Review of Recent Bans
-
Upon review of the bans levied as a result of recent conduct, we have decided to unban the following users' accounts:
- Farfalla
- Ghost
- Meg
- Scar
All other bans shall remain in place.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@derp said in Review of Recent Bans:
Upon review of the bans levied as a result of recent conduct, we have decided to unban the following users' accounts:
- Farfalla
- Ghost
- Meg
- Scar
All other bans shall remain in place.
-
I'm sorry. This is wrong. I have a point to try and post as little as possible, but this is morally wrong.
There is little justification to keep these bans in place, beyond trying to uphold this almost draconian position of what's perceived as black and white justice.
To note, there are of those banned that I disagree with, some I don't even like but I don't wish them to branded in such a way.
This is wrong and it will continue to be so.
That is wrong and you are silencing voices, even when it looks especially grevious when most of the voices banned ate those of dissent.
This look of "control must be maintained" is a bad look. I simply no longer believe that there is self awareness of that.
That's is.
-
-
@testament said in Review of Recent Bans:
I'm sorry. This is wrong. I have a point to try and post as little as possible, but this is morally wrong.
I'm sure they can discuss it in infinitum at that new forum
-
I mean, I'll be honest. I never thought Farfalla would get banned when I told Gany. I did it more to have receipts for the future, because some people that have since been banned showed me in real time how important having that trail you can show and prove is. (I honestly thought Far would get a slap on the wrist.)
But the rest of the bans? People were asked to give time for admins to circle around. People got heated, and wouldn't allow it, and some of them threw aimed vulgarities into the mix. I can't say I don't see why some of those bans are remaining.
-
You forgot to mention coin, who was unbanned a while back with no such announcement. Also, why is is that these particular folks were unbanned and the others were not? Was it the number of posts made after requests for silence? Was it the degree of vitriol or trolling in their comments? Was it that they apologized for their actions via some channel to the mods? Did someone still in the community advocate on their behalf? If the other bans are justified, what error in judgement led to the bans here that are being revoked?
Honestly I doubt that it will be shared - I get the impression that the mod team doesn't care for their decisions being questioned. But it'd be nice to see a gesture towards admitting error and all. Not nice enough to make most people want to come back, but you know. A basic level of decency and accountability.
-
Bad decision. Aside from the couple people who specifically tried to get banned, they shouldn't stay in effect.
Not that it really matters. The trust in staff here has been destroyed and I doubt they'd return even if the ban was removed.
-
@macha A slap on the wrist for saying "message received" and then blocking you? Why?
-
Counter-opinion:
There were different themes in behavior that I saw leading up to the bannings, with some people being far more disrespectful and venomous in their approach than others. Heck, I was even DM'ed to be informed what a slimy piece of shit I was, though in jest I was doing a little tongue-in-cheek trolling of the situation, myself.
If the focus of the forum going forward is to try to be respectful and positive, then some of those entitled personalities are best left off at that new forum they made (where when I was linked to it already saw personal attacks, fuck-marry-kill lists with actual people being listed as kill, etc). This forum isn't a paid-for service where users are entitled to getting what they want, nor is it required to maintain a level of "trust" even when "trust" is often mistaken for "doing what we say we want or else".
I recommend people who don't like it to let it go and glomp about it at that other place that's going to return to the same toxic behavior patterns.
-
@saosmash A slap on the wrist for messaging me after I asked to not continue it, yes. Something akin to : Don't do that.
You can say whatever you want, Sao. I know she's friends with Roz, and through that the extrapolation to assume she's friends/friendly with you isn't complicated.
I know some of you claim I instigated by taking long periods between messages - and I did take long times to respond. Because I was at WORK, and my job has surges and lulls, and sometimes it takes me longer than others to respond to things. It was not some wild plot on my part.
I did not post the log, because I made reference to other people in it for examples, and it would not be fair to have them subjected to possible harassment, outside of MSB (where they do not come), etc. And considering there has been more than one person here that were not against the bans told me they have been located and messaged/paged/etc elsewhere, on accounts not linked to their name here or on Mus? I feel completely justified in that concern.
-
@macha Hey you dont gotta explain yourself. I think you're going to find that that pressure to "capitulate with our collective stance" is just a pain in the ass, and once you start negotiating it it'll never ever end.
-
@macha I really thought, genuinely, that since more than ten years had passed your behavior might have changed and that you might have grown out of some of your patterns. But we really should have banned you from our game when your player management thread reached the end of its second full page.
I can only hope that your demonstration of yourself to the community over the course of this contretemps has showed the gaming community enough of who you are that, in the future, you won't be able to manipulate other staffers and hurt other games the way you hurt ours.
Bye!
-
@saosmash said in Review of Recent Bans:
@macha I really thought, genuinely, that since more than ten years had passed your behavior might have changed and that you might have grown out of some of your patterns. But we really should have banned you from our game when your player management thread reached the end of its second full page.
I can only hope that your demonstration of yourself to the community over the course of this contretemps has showed the gaming community enough of who you are that, in the future, you won't be able to manipulate other staffers and hurt other games the way you hurt ours.
Bye!
You asked a question. She answered the question.
There are ways of engaging in this conversation that don't require directed personal attacks. When we updated the rules, we meant it.
I get that you have strong feelings on this, but this kind of stuff isn't going to fly. Especially not in this part of the forum.
Knock it off.
-
@saosmash said in Review of Recent Bans:
since more than ten years had passed your behavior might have changed and that you might have grown out of some of your patterns.
Macha is not required, nor responsible for, your opinions on their "behaviors", which are doubtlessly filed under do what I want and behave what I want or I will publicly show concern about how everyone thinks you need to do what I want and behave how I want.
Alas, this contretemps is demonstrative of a disinclination to find a conclusion bound in mutuality.
-
Thank you for unbanning me. I maintain that I did nothing worth getting banned, even as each rule was put in place/requested.
I just lost someone close to me, and I won't be going into too much here, but I will clarify two things:
I'm not coming back. And I posted a ts/ship/ban post on the new forum, when I was tipsy and in a silly mood; I never ever mentioned 'killing' anyone. It was locked right away and then deleted. But if you want to be vitriolic about it, I won't stop you.
Good luck guys. Take care and goodbye.
#FreeFarfalla
-
Take care, Meg. I'm sorry to hear of your loss.
-
@meg Sorry for your loss.
-
The decision to lift a few, but not all, of the bans was a simple one.
We elected to review the thread in which most of the "action" occurred to determine, in TNP's words, who were "specifically trying" to get banned. Some arguably tried to get banned by not following my request; some did so by spouting profanity; some asked to be banned; and others simply posted after I had made it clear that there was to be no further discussion. Of these four groups, those who fall in the first or fourth category were those we spent most of our time on.
Inferring intent is a difficult thing to do. Finding intent is almost always a matter of discretion. We could spend a lot of time discussing whether some or all remain unjustly banned under the circumstances; after all, the original controversy is more or less over, and we have adopted a new set of rules. We could also spend a lot of time discussing whether there's a point to lifting any of the bans, as another site has arisen, thus giving a place for anyone to criticize the administration of this site without reprisal.
For now, the decision to unban some and not others will stand.
A couple of things I would like to note in closing. First, we have opened up the section formerly known as the Hog Pit so that visitors can view its contents without needing to have an approved account. Second, as we have changed our tone around here, I would recommend that anyone looking to engage in the same style of debating as once was enjoyed or encouraged in the Hog Pit go elsewhere to do so.
If there is further reconsideration of some or all the bans in the future, we will notify the community.
-
But it'd be nice to see a gesture towards admitting error and all. Not nice enough to make most people want to come back, but you know. A basic level of decency and accountability.
