Nutty Lizard reflects on behaviour

[AsbestosSniffer]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=36347

He gets it guys, don't you see? He totally won't explode again when doctors have a million other bodies to treat.

[Lacran]

A lack of coordination between admins resulting in a failure of the process of escalation from notes to small bans prior to the issue becoming so big headmins decided to look into it.
Temporary bans exist to deter violations of the rules, without excessive and disproportional punishment.

Yeah no, temp bans are a deterrence, just like all admin actions deter rule breaks. The point of a temp ban is to establish to a player what not playing is like, to encourage compliance with the rules.

A player gets a week ban, its saying "I'm going to give you 7 days to sort yourself out, and hope you are going to come back better." A perm ban, generally is "I am going to keep you banned until you can convince me you are better." The ultimate goal is to gain compliance.

So if admins and players are convinced a temp ban wont result in compliance, especially based on their perm ban appeal behavior, then arguing for a tiered system is pointless.


You want a rigid system because it appeals to some autistic legalistic rigidity that you confuse with justice or fairness. I don't think you've actually looked at if a tiered due process is required in this circumstance, its just that its the default and you like that. Everyone here is trying to get you to look beyond technicality and look at the purpose of enforcing rules, because that's what you are missing here.

[BonChoi]

You want a rigid system because it appeals to some autistic legalistic rigidity that you confuse with justice or fairness. I don't think you've actually looked at if a tiered due process is required in this circumstance, its just that its the default and you like that. Everyone here is trying to get you to look beyond technicality and look at the purpose of enforcing rules, because that's what you are missing here.

Or they're diametrically opposed to every action the admins take, which as history shows is not a healthy mindset and may end poorly for them.

Of course, I'm not saying that you can't disagree with admins, but it's just not healthy to put yourself in a position where your arguing for somebody to be unbanned not because you think they've done nothing wrong, but instead just based on the fact that you disagree with the people who set the ban in the first place.

[Vekter]

You want a rigid system because it appeals to some autistic legalistic rigidity that you confuse with justice or fairness. I don't think you've actually looked at if a tiered due process is required in this circumstance, its just that its the default and you like that. Everyone here is trying to get you to look beyond technicality and look at the purpose of enforcing rules, because that's what you are missing here.

The issue is that systems like this just don't work from the standpoint of building/curating a community at our scale. There's a couple of reasons for this, but the important ones are:

1) Banning someone from a community is generally pretty low stakes, especially if they haven't been around for very long. You're not having a tangible impact on their life beyond the usual online things, you're not restricting their freedom in any way, you're just telling them "You are causing harm by being here, we cannot allow that to continue, we can talk about you coming back later once you've matured". This allows us the freedom to sometimes skip a little bit of the red tape if we believe someone isn't actively improving despite being told to improve.

2) Having required, set tiers to go through doesn't really work very well if the person in question isn't showing any improvement. All it does is allow that person to continue to repeat the behavior that's been getting them in trouble, sound in the knowledge that they're immune to being banned permanently until they get through tier 3 of their punishments. It expects us to see someone who's running around calling people slurs and spraypainting swastikas on the floor and go "Well, maybe he'll learn after his third ban or so." instead of realizing that person is actively not here in good faith and that forcing others to deal with the harm they're doing over bureaucracy is asinine.

3) Tiered punishment requirements can work for an online community, but only at a much larger scale. For example, a Discord community server of over 1,000 users might see 20-30 people being punished a day depending on the situation, in which case it's much easier to just say "You did this, here's your punishment, bye". We don't go quite that hard because it allows us to be flexible both ways. If someone does something that we might consider worthy of a day ban (say, kills someone as a non-antag) but it was an extenuating circumstance (they were antagonized in some way, or it was a genuine misunderstanding), we can forego the normal punishment or lessen it to a degree. I've given people who might've deserved a day ban per our usual process anything from a shorter ban to nothing at all based on circumstances. If we had a rigid tiered system, I wouldn't have that option - he did the crime, he must pay the time. For the record, this is how you get servers like Goon where they'll just snipe you from orbit for saying "bitch" once, because they expect you to have read all the rules up-front and will take no mercy if you miss something.

So, tl;dr Ekaterina's understanding of how the system works makes sense in theory, but it's exceedingly cold and not really something I would want to participate in. It works for larger communities who have to deal with more trolls, but we're a size where we can be flexible in how we handle things. We can be and often are merciful to newer players or people who show real desire to improve while we tend to be more harsh to those that refuse improvement or pay lip service just to stay the course, and I think that's a good thing.

[ekaterina]

Having required, set tiers to go through doesn't really work very well if the person in question isn't showing any improvement. All it does is allow that person to continue to repeat the behavior that's been getting them in trouble, sound in the knowledge that they're immune to being banned permanently until they get through tier 3 of their punishments. It expects us to see someone who's running around calling people slurs and spraypainting swastikas on the floor and go "Well, maybe he'll learn after his third ban or so." instead of realizing that person is actively not here in good faith and that forcing others to deal with the harm they're doing over bureaucracy is asinine.

This argument makes sense in a vacuum but if you were trying to say it applies to the current case then it is a strawman. This player is playing in good faith, he has come to play the game, not for the sole purpose of griefing others like in the example you describe. However, despite it not necessarily being his intention, the way in which he plays does cause problems for other players.

If we had a rigid tiered system, I wouldn't have that option - he did the crime, he must pay the time. (...) Ekaterina's understanding of how the system works makes sense in theory, but it's exceedingly cold and not really something I would want to participate in. It works for larger communities who have to deal with more trolls, but we're a size where we can be flexible in how we handle things. We can be and often are merciful to newer players or people who show real desire to improve while we tend to be more harsh to those that refuse improvement or pay lip service just to stay the course, and I think that's a good thing.

This is interesting. I hadn't considered this downside to a more robotic system of prescribing penalties. At the same time, this argument implies rigidity has to go both ways, rather than just serve as a maximum to how harsh you can be.

You want a rigid system because it appeals to some autistic legalistic rigidity that you confuse with justice or fairness. I don't think you've actually looked at if a tiered due process is required in this circumstance, its just that its the default and you like that. Everyone here is trying to get you to look beyond technicality and look at the purpose of enforcing rules, because that's what you are missing here.

Or they're diametrically opposed to every action the admins take, which as history shows is not a healthy mindset and may end poorly for them.

Of course, I'm not saying that you can't disagree with admins, but it's just not healthy to put yourself in a position where your arguing for somebody to be unbanned not because you think they've done nothing wrong, but instead just based on the fact that you disagree with the people who set the ban in the first place.

Clearly not the case. To be "diametrically opposed" to a permaban is to defend that no ban should have taken place at all. What I said is that a less severe ban should have been applied.

You want a rigid system because it appeals to some autistic legalistic rigidity that you confuse with justice or fairness.

1. Bro really just used "autistic" as a negative qualifier
2. In law, we need logic, not feelings, not eMpAtHy. It seems to me like the exact kind of space where "autistic" would be an advantage and not a pejorative.

I don't think you've actually looked at if a tiered due process is required in this circumstance, its just that its the default and you like that. Everyone here is trying to get you to look beyond technicality and look at the purpose of enforcing rules, because that's what you are missing here.

You can't have one standard for him and one standard for everyone else, it doesn't matter if it achieves your goal faster, it's fundamentally unfair.

i cannot in good conscience ask the community at large to continue enduring that for the sake of sparing a ban that's more difficult to explain than a note or a week ban.

dendydoom makes an interesting point here. Proceeding with normal ban escalation would imply, assuming that they would indeed be ineffective, a detriment to the rest of the community for the intervals in between this escalation... and she prefers being unfair to the infractor than to be unfair to the rest of the community... there is merit to this.

[Timonk]

@Riggle Polcon is leaking please contain it

[Vekter]

Having required, set tiers to go through doesn't really work very well if the person in question isn't showing any improvement. All it does is allow that person to continue to repeat the behavior that's been getting them in trouble, sound in the knowledge that they're immune to being banned permanently until they get through tier 3 of their punishments. It expects us to see someone who's running around calling people slurs and spraypainting swastikas on the floor and go "Well, maybe he'll learn after his third ban or so." instead of realizing that person is actively not here in good faith and that forcing others to deal with the harm they're doing over bureaucracy is asinine.

This argument makes sense in a vacuum but if you were trying to say it applies to the current case then it is a strawman. This player is playing in good faith, he has come to play the game, not for the sole purpose of griefing others like in the example you describe. However, despite it not necessarily being his intention, the way in which he plays does cause problems for other players.

That post isn't meant to be directly related to the ban in question, more a statement on why your idea of having a completely rigid requirement of how punishments should work is problematic in a community like ours. This brings up a good point, however there are two issues with it:

1) Muffindrake has been given a chance to change, multiple times. A head admin explicitly sat down and told them "If you keep being excessively rude to admins, you are going to be QC banned". The discussion was about admins specifically, but it shouldn't be a stretch to understand that you shouldn't act like that towards anyone, not just admins. I don't think we should have to go out of our way to punish someone individually for being a dick to each specific class of player when it's clear he's doing it to everyone.

2) People playing in good faith are obviously not going to get banned outright for a first offense if something isn't major, but Muffindrake has been around long enough and has been enough of a problem that, as Dendy said in the appeal, absolutely nobody on the admin team had anything positive to say about any interactions with him. That's an awful sign; the vast majority of players will usually have at least one or two admins who speak up for them. I regularly stick up for a few players the community doesn't like because I feel like they're not disruptive enough to warrant being punished for minor infractions. Muffindrake is the exception, not the rule; his behavior was so bad that even as someone playing in good faith, we couldn't keep him around because he was causing so many negative interactions that people wouldn't play if he was around.

If we had a rigid tiered system, I wouldn't have that option - he did the crime, he must pay the time. (...) Ekaterina's understanding of how the system works makes sense in theory, but it's exceedingly cold and not really something I would want to participate in. It works for larger communities who have to deal with more trolls, but we're a size where we can be flexible in how we handle things. We can be and often are merciful to newer players or people who show real desire to improve while we tend to be more harsh to those that refuse improvement or pay lip service just to stay the course, and I think that's a good thing.

This is interesting. I hadn't considered this downside to a more robotic system of prescribing penalties. At the same time, this argument implies rigidity has to go both ways, rather than just serve as a maximum to how harsh you can be.

I'm not sure I would consider that to be a fair system for all of the people who are playing in good faith and have no issues. I don't believe that people should have to deal with the kind of person who's going to call them an "nrp retard" every other breath just because they haven't reached the Required Level of Ban Severity for us to get rid of them. Is it worth us making other players put up with that to be fair to someone who's actively not being fair to anyone else who's playing? My example of someone slinging slurs is intentionally extreme, but it doesn't have to be something that severe. It can just be a marked history of toxicity that refuses to improve in the long run.

2. In law, we need logic, not feelings, not eMpAtHy. It seems to me like the exact kind of space where "autistic" would be an advantage and not a pejorative.

I want you to understand what I'm saying and I really, really hope it sticks, because I think it's the most important thing out of our entire conversation here - We are not building a legal system. This is not a court of law, this is not anything with stakes nearly that high. This is a community. A legal system built on nothing but hard, cold logic would be miserable. Not even the US' legal system is solely built on logic - judges use extenuating circumstances and emotional impact when sentencing all the time. Someone who has shown remorse for their crime regularly will get a lesser sentence due to it. It's one of the only actually good things despite our legal system being VIOLENTLY broken. You can't apply logic by itself in situations like this because then you get shit like someone stealing food to feed their family getting years in prison over it instead of a lesser charge.

If that shit isn't appropriate for a legal system that regularly ruins lives and gets people killed, why in the everloving fuck would we want it here?

[britgrenadier1]

Yikes those say logs are angry. Good ban/10. I’ve been tilted, definitely all caps typed at people, but if it’s that constant then you need a break from the game.

[Timonk]

if you guys think im gonna read all of those walls of text you are wrong

[RedBaronFlyer]

if you guys think im gonna read all of those walls of text you are wrong

Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?

[Timonk]

actual development of language over time

[DaBoss]

I remember this guy as having a massive shitfit on the github about being killed with holodeck gear so they nerfed it to punish that player specifically, while yelling at that player too in the PR. Ended up getting merged too, out of pointless contrarianism ("people don't like the pr so it's merged").

[iwishforducks]

if you guys think im gonna read all of those walls of text you are wrong

in my culture we usually settle arguments by fucking each other's mothers and usually arguments are resolved with a lot less words

[Timonk]

I remember this guy as having a massive shitfit on the github about being killed with holodeck gear so they nerfed it to punish that player specifically, while yelling at that player too in the PR. Ended up getting merged too, out of pointless contrarianism ("people don't like the pr so it's merged").

me when illusions can dismember me

[RedBaronFlyer]

I remember this guy as having a massive shitfit on the github about being killed with holodeck gear so they nerfed it to punish that player specifically, while yelling at that player too in the PR. Ended up getting merged too, out of pointless contrarianism ("people don't like the pr so it's merged").

unrelated but this reminds me how the guy who was/is PRing having cult stun hands not work at the halo level blocked me and another guy from commenting on it for a brief stint until the other guy called him out for it in the coding channel. to which the PR author played dumb about it, but "mysteriously," we could comment on it again shortly after the callout.

[Timonk]

drop the name or fake

[RedBaronFlyer]

drop the name or fake

mc-oofert

[BonChoi]

drop the name or fake

mc-oofert

That's alright he got permabanned today too

[Timonk]

drop the name or fake

mc-oofert

That's alright he got permabanned today too

fake

[RedBaronFlyer]

drop the name or fake

mc-oofert

That's alright he got permabanned today too

I mean he comes across like a bit of a dick but I’m not rooting for him to be perma banned for it.

[norsvenska]

fake

he is, in fact, permabanned

[Timonk]

fake

he is, in fact, permabanned

real
i didnt know jimmy was oofert

[Timonk]

he should have looked at the takes that lisa posts in the forums maybe then he wouldnt request smut of her

[RedBaronFlyer]

fake

he is, in fact, permabanned

Told the curator to "write a book about lisa green and reider meiza having sex" (two unconsenting players) and mentioned ICly that the last person who had got banned. Afterwards jimmyl told them to upload it to the library database. After the round, went onto discord and posted a picture of the book in a channel where lisa's player was actively posting. When asked, only said that the curator had given it. You have also brought up a smut book with the same subjects multiple times since the book was posted in Jan 2023. This is very creepy behaviour, and not welcome here.

[AsbestosSniffer]

he is, in fact, permabanned

Told the curator to "write a book about lisa green and reider meiza having sex" (two unconsenting players) and mentioned ICly that the last person who had got banned. Afterwards jimmyl told them to upload it to the library database. After the round, went onto discord and posted a picture of the book in a channel where lisa's player was actively posting. When asked, only said that the curator had given it. You have also brought up a smut book with the same subjects multiple times since the book was posted in Jan 2023. This is very creepy behaviour, and not welcome here.

How does Lisa Green mindbreak people so hard

[Jacquerel]

are we gonna talk about this now rather than waiting for jimmyl's appeal or do you think he's not going to bother

[BonChoi]

are we gonna talk about this now rather than waiting for jimmyl's appeal or do you think he's not going to bother

This is just the beginning. The peanut for when he appeals will be glorious, but unfortunately I probably won't be around to witness it.

[Lacran]

1. Bro really just used "autistic" as a negative qualifier
2. In law, we need logic, not feelings, not eMpAtHy. It seems to me like the exact kind of space where "autistic" would be an advantage and not a pejorative.

Law doesn't operate solely off logic. How do you think sentencing works? Judges don't have a mathematical formula for determining offense severity, empathy is a huge factor in the legal process one of the primary means of establishing reasonability involves putting yourself in someone elses shoes like the man on the clapham omnibus, or the prudent man, if you'd ever actually studied law you'd know that.

You seem to think matching elements of an offense to an offense (did X do Y) is the end all be all of law. You seem to ignore why jurisprudence exists in the first place, or how one establishes a fair punishment for an individual, or even how a judge handles sentencing.

Law is a practice of determining how people ought to act, and how we ought to treat people that do not act according to that standard, so feelings, empathy, and ethics fundamentally are the basis of law.

You can't have one standard for him and one standard for everyone else, it doesn't matter if it achieves your goal faster, it's fundamentally unfair.

This would only apply if other players were ineligible for QC bans, which isn't the case. if I act a certain way, I'm eligible for the QC ban, as are you, this particular person is facing the same system of rules we are.


Something you constantly struggle with when trying to judge these situations is you can't see the forest for the trees, rule lawyering isn't the same thing as understanding law.

[RedBaronFlyer]

are we gonna talk about this now rather than waiting for jimmyl's appeal or do you think he's not going to bother

Yes.

[iansdoor]

are we gonna talk about this now rather than waiting for jimmyl's appeal or do you think he's not going to bother

Yes.

Yes?
Mothcows rejoice this day.

[Vekter]

MAKE YOUR OWN PEANUT FOR HIS BAN

[AsbestosSniffer]

MAKE YOUR OWN PEANUT FOR HIS BAN

Done
viewtopic.php?f=83&t=36360

[RaveRadbury]

Players out here theory crafting the new magna carta for an online clubhouse

[Higgin]

We can't and shouldn't really try to emulate the law which "in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges."

We're trying to keep the game fun and manage socially deviant behavior that gets in the way of that. We try to do it fairly as we can because it sucks to be treated unfairly. As Vekter has marked up, rigid/robotic standards that have no connection to the principle are prone to abuse by bad faith actors or to being overly punitive where a lesser sanction would do.

We don't have a science about what ban length or note given when optimally minimizes the chance of reoffense for X kind of person. We don't have the same understandings of the same situations as admins - and regularly seek feedback, disagree, and rely on each other for getting a fuller picture of a person we're interacting with, both through past notes and conversation, if we even recognize the need and choose to interact with them in the round.

There's no good way to regiment this. Admins act as "street-level bureaucrats" and, outside of instances like QCs which by their nature deal with the sum of somebody's community impact and so go through the whole headmin team, at least one of whom is elected by the playerbase, take sole responsibility for the bans and notes we place. That doesn't mean we don't reason them out, consider norms, or try to minimize bias - it's probably a lot more common than you'd expect for admins to recuse themselves from handling certain situations or people for reasons other than that they were directly involved.

The reasoning we ultimately use is subject to public deliberation and interrogation when somebody makes an appeal. The deliberation behind a person choosing to appeal and the admin choosing to do what they did may not be immediately visible, but they come into contact through the appeals process - shown here - for the whole playerbase to judge. If there's an irreconcilable disagreement, the same headmin team that makes QCs makes the review and tries to give the best expression of the principles and norms we're all trying to hold in common.

If you disagree with those, then, it's a matter of policy - whichever way the review goes.

If there's a breach of conduct, it's the matter of a complaint, which is bound to get a review if it's founded, and if there isn't - feedback, where if an admin has a consistently adverse impact on the experience, they can both be made aware of it and potentially counseled by headmins.

We can't really do better than that while being sensitive to the uniqueness of situations, the lack of a scientific foundation for administration, the large amount of discretion and personal responsibility which are necessary and healthy for administration, and ultimately, still, trying to maintain a fun and fair game - not a system of laws and procedures.

[Higgin]

*It's also worth marking up that when we use the term "bad faith," it probably often gets stretched or narrowed too much to be meaningful.

Most people don't show up wanting to make things worse for others. They're sincere and had sincere reasons for what they did, what they think, and just want to play the game.

It is entirely possible to be a dick in good faith, and to fail in trying to not be a dick repeatedly even when you sincerely recognize having done so in the past. At a certain point it's about being fair to the community and the player to remove them when if in anyone else's position, receiving the same kinds of behavior they have shown themselves unable to not engage in, they would not want themselves here either. The reasons Dendy laid out are not all-encompassing, because some people are genuinely out to make things worse for others for what they find to be their own perfectly good reasons, but that's most often where a QC comes in. It's pretty straightforward to perma a Snidley Whiplash moustache-twirling griefer (take a look at the ban DB for endless examples;) it's an extra and fair level of scrutiny that goes into saying that even if somebody's trying and here in good faith, their overall impact is making things worse for the whole community than we can really pull them back from in any single incident or form of conduct.

[Constellado]

Remember, that wall of logs was just for the word "retard" and does not include the other insults he was throwing over that month!

I wonder how many insults he did per round, and how many insults per line of text.

[EmpressMaia]

And I thought I got mad at video games

[Dax Dupont]

Chat, why does Ekaterina pretty much only come to the defense of the worst of offenders?

[RedBaronFlyer]

Chat, why does Ekaterina pretty much only come to the defense of the worst of offenders?

I think it’s important to have a devils advocate even if the arguments aren’t always the strongest.

[DaBoss]

oh yeah well I think devils advocates SUCK what about that

[kinnebian]

Chat, why does Ekaterina pretty much only come to the defense of the worst of offenders?

ekaterina stops threads from becoming dogpiles
they arent stupid or unreasonable they just point out logical things to bring up in context of a ban and people get mad at them because they refuse to discuss it

[kinnebian]

when everyone goes into peanuts already set on what their opinion is ekat's posts are a breath of fresh air

[Jacquerel]

ekaterina stops threads from becoming dogpiles

might be more true to say they redirect the dogpile most of the time tbqh
like diving heroically onto a grenade except instead it's diving under a bunch of people

[Timonk]

Chat, why does Ekaterina pretty much only come to the defense of the worst of offenders?

I think it’s important to have a devils advocate even if the arguments aren’t always the strongest.

i miss sinful

[TheBibleMelts]

Chat, why does Ekaterina pretty much only come to the defense of the worst of offenders?

I think it’s important to have a devils advocate even if the arguments aren’t always the strongest.

there's devils advocate, and then there's devils lawyer.

[Timonk]

Chat, why does Ekaterina pretty much only come to the defense of the worst of offenders?

I think it’s important to have a devils advocate even if the arguments aren’t always the strongest.

there's devils advocate, and then there's devils lawyer.

this is an argument for unbanning sinful

[oranges]

when everyone goes into peanuts already set on what their opinion is ekat's posts are a breath of fresh air

this would only be true if ekat ever had an opinion that wasn't all bans are bad because the rules don't precisely specify the exact specifics for every single circumstnace in which someone can get banned.

they're just as set as eveyrone else

[Featherfield]

Having required, set tiers to go through doesn't really work very well if the person in question isn't showing any improvement. All it does is allow that person to continue to repeat the behavior that's been getting them in trouble, sound in the knowledge that they're immune to being banned permanently until they get through tier 3 of their punishments. It expects us to see someone who's running around calling people slurs and spraypainting swastikas on the floor and go "Well, maybe he'll learn after his third ban or so." instead of realizing that person is actively not here in good faith and that forcing others to deal with the harm they're doing over bureaucracy is asinine.

This argument makes sense in a vacuum but if you were trying to say it applies to the current case then it is a strawman. This player is playing in good faith, he has come to play the game, not for the sole purpose of griefing others like in the example you describe. However, despite it not necessarily being his intention, the way in which he plays does cause problems for other players.

If we had a rigid tiered system, I wouldn't have that option - he did the crime, he must pay the time. (...) Ekaterina's understanding of how the system works makes sense in theory, but it's exceedingly cold and not really something I would want to participate in. It works for larger communities who have to deal with more trolls, but we're a size where we can be flexible in how we handle things. We can be and often are merciful to newer players or people who show real desire to improve while we tend to be more harsh to those that refuse improvement or pay lip service just to stay the course, and I think that's a good thing.

This is interesting. I hadn't considered this downside to a more robotic system of prescribing penalties. At the same time, this argument implies rigidity has to go both ways, rather than just serve as a maximum to how harsh you can be.

You want a rigid system because it appeals to some autistic legalistic rigidity that you confuse with justice or fairness. I don't think you've actually looked at if a tiered due process is required in this circumstance, its just that its the default and you like that. Everyone here is trying to get you to look beyond technicality and look at the purpose of enforcing rules, because that's what you are missing here.

Or they're diametrically opposed to every action the admins take, which as history shows is not a healthy mindset and may end poorly for them.

Of course, I'm not saying that you can't disagree with admins, but it's just not healthy to put yourself in a position where your arguing for somebody to be unbanned not because you think they've done nothing wrong, but instead just based on the fact that you disagree with the people who set the ban in the first place.

Clearly not the case. To be "diametrically opposed" to a permaban is to defend that no ban should have taken place at all. What I said is that a less severe ban should have been applied.

You want a rigid system because it appeals to some autistic legalistic rigidity that you confuse with justice or fairness.

1. Bro really just used "autistic" as a negative qualifier
2. In law, we need logic, not feelings, not eMpAtHy. It seems to me like the exact kind of space where "autistic" would be an advantage and not a pejorative.

I don't think you've actually looked at if a tiered due process is required in this circumstance, its just that its the default and you like that. Everyone here is trying to get you to look beyond technicality and look at the purpose of enforcing rules, because that's what you are missing here.

You can't have one standard for him and one standard for everyone else, it doesn't matter if it achieves your goal faster, it's fundamentally unfair.

i cannot in good conscience ask the community at large to continue enduring that for the sake of sparing a ban that's more difficult to explain than a note or a week ban.

dendydoom makes an interesting point here. Proceeding with normal ban escalation would imply, assuming that they would indeed be ineffective, a detriment to the rest of the community for the intervals in between this escalation... and she prefers being unfair to the infractor than to be unfair to the rest of the community... there is merit to this.

you genuinely might have aspergers just from reading all you have been writing in this thread and from your latest note appeal might want to get it checked out

[EmpressMaia]

Wow this thread sucks

[Bisar]

You want a rigid system because it appeals to some autistic legalistic rigidity that you confuse with justice or fairness. I don't think you've actually looked at if a tiered due process is required in this circumstance, its just that its the default and you like that. Everyone here is trying to get you to look beyond technicality and look at the purpose of enforcing rules, because that's what you are missing here.

I personally believe in a rigid enforcement gradient, because lackadaisical enforcement standards become the whim of the person applying them in the moment. If we're meant to follow the rules in a specific way, they should be applied with equal specificities.

As I said before, dude probably needs therapy. However, him being that sustainably angry and caustic with no deviation in behavior is a problem, and consideration for your fellow socially maladjusted autist only goes so far.

I personally don't suffer the metagangs and cliques more than anyone else so I don't speak for myself, but it is certainly a slippery slope to not have a rigid system for enforcing the rules. It can soon enough become about vibes and popularity contests, and the quantity of irritating or peculiar but not malicious weirdos here can end up with the environment that angry lizard fella is causing with his anger: people feeling like they have to walk on eggshells to avoid the wrath of whoever.

I've been an internet gremlin for going on 22 years now and I've seen it time and time again, where someone enforces the rules based on nebulous precedent for keeping the community atmosphere positive, before it becomes some steadily more orwelian or egotistical bullshit that chips and chips and chips the community down to a ghost town.

[Bisar]

you genuinely might have aspergers just from reading all you have been writing in this thread and from your latest note appeal might want to get it checked out

Bro is angling for the aspie zing in a community for a niche game whose appeal is its ludicrously deep gameplay mechanics.

[Jacquerel]

you don't have to be autistic to post here but it helps