2023-AT-18: Staff and hghwolf - Reduced

[picklepikkl]

2023-AT-18: Staff and hghwolf Reduced

Good day. I was issued a 25 point infraction by Shinaobi under Rule 3, presumably the 'play the ball, not the man' part as the post contains neither any privileged information nor does it reference reports or my ignore list, for this post. The post reads The infraction text reads as such ...

forums.sufficientvelocity.com

I would have liked to see active discussion about the point Mr Skeletal raised regarding the distinction between a zero-point infraction and a Staff Notice; nobody voting for Staff Notice after that post actually said something to the effect of "and here's why I think it's not rules-breaking vs rules-breaking but so minor it doesn't merit points."

An interesting point, which nobody raised, is that hghwolf came into the Appeals forum seeking a reduction to a zero-point infraction; the outcome of Tribunal was actually more lenient than the remedy the user sought and which Arbitration denied. Presumably this is why Datcord brought up the distinction in the first place.

 

[imya t'loak]

This one boggles me

A Staff Notice is "This post/incident did not break the rules, however it's Really Close and Staff wants to make an official note of it in case it comes up again." It is meant as both record keeping and as way to help users realize when they are treading close to a line so they can amend their behaviour in the future and to keep a record in case of future issues arising.

Click to shrink...

The incident was reduced to a Staff notice, ergo it didn't break the rules (however, it was close). Does that really mean that it's actually okay to do this?

I'm honestly wondering how this behavior helps make SV a welcoming place.

 

[poaw]

This one boggles me


The incident was reduced to a Staff notice, ergo it didn't break the rules (however, it was close). Does that really mean that it's actually okay to do this?

I'm honestly wondering how this behavior helps make SV a welcoming place.

Click to shrink...

It means that people who wish to engage in that behavior won't feel that the staff will punish them for it. It makes it more comfortable for me and people like me to know that the staff won't come down on on a bit of banter even if someone does seethe about it and we can have some fun and fuck with people a little bit.

-----------------

Also, the council overturning an infraction doesn't change the rules or how the rules are enforced. The staff can still give infractions for this behavior, uphold those infractions in arbitration, and carry it on to the tribunal. The council itself also isn't required to uphold their own precedent; if someone else does this, they can decide that it is an offense worthy of an infraction, or any other punishment a majority of them see fit.

So if one day Squishy eats a fruit salad that has big ass slices of tomato in it and hates the experience so much that he goes home and tells the staff, "ON SV TOMATO IS A VEGETABLE NOT A FRUIT!" Then poster X later says, "Tomato is a fruit lol wtf." He can get an infraction for it and take it to the council, who can overturn it. But when poster Y says, "Tomato is definitely a fruit," he can still receive an infraction. He can appeal it to the council and the council can decide, in that tribunal, that tomato is not a fruit and uphold it.

There is a lesson here about how the world works.

 

[Sotek]

I deeply shrug on this one. Calling people out is against the rules, calling people out who aren't involved is definitely bad (but like, hghwolf's explanation for the mistake is something I completely agree with, because those threads are an undifferentiated mush) but on the other hand the proposal the arb made of "use 'someone' instead of the person's name" seems way less civil to me?

 

[Lightwhispers]

2023-AT-18: Staff and hghwolf Reduced

Good day. I was issued a 25 point infraction by Shinaobi under Rule 3, presumably the 'play the ball, not the man' part as the post contains neither any privileged information nor does it reference reports or my ignore list, for this post. The post reads The infraction text reads as such ...

forums.sufficientvelocity.com

I would have liked to see active discussion about the point Mr Skeletal raised regarding the distinction between a zero-point infraction and a Staff Notice; nobody voting for Staff Notice after that post actually said something to the effect of "and here's why I think it's not rules-breaking vs rules-breaking but so minor it doesn't merit points."

An interesting point, which nobody raised, is that hghwolf came into the Appeals forum seeking a reduction to a zero-point infraction; the outcome of Tribunal was actually more lenient than the remedy the user sought and which Arbitration denied. Presumably this is why Datcord brought up the distinction in the first place.

Click to shrink...

Agreed on this - I didn't see any recognition of the difference there, which seems... odd.

And to address another thing mentioned in the Tribunal: for all that yes, this is administrative bullshit for an internet science/fantasy fiction forum administration, it is not "made up"- people actually place significant value on interactions here. To say that the decisions about what behavior is and is not acceptable are "made up" seems to be devaluing that, and honestly comes across as a bit solipsistic. (In the extended "people who aren't me/don't think like me don't matter/don't matter as much" sense.)

 

[Pidl]

Also, the council overturning an infraction doesn't change the rules or how the rules are enforced.

Click to shrink...

Wasn't it declared somewhere that the council can change the rules or their enforcement?
At least I remember that being the case at some point, not sure if it still is.

 

[king208]

As an 8th rule 3 violation this ought to be past the warning stage. Given Council's opinion that it didn't rise to the level of a rule breach it should have just been an overturn.

 

[NHO]

I just like that last two tribunals explicitly mentioned Mandemon somewhere, but I haven't interacted with that person and it's first time I see his name (apparently, thankfully).

 

[Nyvis]

As an 8th rule 3 violation this ought to be past the warning stage. Given Council's opinion that it didn't rise to the level of a rule breach it should have just been an overturn.

Click to shrink...

There's a long term trend of council being shy about overturns and going for reducing to staff notices instead even when it doesn't really make sense, yeah. Though I also don't believe it's a huge deal since unless you go to permaban tribunals, those are basically the same thing.

 

[The Laurent]

I do think as a conclusion it is a little bit incoherent in this case, all things considered.

 

[Tithed_Verse]

I just like that last two tribunals explicitly mentioned Mandemon somewhere, but I haven't interacted with that person and it's first time I see his name (apparently, thankfully).

Click to shrink...

@Mandemon is @Mandemon . Just like Col Degurechaff is Col Degurechaff.

I've interacted with Mandemon. Mandemon has strong opinions. A lot of SVers have opinions. Other than that, Mandemon isn't a bad dude.

 

[Pidl]

You didn't have to @ them...

 

[Mandemon]

You didn't have to @ them...

Click to shrink...

It's a lot more honest than not @ someone while talking about them

 

[SSgtC]

You didn't have to @ them...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, if someone is gonna talk about me in a thread I haven't been in, I'd at least want them to tag me so I can respond (if appropriate). Otherwise you're basically talking behind my back.

 

[sdwood]

And to address another thing mentioned in the Tribunal: for all that yes, this is administrative bullshit for an internet science/fantasy fiction forum administration, it is not "made up"- people actually place significant value on interactions here.

Click to shrink...

I'm just going to interject some realism here.

Some people only have limited interactions with others.

If SV is their only outlet? It can have significant effects, potentially lethal ones, on them, if they're banned.

I am NOT saying that that should not happen, if warranted, but a lot of people seem to cruise along on the idea that "nothing here is real."

Sorry, sweetcheeks, it's not that simple.

 

[Math Man]

I'm just going to interject some realism here.

Some people only have limited interactions with others.

If SV is their only outlet? It can have significant effects, potentially lethal ones, on them, if they're banned.

I am NOT saying that that should not happen, if warranted, but a lot of people seem to cruise along on the idea that "nothing here is real."

Sorry, sweetcheeks, it's not that simple.

Click to shrink...

Do note that that's what the person you're responding to was saying.

 

[sdwood]

Do note that that's what the person you're responding to was saying.

Click to shrink...

I was trying to support them. I guess that didn't come across.

 

[Fey'lya]

I am NOT saying that that should not happen, if warranted, but a lot of people seem to cruise along on the idea that "nothing here is real."

Sorry, sweetcheeks, it's not that simple.

Click to shrink...

Nothing here is real. That people feel they don't have any other option but to treat it like it is real is unfortunate, but ultimately nobody's business but their own.

 

[Hologram Killer]

I'm just going to interject some realism here.

Some people only have limited interactions with others.

If SV is their only outlet? It can have significant effects, potentially lethal ones, on them, if they're banned.

I am NOT saying that that should not happen, if warranted, but a lot of people seem to cruise along on the idea that "nothing here is real."

Sorry, sweetcheeks, it's not that simple.

Click to shrink...

There is a middle ground between "nothing you do online affects other people or is worth getting majorly invested in" and "discussions on SV are literally life and death".

 

[Arthur Frayn]

I'm just going to interject some realism here.

Some people only have limited interactions with others.

If SV is their only outlet? It can have significant effects, potentially lethal ones, on them, if they're banned.

I am NOT saying that that should not happen, if warranted, but a lot of people seem to cruise along on the idea that "nothing here is real."

Sorry, sweetcheeks, it's not that simple.

Click to shrink...

Bro what, are you arguing we shouldn't ever ban anyone because they might kill themselves? Seriously?

Look I'm gonna be real, if getting banned off a sci-fi fan fiction forum puts you in a suicidal space you desperately need to touch grass.

 

[Girlbonzo Bean]

If SV is their only outlet? It can have significant effects, potentially lethal ones, on them, if they're banned.

Click to shrink...

So, back in 2014, I was unwell, and due to my unwell behavior did some really dumb stuff. I ended up receiving a 200 point infraction for that dumb stuff, along with a temp ban and a frustrated mod message, and left the site for a few years. I found a new social circle, grew up a bit, and came back after that circle kind of dissolved. I came back, and in the last 4 years, have been actioned once for accidentally posting a bad image in the screencaps thread. When I came back, I looked at that and realized that, yeah, what I did was actually really dumb and kinda pathetic, but I grew up, and moved forward with my life, and could come back and realize that what I did deserved the punishment I got.

I understand that sometimes people on this forum are dealing with their own mental health issues- I still was after I came back, as a member of Staff I can't even count the amount of times I've seen somebody seem to indicate they are of suicidal ideation, and could do nothing to help. It's not a great feeling, let me assure you. And I think that maybe that first aspect is why I think I am the most hardline member of Senior Staff regarding procedure- not because the other members don't care, but ecause I am essentially an absolutist. I want everybody to get as many chances as they can get to show that they can be better, because I do think that sometimes people can grow up and improve enough to stay on the site, maybe they're going through a bad time or have issues they need to work out, we need to try and provide some level of leniency as the system allows.

That all having been said, at the end of the day, this is a forum for fanfiction and fandom discussion. Nobody on staff is a therapist, we do not have the ability to make mental health assessments or ways in which we can balance discipline with mental care, nor should we. If somebody does not fit the norms of the space, they need to be punished regardless of why they don't fit those norms, because those norms exist for a reason. We can't treat every permaban as a matter of life or death, and need to accept that sometimes people just aren't going to fit into this space, and that's fine, even people struggling with deep anxiety and depression issues are typically not going to try to commit suicide over being banned from a webforum. We simply can not act as if we can deal with that situation with any level of competency if they are.

It is not fun to look at somebody with mental health issues and go "it's out of our hands" but at the end of the day, that sort of stuff is out of our hands. We can have a social space that allows them freedom to discuss things, express their feelings, and maybe make bonds and friendships that can help them, and in that respect I agree that SV can be an important space for people, especially given how the atomization of society more and more pushes people toward finding online spaces to communicate with others, or have things that make them feel different from others in a way that self-isolates. But we have to keep in perspective that we are a moderate sized webforum, not a mental health center, and act accordingly. Hopefully when they are in a better space, they can look back and agree that what they did was dumb and grow as a result.

 

[Lightwhispers]

Nothing here is real. That people feel they don't have any other option but to treat it like it is real is unfortunate, but ultimately nobody's business but their own.

Click to shrink...

Well, then, apparently neither you nor your post are real, which means that I'm responding to my own imagination.

Yes, that's how absurd what you said is. Interactions between people are real. It doesn't matter the medium. If you believe otherwise, you are unpersoning them.
...now, not everything on this board is serious, but that is the same with in-person conversations as well. But saying that nothing here is real has some logical consequences which are in contradiction to the rules of the board.

There is a middle ground between "nothing you do online affects other people or is worth getting majorly invested in" and "discussions on SV are literally life and death".

Click to shrink...

I suspect that sdwood wasn't trying to give the implication that it's a binary, but they did not phrase it well.

And yes, if a person's mental health is dependent on access to this board, they definitely need to work on getting assistance elsewhere... but that's a separate issue from "disciplinary decisions about conduct on and access to this board should be taken seriously."

"Mentally healthy people have feelings about interactions with other people" should not spark a response of "hey, people who aren't mentally healthy should seek help." And that is exactly what I am seeing.

 

[Hologram Killer]

Well, then, apparently neither you nor your post are real, which means that I'm responding to my own imagination.

Yes, that's how absurd what you said is. Interactions between people are real. It doesn't matter the medium. If you believe otherwise, you are unpersoning them.
...now, not everything on this board is serious, but that is the same with in-person conversations as well. But saying that nothing here is real has some logical consequences which are in contradiction to the rules of the board.


I suspect that sdwood wasn't trying to give the implication that it's a binary, but they did not phrase it well.

And yes, if a person's mental health is dependent on access to this board, they definitely need to work on getting assistance elsewhere... but that's a separate issue from "disciplinary decisions about conduct on and access to this board should be taken seriously."

"Mentally healthy people have feelings about interactions with other people" should not spark a response of "hey, people who aren't mentally healthy should seek help." And that is exactly what I am seeing.

Click to shrink...

The only reason people are bringing up getting help is because suicidal ideation was brought up.

I think forum discipline is important, but I think that people also need to set the right expectations. I'm not really sure how to word it honestly.

Because I see both perspectives here. I've gotten really upset or invested on stuff online and made connections and even life changing interactions, but also, being able to contextualize my online social life in the broader story of my life as a whole (aka touching grass) lead to confidence and just emotional maturity that I didn't possess before. I guess I just believe things can be important and unimportant at the same time.

As for the tribunal, is it inherently uncivil to mention a user's behavior or habits? I would say it is context dependent, and I don't think having it codified in the rules would necessarily make SV more civil. The mods are not friendship cops, they can't determine who is cool with who, what is friendly ribbing and what is real animosity when it comes to mentioning other people. I think this example is deserving of some kind of staff action because it's out of pocket and Mandemon caught a stray lol. but I don't think that mentioning other users is inherently uncivil.

For example if I say "if i mention that fucking star wars ramming scene my alerts will look like i just pinged everyone in a discord server" that's just objectively true

 

[Lightwhispers]

The only reason people are bringing up getting help is because suicidal ideation was brought up.

I think forum discipline is important, but I think that people also need to set the right expectations. I'm not really sure how to word it honestly.

Because I see both perspectives here. I've gotten really upset or invested on stuff online and made connections and even life changing interactions, but also, being able to contextualize my online social life in the broader story of my life as a whole (aka touching grass) lead to confidence and just emotional maturity that I didn't possess before. I guess I just believe things can be important and unimportant at the same time.

As for the tribunal, is it inherently uncivil to mention a user's behavior or habits? I would say it is context dependent, and I don't think having it codified in the rules would necessarily make SV more civil. The mods are not friendship cops, they can't determine who is cool with who, what is friendly ribbing and what is real animosity when it comes to mentioning other people. I think this example is deserving of some kind of staff action because it's out of pocket and Mandemon caught a stray lol. but I don't think that mentioning other users is inherently uncivil.

For example if I say "if i mention that fucking star wars ramming scene my alerts will look like i just pinged everyone in a discord server" that's just objectively true

Click to shrink...

I generally agree with you - being part of a tribunal shouldn't be something so serious that humor cannot be a part of it, but it also is worth being respectful of the other people involved so that the one doesn't make the tribunal itself into a joke.

 

[Fey'lya]

Because I see both perspectives here. I've gotten really upset or invested on stuff online and made connections and even life changing interactions, but also, being able to contextualize my online social life in the broader story of my life as a whole (aka touching grass) lead to confidence and just emotional maturity that I didn't possess before. I guess I just believe things can be important and unimportant at the same time.

Click to shrink...

The way I tend to think of it is sort of like being in a D&D group that meets at a McDonald's or something. The bonds you make, the memories you share, all of the good life stuff that happens to you during those times are excellent and vital and real.

And absolutely none of it will ever matter to McDonald's, who are there to sweep the floors, sling burgers, and generally keep their restaurant running. It actually can't matter, because McDonald's has to try and serve everyone. The goings-on between you and your friends and the way they run their restaurant are entirely different things. They're happy to have you as regular customers but they are not obliged to provide you a space. It's not your space, it's one you happen to be using and find yourself under the auspices of.

Nobody's out here trying to say that the magic of friendship is unimportant. We're saying that forums governance can't treat it as such.