2023-AT-17: Staff and FortePlus - Reduced

[picklepikkl]

2023-AT-17: Staff and FortePlus Reduced

Post in question: https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/ai-art.110679/post-28081472 The application of points is excessive and the reasoning for the infraction extremely weak, especially since there is no reference to any of the other supposedly 'tone lowering' posts. Further...

forums.sufficientvelocity.com

This tribunal raises an interesting point which I think never got fully addressed: to what extent does the post on which the infraction is actually put matter, if the infraction is about a pattern of behavior? Personally, I would have liked to see the actual infraction message the user received, and not just the short version that shows up on the post that gets tagged. As an Advocate, that is frequently the first piece of information I ask for, because we cannot actually see them directly.

 

[Pawn Lelouch]

This tribunal raises an interesting point which I think never got fully addressed: to what extent does the post on which the infraction is actually put matter, if the infraction is about a pattern of behavior?

Click to shrink...

From my perspective, the exact post that is infracted shouldn't matter because it cuts both ways and technical limitations exist in the system. By cutting both ways, I mean that councilors should be looking at the overall behavior in the first place rather than a single post. So, if the surrounding behavior is worse, it means that staff probably didn't infract the best post for the job but it doesn't mean that the overall behavior was fine. Whereas, if someone's infracted post was bad but a lot of their remaining posts are apologizing or mitigating that previous post I'd be looking far more favorably on them than just from that single post.

 

[imya t'loak]

With respect to the tribunal, I think the right outcome was reached. I think that it's for the good of SV that "others breaking the rules don't excuse my breaking the rules".

What has me puzzled however, is given what the councilors said about the thread, the thread is still open. I don't always agree with the various councilor's take on things, but when at least 9 of them mentioned the toxicity level of the thread in some form, I have to think that they might have a point.

 

[Gears]

I think I've encountered the same sort of targeted moderation style thing with shade night once but then with a significant timelapse in between the "disrupting" post and the actual infraction.

I could go dig it up but I don't really want to spend the effort.

 

[Delirium]

The argument in this tribunal that disruptive behaviour can't occur in a thread that's already busted wide open in terms of disruption is interesting because it raises the spectre of the old 'equal punishment defence.' When I saw there was a post from the administration after the tribunal I actually expected it to be about multiple councillors arguing for that lol.

 

[mr_stibbons]

What has me puzzled however, is given what the councilors said about the thread, the thread is still open. I don't always agree with the various councilor's take on things, but when at least 9 of them mentioned the toxicity level of the thread in some form, I have to think that they might have a point.

Click to shrink...

The series of threadbans that included hitting Forte and the week long threadlock that preceded them did do a lot to cool the thread down. It's not a good thread now, but it's way quieter than what the councillors have been looking at fir the past couple tribunals.

Personally, I'm pretty baffled that there were multiple councilors who thought the appellants behaviour was completely fine. This website could do with more enforcement of rule 3, not less.

 

[Sotek]

Outcome seems about right, Zimmerwald's vote was over the line but I think a simple "close the thread" would have been not-insane based on what I remember from when I was attempting to read it. (obviously you can't auto-infract everyone who posted in it, c'mon)

I'm actually curious if Datcord thinks a vote for threadlock without infracting literally everyone in the thread would have been an extraordinary remedy or not.

 

[skanszy]

The series of threadbans that included hitting Forte and the week long threadlock that preceded them did do a lot to cool the thread down. It's not a good thread now, but it's way quieter than what the councillors have been looking at fir the past couple tribunals.

Personally, I'm pretty baffled that there were multiple councilors who thought the appellants behaviour was completely fine. This website could do with more enforcement of rule 3, not less.

Click to shrink...

I agree that people I don't like should be infracted more under rule 3 (and every other rule), but infracting people for hating who I hate would be a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Graviator]

This appeal highlights a recurring issue where "pattern of behavior" infraction messages don't supply enough information to figure out where the proper boundaries of the appeal are. The appellant can easily waste their initial appeal by correctly arguing that the punishment would be excessive based on the immediate context, only to have the arbitrator reach much further back in time to find justification for the full punishment applied. Then they need to bother the tribunal, who might not consider the same boundary-post as the arbitrator, the appellant, the original moderator, or even the other councillors. This is, bluntly, a waste of appellants' and arbitrators' time.

I don't know to what extent this is avoidable, but routinely including an explicit statement of scope like "pattern of behavior in the thread since May 18" or "in light of your three previous infractions" in the infraction message or arbitrator ruling where appropriate would streamline the appeals in cases like this.

but infracting people for hating who I hate would be a miscarriage of justice.

Click to shrink...

Or a rule 2 issue instead of rule 3, depending on the details.

 

[Jemnite]

Forte almost got the full points by stretching for a 0 pointer or staff notice lmao. Like the majority of the CC just said 'whoops' afterwards in the discord. Fam almost took an extra infraction just for being too cocky 💀

 

[Eliar]

Oh god the AI *art* thread again...

 

[Datcord]

I'm actually curious if Datcord thinks a vote for threadlock without infracting literally everyone in the thread would have been an extraordinary remedy or not.

Click to shrink...

In general, things that affect other userswould be considered an extraordinary remedy, yes.

That said, if the Council made a sincere and convincing argument for why a thread should be closed, we would probably take a good look at it with that argument in mind. ("It's a dumpster fire!" is not a sincere and convincing argument, though. LOTS of threads are dumpster fires.)

 

[Mandemon]

Dunno how to feel that a councilor can repeatedly call another user idiot and argue that is enough to let other user go scot-free because councilor would engage in equally disruptive methods, and not get any sort of note about being civil.

 

[catDreaming]

Dunno how to feel that a councilor can repeatedly call another user idiot and argue that is enough to let other user go scot-free because councilor would engage in equally disruptive methods, and not get any sort of note about being civil.

Click to shrink...

I mean, you can report the post, if you can think that it breaks one of the rules. Really though, it seems like regular Jemnite posting to me.

 

[Arthur Frayn]

Dunno how to feel that a councilor can repeatedly call another user idiot and argue that is enough to let other user go scot-free because councilor would engage in equally disruptive methods, and not get any sort of note about being civil.

Click to shrink...

Mandemon, I'm gonna be real with you, while I wouldn't go so far as Jemnite I would say that you have a, uh, reputation for staking out obviously silly opinions like "subtext was made up by leftists", "fuckboy is the same as slut", "all art is rent seeking", etc. and when pressed if you really want to stake out such transparently unserious positions you instead double down in ways that only make you seem sillier.

Like I would genuinely encourage you to maybe take a second and examine your beliefs and your behavior, because some of this stuff is, like I said, genuinely embarrassing.

 

[Mandemon]

Mandemon, I'm gonna be real with you, while I wouldn't go so far as Jemnite I would say that you have a, uh, reputation for staking out obviously silly opinions like "subtext was made up by leftists", "fuckboy is the same as slut", "all art is rent seeking", etc. and when pressed if you really want to stake out such transparently unserious positions you instead double down in ways that only make you seem sillier.

Click to shrink...

Amazing how you have to lie. First, I never said "subtext was made by leftist". Literally never, I never even suggested such thing. At no point did such idea even enter discussion.

Second was result of longer discussion and question, not absolute statement.

And art being rent seeking? Look at the wider conversation again. It was in response to idea that artist are protected class that need to have their job defended.

Like, here is the full statementfrom me:

"But then we fall back to admiting that art itself is rent seeking, creating artiificial scarcity to give specific people a power over others as they can now sell a limited service to others. It is admission that artist are protected class over others."

This was in relation of restricting AI art and claiming it was method to avoiding having to pay to artist. This was the statement the created my response:

"Yeah AI art machines are a method to not pay artists. They are being made by companies, in order to make a profit eventually, that profit will come from people paying for an AI generator instead of an artist.

AI art is explicitly an intentional goal to remove compensation for artists, while at the same time relying upon their work, which the companies don't even pay for."

Idea that artist are entitled to payment, that they have exclusive control over means of producing art.

So, what does it say when people have to either lie or pick statements from out of context to make an argument?

 

[Hologram Killer]

So, what does it say when people have to either lie or pick statements from out of context to make an argument?

Click to shrink...

I think you have a right to point out that someone blatantly calling you stupid is uncivil. It's uncivil.

Trying to convince people to change their opinion of you by calling them liars is not a productive way to steer this conversation.

 

[Graviator]

I don't think examples from an "unpopular opinions" thread are particularly indicative of a general pattern of "staking out obviously silly opinions".

 

[Old Spice Guy]

Won't somebody please think of Chairman Meow and provide some Capital D Drama.

 

[Mandemon]

Trying to convince people to change their opinion of you by calling them liars is not a productive way to steer this conversation.

Click to shrink...

What else there is to do, when someone makes flatout false accusation? They have source right there, they linked to it, so they have no excuse to add new statements to it. What else could it be other than lying? If it was just vague recollection, I could pass it as just being mistaken, not intentional. But when you have actively source and can see that no statement of anything indicating the accusation was made, I can not see how it can be non-intentional accusation. And since lying requires intention, that is more or less only conclusion that can be drawn.

 

[Hologram Killer]

What else there is to do, when someone makes flatout false accusation? They have source right there, they linked to it, so they have no excuse to add new statements to it. What else could it be other than lying? If it was just vague recollection, I could pass it as just being mistaken, not intentional. But when you have actively source and can see that no statement of anything indicating the accusation was made, I can not see how it can be non-intentional accusation. And since lying requires intention, that is more or less only conclusion that can be drawn.

Click to shrink...

Report them. If someone is calling you stupid you can report them, that's why that feature exists. You do not have to mount a defense, you don't have to cite sources proving you're not stupid- this thread isn't about your unpopular opinions. If I'm being blunt anyone that wants to have an opinion about your intelligence one way or another will already have formed one interacting with you. This whole dance is counterproductive at best, and disruptive if you're feeling uncharitable.

 

[Jemnite]

Dunno how to feel that a councilor can repeatedly call another user idiot and argue that is enough to let other user go scot-free because councilor would engage in equally disruptive methods, and not get any sort of note about being civil.

Click to shrink...

Imma be real with you fam, you are a worse problem poster than Forte in that thread. The fact that you used the thread as a soapbox to rant on about how you think artists are actually the real rent seeking capitalists here was pretty stupid and responsible for shitting up the thread just as much if not more than Forte's drive by sniping. You posted about zero content actually related to AI Art and whenever someone actually linked a cool and interesting development in the field you only engaged with it to incorporate it into your weird "artists bad" screed. I have not seen you post about AI art a single time without working it into this position. It is extremely tiresome to actually link cool new stuff only to have some rando on the internet use it to start a fresh new argument. You contributed nothing constructive and only brought negative value. It would be better if you stopped trying to coopt other people's genuine interests for your stupid crusade.

 

[Vi'Talzin]

I mean, you can report the post, if you can think that it breaks one of the rules. Really though, it seems like regular Jemnite posting to me.

Click to shrink...

I would be very surprised if the post was not reported before this tribunal was made public, and I suspect that kind of thinking is why they did not eat an infraction. Missing stairs and all that.