burger
Registered
fionn is overated
Posts: 0
| Likes: 446
|
Post by burger on Jul 21, 2020 3:06:07 GMT
dang man, he was a pretty good admin, shame to see him go like this He is only suspended for 2 weeks, he is not going anywhere lol |
|
zeseryu
Veteran Member
Admin Officer
ops rights activist
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by zeseryu on Jul 21, 2020 4:15:01 GMT
If curtain wants to refute his suspension, which hes shown no will to do so yet, then the evidence will be posted.
Until then, it'll remain anonymous as its again, pretty personal and confidential.
|
|
Geek
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,372
| Likes: 1,104
|
Post by Geek on Jul 21, 2020 9:35:43 GMT
I would really encourage you not to post the evidence. I think it would deter other reports under the harrassment rule (or more widely) if an assurance of privacy is given then withdrawn due to backlash.
I trust the EAO and believe that occasionally there will be a need to keep the evidence private. I think that is reasonable. The EAO normally acts in a transparent manner but sometimes transparency is simply inappropriate.
|
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 21, 2020 14:34:03 GMT
I would really encourage you not to post the evidence. I think it would deter other reports under the harrassment rule (or more widely) if an assurance of privacy is given then withdrawn due to backlash. I trust the EAO and believe that occasionally there will be a need to keep the evidence private. I think that is reasonable. The EAO normally acts in a transparent manner but sometimes transparency is simply inappropriate. In the case of an administrator being suspended, transparency isn't inappropriate. The public should know why somebody was removed from their position and having the evidence which lead to that decision is integral for such an action to be understood. If reporters are deterred by the act of circumstances being viewed (and possibly criticized) by other users then their accusation of harassment isn't genuine, and rests on being hidden from the public eye. As for an "assurance of privacy" it shouldn't have been the decision-maker's place to make empty assurances which they can't keep, or which they can't easily reinforce. Sometimes, guarantees must be broken if they are irresponsibly made and play a hand in obfuscating an administrator's suspension. |
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 21, 2020 14:47:57 GMT
I would really encourage you not to post the evidence. I think it would deter other reports under the harrassment rule (or more widely) if an assurance of privacy is given then withdrawn due to backlash. I trust the EAO and believe that occasionally there will be a need to keep the evidence private. I think that is reasonable. The EAO normally acts in a transparent manner but sometimes transparency is simply inappropriate. In the case of an administrator being suspended, transparency isn't inappropriate. The public should know why somebody was removed from their position and having the evidence which lead to that decision is integral for such an action to be understood. If reporters are deterred by the act of circumstances being viewed (and possibly criticized) by other users then their accusation of harassment isn't genuine, and rests on being hidden from the public eye. As for an "assurance of privacy" it shouldn't have been the decision-maker's place to make empty assurances which they can't keep, or which they can't easily reinforce. Sometimes, guarantees must be broken if they are irresponsibly made and play a hand in obfuscating an administrator's suspension. If we couldn't trust our admin officers to make the right decision when suspending an admin then they wouldn't be the admin officers. I don't understand why you and others need to know the context of the suspenion so badly? It seems to me you're being nosy and hiding behind "transparency" in order to find out something that according to our EAO, you have no business knowing... |
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 21, 2020 14:51:50 GMT
In the case of an administrator being suspended, transparency isn't inappropriate. The public should know why somebody was removed from their position and having the evidence which lead to that decision is integral for such an action to be understood. If reporters are deterred by the act of circumstances being viewed (and possibly criticized) by other users then their accusation of harassment isn't genuine, and rests on being hidden from the public eye. As for an "assurance of privacy" it shouldn't have been the decision-maker's place to make empty assurances which they can't keep, or which they can't easily reinforce. Sometimes, guarantees must be broken if they are irresponsibly made and play a hand in obfuscating an administrator's suspension. If we couldn't trust our admin officers to make the right decision when suspending an admin then they wouldn't be the admin officers. I don't understand why you and others need to know the context of the suspenion so badly? It seems to me you're being nosy and hiding behind "transparency" in order to find out something that according to our EAO, you have no business knowing... The admin officers are admin officers because they were either voted in or chosen for that particular role, not because unilateral trust by the community is given to them. Even if that were the case, trusting an officer doesn't negate the importance of transparency (understanding why decisions were made) because holding true to populism doesn't mean you're always going to make sound decisions. How is anybody being "nosy" by wanting to know why an administrator was suspended? It's information which should be public, given that this thread is public and screenshots were not provided "at the request of the complainant" rather than because evidence is not usually provided. |
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 21, 2020 15:00:41 GMT
If we couldn't trust our admin officers to make the right decision when suspending an admin then they wouldn't be the admin officers. I don't understand why you and others need to know the context of the suspenion so badly? It seems to me you're being nosy and hiding behind "transparency" in order to find out something that according to our EAO, you have no business knowing... The admin officers are admin officers because they were either voted in or chosen for that particular role, not because unilateral trust by the community is given to them. Even if that were the case, trusting an officer doesn't negate the importance of transparency (understanding why decisions were made) because holding true to populism doesn't mean you're always going to make sound decisions. How is anybody being "nosy" by wanting to know why an administrator was suspended? It's information which should be public, given that this thread is public and screenshots were not provided "at the request of the complainant" rather than because evidence is not usually provided. You were given the reason, "harrasment" and "Zero Tolerance Policy". The exact details of what he said are private due to the reporter requesting confidentiality. The whole point of being able to report anonymously is so that misconduct doesn't go unreported due to a fear of repercussions from the report. |
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 21, 2020 15:04:57 GMT
The admin officers are admin officers because they were either voted in or chosen for that particular role, not because unilateral trust by the community is given to them. Even if that were the case, trusting an officer doesn't negate the importance of transparency (understanding why decisions were made) because holding true to populism doesn't mean you're always going to make sound decisions. How is anybody being "nosy" by wanting to know why an administrator was suspended? It's information which should be public, given that this thread is public and screenshots were not provided "at the request of the complainant" rather than because evidence is not usually provided. You were given the reason, "harrasment" and "Zero Tolerance Policy". The exact details of what he said are private due to the reporter requesting confidentiality. The whole point of being able to report anonymously is so that misconduct doesn't go unreported due to a fear of repercussions from the report. The decision was to suspend and it was for those reasonings, but citing the policy alone does nothing to understand why an officer was convinced to suspend or apply a punishment to this severity. I spoke about repercussions earlier and in my opinion having "anonymous reports" against staffmembers only allows for people to make poor reports and evade any criticism by allowing for their report, and by extension any evidence, to go unseen. |
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 21, 2020 15:09:21 GMT
You were given the reason, "harrasment" and "Zero Tolerance Policy". The exact details of what he said are private due to the reporter requesting confidentiality. The whole point of being able to report anonymously is so that misconduct doesn't go unreported due to a fear of repercussions from the report. The decision was to suspend and it was for those reasonings, but citing the policy alone does nothing to understand why an officer was convinced to suspend or apply a punishment to this severity. I spoke about repercussions earlier and in my opinion having "anonymous reports" against staffmembers only allows for people to make poor reports and evade any criticism by allowing for their report, and by extension any evidence, to go unseen. I know I trust our admin officers to be able to differentiate between "poor reports" and valid ones and make the correct decision, that's kind of their job. In my opinion the benefits to having anonymous reports outweigh the drawback of the public not being able to see the exact details of the suspension |
|
Geek
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,372
| Likes: 1,104
|
Post by Geek on Jul 21, 2020 15:10:23 GMT
In the case of an administrator being suspended, transparency isn't inappropriate. The public should know why somebody was removed from their position and having the evidence which lead to that decision is integral for such an action to be understood. If reporters are deterred by the act of circumstances being viewed (and possibly criticized) by other users then their accusation of harassment isn't genuine, and rests on being hidden from the public eye. As for an "assurance of privacy" it shouldn't have been the decision-maker's place to make empty assurances which they can't keep, or which they can't easily reinforce. Sometimes, guarantees must be broken if they are irresponsibly made and play a hand in obfuscating an administrator's suspension. There's no suggestion that the complainant has done anything that warrants criticism. While it might be nice to have all evidence posted all of the time, that is not always appropriate. If, in another scenario, a DOX took place, surely there wouldn't be an expectation that the contents of the DOX were published as evidence, in the name of transparency? If I wanted to report something 'pretty confidential' (as the original post phrases it), I would want to feel assured that the information wouldn't be made public. It has been the case for years that some suspensions don't have the evidence made public, because of the nature of certain cases. People need to feel confident to report things, and not concerned that personal information will be made public: it would deter future reports. It would do more harm than good to release the evidence. I fully support the way that this case has been handled. |
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 21, 2020 15:52:02 GMT
In the case of an administrator being suspended, transparency isn't inappropriate. The public should know why somebody was removed from their position and having the evidence which lead to that decision is integral for such an action to be understood. If reporters are deterred by the act of circumstances being viewed (and possibly criticized) by other users then their accusation of harassment isn't genuine, and rests on being hidden from the public eye. As for an "assurance of privacy" it shouldn't have been the decision-maker's place to make empty assurances which they can't keep, or which they can't easily reinforce. Sometimes, guarantees must be broken if they are irresponsibly made and play a hand in obfuscating an administrator's suspension. There's no suggestion that the complainant has done anything that warrants criticism. While it might be nice to have all evidence posted all of the time, that is not always appropriate. If, in another scenario, a DOX took place, surely there wouldn't be an expectation that the contents of the DOX were published as evidence, in the name of transparency? If I wanted to report something 'pretty confidential' (as the original post phrases it), I would want to feel assured that the information wouldn't be made public. It has been the case for years that some suspensions don't have the evidence made public, because of the nature of certain cases. People need to feel confident to report things, and not concerned that personal information will be made public: it would deter future reports. It would do more harm than good to release the evidence. I fully support the way that this case has been handled. "There's no suggestion that the complainant has done anything that warrants criticism." I am suggesting that refraining from publishing any evidence warrants criticism. In the case of an administrator being suspended, transparency isn't inappropriate. As for your scenario of a DOX, there's already plenty of examples to demonstrate how evidence is provided without detailing anybody's private information; transcripts of the information being posted, discussions of leaking that information, and the person whose information was leaked taking issue with such an action. If you are to report somebody for "harassment" that harassment should be made public so that others can see what has been said as a breach of current policy. Opening your report to outside criticism shouldn't be a deterrent, and if it is, it's only deterring the reports which shouldn't have been made in the first place (given that they rest on evading the public eye). Reports can be made anonymously while still including the suspended administrator's messages in question, and if they took place in private, the staffmember who was suspended will be able to see who made that report and if so, that's worth the transparency of releasing content upon which a decision was made. |
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 21, 2020 15:57:34 GMT
The decision was to suspend and it was for those reasonings, but citing the policy alone does nothing to understand why an officer was convinced to suspend or apply a punishment to this severity. I spoke about repercussions earlier and in my opinion having "anonymous reports" against staffmembers only allows for people to make poor reports and evade any criticism by allowing for their report, and by extension any evidence, to go unseen. I know I trust our admin officers to be able to differentiate between "poor reports" and valid ones and make the correct decision, that's kind of their job. In my opinion the benefits to having anonymous reports outweigh the drawback of the public not being able to see the exact details of the suspension If anonymous reports are to evade public criticism then they are practically useless. I don't see this issue going away with new "anonymous reports" at any time in the future. |
|
Geek
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,372
| Likes: 1,104
|
Post by Geek on Jul 21, 2020 16:14:36 GMT
"There's no suggestion that the complainant has done anything that warrants criticism." I am suggesting that refraining from publishing any evidence warrants criticism. In the case of an administrator being suspended, transparency isn't inappropriate. As for your scenario of a DOX, there's already plenty of examples to demonstrate how evidence is provided without detailing anybody's private information; transcripts of the information being posted, discussions of leaking that information, and the person whose information was leaked taking issue with such an action. If you are to report somebody for "harassment" that harassment should be made public so that others can see what has been said as a breach of current policy. Opening your report to outside criticism shouldn't be a deterrent, and if it is, it's only deterring the reports which shouldn't have been made in the first place (given that they rest on evading the public eye). Reports can be made anonymously while still including the suspended administrator's messages in question, and if they took place in private, the staffmember who was suspended will be able to see who made that report and if so, that's worth the transparency of releasing content upon which a decision was made. I struggle to accept that just because a person doesn't want things that are personal published, that the report is automatically invalid. It may not deter you personally from making a complaint, but it would deter me. If the EAO tells me that something would not be published, I would have a reasonable expectation that that would be upheld, and I would have a difficult time trusting an executive who released evidence after making assurances to the contrary. The suspended admin also must have known who made the report, considering the EAO says they apologised. |
|
elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 21, 2020 16:29:40 GMT
I know I trust our admin officers to be able to differentiate between "poor reports" and valid ones and make the correct decision, that's kind of their job. In my opinion the benefits to having anonymous reports outweigh the drawback of the public not being able to see the exact details of the suspension If anonymous reports are to evade public criticism then they are practically useless. I don't see this issue going away with new "anonymous reports" at any time in the future. How??? If it's a valid report how would that be useless?? |
|
grntbg
Full Member
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.
Posts: 295
|
Post by grntbg on Jul 21, 2020 16:38:35 GMT
"There's no suggestion that the complainant has done anything that warrants criticism." I am suggesting that refraining from publishing any evidence warrants criticism. In the case of an administrator being suspended, transparency isn't inappropriate. As for your scenario of a DOX, there's already plenty of examples to demonstrate how evidence is provided without detailing anybody's private information; transcripts of the information being posted, discussions of leaking that information, and the person whose information was leaked taking issue with such an action. If you are to report somebody for "harassment" that harassment should be made public so that others can see what has been said as a breach of current policy. Opening your report to outside criticism shouldn't be a deterrent, and if it is, it's only deterring the reports which shouldn't have been made in the first place (given that they rest on evading the public eye). Reports can be made anonymously while still including the suspended administrator's messages in question, and if they took place in private, the staffmember who was suspended will be able to see who made that report and if so, that's worth the transparency of releasing content upon which a decision was made. I struggle to accept that just because a person doesn't want things that are personal published, that the report is automatically invalid. It may not deter you personally from making a complaint, but it would deter me. If the EAO tells me that something would not be published, I would have a reasonable expectation that that would be upheld, and I would have a difficult time trusting an executive who released evidence after making assurances to the contrary. The suspended admin also must have known who made the report, considering the EAO says they apologised. The report's validity isn't made by whether or not the information (which has lead to that decision) is published, but it prevents validity from being determined by the public. If the suspended administrator already knows who made the report, the initial reason for why this report's evidence should not be made public is now meaningless. |
|
