NS World Fair: All Aboard!

[Queen Yuno]

~snip~
b) Strong evidence had been presented
~snip~
c) Such evidence as we had belonged to the original investigators, and was not ours to release.

You either release the evidence, or tell us WHO gave you the evidence. Names. And not publicly, just to the admins of NS regions under confidentiality. This is how ALL harassment cases are to be handled.

(I went out to take a drink and came back and see TEP withdrew from the NSWF because of this corruption; see even the region acted without the delegate herself, because it's an OOC matter, it doesn't need *my* IC authority to "get the fk out of there.")

[Escade]

In any case, I have no stake in this anymore. Something about my OOC disability being used against me in an online game convinced me that such a game isn't worth partaking in any longer, so I'm no longer an admin and am significantly lowering my involvement in the game. Do enjoy yourselves.

I'm sorry to hear this and I don't think this is intended to be an attack on anyone person but more a discussion of something that was badly handled and should be addressed. In fact, the last thing I'd like to see is more OOC drama.

What my and other's concerns are is that there was something vile about the whole situation. It's in part being extremely confused and still unsure of why and what went down.

I didn't interact with TNP forum admin on this situation at NSWF. I interacted with specific people on the NSWF Committee and also argued with some of them in DMs and also am still astonished that some of the most vocal players involved basically operated with this "we have evidence we can't share it" and also other bizarre statements when they should have been following the standards outlined below:

Apologies for the double-post, but this is something that absolutely needs to be reiterated.

The job of offsite administration is to collect evidence, verify the integrity of that evidence, and act on that evidence. It is not to take "Oh, just trust me" as standard, and it is not to act based on sob-stories and half-truths. The correct action for the NSWF to do if they don't have the evidence, like they claim they didn't, is to act on the evidence, and to present it to other admin teams so they can operate based on the same evidence. That is something that was literally discussed by admin teams in the wake of the issue with Euro, and for months before, even. The NSWF's admin staff was either corrupt or incompetent, and there's no debating that, merely which one.

If you don't have evidence, can't present evidence, and aren't willing to communicate with other organizations' admin staff to make sure that they also are aware of exactly what kind of individual is in their community, then you don't act. If you do have the information, share it with admin staffs. If you can't trust an admin team, make that clear. That is how you keep a community safe, and if you don't know how to do that, don't run a massive, community-spanning event.

This pretty much ^

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

I get that this is a tough situation, but I feel like only way that this will be put to rest is if the actual people who were directly involved in this come forward and just own up to what happened rather than certain members of the committee trying to take the fall for everyone. At this point, transparency may finally start allowing harm to be repaired.

This is based on a statement we drafted the ninth of January but were advised not to post. As more collective action by TNP administrators has taken longer than originally expected, we dusted this off and added to it.

---

As a starting point, we would like to profusely apologise to Imki for the harm that was caused to her by the premature passing of information to the NationStates World Fair Committee that ultimately resulted in significant public speculation. Secondly, we would like to apologise to the North Pacific and to our fellow admins for this overstep and wish to assure all members that this will not happen again. Thirdly, we would like to apologize to Lord Ravenclaw for the uncertainty and scrutiny he was subjected to.

We also must apologise to the NationStates World Fair Committee members: Todd McCloud, Sanctaria, Sopo, Almonaster Nuevo, and Ever-Wandering Souls. All members of the NSWF committee invested a significant amount of time towards the success of another Fair. We regret that it was the mishandling (based upon our advice) of complaints raised against Imki that ultimately derailed the fair.

Both of us have been members of the NationStates World Fair Committee for a number of years. At this year’s fair, members of the NSWF Committee received a number of complaints about Imki’s presence. In discussion of these complaints we revealed that the North Pacific’s administration team had been undertaking an investigation into a number of claims made both publicly and privately against Imki by a few individuals. We stated that it was our view that The North Pacific Administration Team would be acting on this shortly. Given the complaints that had been made, and the overall theme of the fair, and with a sense of urgency, the Committee chose to act to remove Imki from the fair based on our characterization of the evidence gathered for the North Pacific forum administration’s investigation. We deeply regret the mistakes that were made in this process.

Without going into detail regarding individual witnesses or internal processes, we should not have told the Committee what we did. The investigation into the complaints raised should not have been made public until it had been brought to its conclusion. To reiterate: we certainly won’t be doing that again.

However, insinuations that we did so out of malice or as some kind of favor are false, insulting, and disruptive to the very goals of the petition aired shortly before the Fair. Long time players should remember that accusations of OOC misconduct for which evidence was eventually provided were often originally dismissed as malicious or politically motivated. Relevant conduct consistently took place in private venues without easily verifiable reporting. And yet refusal to act on such accusations has not infrequently been condemned as protecting the accused.

In these situations there are rarely easy answers. We sought to pursue the best interests of the fair and the participants thereof in a difficult situation, and made mistakes.

To reduce the risk of a similar event in the future, and to make the rules of the North Pacific forum past the Zetaboards terms and conditions more accessible, The North Pacific offsite forum administrators have drafted new policy for that forum. It will be released in due course.



Yours faithfully,
Eluvatar
McMasterdonia

[McMasterdonia]

I confirm the above statement was signed by me. I am available to discuss this matter further should anyone wish to do so.

[Syberis]

I have a few questions about the content of the apology and the circumstances of the removal that I'm going to share later, but I think I'm gonna start with the most obvious question.

Who advised you not to post a public statement after fucking Imki over?

[Tim-Opolis]

The North Pacific offsite forum administrators have drafted new policy for that forum. It will be released in due course.

Is this a newly added part, or was that "in due course" dated from when you wrote it. Pretty "Yikes" if it's taking that long.

I also strongly echo Syb's question.

[Syberis]

The North Pacific offsite forum administrators have drafted new policy for that forum. It will be released in due course.

Is this a newly added part, or was that "in due course" dated from when you wrote it. Pretty "Yikes" if it's taking that long.

I also strongly echo Syb's question.

See, I wouldn't be surprised if this was written mere hours ago. I also wouldn't be surprised if nothing ever changes. I still await properly redacted evidence for my own investigation.

I confirm the above statement was signed by me. I am available to discuss this matter further should anyone wish to do so.

Okay. Why were you involved in the mess, considering your massive conflict of interest?

[Lord Dominator]

So to be clear here, our time line goes something like this I think:

- TNP starts investigation or whatever regarding Imki
- NSWF 2017 starts
- TNP admins on Fair committee reveal investigation, impress upon other chunks of Committee the supposed seriousness of the complaints, without actually showing the evidence
- Imki banned, shitstorm follows
- Shitstorm continues
- Fair ends
- Shitstorm continues
- TNP says there isn't reason enough to ban
- More shitstorm
- Actual statements made by TNP/NSWF people

Any complaints here in this, though it's mostly to question on the third point about Committee people banning only on TNP's word that it's serious

[Glen-Rhodes]

So, were you told that evidence had been presented, or did you have the evidence? There's a massive inconsistency that is critical to our understanding of the situation. Also, especially considering the evidence was not found to be strong enough to warrant a ban in the place of the original complaint, there are some real questions raised that absolutely need to be addressed.

If you don't have evidence, can't present evidence, and aren't willing to communicate with other organizations' admin staff to make sure that they also are aware of exactly what kind of individual is in their community, then you don't act.

Outside of the context of this specific case, which I'm not going to comment on because I'm not really aware of the particulars-- I've had to deal with several harassment allegations throughout the past two years. Aside from Europeia, few regions have been willing to share the evidence they have in the cases that ultimately led to bans in TSP. TSP admins have been asked before to issue bans without having access to the evidence, simply based on the reputation of the person making the request and assurances that the evidence exists and is damning. There have been times where we've been refused evidence and have been pressured to just accept what other regions' forum admins are saying.

There needs to be a whole-of-NSGP effort to harmonize how these things are dealt with. The ad-hoc way our community has been handling this issue is unhealthy and will continue to lead to mistakes like TNP's. Eluvatar's third-to-last paragraph is very much true of how NSGP has reacted in the past (and not even the distant past).

[Syberis]

So, were you told that evidence had been presented, or did you have the evidence? There's a massive inconsistency that is critical to our understanding of the situation. Also, especially considering the evidence was not found to be strong enough to warrant a ban in the place of the original complaint, there are some real questions raised that absolutely need to be addressed.

If you don't have evidence, can't present evidence, and aren't willing to communicate with other organizations' admin staff to make sure that they also are aware of exactly what kind of individual is in their community, then you don't act.

Outside of the context of this specific case, which I'm not going to comment on because I'm not really aware of the particulars-- I've had to deal with several harassment allegations throughout the past two years. Aside from Europeia, few regions have been willing to share the evidence they have in the cases that ultimately led to bans in TSP. TSP admins have been asked before to issue bans without having access to the evidence, simply based on the reputation of the person making the request and assurances that the evidence exists and is damning. There have been times where we've been refused evidence and have been pressured to just accept what other regions' forum admins are saying.

There needs to be a whole-of-NSGP effort to harmonize how these things are dealt with. The ad-hoc way our community has been handling this issue is unhealthy and will continue to lead to mistakes like TNP's. Eluvatar's third-to-last paragraph is very much true of how NSGP has reacted in the past (and not even the distant past).

I do agree, as much as I've potentially been guilty of blind rage in the past. And the fact this happened at the NSWF means that we really do need to hold the actions of TNP's admins accountable. The NSWF is, for all its faults, a massive, community-wide event. Bringing this forward without evidence, immediately after one of their admins left the server over what appears to be an OOC dispute between former friends (again, I'm happy to see literally any evidence otherwise), reeks of corruption and mismanagement.

There are too many questions here that nobody is answering and nobody is addressing, which makes me really doubt the veracity of the apology. Why did McMasterdonia get involved, considering the massive and obvious conflict of interest? How many of the members of the NSWF committee actually saw any evidence? How much of it was "Trust me, I swear it's legit?" How much of the dispute was personal between the accused individual and administrative staff of TNP, and how much of it was legitimately beyond the pale and proved dangerous to the community as a whole? I hate to have to reiterate this, but there can be an OOC personal dispute, and bad blood, without harassment.

With as much as the community looks to eliminate genuinely bad people from their midst, especially recently, we must keep an eye on one greater thing; people looking to weaponize these claims. With the lack of evidence we've seen, even with the apology, there are only two conclusions that I can make from the facts (including the facts TNP is deliberately leaving out of their statement, which I'm willing to share with anyone who asks)

1.) TNP has, at its core, a broken administrative system that desperately needs new blood and new views, and their incompetence manifested as an apparent attack on an individual for personal gain and revenge from one of its admins. (I call this one the "Accidental Corruption" view)

or

2.) Individuals within TNP's administrative team misrepresented the issue, and individuals within the admin team made a deliberate and concerted effort to remove Imki, lack of evidence be damned, and used their own clout to make sure that happened.

In either case, there's been no punishment to those involved. That's nonsensical, and I would strongly urge TNP, whether the government or the admin team, rethink the lack of punishment to those involved. Because as it stands? The "apology" is a fucking joke, and spends more time covering their own asses than it does actually making amends for the slandering of an individual during a community event that was literally on the NS News page, and brings together the most disparate groups in our community!

Does the TNP admin team not get that?

[Ambrella]

I agreed to ban Imki from the Fair based on the information provided by McM and Elu. I felt I had no reason to distrust either of them or TNP. I regret not seeking evidence to verify the claims firsthand. I resigned from the Committee when Europeia withdrew from the Fair.

I apologized to Imki privately for my role in this debacle.

[Syberis]

I agreed to ban Imki from the Fair based on the information provided by McM and Elu. I felt I had no reason to distrust either of them or TNP. I regret not seeking evidence to verify the claims firsthand. I resigned from the Committee when Europeia withdrew from the Fair.

I apologized to Imki privately for my role in this debacle.

Did TNP offer any evidence to the admin team?

[Sanctaria]

I agreed to ban Imki from the Fair based on the information provided by McM and Elu. I felt I had no reason to distrust either of them or TNP. I regret not seeking evidence to verify the claims firsthand. I resigned from the Committee when Europeia withdrew from the Fair.

I apologized to Imki privately for my role in this debacle.

I agree with everything Sopo has said here. I also want to add that, having recently returned from taking a break I undertook when the fair debacle happened, I'm staying out of Gameplay for good. This will be my only comment on the matter and, though I may not deserve it, I hope you all will respect that.

I regret many things about my involvement in the fair, not least that I did not probe further when told we were to ban Imki. I trusted both McM and Elu because of their extensive administration experience on both TNP and beyond. I felt that, though no actual evidence was provided other than solely accusations, I had no reason not to believe them. We were told it was forthcoming and we made our decision based on that.

For my own part, I was on the committee representing the part of the game that was Issues, Technical, World Assembly etc. I don't believe I had come across Imki before this incident. The information being relayed to me by McM and Elu were, essentially, my first impressions of Imki. I'm not excusing myself here, by the way, just hoping to offer a little understanding as to why I (unlike normal fair goers) didn't go "what, Imki, you must be joking" or the like.

I resigned from the Committee a few hours later after I reflected on the mistakes we had made as I believed accountability - even if it was just me - was important.

At the time, I more or less immediately took a break from NS, bar a couple of days here and there to do some editing etc, but on my recent return (and pre-dating the return of this topic), I apologised privately to Imki via TG.

[Tim-Opolis]

I confirm the above statement was signed by me. I am available to discuss this matter further should anyone wish to do so.

Okay. Why were you involved in the mess, considering your massive conflict of interest?

While I don't expect an answer on this, at least not an honest one, I would also love to hear this.

[Syberis]

So now there are two statements that Imki was banned on testimony from TNP's administration alone, and no evidence was even presented to them, but it was instead misrepresented as a slam dunk case - which it wasn't. This is looking worse and worse for TNP's credibility.

As a follow-up, is Imki still banned from the TNP discord? Last I checked, TNP's admin staff were still enforcing that.

[Ambrella]

I agreed to ban Imki from the Fair based on the information provided by McM and Elu. I felt I had no reason to distrust either of them or TNP. I regret not seeking evidence to verify the claims firsthand. I resigned from the Committee when Europeia withdrew from the Fair.

I apologized to Imki privately for my role in this debacle.

Did TNP offer any evidence to the admin team?

No. Though it was requested after the situation blew up.

[Syberis]

Did TNP offer any evidence to the admin team?

No. Though it was requested after the situation blew up.

It was requested, and then, I'm assuming, refused or ignored?

[Cormactopia Prime]

Well, I think one thing is clear: The justifiable anger over this shouldn't be directed at the other NSWF Committee members. Perhaps they shouldn't have just trusted McMasterdonia and Eluvatar without evidence, but given their prominent role in TNP -- not even to mention Eluvatar's prominent role in the game itself, which is an issue that is deeply disturbing to me -- I think the rest of the NSWF Committee's misplacement of trust in them is understandable.

The justifiable anger over this should be directed at McMasterdonia and Eluvatar, and at TNP for doing nothing about them for four months. No one in TNP -- not the administrative team, not the government, not the general citizenry -- has ever taken this situation seriously. They have ignored, they have obfuscated, at times they have flippantly dismissed concerns with remarks that make clear how little they care. False accusations of OOC misconduct are OOC misconduct, and regions are responsible for tolerating OOC misconduct. We have held countless regions responsible for tolerating OOC misconduct in the past. TNP should be no different just because it is a Feeder with a higher population and higher endorsement count than the rest. If TNP won't hold McMasterdonia and Eluvatar accountable for their OOC misconduct, TNP must be held accountable for tolerating OOC misconduct. Just like any other region would be, and like so many other regions already have been. TNP is not special, nor exempt from standards of basic OOC decency.

[Ambrella]

No. Though it was requested after the situation blew up.

It was requested, and then, I'm assuming, refused or ignored?

If I'm remembering correctly, we were to receive evidence once the TNP admin team concluded it's investigation.

[Syberis]

It was requested, and then, I'm assuming, refused or ignored?

If I'm remembering correctly, we were to receive evidence once the TNP admin team concluded it's investigation.

Ah, gotcha. But once the investigation was concluded they did not release it to you, or any NSWF committee member, as far as you're aware?

[Unibot III]

Well, I think one thing is clear: The justifiable anger over this shouldn't be directed at the other NSWF Committee members. Perhaps they shouldn't have just trusted McMasterdonia and Eluvatar without evidence, but given their prominent role in TNP -- not even to mention Eluvatar's prominent role in the game itself, which is an issue that is deeply disturbing to me -- I think the rest of the NSWF Committee's misplacement of trust in them is understandable.

The justifiable anger over this should be directed at McMasterdonia and Eluvatar, and at TNP for doing nothing about them for four months. No one in TNP -- not the administrative team, not the government, not the general citizenry -- has ever taken this situation seriously. They have ignored, they have obfuscated, at times they have flippantly dismissed concerns with remarks that make clear how little they care. False accusations of OOC misconduct are OOC misconduct, and regions are responsible for tolerating OOC misconduct. We have held countless regions responsible for tolerating OOC misconduct in the past. TNP should be no different just because it is a Feeder with a higher population and higher endorsement count than the rest. If TNP won't hold McMasterdonia and Eluvatar accountable for their OOC misconduct, TNP must be held accountable for tolerating OOC misconduct. Just like any other region would be, and like so many other regions already have been. TNP is not special, nor exempt from standards of basic OOC decency.

It's a bit of a chicken and an egg problem here because the reason that McMasterdonia and Eluvatar were made committee members were because they were trusted members of TNP and TNP was a political power bloc that realistically could have hurt the World Fairs by boycotting them. The best way to prevent TNP using its political power to shut down the fair or create a rival fair was to fill the executive full of influential TNPers. They were appointed for the influence of their region, it comes as no surprise to me they cashed in on that influence here.

That's always the ultimate problem with organizing the NS World Fair, you have to staff the executive with people who can help ensure its political survival and they take advantage of it. *shrugs*

[Farlord]

I think we can all stop pretending here.

There clearly was no evidence against Imki, if there was it would have been shared with other regions to keep their communities safe. This was purely to defame and shame imki, for reasons unknown to other than the admin team.

[Escade]

EDITED:

Well some of are well aware that we're stepping around issues. That's partially a problem of course. So let me be the one to state some things outright. I'm not going to name all the names because my goal is not to punish anyone or get teams removed or admonished - that in itself could be seen as political maneuvering. In fact, I'm against the political maneuvering I see people trying to pull using this issue.

I'd also like to second Glenn's statement about people wanting bans without giving evidence and choosing to act spiteful in terms of sharing things because of the region or some random reason. You can share evidence and still protect people's identities through redactions of names\personal info. It is not impossible.

Many of us are assuming that OOC personal problems between Imki and Raven are the root source of this whole drama and that people stepped into this dispute politically. There were also some other allegations made that were not substantiated.

Some people, myself included, were approached to find if they had any evidence against Imki. My response was like, "wut?" and also "witchhunt much?" and also "if two people engaging in an argument is your standards of trying to get someone in trouble then you are well and truly fucked in NSGP because that's what all everyone does."

Is it possible that Imki or another prominent NS player misbehaves or engages in unpleasant behavior? Yes. Most definitely. Is that behavior enough to warrant bans and character assassinations? Well what are our standards for "behaving like a dick?" AND here is the key question: Do we apply these standards fairly and to everyone? A lot of the people chiming in here to attack TNP for their personal political maneuvering have not been able to apply standards fairly - only against those that they dislike and are lax on those that they like. That's in itself problematic to me.

I also think that when its not harassment or a serious scary issue, we as a community should not be thinking "how can this be weaponized to remove this member from the community" but like "hey these two don't get along, let's actually either try to arrange peace talks or keep them separate and make sure they don't talk." In this game, you are not required to be social or friendly or even respond to anyone that you don't want. In addition, this applies in real life as well. If you tell someone to leave you alone and they don't, that is them being unpleasant. If it escalates and with specific circumstances it becomes a form of harassment.

The whole "two people argue a lot and we don't like one so we try to get rid of them off the face of the game" is also ridiculous and cutting across IC lines to OOC. I'm pretty sure I've approached people to ask for help in dealing with a person who I didn't get along with, the goal not being to remove them from the game but to be like "ugh can you talk to them." It doesn't always work but sometimes it does.

Finally, here's the truth Imki is liked by enough people to have taken a stand. If though it was a less well liked player then we might have ostracized\banished them and that's the truly scary thing.

So my thoughts are of a more proactive vein. I think Imki is owed a very public apology, one that she doesn't have to accept either. Then, we probably - those of us who care for the betterment of the game as a whole rather than our factions - should try to set up a system that helps people (regardless of whatever faction or ideology) to be able to deal with the real and serious issues that do happen. Whether its a real accusation or trying to deal with a political witch hunt.

I'm also going to reiterate that I am highly suspicious of any actions taken to attack players (on any side) over this from factions. If you take this issue seriously then help set up a system in a pro-active way to make sure that:
1. IC or OOC disputes between players or even factions aren't used to try to OOC attack players\remove them from places\the game
2. There are clear standards of evidence and a process to follow when investigating and presenting a case
3. People responsible or given authority to handle such things (admin) understand that they must recuse themselves in situations where they can't be impartial OR MAY BE SEEN AS BEING IMPARTIAL
4. Admin hold a very serious responsibility to the community and should be held to higher standards of behavior and judgement
5. We, as a community, teach people through sharing information, and also creating standards in a positive way

[Consular]

I guess I'd like to know if Souls is willing to renounce the accusations against Imki and apologise to her?

[Guy]

I think we all need to be really, really careful here. Standards are being set that have never been before, including ones that are likely to set back the way in which we handle OOC misconduct matters significantly.

I agree that it is unhelpful to beat around the bush. It is not that players' personal affiliations should determine how they respond to an accusation of OOC impropriety, but is is clear that in this case, there is at least the perception that they did.

McMasterdonia is/was close to Raven. Eluvatar is, to my knowledge, close to McMasterdonia. Conversely, a lot of the people who are unhappy with the way that the complaint against Imki was handled are personally close to her. While the latter is entirely understandable, and the former could be naught but a coincidence, it is better that we all acknowledge this rather than let it simmer underneath this issue. My understanding is that Raven was not one of the complainants who instigated this process, but it would have been well-known to everyone involved that he had serious personal issues with Imki. As for myself, at the time of the NSWF, while not being particularly close to either Raven or Imki, I had known Raven better and did occasionally speak to him. Since then, I do not believe I had spoken to either one of them, apart from with Imki regarding matters relating to Lazarus. I am on good terms with McMasterdonia and Eluvatar.

The above paragraph was necessary in this case, but again, is quite problematic. If you don't know someone in this game, you know someone who knows them. If people are going to be considered potentially biased due to knowing others, this could destroy virtually every investigation into OOC misconduct. This is why it's important to have trust in these processes, and why if the processes were deficient in this case, we must learn from these mistakes and ensure that they are not repeated.

Onto the actual merits of the issue. The statement of Eluvatar and McMasterdonia recognised that their process in handling the complaint was deficient, in that the investigation was made public prior to any determinations having been made. This is an error of judgment. It is appropriate that Eluvatar and McMasterdonia had apologised for it. It is very important that lessons are drawn from the handling of this complaint.

We do not know that there was a complete lack of evidence relating to this issue. Nor do we know that the complaints were made in bad faith. All that we know is that the complaints have not been substantiated to the level of satisfaction that the TNP admin team requires. The decision to enact a preventive ban on Imki was not necessarily a deficient one. I am not aware of the nature of the allegations made. It is possible that the complaints were serious enough that a preventive, rather than final, ban was appropriate. For the reasons given below, it is possible that none of us will know the answer to that. In terms of Imki moving forward, there was clearly insufficient evidence, and so her standing or participation should not be affected.

We must ensure that the standards we set going forward, in this case and others, are appropriate and considered. It has never been the standard that forum admins, in receipt of OOC complaints, are required to share their investigation with all other interested admin teams. Indeed, when evidence regarding unibot was related to the TRR admin team, it was made very clear that it is not to be shared with the admins of any other forum. It is entirely possible that many other forums banned unibot on the basis of him being banned in TRR (and in other regions), without seeing any evidence to that effect. Many of the players who are attacking the process here were approving of the process relating to unibot, including that many forum admins have not seen any of the evidence. Indeed, at least one of the posters here demanded that unibot be banned from forums, irrespective of whether they had received any evidence.

Of course, simply because that was past practice does not mean that practice cannot evolve. However, that would be a significant step backwards, not forwards. Complainants are entitled to privacy. This is true even if the allegations are not found to have been substantiated. Indeed, when the allegations are not substantiated, no one has an interest in knowing what they were. The only exception is if the complaint was found, with a high degree of certainty, to have been made in bad faith. Otherwise, we could be discouraging complainants from coming forward, for fear of personal repraisals. Several posts in this thread had stated that the complainants should identify themselves, or their evidence should be identified, or that they should be made to apologise. I would ask that those who have made those requests reflect on whether they are appropriate.

Moving forward, what we need to ensure is that the processes that we have in place are the best that we can do, and that we deal with the specific issues that have arisen out of this. This case had two features that caused most of the problems: (1) The way a complaint is dealt with to protect the complainants prior to the complaint having been accepted; (2) What can be done in cases in which sharing of the evidence itself has not been authorised.

Perhaps some of you will see these questions as having obvious answers. I do not. With regards to the first, I believe that a temporary, preventive ban is possible, but should be of last resort. Second, I am sympathetic to the viewpoints that admin teams who have not (collectively - the admin team as a whole can authorise some of its members to receive and deal with the evidence) received evidence cannot take action with regards to the complaint. This may mean that characters with regards to whom there is consensus that they are unsavoury may be allowed in certain places.

Finally, I believe that it is good that this conversation is happening. The more we can do towards improving our response to issues of OOC impropriety, the better place our community will be for it. And with respect to this particular case, it clearly raises some serious issues, and it is entirely appropriate that people look at the events that had transpired with a critical eye. Be conscious of the fact that this is an ongoing conversation that involves some sensitive matters for multiple people (particularly the complainants and the person who was the subject of the ban and investigation). And that perhaps people that you like or even look up to may have made mistakes, and that people whom you could not possibly see eye-to-eye with on this issue may be acting in good faith.