Darth
Veteran Member
Server Liaison
Posts: 2,534
| Likes: 1,826
|
Post by Darth on Jul 17, 2020 13:20:19 GMT
The problem I have with the argument against a permban (being that it wasn't explicitly stated that you could not DOX someone "associated" with the server) is that this is not a country. We are an online community. The report was handled by IA, which from what I gather is meant to be an unbiased third party for issues such as this, where the problem is morally gray. IA reviewed the evidence and came to a decision based on a completely reasonable interpretation of the conduct policy.
|
|
Wild1145
Forum Admin 
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 17, 2020 13:35:53 GMT
The problem I have with the argument against a permban (being that it wasn't explicitly stated that you could not DOX someone "associated" with the server) is that this is not a country. We are an online community. The report was handled by IA, which from what I gather is meant to be an unbiased third party for issues such as this, where the problem is morally gray. IA reviewed the evidence and came to a decision based on a completely reasonable interpretation of the conduct policy. Devils advocate though, who says IA are either qualified to make that decision, or are unbiased themselves... I'd argue you naturally have a bias towards people if you're part of the community, especially in this case where the person accused has been fairly controversial and been around for longer than I have (And I've been here since 2012...). I don't think we should be putting blind faith to any one person(s)... IA's role was AFAIK always there to advise... They shouldn't be the ones acting as judge jury and executioner. Also again, we're not the internet police... If someone chooses to do something in their own time off of this server, we should not be encouraging spying on individuals just so we can sanction them here when IMO, we have no right to do so. At worst you might decide that the person is not suitable to hold an admin rank due to it being bad PR, but we shouldn't be banning people for a rule they break somewhere else... |
|
Wild1145
Forum Admin
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 17, 2020 13:48:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 17, 2020 13:54:48 GMT
I don't have to change anything because the owner of this server says the policy in place outlinesthe actions that wilee has done. Change is on you friend, I am content. Then our owner is abusing said policy, because the person in question was not protected under this clause. You want Seth to be the ultimate ruler, or do you want some sort of community input as well? The difference is I don't agree that he's abusing the policy, because I agree with his interpretation, as does the Executive admin, as does most of this community. |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 17, 2020 13:57:27 GMT
If someone chooses to do something in their own time off of this server, we should not be encouraging spying on individuals just so we can sanction them here when IMO, we have no right to do so. That's not what happened though. The two rule breakers involved were Video and Wilee. One of these people, Video, realized that what they did was wrong, and practically reported themselves to IA. IA didn't spy on any individuals, the individuals came to IA. And on that note, IA doesn't spy on anyone. IA acts on reports entirely. If someone spied and gave that information to IA, then that's different. |
|
Wild1145
Forum Admin
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Wild1145 on Jul 17, 2020 14:00:19 GMT
If someone chooses to do something in their own time off of this server, we should not be encouraging spying on individuals just so we can sanction them here when IMO, we have no right to do so. That's not what happened though. The two rule breakers involved were Video and Wilee. One of these people, Video, realized that what they did was wrong, and practically reported themselves to IA. IA didn't spy on any individuals, the individuals came to IA. And on that note, IA doesn't spy on anyone. IA acts on reports entirely. If someone spied and gave that information to IA, then that's different. You sort of miss my point though. Regardless of any of this, they should have been banned from our Discord server at worst, by Seth's own policy on permbans this is... Not to mention they didn't break any rules on a TF Platform, my point here is the entire ban is frankly silly. I get holding admins to a higher account, because they represent the server, but you can't go around policing random players for what they choose to do in their own time. And I'm not saying IA do spy on people, I'm saying this sort of president encourages other people to do it for them, which IMO totally undermines the entire point IA was setup... |
|
CoolJWB
Veteran Member
Cool guys don't look back at explosions.
Posts: 734
| Likes: 330
|
Post by CoolJWB on Jul 17, 2020 17:26:02 GMT
Drama for those who want to read:I feel uneasy about supporting Wilee's return. I believe that there is a real risk of Wilee performing the same act, or a similar act, if unbanned. Even if he doesn't believe the server deserves an apology, does he believe that Nathaniel deserves one? No you dont - you merely dont want him back because of your ill feelings towards him. Do you have any evidence that would support this claim cause to me this seems like severe prejudice? So far in this thread there has been one single person who has tried to dispute any of the points made in the appeal, funny how easy it is to say, “he doesn’t feel remorse”, “he didn’t even make an apology” “lol essay TL;DR” - these are in no way acceptable objections to what the user in question is appealing. The text without strikethrough makes perfectly valid objections if the reasoning behind is that the perpetrator shows no signs to improve and will likely repeat the committed violation in the future (not necessarily in the past). Two common indicators that a person will recommit violations are lack of regret and attempts to escape the situation. If you didn’t actually want people to be able to DOX anybody who has been associated with TF, then perhaps you should amend the rules instead of spouting mockery on a permban appeal. It doesn’t matter whether or not an individual gives an apology or not, because if the ban in question was invalid from the get-go, then there is no point in apologizing for simply abiding by the current conduct policy. Agreed, however, if Wilee did read the rules and knew that it was not allowed to spread information about "an OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom" should it not be common sense to ask or draw a conclusion that DOX should not be allowed on players that are temporarily banned from the server (and even if not, as I understand the player DOXed still had access to the community services)? We have rules against doxxing members, which is why he was banned in case you didn't know! You don't. do. This has already been discussed, the cases of the seniors who need to be purged should be reported to IA if it's as important as you and wilee claim it to be. In this thread, it's whataboutism and irrelevant. As of now, the communities interpretation of the policy is fairly unanimous. Fairly unanimous AFTER the punishment was dealt – the TF staff haven’t even amended the rules yet, so technically I could do the same and it would be illegitimate of you to ban me as well. Would it improve the current situation for you to get banned instead of actually taking the initiative and making a rule change suggestion? You decide for yourself. False, they are a permbanned member. Im also pretty sure this happened when Nathan was still in the discord, which does make him just a general member of TF. Whataboutism? i think? dont know the term for it. If you want to submit the report of the senior admins who need to be banned, then go ahead. I have no knowledge of that Agreed, it is a bit of a stretch to define an excluded member as a member but as mentioned before a permanently banned member is defined as a temporarily banned member on TotalFreedom due to the appeal system and ban purges. There are a lot of fuzzy definitions in the rules so I fully agree that the rules should be re-written. Then you should make a suggestion to change the rule, because this server typically enforces rules it has in place, and he broke it (According to the Owner and Executive Admin.) No. YOU should make a suggestion to amend the current rules in place, not the other way around. The entire fuckin point of banning people is so they learn not to do it next time, and based on what I've read in his appeal, he didn't learn anything. Mind you this isn't the first time, and some people know him for being the guy that doxes people. I do not want people here that dox anyone period. And it's safe to say that's the majority opinion of this server. There is no consistent way to enforce crime. You have to gather evidence and get tips. And in this case, we got all the evidence and tips we need to prove him guilty. If you don't regret what you did, then you can stay permbanned because you learned not a fuckin thing and you'll probably do it again, despicably if you've already done it multiple times in the past. Again, why should he regret doing something with good intentions? Why should he regret not breaking any part of the conduct policy? What is there to learn other than the fact that a big chunk of the Admin staff likes to make up rules on the go and ban people for rules that are not in place. Most admins do not find rules out of the void I can promise you that. When something is unclear we all make our own view on things and when those collide, everyone else is gonna look like a fool. My own opinion on all of this is neutral and that we should rework the rules (cause the rules are unclear), but why neutral? In the appeal, it was said by Wilee that "I'm not trying to justify what I did at all, my point is that people shouldn't be banned if the rule does not apply. I have always defended people against unfair prosecution and that's what I have observed here in this case." and to that, I sort of agree. It is great that you defend people against unfair prosecution and we really need to work against it. However, this is a community and we all have our own responsibility to make sure that others feel welcome here, to DOX someone (banned or not) is not the way to go to achieve that even if the intentions are good, it could do more damage if information is leaked.
|
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 18, 2020 4:43:32 GMT
The problem I have with the argument against a permban (being that it wasn't explicitly stated that you could not DOX someone "associated" with the server) is that this is not a country. We are an online community. The report was handled by IA, which from what I gather is meant to be an unbiased third party for issues such as this, where the problem is morally gray. IA reviewed the evidence and came to a decision based on a completely reasonable interpretation of the conduct policy. When you follow a statement like "I have a problem with this argument because..." it's expected that you make a point. What does "being a country" have to do with Internal Affairs, or anything in this thread for that matter? The rest of your statement is your own opinion and again, doesn't produce an argument. My own opinion on all of this is neutral and that we should rework the rules (cause the rules are unclear), but why neutral? In the appeal, it was said by Wilee that "I'm not trying to justify what I did at all, my point is that people shouldn't be banned if the rule does not apply. I have always defended people against unfair prosecution and that's what I have observed here in this case." and to that, I sort of agree. How is an individual extracting personal information about a user (which is very simple to do with a cursory search and doesn't in any way exemplify hacker skills) any less welcoming than permanently banning that same user from your platform, not at an individual's discretion, but upon a decision made by the collective playerbase of this server? |
|
Dr. PeePee
Member
i sent my peepee pls peespond
Posts: 37
|
Post by Dr. PeePee on Jul 18, 2020 4:44:30 GMT
I vouch. I hear stories all the time about people calling some kid's parents to help them out. This is the Internet, it's happened countless times before. From what I've read, this community forgave someone who did a much worse DOX along with multiple other offenses in about two months. Sure, he's annoying, but honestly, if he doesn't get unbanned, it's nothing more than a double standard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 4:47:02 GMT
It was an unwritten rule (now stated in the updated policy) on the forums that I would remove anyone from all platforms if they were caught DDoSing / doxxing. I did however state it on the discord server:  |
|
|
|
Post by awesomelink234 on Jul 18, 2020 4:49:56 GMT
Object, he didn't even try to apologize.
|
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 18, 2020 4:53:19 GMT
Object, he didn't even try to apologize. The purpose of a ban appeal isn't to apologize, it's to appeal your ban which means accepting the charge (and by extension getting people to trust you again) or disputing it (in which case the applicant shouldn't apologize) and since the applicant has disputed it, this doesn't seem like a fair reason. |
|
miwo
Veteran Member
Posts: 597
| Likes: 585
|
Post by miwo on Jul 18, 2020 7:41:53 GMT
Then our owner is abusing said policy, because the person in question was not protected under this clause. You want Seth to be the ultimate ruler, or do you want some sort of community input as well? The difference is I don't agree that he's abusing the policy, because I agree with his interpretation, as does the Executive admin, as does most of this community. Give me a worded response on your interpretation of "Ops, Admins and Owners". |
|
miwo
Veteran Member
Posts: 597
| Likes: 585
|
Post by miwo on Jul 18, 2020 7:57:54 GMT
Drama for those who want to read:No you dont - you merely dont want him back because of your ill feelings towards him. Do you have any evidence that would support this claim cause to me this seems like severe prejudice? Why is it prejuduice to point out that the only reasoning behind saying Wilee would do it again is because they dislike the player and want him gone? I was pointing out that Wilee has yet to break any major rule in the conduct policy, so it’s asinine to assume he would do it now. So far in this thread there has been one single person who has tried to dispute any of the points made in the appeal, funny how easy it is to say, “he doesn’t feel remorse”, “he didn’t even make an apology” “lol essay TL;DR” - these are in no way acceptable objections to what the user in question is appealing. The text without strikethrough makes perfectly valid objections if the reasoning behind is that the perpetrator shows no signs to improve and will likely repeat the committed violation in the future (not necessarily in the past). Two common indicators that a person will recommit violations are lack of regret and attempts to escape the situation. No it doesn’t, because Wilee is disputing the ban itself. Why should he admit to wrongdoing if he does not believe he did anything wrong? That’s what I greatly dislike about these ban appeals, wherein a user can just object with “not sincere enough”, “not a good apology” - it’s an appeal, not a public statement wherein you try to suck up to your peers so they accept you back into the fold. Base your vote on the evidence put forth and whether or not this is in violation of the conduct policy. Nothing more. If you didn’t actually want people to be able to DOX anybody who has been associated with TF, then perhaps you should amend the rules instead of spouting mockery on a permban appeal. It doesn’t matter whether or not an individual gives an apology or not, because if the ban in question was invalid from the get-go, then there is no point in apologizing for simply abiding by the current conduct policy. Agreed, however, if Wilee did read the rules and knew that it was not allowed to spread information about "an OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom" should it not be common sense to ask or draw a conclusion that DOX should not be allowed on players that are temporarily banned from the server (and even if not, as I understand the player DOXed still had access to the community services)? You cannot require an idiot like Wilee or anybody else to make this logical leap, which is exactly why you cannot punish somebody without the law being on the books. Making these leaps can only lead to downfall – one might say that since Notch created MineCraft and is therefore associated with Total Freedom he is also under this protection, but is he really? “Ops, Admins and Owner” - a permbanned individual is neither. You don’t. Fairly unanimous AFTER the punishment was dealt – the TF staff haven’t even amended the rules yet, so technically I could do the same and it would be illegitimate of you to ban me as well. Would it improve the current situation for you to get banned instead of actually taking the initiative and making a rule change suggestion? You decide for yourself. No, but even if I were to make a suggestion on the matter now, I would be met with an attitude of “doesn’t matter” - a completely disregard as to how follow a proper rule set in any context whether it be a country, football field or MC server. The onus in this instance is on the people who wanted Wilee banned and now found a (shitty) escape route to do so. If they really wanted to prevent this from happening, then perhaps THEY should be the ones making the suggestion. “Permbanned-member”. Makes real sense that when you get excluded from a community, then you are still a member of said community. Sure that’s not a stretch? Agreed, it is a bit of a stretch to define an excluded member as a member but as mentioned before a permanently banned member is defined as a temporarily banned member on TotalFreedom due to the appeal system and ban purges. There are a lot of fuzzy definitions in the rules so I fully agree that the rules should be re-written. ye No. YOU should make a suggestion to amend the current rules in place, not the other way around. It got us to a situation where Zekurt is trying to put the responsibility of me to now make an amendment to the conduct policy so Wilee stays banned. That is not how it is supposed to work. Again, why should he regret doing something with good intentions? Why should he regret not breaking any part of the conduct policy? What is there to learn other than the fact that a big chunk of the Admin staff likes to make up rules on the go and ban people for rules that are not in place. Most admins do not find rules out of the void I can promise you that. When something is unclear we all make our own view on things and when those collide, everyone else is gonna look like a fool. How can you promise me this? Because this entire case is a great example of it. Your framing of this is deeply disingenious, because my reading of the conduct policy requires no form of interpreting, whereas the opposite party requires you to stretch “op, admin and owner” to also include permbanned people. My own opinion on all of this is neutral and that we should rework the rules (cause the rules are unclear), but why neutral? In the appeal, it was said by Wilee that "I'm not trying to justify what I did at all, my point is that people shouldn't be banned if the rule does not apply. I have always defended people against unfair prosecution and that's what I have observed here in this case." and to that, I sort of agree. It is great that you defend people against unfair prosecution and we really need to work against it. However, this is a community and we all have our own responsibility to make sure that others feel welcome here, to DOX someone (banned or not) is not the way to go to achieve that even if the intentions are good, it could do more damage if information is leaked. |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 18, 2020 8:15:31 GMT
The difference is I don't agree that he's abusing the policy, because I agree with his interpretation, as does the Executive admin, as does most of this community. Give me a worded response on your interpretation of "Ops, Admins and Owners". This server users "OP" to describe all non admin members of this server. Whether or not a banned player is a member of this server or not has been discussed and you already know my stance on that. |
|
- Apr 25, 2018 05:24am TPAS by Pramire.
- Nov 01 2018 20:52:02 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
- Jul 20 2020 15:14:17 GMT+0
: 9/5/2014
: not yet
: not yet