2025-AT-02: Staff and ChineseDrone

[Exponent]

It's specifically being infracted under Rule 2, on the basis that my post is somehow analogous to Nazism or otherwise hateful to a group of people, which is bothersome to me here (along with the procedural matter as before), and I will not contest the validity of a Rule 4 infraction being applied to this post in of itself.

Click to shrink...

Respectfully, this is essentially an admission of the post being infractable under Rule 4 and though I feel Rule 4 can be arbitrarily misapplied at times, you actually admitting it is reasonable for your statement to be seen in this light makes it hard for me to see it as anything but disruptive, despite the initial procedural irregularities that happened here at the beginning of the appeals process. Though I'm willing write off what is to me hyperbolic language about you reject art of a conservative nature and your strong opinions on work you haven't actually interacted with since the thread you did it on is specifically meant discuss unpopular opinions on various forms of art*, I can't ignore your own assessment of your actions.

So here I need to vote:

[x] Uphold

On a personal note, going forward, you need think to before you post something about whether it can be considered hateful and or disruptive by any parties on this forum, especially we're dealing with the fallout of you not doing so here, you're more than intelligent to do so, you have insightful things to say that I and others enjoy reading, and I really don't want to see you in trouble here when you could be discussing more productive stuff elsewhere here. You need to be mindful of how what you say here might be interpreted by users who don't know or misinterpreted by users who disagree you.

I hope you avoid further difficulties with this.

*So users need to buckle up to see content that could probably piss them off to some degree.

 

[Ralson]

The reason the council has, in the past, voted to overturn if a ruling would hit an appellant with a different rule than the one they walked in with, is the cooling effect it would produce. It might force appellants to write appeals which take into account every possible thing anyone might argue during a tribunal. Having the rule change suddenly would be frustrating at best.

In this case, however, Rule 4 was brought up during arbitration, not the council. The appellant had ample chance to respond to it. So I don't think that's grounds to overturn. If people think it violated Rule 4, that should be flat uphold.


Moving on,

It seems obvious to me that "it'd be better if <noun> didn't exist" hits differently from "we must destroy <noun>."
Yes, you can cite examples where neither are acceptable. That doesn't make them the same in character. One's more passive, the other is either proscriptive or ideation.

If we interpret his statement as a form of policy proposal, it's clearly crossing a line. And if we aren't meant to, and it's more of a revenge fantasy, that's also a Rule 2 violation. I think it speaks poorly of SV to allow that on the grounds that we don't like the targets.

I think it's also, simultaneously, a Rule 4 violation. It disrupted the thread, as most anybody would have expected it to.


It's very strange to me that CD brings up the AI Art thread repeatedly in the appeal. It happens I got tangled up in that, so I can't help but note a contradiction.
When I posted in that thread to say I don't like AI image generators, CD decided this view was unacceptable. He argued that people with views like mine need to be "liquidated by good men," in his words.

To be clear: I didn't actually say AI image generators need to be annihilated utterly. I didn't, AFAIK, insult people who make it or like it. I just questioned it as a medium of communication if the information lacks intentionality. But even this smelled, to him, to carry the scent of suppression of free speech, which he, at the time, considered totally unacceptable, because all images including machine output have a sort of inviolate, sacred free speech quality to them.

The idea that image generators need to be protected at all costs, but humans he disagrees with need to have their ability to create art suppressed by the state, seems kind of crazy to me. It's more crazy when I consider how popular AI art has become with conservatives. Not just popular, but dominant. It is functionally THE form of conservative art, circa 2024. That doesn't, itself, make it evil, but if your goal is to oppose conservative art on strategic grounds, then you shouldn't ignore the fact that, a few years ago, most artists being left-of-center meant most art was left-of-center, but now, right-wingers have an endless spigot of propaganda art which they now post every minute of every day. Social media's awash today in mountains of propaganda they made about events which happened yesterday. The side which has more artists is no longer relevant, thanks to this technology.

This doesn't, itself, make it evil, in my book... but I think it says something about CD's book. Where he draws the line seems arbitrary and determined by whether he, personally, finds it neat, or annoying. I don't see an intellectual interrogation of the corpus. I see a personal vendetta based ultimately on whim.
At this point I think it should be repeated again: He never read the story he's attacking.


(PS: I was actually left wondering if getting attacked in the AI art thread impacted my impartiality on this matter. But then I thought: that would be a stupid reason to recuse. If only people you haven't flamed are allowed to judge you, then you can flame your way into immunity.

Moreover, the purpose of the community council isn't to be unaware of what happens on this website.)


[x] Uphold

 

[FantasticMsFox]

Looking at the infraction, the appellant's argument, and those of my fellow councilors, I believe I will be voting to uphold. The language used merits an infraction. I do believe it fits better under 4 than 2, but regardless, it is an uphold.

[X] Uphold

 

[ChineseDrone]

For the record I'd like to repeat once again that by the time the infracted post was written I had read significant portions of Umineko, including basically all those which were relevant to my critique, and also to clarify that my prior opinions on AI Art @Ralson is discussing were ones that I held before reading up more on aesthetic theory, and I now oppose the existence of both AI art and figurative art in general (and any oxytocinergic imagery more broadly) for the same philosophical reasons.

 

[Omicron]

(and any oxytocinergic imagery more broadly)

Click to shrink...

If you'll indulge a brief aside which will not impact my ruling either way, can you clarify if you're using some sort of figurative language, or if you mean that you literally oppose any imagery whose observation causes the release of the hormone involved in social bonding?

 

[ChineseDrone]

If you'll indulge a brief aside which will not impact my ruling either way, can you clarify if you're using some sort of figurative language, or if you mean that you literally oppose any imagery whose observation causes the release of the hormone involved in social bonding?

Click to shrink...

The latter—or at least that which is enough to pass some vague unspecified threshold—out of a general opposition to organic, unmediated sociality (as opposed to that which is mediated by conscious and deliberate discussion and negotiation) and especially any motivation for it which is manipulable by human actors

 

[ChineseDrone]

This continues even in this very Tribunal thread, as if CD might not even help themselves - here we are ruling on an Infraction under either Rule 2 or Rule 4, and CD can't help but chime in to explain to us that they don't want us to be mistaken, they object to the use of pictures in storytelling. This is very funny, but it's also just the compulsive behavior of someone who can't help but attempt to start a controversy in any circumstance, at their own detriment.

Click to shrink...

Also, apologies, but having just noticed this part I want to clarify that this was not my intention—I stepped in to clarify that my opposition to "figurative art" was to representational art rather than to abstract art because I emphatically do not believe the latter and would be aghast at being perceived as such rather than as someone who deeply appreciates modern and abstract art, especially given the sheet amount of cultural stigma that it already faces. It was not out of any desire to stir controversy, and I apologize if that was its effect.

 

[The Laurent]

[X] Uphold

I didn't formally vote, so allow me to just slide this in here. See my earlier musings several pages ago.

 

[Datcord]

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 fifteen (15) of the Council registering a vote, the majority decision was to Uphold the infraction.

The votes broke down as follows:
(11) - Uphold
(3) - Overturn
(1) - Uphold under Rule 4

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.

 

[Squishy]

In respect to this tribunal and the concurrent (and frankly, at least in my opinion, related one), I am going to add an additional comment on behalf of the admin team.

Earlier in this tribunal, @Ralson said this:

It's very strange to me that CD brings up the AI Art thread repeatedly in the appeal. It happens I got tangled up in that, so I can't help but note a contradiction.
When I posted in that thread to say I don't like AI image generators, CD decided this view was unacceptable. He argued that people with views like mine need to be "liquidated by good men," in his words.

To be clear: I didn't actually say AI image generators need to be annihilated utterly. I didn't, AFAIK, insult people who make it or like it. I just questioned it as a medium of communication if the information lacks intentionality. But even this smelled, to him, to carry the scent of suppression of free speech, which he, at the time, considered totally unacceptable, because all images including machine output have a sort of inviolate, sacred free speech quality to them.

Click to shrink...

Frankly, the claim that @ChineseDrone had suggested someone be liquidateed was concerning. The post in question is here, and I'll quote it in part because frankly I think this highlights what exactly is at play in these Tribunals:

If this is not what you mean by aesthetics, and you really are just trying to say that people who want to regulate AI art should have a solid understanding of art criticism, then say art criticism. Because criticism is fine--essential, even. But we absolutely should not allow a certain aesthete, irrationalist type to smuggle aesthetic concerns into the legal discourse under the guise of protecting artists as an economic profession--down this road leads only to all sorts of repulsive, dangerous anti-modern right-wing politics, which it is the duty of any good man to work to liquidate.

Or, like, this, for instance:

But, when the AI doesn't understand what you were telling it to tell me, I feel like a legitimate and tangible function of art as a tool of communication has been lost. Not as a method for giving me special art feelings, but as a medium for delivering information from your brain to my brain. Instead, there's is this intermediary, which knows all the shapes and colors humans enjoy, but has no conscious thoughts whatsoever.

I feel like this speaks to an issue many people have, but have some difficulty putting their finger on. Even if something looks really really good, it's been spruced up with details that are not communicating information.

Click to shrink...

Click to shrink...

These tribunals represent a pattern of behavior toward other users of which this post - about eighteen months ago - represents a kind of apex. I think it goes without saying that suggesting people with opposing views on art need to be liquidated is not acceptable. The fact that I even have to say it is concerning.

That post was reported and actioned at the time. In retrospect, the response was probably too light. All things considered, ChineseDrone has gotten off pretty lightly.

At the end of the day, SV is a creative forum. People here create works of art and literature. They review it. They discuss it. God help us they vote on it. There is something fundamentally contrary to our mission when a user talks about art, and the people who create it and enjoy it, in this way.

One of the posts that ChineseDrone was infracted for has this - I think quite pertinent - hypothetical question:

Where in the world are people so chauvinistic and self-obsessed as to demand that their critics ought to approach them not with sober, ruthless, crushing skepticism, but with sincerity, with appreciation, with a compassionate and elevating spirit?

Click to shrink...

The answer, at least in the context of ChineseDrone's future posting, is...here.

@ChineseDrone - this is your final warning. Dial it back or you will be banned. It doesn't matter what kind of sublime pleasure you get out of it, you will not talk about any sort of liquidation, annihilation, destruction, whatever, of other people, art, what have you. From now on, you should approach other posters with sincerity, appreciation, and a compassionate and elevating spirit. We will not extend any further latitude than what you have already received.

I appreciate the Council's time.