2025-AT-02: Staff and ChineseDrone

[ChineseDrone]

Frankly this appeal has spun off more tangents than an introductory calculus textbook, and so I am inclined to shut this one down immediately.

1. There is nothing untoward about staff providing more detailed explanations for infractions in internal notes. We encourage them to do so. Those internal notes need not be shared with the user in question. That is why they are internal notes. Arbitrators are free to consider them - or not - as they see fit, because:

Click to shrink...

To be clear here my objection is not to the fact that @foamy included a more detailed explanation in his internal notes but that he included an entire second infraction based on Rule 4 in it that was never mentioned to me, leaving me to think (and begin my appeal) on the assumption that this was merely a Rule 2 infraction. This thankfully did not end up being a permanent handicap, as @Potato Anarchy was kind enough to reveal this to me (for which again I thank him), but while I think it's totally fair that mods might include clarifications in their notes that users might not see I think the idea of sneaking an entire second, unrelated basis for an infraction there is a little much.

 

[Datcord]

Good evening @ChineseDrone,

After an unfortunately extended delay, the Community Council elections have concluded. While there is still some administrative tasks to accomplish for the new Council to be seated, we are in the process of getting those dealt with now. Can you please review and confirm you still wish to elevate this Appeal to the Council for Tribunal consideration?

Thank you,
Datcord

 

[ChineseDrone]

Good evening @ChineseDrone,

After an unfortunately extended delay, the Community Council elections have concluded. While there is still some administrative tasks to accomplish for the new Council to be seated, we are in the process of getting those dealt with now. Can you please review and confirm you still wish to elevate this Appeal to the Council for Tribunal consideration?

Thank you,
Datcord

Click to shrink...

Yes, I would

 

[Datcord]

Understood. Your Appeal is on the docket and will be presented to the Council once seated. There is a small backlog, so there may be a slight delay as cases are worked through chronologically. However, this Appeals is at/near the front of the queue, so the delay shouldn't be significant.

Thank you.

 

[Datcord]

tribunal opened for discussion @Council,

You have been asked to give your opinion on this appeal. Per Council's request, you will have ten (10) full days to render a decision on this matter, until Nov 4, 2024 at 7:30 PM . Before that time, you should vote to Uphold, Overturn, Reduce, or Increase the infraction.

The arbitrator and infracting staff member - @Potato Anarchy and @foamy - 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 ten (10) days, this Tribunal will be closed to discussions on the infraction and there will be a two (2) 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.

 

[BiopunkOtrera]

I must admit, I'm kind of uncomfortable with the idea that someone, even if they're engaging in rhetoric which is at the very least extremely overheated, getting infracted for nazi like behaviour based on then reading a particular piece of art as transphobic. Like, I think that the original infraction is a deeply goofy way to address the issue of someone having what's basically a controversial reading of a particular piece of art which they believe to be prejudiced.

I'm not actually going to engage with the full substance of their criticism because I don't want to be spoiled on Umineko, but I am deeply uncomfortable with the rational of the original infraction.

The argument given by the arbitrator that this is a rule 4 infraction is IMHO better, but I still don't think that the post actually rises to rule 4. Like, would we say that Ralson's famous demolition of David Weber's Rising Thunder was a rule 4 infraction? It's rhetoric about the piece is, as I recall, also pretty overheated for the same rhetorical effect.

Ultimately, it's a thread called: Unpopular opinions we have on fiction. We should not be in the business of infracting people for expressing such unpopular opinions, or if we are, the thread should be shut down.

You're allowed to be wrong in that thread, and I just don't think this rises to the level of an infraction. I would however suggest the appellant maybe cool off. This whole appeal has been conducted in a way that if the original infraction wasn't also bizarrely overheated I would have upheld out of hand because it's been so unnecessarily dramatic.

[x] Overturn infraction in full.

 

[Etranger]

I'm largely in agreement with BiopunkOtrera on the merits, but I'd also like to talk about procedure. The idea that Staff can include a second, hidden infraction within their notes that isn't visible to the infracted party until it's brought up mid-appeal goes against the entire principle of transparency undergirding this system. It sucks, it's unfair, and it has a corrosive effect on the trust this whole process is supposed to create. I'd normally be inclined to just reduce the point total, but instead:

[X] Overturn in full

 

[Potato Anarchy]

I brought the note up in the interest of being clearer about things but frankly, I don't think it was hidden.

Here is the original mod post in the thread's language.

"I don't care about whatever political righteousness you imagine yourself to have. Suggesting the annihilation of entire swathes of art because it might modestly imply something you don't like isn't happening, and especially not in the extraordinarily disruptive and inflammatory way you've done here."

Here is the language of the note that I shared.

"Aside from the topline item here, CD's entire conduct here has been massively inflammatory and violates Rule 4 as a supplemental."

They're the same picture. I was getting caught up on the way the appeal had been discussed so far, which as I argue in my ruling was overly technical and not actually addressing the core behavior staff took issue with, and I thought maybe it would get the discussion to focus on the behavior, that perhaps something had been missed. I did not accomplish that goal.

I don't think there was any aspect of this which actually amounted to secret charges or an unfair burden.

 

[foamy]

I must admit, I'm kind of uncomfortable with the idea that someone, even if they're engaging in rhetoric which is at the very least extremely overheated, getting infracted for nazi like behaviour based on then reading a particular piece of art as transphobic.

Click to shrink...

The infraction wasn't over reading Umineko as transphobic. I want to head this off right at the start, though I thought I was quite clear in the original post.

It was for, and I will quote @ChineseDrone's own words again here:

I think that I of all people should have enough credibility to be believed when I say that I dislike a work not because of any vibe I have with it but because I insist on a totalitarian political loyalty to progressivism and genuinely believe that any art with even an iota of conservatism must be annihilated utterly.

Click to shrink...

The utter annihilation of every single piece of work that doesn't meet some 'totalitaritarian loyalty' test is a deeply dystopian and hateful position, one immensely destructive of cultures. Saying 'conservative' as if aiming that bile at an acceptable target is not going to fly, particularly given the fact that this spun off a discussion about a game @ChineseDrone hasn't played.

That, in conjuction with making maximalist, in-your-own-words totalitarian claims that CD insisted are sincerely and wholly meant, removes any ambiguity as to the true scope or intent here.

I took CD at their word. That's why the infraction was under Rule 2.

 

[Etranger]

With respect, there's a substantial difference between an implicit allusion to Rule 4 and a direct citation of the rule itself by name. Users aren't lawyers; they deserve to have their offense clearly and openly cited in the accusation made against them if they're expected to understand it and defend themselves. I don't think the Rule 4 citation was hidden maliciously or even on purpose, but it was hidden, and that should be considered.

 

[BiopunkOtrera]

The infraction wasn't over reading Umineko as transphobic. I want to head this off right at the start, though I thought I was quite clear in the original post.

It was for, and I will quote @ChineseDrone's own words again here:

The utter annihilation of every single piece of work that doesn't meet some 'totalitaritarian loyalty' test is a deeply dystopian and hateful position, one immensely destructive of cultures. Saying 'conservative' as if aiming that bile at an acceptable target is not going to fly, particularly given the fact that this spun off a discussion about a game @ChineseDrone hasn't played.

That, in conjuction with making maximalist, in-your-own-words totalitarian claims that CD insisted are sincerely and wholly meant, removes any ambiguity as to the true scope or intent here.

I took CD at their word. That's why the infraction was under Rule 2.

Click to shrink...

I'm sorry Foamy. I simply don't buy this line of argument in this case.

First of all, CD is pretty clearly making a joke at his own expense here. "I insist all the art I experience meet a totalitarian loyalty test" is a pretty funny way to address your own tastes. It's quite obvious from the tone of the post overall that he's engaged in old school performative rage critique. We can suggest, knowing CD, that perhaps he's using his performance to mask feelings which are truely quite extreme, but the existance of the performance does not, at the start, necessitate a rule 2 infraction.

Second, even if Chinese drone were entirely serious, art is not a protected class. Unless you are engaging with art in a way that bespeaks of an implicit attack on a protected class, IE "I wish that femmeslash would stop shoving lesbianism in my face", then I don't believe what CD is doing, which is essentially not liking a particular type of art phillosphically rises to the level of a rule 2 infraction, anymore than it would be for someone to suggest that say, it would be better for the world if there wasn't so much fascist military SF where civilians are represented as lazy, stupid morons who get in the way of the military and have their legs severed by falling fighter craft.

People are allowed to think certain types or tropes of fiction are harmful in a political or phillosphical way, and want that fiction to be less of a thing.

That is, at least on my first reading of this infraction, pretty clearly what Chinese Drone is doing.

Now, he may be totally wrong about Umineko. A lot of transwomen like it a lot so I think that it has a fair claim to saying CD's argument here is incorrect, but incorrect argument is not worthy of an infraction.

 

[Teen Spirit]

I am inclined to agree with Etranger on procedure. The infracted party needs to understand all infractions against them from the start so there are no surprises or unneeded confusion. That said I do believe people could have looked at CD's post and believed they were being completely serious. Which leaves me at a crossroads here because I agree with the Rule 2 part but find how Rule 4 was handled to be pretty notable mishandling of procedure.

 

[Susano]

Man, this case is a bit of a mess in what different points have been brought up that all ideally should get addressed.

Right. Let's begin.

1) The case for Rule 4. I start with this because I think this is the weakest case. Certainly, the appellant's rhetoric that that thread has been very much over the top and, may I say, warbling - all the name-drops of philosophers, the invocations of higher but ultimately irrelevant philosophical principles, the sheer unnecessary wordiness. I would say that is suboptimal, as it does project an attitude of rubbing one's sophistication into people's faces, which can be a problem. But I wouldn't say it is infractable, and in terms of precedent we have always let preaching from on high stand, if no specific rules have been violated. In that context, even the rhetorical exaggerations of the appellant like "Hitler particles" are... yeah, suboptimal but IMO not infractable.

2) The case for Rule 2. Is calling for the destruction of all art hateful in the terms of Rule 2? Well, there are several points to that:

-I think calling for the destruction of all figurative art is, as the appellant has done, is per se just a statistically very out there statement. In such cases, we must take heed that we do not just penalize an unpopular opinion. But, at least bare the other considerations that will follow, I do not think it is should be infractible just for being so out there. We have had other weird statements come up in tribunals, and generally only actioned them if they are bigotted (which requires a specific group to be targetted) or run afoul of the Rule 4 maxim of being extra careful about sensitive topics (which I think the appellant has been - one can hardly accuse him of not having been detailed with his replies, for example).

-There is the "Internet Tough Guy" angle of Rule 2, of course, but I don't think that applies here at all. That angle is meant to exclude edgelords, but I don't think the appellant was being edgy - it's not like he led with this opinion/attude, and he didn't push it into people's faces. It took the back and forth of a discussion to come up, and even then it was just some lines in very long posts. Therefore, I think it is fair to describe that as a genuinely held belief that genuinely came up in the context of a discussion - rather than general edginess.

-There are those parts where the appellant called specifically for the destruction of conservative art. Now I absolutely do think there should be no instance of "acceptable targets" on SV, and everyone deserves the same baseline of respectful behaviour on the forum. However, as a category, "conservatives" are not a protected group on SV in the same vein that cultures, religions or ethnicities are. And certainly, calls to curtail free speech have a long tradition on SV that reaches back to its very foundation. I do not think precedent would support action here.

-One thing where the call for the destruction of art may be of relevance, though, is the issue of cultural erasure. Of course, yes, the appellant has been pretty universalist in the application of his opinion. At one point he said all figurative art is to be destroyed. So it certainly is not directed against any one culture or group of cultures in specific. However, regardless, it would in fact result in the cultural eradication of groups of people, even if that is just a "side-effect" - but a pretty obvious and central side-effect.

That I do see as a problem, because ethnic and cultural identities, and hence culture as an identity marker, are protected categories on SV. So yeah in t hat one particular aspect it may be a problem, but I am willing to hear counter-arguments to that.

3) The case for Rule 3. This is something the Arbitrator raised, even if they ended up labeling it as "Rule 2 and 4". But regardless of classification, the case is still there. There are no "acceptable targets" on SV, so calling a group of people "morons" whose "psychological anguish" is "sublime pleasure" is a problem. And unlike the calls to curtail conservative art, this one is targetted not at their ideology, but at the people themselves.

...on the other hand, reducing this whole thing to just some people being called morons, when that quite obviously is not the meat of the argument, that would sit a bit wrong with me... hmmm...

 

[ChineseDrone]

3) The case for Rule 3. This is something the Arbitrator raised, even if they ended up labeling it as "Rule 2 and 4". But regardless of classification, the case is still there. There are no "acceptable targets" on SV, so calling a group of people "morons" whose "psychological anguish" is "sublime pleasure" is a problem. And unlike the calls to curtail conservative art, this one is targetted not at their ideology, but at the people themselves.

Click to shrink...

Apologies for speaking out of turn here, and mods should feel free to delete this post if it is breaking tribunal procedure, but I want to note that while the latter two phrases are rhetorical flourishes on my part whose reference to the text is indirect, the use of the term "moron" is a direct invocation of a well-known scene from Umineko itself, and the rest of the post's text, wherein I deliberately mirror the manner of the character from this scene (Erika Furudo) and use one of her catchphrases, should I think make this clear to anyone who has read Umineko.

As I noted to @Potato Anarchy in my response to his initial arbitrator decision, my wording here is not meant to be taken literally--rather, the point I'm trying to make is that the worldview of this character, who the author characterizes as cruel for taking pleasure in the psychological anguish caused to others by their closely-held beliefs being disproven, is not actually a bad thing, and that insisting that it is actually leads to some very uncomfortable political conclusions:

The first two quoted posts here have to be understood in the context of the work that is being discussed in the first place--I am very deliberately mirroring the manner of a particular character in Umineko (Erika Furudo) here for the specific purpose of proving that the mentality she represents, which Umineko seeks to present as undesirable, is not incompatible with and in fact actively in favor of progressive politics. This is quite obvious when one looks at the whole section my post and the previous post in the chain where I reproduced most of the same notes--I actively imitate one of the character's catchphrases at the end of both:

The stuff about being a childish moron running from an obvious logical truth is a paraphrase of one of Erika's most well-known scenes from Umineko, and the bit about cruelty is likewise an attempt to explain why one should be progressive even if one were to adopt a point of view like this character's, an intention I think I make pretty clear in the post. Given this, I don't really think this is infractible.

Click to shrink...

 

[ChineseDrone]

particularly given the fact that this spun off a discussion about a game @ChineseDrone hasn't played.

Click to shrink...

Also I want to clarify that by the time these posts were written I had watched the scenes from Umineko that were relevant to the topic I was discussing in this post (broadly, this was about half of Episode 8 and a third each of Episodes 5 and 6)--and also I'm frankly not quite sure why whether or not I had done so would be relevant to whether this was a Rule 2 infraction at all (though I can understand its connection to Rule 4 caution)

 

[Ralson]

The argument given by the arbitrator that this is a rule 4 infraction is IMHO better, but I still don't think that the post actually rises to rule 4. Like, would we say that Ralson's famous demolition of David Weber's Rising Thunder was a rule 4 infraction? It's rhetoric about the piece is, as I recall, also pretty overheated for the same rhetorical effect.

Click to shrink...

I don't recall proposing, suggesting, or implying anywhere in that thread that art which does not align with my "totalitarian political loyalty" must be "annihilated utterly," nor anything in any way comparable to that.

If I did, please PM me a link so I can delete it before anyone else sees.

 

[BiopunkOtrera]

I don't recall proposing, suggesting, or implying anywhere in that thread that art which does not align with my "totalitarian political loyalty" must be "annihilated utterly," nor anything in any way comparable to that.

If I did, please PM me a link so I can delete it before anyone else sees.

Click to shrink...

I don't think you did, but I think both of us have definately in the past said stuff like "I wish that there was less fascist mil-SF", which is IMHO what CD is doing stripped of the performance.

Now you may say "This performance is so bad as to be disruptive. It's rule 4." And I might agree with that. I just don't think it's rule 2.

 

[Lazer Raptor]

Also the original appeal was improperly formatted, but thankfully staff have shown leniency in this instance.

I am admittedly rather iffy on using Rule 2 for an infraction in this case, because while calling for total destruction of "art with an iota of conservatism" is a rather extreme opinion, as is the expansion later in thread that it is actually all "figurative art".... I don't think iconoclasm is covered by Rule 2.

That being said, I think this is an incredibly easy Rule 4 violation. The post is clearly disruptive, it derails the whole thread and is so exceptionally aggressive in its rhetorical posturing that I am surprised this wasn't a Rule 4 violation. If a hypothetical right-wing user leaps into the unpopular opinions thread to argue that all literature with "socialist" themes should be burned, that is not a Rule 2 violation, but it sure as hell is a Rule 4 violation. SV's rules exist to create a specific environment and atmosphere, and Chinese Drone's post is almost gleeful in transforming that atmosphere into a brawl of sorts.

As for the procedural discussion.... I think this is a matter where the Appeals Process very clearly lays out that Arbitrators and/or the council are entirely within their rights to uphold the infraction even if the original rationale for mod action was spurious, as well as provide an alternative rationale. I do not necessarily agree with this, but it is the policy as written and this should be noted. Additionally, while switching an infraction to a "Rule 2 & Rule 4 violation" is potentially unfair procedurally, it is important that posts which blatantly violate the rules of SV not go unpunished because the original moderator used the wrong rule.

As such, I am leaning towards an uphold here, albeit under Rule 4 instead of Rule 2, or perhaps a reduction to "just" a threadban alongside a clarification this is under Rule 4.

 

[Etranger]

As for the procedural discussion.... I think this is a matter where the Appeals Process very clearly lays out that Arbitrators and/or the council are entirely within their rights to uphold the infraction even if the original rationale for mod action was spurious, as well as provide an alternative rationale. I do not necessarily agree with this, but it is the policy as written and this should be noted. Additionally, while switching an infraction to a "Rule 2 & Rule 4 violation" is potentially unfair procedurally, it is important that posts which blatantly violate the rules of SV not go unpunished because the original moderator used the wrong rule.

Click to shrink...

Have to respectfully disagree here. I think if there's been an error on procedural grounds the appellant should, in the interests of fairness, have the infraction overturned. Arbitrators may be allowed to uphold infractions even if the original rationale doesn't hold up, but we're not required to validate those decisions as Councilors.

 

[mcclay]

As much as I disagree vehemently with the appellant on their takes in the thread, especially on Umineko itself, I have to agree with Etran that this wasn't a Rule 2 violation. Unless we want to stretch Rule 2 to the point of breaking I don't think we can make 'art' a protected class on its own. If the Arbiters wished to hit CD with a Rule 4 violation they should have clearly stated that in the infraction that had him end up in front of us here.

I would highly suggest to the appellant to maybe...not be like this and perhaps read Umineko a bit more carefully, but bad media takes and 16th century religious views on art are not, on their own, infractable.

[X] Overturn in full

 

[Potato Anarchy]

Rule 2 does not use the words 'protected class', or any other part of government hate speech law. It is not especially a rule about content. It is mostly a rule about having restraint during conversations on an internet forum.

The problem here is not disliking a cult hit video game or even disliking art categorically. It is about the terms used to discuss it. It would be the same problem regardless of the topic that evoked it. You could be talking about accounting standards or Onlyfans or fly fishing, doesn't matter. Sephiroth posting is not a protected category of activity on Sufficient Velocity. There's plenty of vigorous discussion every day that we don't hit. This was clearly different.

 

[Exponent]

Being real, I have two concerns with this appeal.

First, I'm concerned about the lack of clarification, at minimum, to appellant about the Rule 4 infraction they were handed. That information was salient to the appellant's defense and should be provided to the user, especially they're unaware they may have the infraction in the first place.

But importantly, I don't see the appellant's hyperbole about a "totalitarian loyalty test" for excluding art they find offensive due to their beliefs as being worthy of an infraction, particularly on a thread specifically meant for users to air their most controversial opinions on various forms of art. I don't personally agree with ChineseDrone's opinion on the criteria for what renders art unacceptable, but I don't find it hateful in this instance and people are allowed their preferences on media, under the site rules.

 

[The Laurent]

Yeah, it does seem to me that going into a thread and advocating what seems to be a push towards book burning is at the very least disruptive, but on the other hand--in my endless waffling--the matter of procedural fuckery is certainly weighing on me as well in this case.

I think it is definitely closer to a Rule 4 than a Rule 2, but to be honest I at least see where someone is coming from when responding to someone talking about an annihilation of all art that does not meet one's standards. At a certain point deliberately phrasing normal ass opinions (I don't like this piece of media I haven't read but have decided to rant about[1]) in the most intentionally offputting, offensive, and extreme way possible... will turn out to backfire on you? Go figure!

So I'm kinda leaning towards an Uphold, though not fully decided on this.

[1] I mean, it's kinda obviously stupid, facile, and lacking in self-reflection, but people complain about media they haven't actually read/experienced all the time. People be stupid sometimes, even smart people. I have opinions on things I haven't seen through the power of reading fanfiction, lol, to use a more 'neutral' example.

 

[Maugan Ra]

I think you can make a fairly clear case for this being a Rule 2 infraction.

If you look at ChineseDrone's posts in the period surrounding the infracted post, we get rhetoric such as:

• This work (that I have never read) radiates Hitler Particles
• "to affirm trans identities is an act of delightful intellectual cruelty... (and to) watch the psychological anguish and misery that they (conservatives) fall into as a result is a sublime, indescribable pleasure!"
• The author (who I know nothing about) is probably transphobic and using motifs in their work that are at least conservative and at the worst antisemitic
• Any art with an iota of conservativism (such as believing that you ought to be kind to people you disagree with) ought to be annihilated utterly
  • "I believe that we ought to destroy all figurative art, period, end of sentence."
• This work (that I have never read) is "a treachery, a fifth column, an apostasy"

This is absolutely hateful rhetoric. It is theatrically hateful rhetoric, with a bunch of additional flourishes and digressions added in solely to underline how much the appellant hates someone's (perceived) ideology and work, one which proudly claims to be cruel and spiteful and celebrates that as a moral and ideological good.

It is also nothing but hateful. There is zero legitimate criticism or content to be found within this whole series of screeds because, as I kept highlighting above, ChineseDrone had not (at time of posting) actually watched or otherwise engaged with the visual novel he was so viciously attacking. It was, at best, a prop for him to use to launch into an-only-tangentially related screed about how much he hates conservatism.

I think it is also worth noting that, per the other appeal currently under consideration by this council, this discussion (and subsequent infraction) comes after ChineseDrone dug up a 10-month-dead Let's Read thread to launch a hostile polemic against some of the people and/or opinions involved, on the grounds that their positions were conservative and so worthy of hate and ridicule. They were infracted for this behaviour, and then promptly jumped over to the Unpopular Opinions thread to keep on going.

Given that context, any assumption of good faith I might have otherwise been inclined to grant here has long since expired.

I am voting to [x] Uphold.

 

[Maugan Ra]

I am also going to quickly quote the arbitrator here to underline where I think we agree:

So here's what I think is the core of the disconnect: you believe that there is a line of sophistication or reasonableness past which aggression and arguing like an opera villain is not a problem, and you believe this line should be judged on intellectual grounds. I don't think this line really exists. Insofar as there are some lines that might approximate it, I don't think they are judged on intellectual sophistication or reasonableness. I think it is mostly judged on the values that come up repeatedly in Rules 2 and 4: civility, consideration, understanding, and especially respect.

Click to shrink...

(I'll edit this into my existing post later, maybe, if I can figure out how)