2023-AT-10: Staff and Pittuaro

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pittauro

Pittauro

Location
Italy
infraction notice:

auro

Content
Post in thread 'Konoha Sect of Chakra Cultivation'
Given by
  • @shinaobi
  • Yesterday at 11:39 PM
Details of Infraction
Rule 6: Acceptable Content on SV
Infraction Points
25 (Expires Oct 15, 2023)
Acknowledge state
Acknowledged on Yesterday at 11:45 PM
User note
Your post (Konoha Sect of Chakra Cultivation) violates the rules, in particular Rule 6: Acceptable Content on SV. It is neither situationally appropriate nor sensitive to allude to cajoling Minato--a minor--into sex. Don't do it again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


infracted post


Pittauro said:
and hey, maybe spirit etiquette 5 will allow us to know how to ask Kukunochi if he knows a nice rank 5 Spirit who'd enjoy getting Intimate with Minato. :V

...I'm not really betting on that, honestly. The odds of finding a spirit both strong enough and with a mindset that's acceptable are VERY low. but Kukunochi might still help us with wood style I think, at least a bit. even just offering us a place to train that's mostly hidden, in the forest around Konoha.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...



The context:

Kukunochi is a rank 6 spirit "of the land of Konoha". Basically a minor god in the shape of a Deer.

in quest, we were talking about the possibility of proceeding with a method of cultivation known as "Bridge Establishment".

StarJaunter said:
-Bridge Establishment, Aka Ghost/Spirit/Demon Establishment. This rare method is both fast and easy compared to other methods but requires access to an ephemeral ally who is willing to become one with the cultivator and who the cultivator trusts to become one with them. This ephemeral being acts as a Bridge between the spiritual world and the material, making the whole process much faster and easier. As the Bridge establishment progresses quirks, emotions, intimacies, and motivations are shared until the end when the two beings become one. There are many written warnings about the method, as the deepest motivations of the spirit may remain hidden until it is too late and there are cautionary tales of those with complete trust in a spirit who revealed dark motivations hidden until the very end. This establishment grants access to spiritual Essence in addition to chakra, new methods of power generation, Spiritual Influence, Spiritual Numina, potential Dread powers and transformations based on the spirit, and improved attribute limits which are at least as good as CNI but may be higher based on the spirit involved. It does impose an appropriate Bane and Ban. It does not unlock ninjutsu but the various spirit powers and capacity to develop chakra and Essence techniques using various spirit affinities is possible (depending on the spirit. A ghost of a ninja might allow all the jutsu they knew in life). The alien nature of Ephemeral being results in penalties for using normal refinement techniques although its entirely possible to develop new refinements techniques that lean into this, effectively strengthening the boons of the spirit side of the equation to avoid normal refinement penalties. Refinements that make you more like your spirit self or embodies ideals of said spirit can avoid these penalties totally.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

so, when I joked about Minato getting Intimate with a spirit, I was basically referring to fusing with it for power (at the cost of personality contamination). Something which we weren't even seriously considering, due to the problems that would follow from it IC.

Kukunochi itself wasn't really a serious option due to political reasons and the fact we would never be able to convince it, so the post was wondering if maybe Kukunochi could introduce us to a more amenable rank 5 spirit (1 rank lower, basically going from "patron spirit of this whole land" to "the spirit of the forest/collection of trees that lives on it")

There was no serious allusion to sex, besides at worst a single italicized word meant as a throwaway joke. After all I'd argue that "fusing two souls together" is about as intimate as you can get (which is why this particular method in quest hasn't been seriously considered beyond some "what if" discussions).
 
Information: RULING
  • Staff Post
    • Hello Pittauro, I will be handling your appeal.

    The most pertinent element of Rule 6 to this post and its infraction is this:
    Sufficient Velocity said:
    Content may depict minors, either incidentally or primarily, but where works depict minors, they must do so in a way that is situationally appropriate and sensitive to the presented ages of the individuals involved.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Based on the character sheet displayed on the first page of the relevant quest thread, the character of Eguchi Minato to whom your post appears to refer is at present 11 years old. This means that he is very much a minor and as a result, there is an increased level of sensitivity and caution that is required when making remarks, even a "throwaway joke" as you put it, about this character.

    I appreciate that the nuances of the quest's setting and in particular the concept of 'Bridge Cultivation' mean that you were not literally referring to a sexual relationship, and that this was not at all a serious suggestion. However, the fundamental problem is that a joke about some entity "getting intimate" with an 11-year-old boy is not really possible to interpret as anything other than a joke about some kind of implied sexual interaction with a child. The fact that "there was no serious allusion to sex" does not mitigate that problem. Unserious innuendo remains innuendo, and so I cannot consider this post to be at all sensitive to Minato's presented age.

    Therefore, I will be Upholding the infraction.

    ruling
    Infraction Upheld.


    Should you have any issues with this ruling, you may appeal to the Council for Tribunal Review of your case within the next 3 days. If you choose to do so, you will need to set out how you feel this ruling was incorrect. Please note that the Staff are also entitled to seek a Tribunal.
     
  • Staff Post
    • CallMeIsmail said:
    Should you have any issues with this ruling, you may appeal to the Council for Tribunal Review of your case within the next 3 days. If you choose to do so, you will need to set out how you feel this ruling was incorrect. Please note that the Staff are also entitled to seek a Tribunal.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...


    In this case I would like to appeal to the Council.

    I can't deny that Minato, the MC, is a minor. He might be 12 years old instead of 11, maybe, but that hardly make a significant difference.

    I'd just want to argue that a throwaway one-word joke/innuendo, that as far as I could see didn't seriously disturb anyone in the thread (or at least not enough to mention it to me), that was not followed-up on, and that I believe made some sense in context, while still against the rules, doesn't deserve a 25 points infraction and should be, if not dismissed, at least downgraded.

    my point is really that while I won't deny a rule was technically broken, I don't think or feel that it's a serious enough offense for a point infraction, expecially when nobody pointed out the inappropriateness of the remark in the thread itself.

    Do I have to post anything else for the appeal?
     
    Information: Tribunal opened for discussion
  • Staff Post
    • tribunal opened for discussion @Council,

    You have been asked to give your opinion on this appeal. You have seven full days to render a decision on this matter, until . Before that time, you should vote to Uphold, Overturn, Reduce, or Increase the infraction.

    The arbitrator and infracting staff member - @CallMeIsmail and @shinaobi - are entitled to participate in the discussion, as are the appellant and their advocate, if they chose to engage the services of one.

    I would like to remind all participants of a few things:

    First, a Tribunal is not a debate. The Tribunal is being asked to decide whether the appellant's infraction should be upheld. It is a discussion of the appellant's behavior, not a place to re-litigate the merits of a debate that the appellant was having or discuss the behavior of other users who might have been involved.

    Second, the entire Tribunal will be made public at the end of the discussion unless there is a good reason for it not to be released. If the appellant or any other participant has an opinion on whether it should not be made public, they should present that during this period.

    Third, the purpose of Tribunals is to both decide whether an infraction should be upheld and also to provide the Staff guidance on the Council's opinions on the rules and policies of Sufficient Velocity. Councillors represent the regular users of SV, and your discussion helps shape the Staff's efforts to apply, enforce, and interpret the rules in the future and identify areas where things can be improved.

    Please comport yourself accordingly.

    After seven days, this Tribunal will be closed to discussions on the infraction and there will be a two-day period for the Administration to raise potential policy issues and for the Council to briefly discuss those issues before it is made public.

    Thank you.
     
  • Staff Post
    • So, as I understand it, the appellant didn't actually having speak about making an underage character engage in sexual activity - but it definitely was a sexual joke about an underage character, so it definitely was something that should be actioned.

    So the only question remaining, the one which the appellant also focused on in their appeal to the Council, is if the severity of the action is appropriate. Certainly, there is precedence that the first time offences for some small-time matters only result in staff notices, like with spagetthi posting. The question is just if this falls in the same category. And ultimately... well, this may be one of the most benign infracted post we ever got, but if we leave this with just a staff notice, we run headfirst into the question of where to draw the line. Because certainly, we also get much more direct innuendo about underage characters, not just jokey double-meaning formulations but actually implying sexual activity.

    So, yeah, the cleanest line to be drawn is to just hand out 25 point infractions for it all.

    [X]Uphold
     
    Yeah, I believe the appellant didn't have malicious intent, but this is a line I want to see strictly maintained no matter what. All told, the infraction levied was fairly light, befitting a first offense, so it seems fine to me.

    [X] Uphold
     
    O mi Iesu, salva nos ab igne inferni.
    Having done a brief scan of the thread in question, the appellant - despite being rebuffed by like, a lot of the rest of the thread - does seem to have a serious bugbear about this method of cultivation and seemingly brings it up at every opportunity. As such, I can see it clear that, in the context of the thread's community, the actual meaning of the joke - "let's do the mind meld" - is not lost on the average thread reader, so this association is not out of the blue.

    However, this joke must also be considered for what makes it a joke. Jokes come in several forms, and exhaustive classification is an active problem in linguistics, but this is clearly not a pun, a humourous situation, or contrast or something else. The humour in this joke, which the appellant admits is a joke, is from its double meaning. I leave the meaning beyond cultivation as an exercise for a reader. The appellant must understand that it is not the lack of an appropriate meaning that is at question here, but the existence of the inappropriate.

    And so, clearly, we return to joking about a prepubescent having sex being the issue at hand. As far as it is possible to say, this is probably one of the mildest violations of rule six that I could formulate, if I were inclined to. If there was room for leniency in our interpretations of rule six, this is the case for it.

    Pituraro was infracted for Rule 6 for attempting to justify rape six months ago. We have already dealt with "is this rape" in the case directly pertaining to that thread in this term, and so I won't go over it again, but this being the second offence, this is not quite a pattern, but it is evidence towards a continued "carelessness" when it comes to Pituraro's discussions involving sex and consent. And, while I do want to encourage more mature content on SV, children shall remain, I think, the hard line. Even for offhand jokes.

    As such, all things considered, I vote to
    [X] Uphold

    Miserére mei, Deus, averte fáciem tuam a peccátis meis et omnes iniquitates meas dele.
     
    While I understand intent was not to cause harm, the fact remains this is an
    [X] Uphold

    We would suggest seeking an advocate for next time to better your chances.
     
    This seems like a pretty clear uphold. It's not some egregious violation, but the SV rules are relatively clear.

    They are also very lenient in general. Even a story implying that a character under the age of eighteen might be having sex can be, in the right circumstances handled correctly, entirely within the rules.

    This is not that, truly.

    [X] Uphold
     
    [X] Uphold

    This isn't exactly rocket science. This is a fairly sensitive subject where even taking this in the best possible light, its a clear rule break. This is a strict line that we should keep, you have a history on being careless at best on sensitive subjects, there just isn't any wiggle room here.
     
    This is not the kind of content or reference we want on SV.

    [X] Uphold
     
    I do believe it was meant as a joke without serious intent, but the standard is elevated, and insofar as there is public confusion on the nature of that standard, it is far more in the direction of overestimation than underestimation. Take into account that the defendant has run into Rule 6 issues in the past, and this is unambiguous. No moral judgement, but more care is called for.

    [X] Uphold
     
    Even accepting that the appellant was merely making a misguided joke and acted without malice, the precise nature of the joke is precisely the kind of behavior that we wish to push back against in a visible manner so as to avoid the formation of a culture in which this kind of thing is okay.

    [X] Uphold.
     
    Honestly don't have much to say. It is pretty clearly against the rules, and there are not too many ways around it.
     

    Not even, perhaps especially not, as a joke. It's not funny.

    [x] Uphold
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Information: Final vote tally and subsequent action
  • Staff Post
    • final vote tally and subsequent action @Council ,

    I'd like to thank you for your contributions to this Tribunal. With the discussion and voting period over and sixteen (16) of the Council registering a vote, the unanimous decision was to Uphold on this infraction.

    As such, the infraction will be Upheld as-is. Per standard Tribunal procedure, we will now have two (2) days for any relevant discussion (policy, Tribunal, or otherwise) to brought up by the Directors or Administrators for consideration. At the end of this period, this Tribunal will be published per usual.

    Thank you.
     
  • Staff Post
    • Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top