Remove ads

2025-AT-08: Staff and Aleksey A E

Servant of Evil said:
Look, I've been a long time lurker and reader. Very rarely do I speak up here on SV. Heck, i think I've only ever posted in User Fiction before this. So maybe this is only worth a grain of salt coming from me, but the fact is that Aleksey had 6 serious Rule 2 infractions prior to the PM Conversation that finally incited this tribunal, of which one of them is also marked as a Rule 3 infraction. That alone is almost awe inspiring, but what is even more egregious is the wide range of groups in the crossfire. Others have stated in this thread that they were surprised Aleksey wasn't banned long before their behavior escalated to emotional blackmailing, and I will echo those feelings: something should have been done sooner.

As a side note, I just cannot get over Aleksey's behavior within the tribunal. I just... I lost braincells trying to comprehend the logic behind making some of those posts. This goes beyond the standard behavioral issues you'd expect to see in a tribunal like "I was right" defenses and debating councillors (though they do get in both of those). The unmitigated disregard for what was posted. I mean, Datcord literally said in the opening post (Emphasis mine):

To face that warning head on, reveal identifying information anyways, get rebuffed for it, and immediately double down on trying to reveal said identifying information, is perhaps the single worst decision I have seen within a permaban tribunal, or even any tribunal here on SV. The fact that Aleksey was even allowed to remain an active participant in that tribunal after that shows... I don't really know how to put it. I'm just astonished it got to this point at all, I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As a long time Tribunal Cheap Seat-Sitter, I found this user's response to their permaban hearing mostly unremarkable. This is just what these're like.

Saying they'll stop posting and then posting more and more? Typical.

Arguing distinctions that only matter to them without so much as explaining why those distinctions should matter to anyone else? Typical.

Engaging councilors in debate? Typical.

Disregarding the very standards for which they are up for permaban in their permaban tribunal? Typical; though the identifying information stuff is kind of unique, that's more about the circumstances being unique and not about the behavior: permaban candidates do this shit all the time.

What I find surprising is that a unrepentant and discursive permaban candidate with a history of bigoted and emotive language didn't flare out. And it seems like maybe that hasn't happened in a while. What changed?

Are there still flare-out permaban tribunals that we don't see?

Did the population of the board or the broader environment change such that the people who would do that just stop engaging for some reason? Like do they not get in as often or do they let off their steam somewhere else?

Have staff made a pact with demonic powers to moderate the very hearts of some or all users of Sufficient Velocity?

Am I just wrong about the statistics and that shit never happened much in the first place?
 
Parth said:
Ok fine.

When I came into the thread, I clicked on the link in the OP.

I then proceeded to read the tribunal, clicking on the links within the tribunal, reading the staff's case against said user.

After I got done reading the tribunal, I scrolled through this thread and noticed multiple people asking why they weren't banned for the nazi merch comment.

Now, since I clicked on the links and read the staff's case against said user, I also noticed the reason for why the thread that said user made that post in was locked.

Which is and I'll quote it again.



So after looking at the questions other users asked, and the fact that a moderator themselves said that they closed the thread because some of the rethoric in said thread convinced a Ukranian poster to purchase nazi icongraphy out of spite.

I concluded that the reason they didn't get banned is because the staff accepted that a thread taking putins propaganda about nazis in the Ukrainian govenment seriously, pissed off said Ukrainian post and convinced the staff to lock the thread.

Because I can't for the life of me think of any other reason why they didn't get banned for that.

Everything I said was based on what I could see from the staff's actions in that thread.

If you don't like my explanation then take it up with the staff.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I understand how you could come away with that impression if you just read the mod box at the end of things and I don't really mind that you took it at face value, but it was a woeful under reaction to what that thread was.

The first wave of posting in it was pro Ukraine posters, unable to square the circle of supporting Ukraine despite widespread fascist armed forces infiltration, including at high levels of its military, simply telling everyone else who knew what black sun or iron cross tattoos meant that the evidence of their eyes and ears was just totally wrong. After there was any pushback at all on the nazis being swept under the rug things totally degenerated as they are wont to do when people post less than 100% uncritically supportive of every Ukrainian decision on this forum. It was not a thread dedicated to Putinposting.

Sure, it required a lock. It also required a moderator to read through stem to stern and hand out rule 2s like candy so that our homegrown NAFOposters got more than slaps on the wrist, but that never happened.
 
A military or military-adjacent organization in eastern Europe? Of course it's full of Nazis. That's not an endorsement, that's acknowledging an obvious fucking reality. When the shooting starts, odds are, the only thing standing between you and the fascist death squads are the fascists on "your" side (and no, you don't get a say in what side you're on). Not everyone has the luxury of being born into circumstances where that situation will never arise. In the context of SV Ukraine threads, what was happening was self-righteous assholes demanding the white trash in Ukraine literally roll over and die for purity points. It was "but what about Hamas!" apologetics for Russia. It's genocide apologetics when you use it against Palestinians, and it's genocide apologetics when you use it against Schrödinger's whites.
 
Yaminator said:
I understand how you could come away with that impression if you just read the mod box at the end of things and I don't really mind that you took it at face value, but it was a woeful under reaction to what that thread was.

The first wave of posting in it was pro Ukraine posters, unable to square the circle of supporting Ukraine despite widespread fascist armed forces infiltration, including at high levels of its military, simply telling everyone else who knew what black sun or iron cross tattoos meant that the evidence of their eyes and ears was just totally wrong. After there was any pushback at all on the nazis being swept under the rug things totally degenerated as they are wont to do when people post less than 100% uncritically supportive of every Ukrainian decision on this forum. It was not a thread dedicated to Putinposting.

Sure, it required a lock. It also required a moderator to read through stem to stern and hand out rule 2s like candy so that our homegrown NAFOposters got more than slaps on the wrist, but that never happened.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just for the record, I was an active participant in that thread. I do remember what happened.

And despite what anyone wants to believe, or what any of the ones who pushed back against the pro-Ukrainian side intended, their actions only benefited putin and his cronies.

It did occur to everyone that the reason why putin played the nazi card is because he knew it would cause division within the ones who sided with ukraine.
 
Jemnite said:
I mean it was like a 25 point infraction at most.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I admit I've lost the thread of the conversation.

I'm hoping that, if you're referring to buying nazi memorabilia in retaliation or threatening to commit district suicide as emotional blackmail as '25 point infractions at most', this was intended as a deadpan 'joke'

But if that's the case, this is terrible timing and you've kinda failed to read the room because Parth just got yelled at by a bunch of people got saying something similar, rightfully so, and it's kinda unfair to give you greater leeway. Yes you've got more social coin to spend in this area due to your reputation of being a 'playful' troll, but I personally hate giving people greater leeway just because they have better social skills. Feels distinctly unfair.

Also people are amped up right now and thus others are also less likely to give you leeway.

If that's not the case. I have no idea to which infraction you're referring.
 
Parth said:
Just for the record, I was an active participant in that thread. I do remember what happened.

And despite what anyone wants to believe, or what any of the ones who pushed back against the pro-Ukrainian side intended, their actions only benefited putin and his cronies.

It did occur to everyone that the reason why putin played the nazi card is because he knew it would cause division within the ones who sided with ukraine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Great, I was prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt because I couldn't be assed to actually go back and check myself. Thank you for saving me the time, comrade of Aleksey A E.
 
Hologram Killer said:
And to you the right response was to buy Nazi paraphernalia? That was the productive and understandable thing to do when there were Nazi accusations being made?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't see anywhere (in this thread, anyway) that Parth has suggested it was the right response. Just that it wasn't seen as banworthy at the time, and that the circumstances under with Aleksey A E decided to do it may have contributed to them not being banned.

-Morgan.
 
Morganite said:
I don't see anywhere (in this thread, anyway) that Parth has suggested it was the right response. Just that it wasn't seen as banworthy at the time, and that the circumstances under with Aleksey A E decided to do it may have contributed to them not being banned.

-Morgan.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I deleted the post you're replying to because I realized my mistake. Regardless, I think after an incident like that a user should be watched more carefully than they otherwise would be.
 
Tithed_Verse said:
I admit I've lost the thread of the conversation.

I'm hoping that, if you're referring to buying nazi memorabilia in retaliation or threatening to commit district suicide as emotional blackmail as '25 point infractions at most', this was intended as a deadpan 'joke'

But if that's the case, this is terrible timing and you've kinda failed to read the room because Parth just got yelled at by a bunch of people got saying something similar, rightfully so, and it's kinda unfair to give you greater leeway. Yes you've got more social coin to spend in this area due to your reputation of being a 'playful' troll, but I personally hate giving people greater leeway just because they have better social skills. Feels distinctly unfair.

Also people are amped up right now and thus others are also less likely to give you leeway.

If that's not the case. I have no idea to which infraction you're referring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Nazi patch thing: I remember I checked Aleksey's profile afterwards and he didn't get a ban so I think it was only 25 points at most. Obviously the suicide threat was more serious because it triggered a staff review.
 
Morganite said:
the circumstances under with Aleksey A E decided to do it may have contributed to them not being banned
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The question, of course, is 'should they have ?'

Putting aside that there wasn't any genocide denial going on in that thread other than in the heads of whoever subscribed to the 'if Russia says the sky is blue then it's definitely not blue' mindset, even if it had should that be a mitigating factor ?

I think it's very hard to argue that it should have been without running afoul of Rule 2 oneself, by implication if nothing else.
 
Jemnite said:
The Nazi patch thing: I remember I checked Aleksey's profile afterwards and he didn't get a ban so I think it was only 25 points at most. Obviously the suicide threat was more serious because it triggered a staff review.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly I feel like bringing IRL stuff online to the tune of taylor swift's 'look what you made me do' might be worth more than 25 points.

The thing that I personally find telling is that threatening suicide or saying you were forced to buy a nazi patch because someone was mean to you is the exact same behavior, and comes from the exact same mental place of treating yourself as a machine that only reacts to others, and others as having volition.

This is an extension of the tendency for humans to give themselves excuses for their own behavior, but not to extend those same excuses to others. If *I* have a bad day and snap at a barrista, I tell myself 'oops, I had a bad day. I'm not an asshole, I just made a mistake'.

The barista tells themself 'wow, that dude was an asshole'

Anyway, I don't like that mindset. I'm very autistic, so fairness is very important to me, but largely about things normal people don't care about (symptoms of autism 'a strong, but orthogonal to social norms, sense of justice and/or fairness').
 
I'm still waiting for staff to give an answer as to why Aleksey wasn't perma'd for the Nazi merch incident. I want to know the thought process here. Like, emotions are clearly running high because of this (and with good reason imo), and I think clearing that up would at least help. If there's a reason it can't be explained, like Rule 1 stuff, then just saying that too would also help!
 
Tithed_Verse said:
The thing that I personally find telling is that threatening suicide or saying you were forced to buy a nazi patch because someone was mean to you is the exact same behavior, and comes from the exact same mental place of treating yourself as a machine that only reacts to others, and others as having volition.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think they're the same.
Telling somebody they're the reason you're going to commit suicide is emotional blackmail and trying to make them out as a murderer.
Compared to that saying that they're the reason you bought nazi merch is just going to get a "Sure, Jan" as a reaction.
 
Tithed_Verse said:
I actually know the answer to this one, but I'm not sure I can articulate it clearly. I understand the answer very clearly. I'm not certain about my capabilities to articulate.

It feels good to be the only right person in a wrong world. It can be addictive. There's also a very clear cultural contagion related to this sensation. A lot of cultures hold a certain amount of reverence for this emotional state.

Also, from an internal perspective a major part of the experience of being autistic is being the only right person in a wrong world.

There's a reason my extremely autistic family has a motto that goes "In a world where everyone but you in crazy, who should be locked up for who's safety?" (Answer, the one sane person should be locked up for their own safety, it's more efficient than locking everyone else up)

It hurts seeing other people pull off social maneuvers that we can't. We try to imitate them. Fail. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong!!!"

Feels better than admitting to ourselves we misread the situation and how our own social status affects it. Especially since we inevitably have a lower social status. Which hurts to admit.

All these things, and some others, add together. Am I clear?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think another big part of this is the fact that it can be challenging (for everyone) to differentiate between "I feel this emotion" and "This emotion is a valid and justified response," and when we're proven to be mistaken, it's incredibly tough to admit "Oh lol I was overreacting, wasn't I?" because even if the reason for getting upset (or whatever) was a complete and total goof on your part, it doesn't change the fact that you still got really upset/emotionally affected; the emotions don't vanish the instant you realize you've made a mistake.

IMO, it's the flip side to the tendency (on SV and IRL) to the phenomena you sometimes see where users (in tribunals or otherwise) behave as if it quite literally does not matter what you say but merely how you say it; like there's some kind objective rhetorical or linguistic "line" where you can say whatever as long as you don't cross it. They don't view the problem as coming from inside the house (let alone that they might actually, you know, be wrong) but that, as @Fey'lya said, it's either a personal failure to perfectly articulate your self-evidently correct position or malicious misunderstanding driven by haters.

Honestly, I think a lot of "But I'm Right!" tribunal defenses are less about trying to argue the actual, specific factual content of the appellant's posts and more special pleading that they were really, really upset (or whatever); so it doesn't matter if they misread a post or were poorly articulating a pretty basic/retrograde/unsophisticated position, what matters is that they were mad and seemingly incapable of emotional regulation.
 
This, even if we let them stay, there was no telling when are the going to snap again. Civility and not being Hateful go hand in hand and I feel this was why they rule 2'd them is believing they can explain their actions knowing full well the consequences of being permanently expelled from a community like SV has, especially in an era where forums catered towards a small tight knit group online without the trappings of Reddit and Discord.

Should we have rule one them so we won't have to discuss the fallout of not just dealing with them immediately? Of course, but this tribunal shows why due process is necessary. So people can learn from those who infract themselves in a way that ends their participation in SV
 
Pidl said:
I don't think they're the same.
Telling somebody they're the reason you're going to commit suicide is emotional blackmail and trying to make them out as a murderer.
Compared to that saying that they're the reason you bought nazi merch is just going to get a "Sure, Jan" as a reaction.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's different *reactions* yes, but the same attempt to blame your own actions on others and the same attempt to guilt trip others for what you did.

Arthur Frayn said:
-snip-
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Another problem is everything is so clear in my head. I don't think in language. I think in concepts and colors and shapes and magnitudes and flavors and slants and textures and… pretty much everything but language. I always have to awkwardly translate these personal concepts into language to communicate.


Had a time that wound up with me arguing about conservatives vs conservatives vs conservatives it took someone else telling me I was using the same word repeatedly with different definitions to make me take a step back and realize what I was doing.

Another problem I sometimes have is the 'I know you know' loop. I know something. I know the other person knows something. Do I need to communicate that we both know this thing, or do I leave it unsaid?

This gets me in a lot of trouble when it turns out that someone doesn't know something I left unsaid.

A positive example: I complained online that when I was making hamburgers the outside was charred and the inside was raw.

I do not have this problem with other types of meat.

Someone asked me if I was letting the hamburger meat rise from refrigerator temperature to room temperature.

I wasn't. I thought about saying 'how did you know I wasn't' but it was obvious: I listed a problem, they diagnosed the most likely cause. I considered saying 'Huh, you're right, I'm not doing that' but I couldn't find the facile way to phrase it I just stumbled across here.

Instead I wound up not saying anything, just accepting the advice and moving on.


Similarly when I am in trouble with an authority, I struggle with 'yes, I know you've had other people do this, and I recognize that I've done this that and that wrong, and I recognize that you've told me specifically to cut this out before, except that I thought these circumstances were different from last time because my stupid ass adhd/autistic brain shuttles between 'pataphysical level of hyperspecifocity and socratic levels of generalization dependent of my emotional state.. And you already know that too and consider it an 'excuse' not an explanation, even though I'm autistic and explanations are inordinately more important to me than they are to a normal person, but you run a goddamn forum full of an abnormally high percentage of autistic individuals and you already know that, but I don't know if you took it into account.'

See how I can stuck myself into a wormhole?

I lost the thread of where I was going. My functionality has been low. A coworker is in the hospital, so we're all working much harder than normal and it's wearing on me.
 
Tithed_Verse said:
The thing that I personally find telling is that threatening suicide or saying you were forced to buy a nazi patch because someone was mean to you is the exact same behavior, and comes from the exact same mental place of treating yourself as a machine that only reacts to others, and others as having volition.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Pidl said:
I don't think they're the same.
Telling somebody they're the reason you're going to commit suicide is emotional blackmail and trying to make them out as a murderer.
Compared to that saying that they're the reason you bought nazi merch is just going to get a "Sure, Jan" as a reaction.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Tithed_Verse said:
That's different *reactions* yes, but the same attempt to blame your own actions on others and the same attempt to guilt trip others for what you did.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Tithed, you're right in that the acted behavior is the same, but Pidl is also right that there is still a difference. The key is Intent. The intent of an action matters: in more serious criminal matters IRL it can be the difference between murder and manslaughter, or between degrees of murder. Bringing it back to SV and this specific example, the difference in intent between "I bought a bigoted patch" and that private message is, as far as I can personally see, "I want to snub you" versus "I want to hurt you on a deeply personal and emotional level." That's the big difference I'm seeing here.
 
Servant of Evil said:
Tithed, you're right in that the acted behavior is the same, but Pidl is also right that there is still a difference. The key is Intent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think maybe the correct word isn't intent but degree?

Because from my understanding of the word intent, both actions are carried out with an intent to use deliberate self harm to cause harm to others.

But the degree of self harm, and the degree of harm to be caused to others, is different?
 
Tithed_Verse said:
I think maybe the correct word isn't intent but degree?

Because from my understanding of the word intent, both actions are carried out with an intent to use deliberate self harm to cause harm to others.

But the degree of self harm, and the degree of harm to be caused to others, is different?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, that gets into arguing semantics a bit. "Degrees of intent" (same intent different scales as you're defining it in the quoted post) versus "Intent of degrees" (intending a different scale of effect) doesn't really matter in the long run.

The important thing is that the intent/degree/mentality/"insert term of choice" behind the private message was of greater intentional malice, comparing the two actions. I think regardless of how we frame that point, we can agree on it all the same.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top