing a Poster to Die (Deleted)
* Feb 5th 2025 - Anti-Muslim Bigotry
* Unknown - Highly Inappropriate PM as described in the Tribunal itself
* Feb 10th 2025 - Start of Tribunal

I'm pretty sure that the point from 2022 and probably 2023 had disappeared from the account by Feb 2025 - not 100% how fast they decay. But the 4 incidents from Dec 2024 onwards plus the PM are probably what put him into the automatic 200 point user-review category.

That's 4 incidents in roughly 60 days - and those point are going to result in temp bans, so it wasn't like he could post during that entire period of time.

Given that, I think it was the right outcome - Staff are 100% right to say that if you accumulate that many points, that fast, then that is proof that you can't abide by SV's rules, and need to be removed.
 
Honestly I don't feel great about this decision. Not claiming Alexei was a saint or anything, and his views on Islam were horrid and ignorant, but it felt to me that living under the threat of Russian attack was exacerbating his issues massively and making him massively overreact to anything he perceived as criticism of Ukraine. I wonder if a N&P ban might have been an alternative, although that was basically the only place I ever saw him post anyways.
Nah, I think the Islamophobia and blatant anti-Roma bigotry would be enough for a permaban and also y'know, the "buying a Nazi patch to Own The Libs" thing. And the transphobia. Point is, there's more than enough stuff not related to Ukraine to get him banned, even if you disagree about the Nazi patch stuff.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I don't feel great about this decision. Not claiming Alexei was a saint or anything, and his views on Islam were horrid and ignorant, but it felt to me that living under the threat of Russian attack was exacerbating his issues massively and making him massively overreact to anything he perceived as criticism of Ukraine. I wonder if a N&P ban might have been an alternative, although that was basically the only place I ever saw him post anyways.
Like @IiamLiam notes, one of the issues with floating an N&P ban was that Aleksey had breached N&P on this latest incident, as it happened within a PM. That takes the issue outside of a specific subforum and into general SV territory. With regards to the "Living under Russian attack" matter though, while that earns sympathy, it does not earn excuse. Nothing can excuse what was done in that PM. Do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dollars. Someone's mental health, wellbeing, and circumstances earns understanding, but it does not earn a get-out-of-ban free card.
 
Honestly I don't feel great about this decision. Not claiming Alexei was a saint or anything, and his views on Islam were horrid and ignorant, but it felt to me that living under the threat of Russian attack was exacerbating his issues massively and making him massively overreact to anything he perceived as criticism of Ukraine. I wonder if a N&P ban might have been an alternative, although that was basically the only place I ever saw him post anyways.
Sometimes someone is hurt and their life is threatened by vile, violent, and powerful people and you still have to throw them out because they aren't the only person in the room and other people's experiences must be weighed as well.

And hoo-boy, did this guy provide ample evidence that he was going to continue to be horrible to the people who share space with him.
 
The private message was a blatantly evil act and I say it without apology and with bias. People have been banned and called menaces for far less and I will bet the only reason there aren't even more serious consequences is because of the person's current location.

He should feel blessed to have had a tribunal to spill his feelings into the air.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if a N&P ban might have been an alternative, although that was basically the only place I ever saw him post anyways.

I could maybe, just maybe, imagine something like that happening if he'd admitted to violating the rules and promised not to do it again and all that sort of thing.

Of course, nothing like that happened.

-Morgan.
 
Back
Top