Remove ads

2025-AT-01: Staff and ChineseDrone Upheld

picklepikkl

picklepikkl

This isn't even my nerdiest form
Advocate
Location
New Brunswick, NJ
Pronouns
He/Him/His
forums.sufficientvelocity.com

2025-AT-01: Staff and ChineseDrone Upheld

I was recently issued an infraction worth 25 points by moderator @foamy for the following post in the thread "[Where I Read] Umineko When They Cry": There is no staff post in the thread, so I unfortunately cannot quote or link it here, but the text of the infraction alert issued to me stated...
forums.sufficientvelocity.com forums.sufficientvelocity.com

Seems like a reasonable uphold to me. Straightforward violation of civility by continuing an argument after being asked to be left alone and doing so with what was intended to be an insult.
 
First tribunal of the term, it's about a Umineko thread of all things.

'Not auspicious' is what I would say if I believed in augury.

But yeah, pretty straightforward.
 
5/10 Episode of the Infraction Files, as the defendant remains obstinate in their error in a way usually associated with a permaban.
 
I'm struggling with the idea that, outside of exceptional circumstances, continuing to talk to someone when they've asked you not to can be considered civil behaviour.
 
I can definitely envision scenarios where people tell you not to talk to them as a way to allow them to present ideas sans refutation, and you should be permitted to continue engaging with their ideas, etc.

On the other hand, if you are reactivating an idle thread for a conversation fundamentally unrelated to the topic of that thread, and people are trying to disengage and you are not letting them, uh, that is a you problem?

So the uphold seems fine here, but also this is "infracted for posting as ChineseDrone" (who I think is probably going to be slow-walking to a perma eventually, given... what he does.)
 
I really believe that when you have called for the targeted killing of a group you then forfeit your right to accuse people of being in that group, and yes that does extend to just accusing their positions as belonging to that group. You should not be able to imply that you believe another user on this forum should be killed. If that means you can't express something that would ordinarily be within the rules for someone else to express, because of that implication of the belief in deserved harm coming along with it... Too bad? Users' rights to not have it implicitly suggested violence should be directed towards them, however indirectly, really rather trumps that. Don't talk about how certain kinds of people should be killed or persecuted, and you won't have that problem, I guess.

Estro, Ralson, and Omicron had the right of it. I can understand the people who thought that wasn't material to the infraction, though, even if I disagree with it.

Probably more productively:

I'm kind of bamboozled by the notion that it is not uncivil to ignore someone's request you stop talking to them? That is clearly uncivil. You can keep talking about the subject you were talking with that person about, but you should stop talking to them. Especially when they've asked you to twice in succession. Am I just, like, weirdly nice in thinking that's basic forum civility? If, as in this instance, the person is attacking you at the same time as requesting you not speak to them, you should really just report it; if you must rebut it, post a defense of yourself or clarification of your thoughts rather than further talking with the person angry at you, I would think. Is that just me?
 
Last edited:
I am fine with the Upheld, but I dislike the fact that any claims about how ChineseDrone acts in other parts of the web or the forum, is not sourced at all. It opens a door where a councilor can accuse an appellant of whatever he wants without a need to justify it and use it as an act to validate the punishment. Which is bad.
 
Corti said:
I am fine with the Upheld, but I dislike the fact that any claims about how ChineseDrone acts in other parts of the web or the forum, is not sourced at all. It opens a door where a councilor can accuse an appellant of whatever he wants without a need to justify it and use it as an act to validate the punishment. Which is bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's tough to convince other councilors without some proof somewhere. Maybe a real schemer could bamboozle some, but it'd cause a shitshow once people found out.

And if they aren't trying to convince other councilors, then there's no need to validate anything. There's nothing stopping me from just posting "[x] Uphold" with no other text.
 
Etran and McClay are the people I know first-hand. I trust their decision-making, I know their processes. I think if you decide to draw "the naked blade itself", don't be surprised that it "incites to violence" to get all Homeric.
 
Ralson said:
It's tough to convince other councilors without some proof somewhere. Maybe a real schemer could bamboozle some, but it'd cause a shitshow once people found out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's not really any proof because the broader point I was making in the conversation(s) that @Estro brought up was considerably more arcane, although I did say the things she was referencing--my argument was that moral consideration is fundamentally downstream of political commitments, and that, as a result, while we shouldn't engage in the targeted killing of conservatives this is only because we, as progressives, should maintain a categorical opposition to capital punishment, we shouldn't exploit them only because we have a categorical opposition to slavery, we shouldn't imprison them only because we have a categorical commitment to prison abolition, we shouldn't attack them only because we have a categorical opposition to the unprovoked use of force and commitment to the absolute supremacy of peaceable means over violent ones, etc.

I wasn't advocating for repression but rather for the totalitarian supremacy of the political over all lower orders of human social organization, and denial of the notion that personalistic, relational ethics can ever exercise normative force over political decisionmaking--so while progressives should not support targeted persecution of our political enemies, it is only because it is our good pleasure to believe in an ideological system which holds essentially all repressive means to be forbidden, not because there is something bad about political hostility in of itself. It's really just theological voluntarism as applied to political theology; what I am saying is that the only commitments which should obligate progressives to not engage in political repression--and there should be such commitments!--are those which are part of the progressive belief system in of itself. What I am for is for coldness and doctrine over warmth and humaneness, not for repression and violence over tolerance and rights—I'm all for tolerance and rights, I just think they need to be (and can be!) justified in a cold, doctrinaire way.

FortePlus said:
Another W in the war against catastrophic yapping.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm curious what your definition of "yapping" is?
 
Last edited:
Ralson said:
It's tough to convince other councilors without some proof somewhere. Maybe a real schemer could bamboozle some, but it'd cause a shitshow once people found out.

And if they aren't trying to convince other councilors, then there's no need to validate anything. There's nothing stopping me from just posting "[x] Uphold" with no other text.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair. In my case, I will probably prefer to see just a single "[x] Uphold" than to see something toying with a line that I find a bit borderline.
It's not a hill where I will die tho, it's just I find myself a bit uncomfy when reading this argument for judging someone but I can get that every councilors approach a tribunal on their own way.
 
personaly I agree with the Uphold even though I find Susano...Grating to say the least since if you really don't like a member you can always ignore/hide their account
 
i understand being not entirely happy with something being cited without an actual citation but ultimately I think ofc a councilor is going to go by the things they remember happening and its not always possible or even reasonable to remember oh this one thing happened in a thread on time but what thread. For the most part these justifications are personal. I understand the concern but i really don't think false accusations to get a tribunal to uphold an infraction is likely to actually be a problem
 
ChineseDrone said:
There's not really any proof because the broader point I was making in the conversation(s) that @Estro brought up was considerably more arcane, although I did say the things she was referencing--what I was saying was that moral consideration is not inherent to people but rather downstream of our political commitments, and that, as a result, while we shouldn't engage in the targeted killing of conservatives this is only because we, as progressives, should maintain a categorical opposition to capital punishment, we shouldn't exploit them only because we have a categorical opposition to slavery, we shouldn't imprison them only because we have a categorical commitment to prison abolition, we shouldn't attack them only because we have a categorical opposition to the unprovoked use of force and commitment to the absolute supremacy of peaceable means over violent ones, etc.

I wasn't advocating for repression but rather for the totalitarian supremacy of the political over all lower orders of human social organization, and denial of the notion that interpersonal, relational ethics can ever exercise normative force over political decisionmaking--so while progressives should not support targeted persecution of our political enemies, it is only because it is our good pleasure to believe in an ideological system which holds essentially all repressive means to be forbidden, not because there is something bad about political hostility in of itself. It's really just theological voluntarism as applied to political theology--what I am saying is that the only commitments which should obligate progressives to not engage in political repression--and there should be such commitments!--are those which are part of the progressive belief system in of itself. What I am for is for coldness and doctrine over warmth and humaneness, not for repression and violence over tolerance and rights—I'm all for tolerance and rights, I just think they need to be justified in a cold, doctrinaire way.


I'm curious what your definition of "yapping" is?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My sophont in wisdom, this is your tribunal discussion thread. Please.
 
Corti said:
I am fine with the Upheld, but I dislike the fact that any claims about how ChineseDrone acts in other parts of the web or the forum, is not sourced at all. It opens a door where a councilor can accuse an appellant of whatever he wants without a need to justify it and use it as an act to validate the punishment. Which is bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

On the one hand, yes, valid.
On the other hand, I too recall such statements being made by ChineseDrone. I mean ... even just in this thread, well.
 
ORE said:
i understand being not entirely happy with something being cited without an actual citation but ultimately I think ofc a councilor is going to go by the things they remember happening and its not always possible or even reasonable to remember oh this one thing happened in a thread on time but what thread. For the most part these justifications are personal. I understand the concern but i really don't think false accusations to get a tribunal to uphold an infraction is likely to actually be a problem
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My only issue is that it's pretty easy in the case of many users to just open up the handy prior infractions section that they have visible but also I get it and I'd take one look at this appeal and go this is exhausting.
 
Corti said:
I am fine with the Upheld, but I dislike the fact that any claims about how ChineseDrone acts in other parts of the web or the forum, is not sourced at all. It opens a door where a councilor can accuse an appellant of whatever he wants without a need to justify it and use it as an act to validate the punishment. Which is bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I didn't link the specific conversation CD had which was in my mind when I wrote the post for a couple of reasons - first among them being it was on Discord and like, that just doesn't work, and also searching discord to find the conversation is awful, but Squishy in the conclusion of the other tribunal has fortunately provided a link - to this post - which basically replicated what I remembered from a different discussion.

If you've said that "liquidating" conservatives is a "sublime pleasure", calling someone a conservative is going to get me looking at you real askance.
 
Estro said:
I didn't link the specific conversation CD had which was in my mind when I wrote the post for a couple of reasons - first among them being it was on Discord and like, that just doesn't work, and also searching discord to find the conversation is awful, but Squishy in the conclusion of the other tribunal has fortunately provided a link - to this post - which basically replicated what I remembered from a different discussion.

If you've said that "liquidating" conservatives is a "sublime pleasure", calling someone a conservative is going to get me looking at you real askance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How the fuck did that come out of a debate in AI art?! Actually, I saw a few of the arguementatice members so that question answers itself. Though I do have to wonder why choose sublime pleasure instead of like 'happily' 'would always' or even 'a great pleasure'. Sublime pleasure sounds like you are something about a art piece, a really delicious bit of food or some stuff I don't want to talk about
 
I was surprised to see that the first tribunal wasn't related to N&P - it seemed like a no-brainer that there would be some drama from there. I guess it might just be "in the queue".

I'd be concerned about hidden / deleted posts - I didn't think SV did that unless it was sufficiently egregious, because it wrecked havoc on the database - but I thank Exponent for summarizing them.

Of the various council posts, the one that I felt was "best" at explaining their thought process was Omicron's, followed up with Maugan Ra's.

Ori said:
My only issue is that it's pretty easy in the case of many users to just open up the handy prior infractions section that they have visible but also I get it and I'd take one look at this appeal and go this is exhausting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Speaking as a user with a total of 1 infraction to their name, I'm going to say that being on the receiving end of one is confusing process. The infraction section might be obvious to you, but it took me a few tries to find again. I hadn't even realized until now that the moderator who infracted you shows up in that box - the message that shows up in alerts does not.

Estro said:
I didn't link the specific conversation CD had which was in my mind when I wrote the post for a couple of reasons - first among them being it was on Discord and like, that just doesn't work, and also searching discord to find the conversation is awful
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I was actually surprised by this in the tribunal - attributable postings on related sites have been used in the past for levying infractions - see 2019. If this happened on the SV discord, I would consider that fully attributable as it should be possible by the admins to search and find that post.

Obviously I'm lacking context - it might not have been a straight up rule 1 violation - but given's Squishy's post in the related tribunal, it's fully clear that staff are fully aware of things.
 
The Last One said:
I'm struggling with the idea that, outside of exceptional circumstances, continuing to talk to someone when they've asked you not to can be considered civil behaviour.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seriously. I've definitely seen multiple examples of people becoming very obviously upset and agitated, asking for a specific user to drop the topic, then getting badgered over it anyway. If someone says "This is upsetting me and I'd like you to stop talking to me." you know exactly what kind of feelings your response is going to evoke. I've personally had to change my alert settings because I know if I ask people to drop something the request is almost never respected 🤷‍♀️
 
Last edited:
imya t'loak said:
Speaking as a user with a total of 1 infraction to their name, I'm going to say that being on the receiving end of one is confusing process. The infraction section might be obvious to you, but it took me a few tries to find again. I hadn't even realized until now that the moderator who infracted you shows up in that box - the message that shows up in alerts does not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Staff and council actually get it right on the usercard you get when you click on someones name on the forum, it is annoying to find for just looking your own up though without the extra usergroup privs I'll cop to that.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top