[Petition/Discussion] Harassment and Off-Site Evidence

[Consular]

No one should be subject to harassment, bullying, exclusion or discrimination without a fair and impartial trial. It's kind of why we have a legal system and human rights. Even the accused have rights.

We have those things IRL because there are real consequences -- imprisonment etc.

This isn't a court of law. It's a website. You have no right to anything here. The worst penalty that can be imposed is exclusion from something you have no guaranteed right to access anyway.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Admin can ban anyone for any reason without appeal. We are asking them to exercise that ability where they have good cause.

[Enfaru]

No one should be subject to harassment, bullying, exclusion or discrimination without a fair and impartial trial. It's kind of why we have a legal system and human rights. Even the accused have rights.

We have those things IRL because there are real consequences -- imprisonment etc.

This isn't a court of law. It's a website. You have no right to anything here. The worst penalty that can be imposed is exclusion from something you have no guaranteed right to access anyway.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Admin can ban anyone for any reason without appeal. We are asking them to exercise that ability where they have good cause.

Websites are held on servers based in countries ergo rights. Furthermore this site is under the jurisdiction of Australia, please carefully read the rules. If you stalk someone on a website it is actually considered just as serious as stalking offline and punished in exactly the same way. If you share illicit images online or share them offline, the same punishment is meted out. A website is a business and there are many many examples of websites being held to account where users rights are infringed. Most notably Google v EU.

The worst penalty that can be imposed on a website is actually naming and shaming, this may not only incur legal penalties for the individual, damage to reputation and so on, but it may also invoke lynch mobs as is commonly the case. Example can be pointed out on a whim. One example was a Paediatrician being harassed because some idiot reported a "Paedo" thinking that was exactly what a Paediatrician was. It is against Nationstates policy to discriminate against individuals and persecuting them for served criminal offences is actually a criminal offence in and of itself.

I fully appreciate that this site is not a court of law, something that you have missed completely. Nationstates has no right and should have no right to consider "offsite" evidence. It is immoral and flies in the face of justice knowing how easy it is to fabricate such evidence. There is no way that Nationstates without access to such servers could validate such evidence and that means it should be reported to the authorities and left at that. To take action based on evidence that cannot be verified is wrong. There's no "oh it's right in this circumstance", it's wrong, completely utterly wrong to accuse someone with very likely fabricated evidence, that is probably trying to get someone banned because you don't like them (wrong flag for example) to use offsite evidence.

If a user misbehaves on nationstates, as I'll say again and again, should be promptly disciplined but everyone should otherwise be given the chance to behave properly and in the community spirit and be allowed to participate in the community until they behave otherwise. Or... do you not understand the basic concept of innocent until proven guilty?

[Enfaru]

I'm not going to throw yet another of my wall of texts here, but can we please stop talking about the police?

(1) The police are not responsive to internet harassment. They are barely responsive to regular claims of harassment. A typical problem that occurs is that if the harasser and the victim are in two different jurisdictions, the police will hot potato the issue back and forth claiming that it's the other jurisdiction's problems.

That's a matter for the individuals and their relevant legal authorities. Nationstates should not step in and act as internet police. If the harassment takes place on nationstates then nationstates should take action to get rid of bad behaviour. If behaviour takes place on another site, another site should take action. Also the user should consider employing an ignore list. It's really not that hard.

(2) Even if they police were 100% responsive, there are behaviors that do not necessarily rise to the level of criminal harassment that we might not want on Nationstates. There's nobody that we've banned in Europeia for harassment who committed criminal acts. That being said, their behavior was abhorrent and not anything we would want in this game. Would the police act if asked? Absolutely not. Does somebody need to act? Absolutely.

Slippery slope right there. You ban people from your region who you want to ban, that's completely up to you. If I felt a member of my region was being harassed, I would immediately sign post them to the relevant authorities and file a police report.

I've always found, with credible evidence, that the police are actually quite useful in providing advice to avoid harassment, chasing after the criminal...but then, my police force isn't as bad as some others they actually go out and catch criminals from time to time. I do not think that Nationstates should be the defacto internet police and try to safeguard everything from everyone. Nationstates should safeguard Nationstates.

[Tananat]

Enfaru's moronic argument completely ignores that problem players use this site to seek out new victims or new communities upon which they can prey. That their behaviour primarily occurs offsite is irrelevant to the issue: as it stands, NS policy enables off-site harassers.

[Rogamark]

I was hoping that the hysteria would have died down by now, at least to a degree where a reasonable discussion about an actually workable proposal might be possible. I'm quite disheartened to see that's not the case. I'm even more disheartened to see that the very same mantras as 15 pages ago are still being recited as if no debate happened in the meantime. The very same nonsense that's going on in way too many RL political discussions has finally hit us full force.

For those who still want to debate liability issues: Please, get in touch with any of the top 10 digital companies. If you've figured out a safe and effective way around assumption/failure to protect issues, you're destined to become the most sought-after legal consultant in the Western world, since you evidently know more than their various legal teams. I can also think of several governments who'd greatly value your advice.

And for the PREDATORS EVERYWHERE crowd: Can we pause for a moment and acknowledge that the vast, vast majority of people on this website are more or less upstanding and law-abiding people who wouldn't dream of committing some of the extreme acts you keep presenting as examples? You're asking for policy changes with a massive potential for misuse in return for making life harder for a handful of awful people. I fail to see how that's a proportional response.

Speaking of proportional responses. I've seen the quite extraordinary claim that an approach that features unannounced, uncommented bans is something most people would be fine with. That's quite astonishing, given how many signatories to this petition have complained about a perceived lack of transparency in mod decisions in the past... and in cases where both the accusation and the consequence were much, much less severe. Now to do a 180° and ask for this, which is already possible as an extraordinary measure for the most special of special cases, to be transformed into an ordinary measure, where in certain cases it's the default consequence by policy, is hypocritical to no end.

A propos hypocrisy. While I certainly understand the desire to press a button and a bad person goes away not only on one third-party platform, but everywhere across the NS universe, I'm astonished that the device by which people see fit to express that desire is a petition that accepts signatories "regardless of past behavior". Take a long and hard look at that petition. Go over the names, and keep in mind that this is in reality a petition against harassers. If you don't do a double take at some names, and see no issue with your own name on the same list, you have no claim or right to moral outrage, or a basis to support a zero-tolerance approach. Perhaps consider getting your own house in order first.

As for the efficacy of the proposed measures. I'm going to have to side with the petitioners for a moment there. Of course there is a good chance that it would take some of the bad guys out of business, at least momentarily. And if the problem was far more epidemic, or if there was zero chance whatsoever even in theory that a new procedure against them could be abused, I'd at least reconsider my stance. But - thus ends the siding - it isn't, and there is. Also, while the claim that "NS policy enables off-site harassers" is so laughable that it doesn't warrant a response, I will note that "safety above all and at all costs" is an argument... commonly heard from a quite different bunch of people. Once again it's amazing how pliable some people's "strongly held convictions" are.

On the evergreen that "the police never does anything". As a former criminal defense attorney I actually laughed when I read that. You should see some of the complaints they receive. Like in RL, not every instance of general nastiness on the internet rises to the level of criminality. Especially when it comes to what people perceive as harassment, and especially not when there are other legal avenues (such as restraining orders) available. But I should be most surprised if law enforcement wouldn't act on the kind of cases that seems to be the worst case example: a creep filling up a 13-year-old's inbox with inappropriate pictures, engaging in similarly inappropriate conversation, and perhaps even trying to track down or meet the victim offline. Law enforcement tends to be very interested in stuff like that.

Seriously, can we please forget about that doomed petition, and instead keep the intent behind it for a more open-minded (and open-ended) discussion on the issue? I read the posts from the NS team in this thread to mean that they are certainly willing to discuss the status quo and explore potential changes. It's just this one particular proposal that's a no-go.

[Anarchitaria]

People, this is not "hypothetical", it has happened.

[Escade]

Rogamark,

I appreciate your remarks and have always found you to be a level-headed individual.

I don't know who some of the other signators are but again, if you mention any of them specifically on this site as harassers you can get a warning. I have a level 1 warning level right now for example. So there's one problem - people have to talk off-site about harassers on site.

As for the petition, I can definitely agree that there is room for discussion about it and room for compromise that doesn't harm people, increases protection, and doesn't take away rights. As far as I can tell its the moderation team for legal reasons that decided that invisible bans are better than public bans for legal reasons. I don't know legalese very well at all and therefore all my speaking is from a player stand point.

However, I suppose most of us are waiting for more mod discussion or questions or stuff. Or accepting the most recent discussion and thinking that is it. Or idk.

[Roavin]

Speaking of proportional responses. I've seen the quite extraordinary claim that an approach that features unannounced, uncommented bans is something most people would be fine with.

I think the idea was rather uncommented, but not unannounced, bans. So they could say that Brunhizzle got DoS'd, but not (necessarily) why.

[Rogamark]

Rogamark,

I appreciate your remarks and have always found you to be a level-headed individual.

I don't know who some of the other signators are but again, if you mention any of them specifically on this site as harassers you can get a warning. I have a level 1 warning level right now for example. So there's one problem - people have to talk off-site about harassers on site.

As for the petition, I can definitely agree that there is room for discussion about it and room for compromise that doesn't harm people, increases protection, and doesn't take away rights. As far as I can tell its the moderation team for legal reasons that decided that invisible bans are better than public bans for legal reasons. I don't know legalese very well at all and therefore all my speaking is from a player stand point.

However, I suppose most of us are waiting for more mod discussion or questions or stuff. Or accepting the most recent discussion and thinking that is it. Or idk.

Thank you, Escade. Like I said, I've seen enough cases myself to be painfully aware that it's an ongoing problem. But I also believe that we should not make the same mistake that's happening all too often in RL, and let a few high-profile cases goad us into taking action just for the sake of taking action. If there is a way to improve protection without causing harm or risk of harm to innocent people, and without exposing us or the NS team to legal issues, I absolutely think we should take it. Coming up with a not so workable proposal, then threatening to hold our breaths until it's implemented is not the way to do it, though.

It's still perfectly possible to do this right: have a discussion about the problem, get a few definition issues out of the way (as anyone who has ever authored a regional criminal code will be able to attest to, defining "harassment" properly is quite a challenge), and perhaps come up with a solution. We can do it on-site, off-site, on Discord, through smoke signs and carrier pigeons, it doesn't matter. As long as it's a reasonably open process. I'd volunteer to coordinate it, but I can think of at least a dozen people more qualified than me.

[Albrenia]

Isn't it a little unfair to expect the mods to be able to monitor and verify 'harassment' activity by posters from all over the internet?

[Rogamark]

I think the idea was rather uncommented, but not unannounced, bans. So they could say that Brunhizzle got DoS'd, but not (necessarily) why.

The thing is that I've seen people jumping up and down and screaming every time this happened, complaining about a lack of transparency. I happen to largely share that view, but I also agree that giving specifics is ill-advised for legal reasons. That makes the whole thing quite complicated. Also, if the purpose is to warn offsite admins about someone, this isn't going to help. Most regions I'm more or less involved with do allow visitors in their communication channels such as Discord, even if they don't even have a NS nation, never mind in the region. Now, if I knew that such a person was DoS'd for harassment or predatory behavior, I'd watch them with eagle eyes, ban at the first sign of trouble, and the village is saved. If I only know they were DoS'd, I file that away somewhere in the back of my head, but it's not per se a red flag.

As for an offsite solution, I will fight every attempt to create the NS equivalent of a sex offender registry to my dying breath if need be, with no holds barred. They're awful enough in RL.

[Kylia Quilor]

Isn't it a little unfair to expect the mods to be able to monitor and verify 'harassment' activity by posters from all over the internet?

Not if they are then given proper offsite admin access by the relevant authorities to do just that - which if the people aren't willing to do that, then no Gameside ruling need be made.

[Region 4]

I certainly sign onto this.

[NERVUN]

I have a level 1 warning level right now for example. So there's one problem.

Escade,

Your warning level reflects a prior warning. As my posted noted, the warning you received for defamation was struck and your warning level reset (From 2 to 1). If you are unsure, send us a Getting Help Request and we will provide you with your warning record.

[McChimp]

The NationStates Moderation Team is discussing possible changes to that line (and/or other site policies) now. However, in the meantime, I do want to clarify as an official Moderator edict: if you have reason to believe that someone is a threat to NationStates.net or our users, then you may contact us by GHR with your evidence, including any relevant offsite material. Whether or not we'll do anything will be on a case-by-case basis (because some malicious players may try to file false reports this way to eliminate other players they don't like, so we need to filter between genuine concerns and attempted Mods-As-Weapons.) We can't know in advance exactly how this will work, but we intend to do our best to balance protecting players from each other's behavior with protecting players from false accusations.

Next, we want to reiterate that while we can and will issue DOS orders for the protection of our users, we WILL NOT be able to publicly acknowledge specific instances where we have done so. In general, if a case might result in a lawsuit (such as libel) if handled improperly (such as if we accused someone of a real world crime and we turn out to be wrong), then the ruling needs to remain secret. Courts of law absolutely do not care if we incorrectly accuse someone of cheating at an internet game. Courts of law absolutely DO care if we incorrectly accuse someone of something serious. Fundamentally, this is the one non-negotiable position: everything else is.

Because of the above, we can neither confirm nor deny any impending, past, or recent delete on sight orders relevant to this topic. This is frustrating, but it's the internet we live in.

It's also frustrating that in many cases, much of the evidence that we're being asked to act on has not been provided to us.

Finally, please appreciate that any extraordinary action and any change to any policy requires a high degree of consensus.

None of us were aware of this policy and it's therefore safe to assume neither were the victims. The policy, which seems sound, cannot be implemented if-as in the recent case-NS moderation is not obviously accessible and effective.

It ought to be made more abstract as a "report serious misconduct" system onsite accessible by a button on every page, leading to a page with options of what kind of misconduct as well as explanations of exactly what deliberations will be made by how many mods, a process that should be set out by a professional who understands what measures need to be taken to protect all those involved. If offsite evidence can be taken into consideration, that needs to be made obvious, possibly in bold writing.

A major consideration is that in legal terms, I (no expert, granted) am under the impression that if actions on this site are intended to lead to the kinds of obviously illegal actions we're talking about on others, for example lying about your identity here in order to perpetrate sexual harassment off site, then the preparation on this site is also illegal.

[NERVUN]

The One-Stop Rules Shop has been updated to reflect the Moderation decision issued earlier.

[Escade]

So the jurisdiction section has changed but I believe defamation is the same (will look closer off the phone).

So according to current defamation rules, the following is acceptable:
"Player X has been banned from forum Z after an off-site investigation proved that the player engaged unacceptable behavior."

However, the previous example I put which stated "sexual harassment" in place of "unacceptable behavior" would still be defamation. I also do get the reason why the link was problematic because if disclosed general geographical data and we shouldn't be doxxing anyone even in the pursuit of justice.

Overall, I feel positive about these small moderation changes and I strongly urge any players who feel uncomfortable to talk to people off-site if someone makes you feel uncomfortable. Within at least two situations such as this - the player was engaging the same group of players with the same type of unacceptable behavior but because of the lack of communication we learned about it after things had already gotten worse. And be safe.

[Unibot III]

The One-Stop Rules Shop has been updated to reflect the Moderation decision issued earlier.

I'm curious, NERVUN, the old rule suggested that someone violating this part "Please don't bring non-NationStates business ..." would be subject to the same penalties as 'defamation.' Is that no longer the case, if you're bringing non-NationStates business, will you be slapped on the wrist for a new offense, like 'jurisdiction' or something?

And how are players supposed to interpret "non-NationStates"? That seems to be widely disputed. Most players consider regional forums and Discord/IRC to be a part of "NationStates." Indeed, if we were to interpret "non-NationStates" as meaning offsite, that would act as a gag on discussing almost anything related to Gameplay - that very same sentence makes reference to #themodcave, even, which is also offsite.

In short I'm asking whether the old gag rule has been removed or whether the penalty has been renamed?

[NERVUN]

The One-Stop Rules Shop has been updated to reflect the Moderation decision issued earlier.

I'm curious, NERVUN, the old rule suggested that someone violating this part "Please don't bring non-NationStates business ..." would be subject to the same penalties as 'defamation.' Is that no longer the case, if you're bringing non-NationStates business, will you be slapped on the wrist for a new offense, like 'jurisdiction' or something?

And how are players supposed to interpret "non-NationStates"? That seems to be widely disputed. Most players consider regional forums and Discord/IRC to be a part of "NationStates." Indeed, if we were to interpret "non-NationStates" as meaning offsite, that would act as a gag on discussing almost anything related to Gameplay - that very same sentence makes reference to #themodcave, even, which is also offsite.

In short I'm asking whether the old gag rule has been removed or whether the penalty has been renamed?

The defamation rule has been moved to harassment and the name dropped, plus clarified. Jurisdiction has been slightly reworded. Reporting guidelines has been slightly rearranged, and #themodcave IRC channel has had the time-sensitive line removed (More coverage of the GHR system makes it redundant). Those are the changes.

And as always, we cannot rule on hypotheticals.

[Berethene]

While I thank the Moderation/Admin team for moving to act, there are still a number of people here who seem to be missing a critical point.

Abuse and harassment are committed sometimes by people right off the bat. The response is to ban and report, and that is that. Problem solved.

Now, let's look at those who want something from another player, and know how to do it right. A skilled abuser does not drop negative behavior on the victim right away. A skilled abuser befriends and endears themselves to the intended victim. They test the waters gradually, seeing what they can get away with and what they can't. When they've tested it enough to understand that they can get away with x but not y, they start with x. From there they increase the pressure they put on the victim. This victim trusts this abuser, because the victim has no idea what the abuser is really like. The victim gradually becomes uncomfortable or unhappy, but they are manipulated into believing that they will be betraying their abuser by saying anything. As the quiet extends under that belief, the abuser continues to intensify their mistreatment. Whether it is emotional or sexual is irrelevant, because the abuser is carefully grooming the victim into exactly what they want.

If they manage to break away, the abuser may not let them go without stalking them - frequently this is a fact rather than a possibility. It is easier to stalk online. They simply make new accounts to get around blocks on Discord, Skype, IRC, etc. If they have more contact information than the victim can block in time, they will find ways to send them an apology, or to guilt-trip them. Alternately, they will guilt-trip them through a well-worded "apology". They will isolate them from those who originally helped them out of that situation. They are brilliant at this.

These are the people the community worries about. There is nothing scary about a mindless harasser who doesn't take time to establish a bond that will silence the victim. There is nothing frightening about someone who is verbally abusive to everyone. They can certainly be blocked without trouble. They are easily disposed of.

Circumstances always differ. Abusers do not always act criminally. That is what makes an abuser dangerous. You can be devastatingly harmful without actually breaking the law, and it shouldn't be abhorrent to want to act to protect others from these people.

[Pentaga Giudici]

While I thank the Moderation/Admin team for moving to act, there are still a number of people here who seem to be missing a critical point.

Abuse and harassment are committed sometimes by people right off the bat. The response is to ban and report, and that is that. Problem solved.

Now, let's look at those who want something from another player, and know how to do it right. A skilled abuser does not drop negative behavior on the victim right away. A skilled abuser befriends and endears themselves to the intended victim. They test the waters gradually, seeing what they can get away with and what they can't. When they've tested it enough to understand that they can get away with x but not y, they start with x. From there they increase the pressure they put on the victim. This victim trusts this abuser, because the victim has no idea what the abuser is really like. The victim gradually becomes uncomfortable or unhappy, but they are manipulated into believing that they will be betraying their abuser by saying anything. As the quiet extends under that belief, the abuser continues to intensify their mistreatment. Whether it is emotional or sexual is irrelevant, because the abuser is carefully grooming the victim into exactly what they want.

If they manage to break away, the abuser may not let them go without stalking them - frequently this is a fact rather than a possibility. It is easier to stalk online. They simply make new accounts to get around blocks on Discord, Skype, IRC, etc. If they have more contact information than the victim can block in time, they will find ways to send them an apology, or to guilt-trip them. Alternately, they will guilt-trip them through a well-worded "apology". They will isolate them from those who originally helped them out of that situation. They are brilliant at this.

These are the people the community worries about. There is nothing scary about a mindless harasser who doesn't take time to establish a bond that will silence the victim. There is nothing frightening about someone who is verbally abusive to everyone. They can certainly be blocked without trouble. They are easily disposed of.

Circumstances always differ. Abusers do not always act criminally. That is what makes an abuser dangerous. You can be devastatingly harmful without actually breaking the law, and it shouldn't be abhorrent to want to act to protect others from these people.

Well, this was quite well written. Pretty much explains what I am most afraid of.

[Enfaru]

If they're not doing anything wrong they should not be penalized for good behaviour they should only be penalized for bad behaviour. If a "skilled" abuser takes two years to commence actually abusing someone, then it should take two years in order to ban them. The very idea of Moderation (clue in the name there) is to use powers proportionately, at the right time, in keeping with the severity of the offence. If a person abuses once and takes two years, then does exactly the same in two years time under a different account then they should receive a worse punishment than before. However they should not be punished for not abusing. That's just corruption of justice. We're not going to start monitoring every single conversation because someone doesn't know how to say "no that's not appropriate" or some parents have a "hands off" approach to rearing children. There are literally laws against that kind of practice, not just in Canada but Germany and Australia.

Saying sorry is not harassment. Nor is showing remorse something that should be banned and I thoroughly dispute that Guilt Tripping is harassment. That is survivors remorse and it's up to the individual to say "No, go away." After that has been said the user is more than able to change their own account to evade re-detected meaning the harasser has no target and since the harasser is banned will have no reason to return. I don't think it is right to protect everyone from themselves, we allegedly live in free and fair societies and that means we have to take some damned self responsibility. If we can't handle clicking an "x button" every time we get a dick pick, maybe we should just turn off our phone for a few weeks and go back to a dumb phone? (Srsly, so many guys -.- i'm not interested dammit). I can handle using the report procedure and the ignore button. It's not hard.

If the harassment persists, there's the local authorities.

If someone is acting within the rules of the site and within the rules of the nation, then I find it hilarious that you think they should be persecuted. If they are acting within the rules of the site and within the law, but you don't like their behaviour, there's an ignore button. Learn to use it or learn to pull the plug.

It would be nice if we had a statistically relevant number of cases to warrant implementing such a big change, the fact of the matter is that such abuse is decidedly uncommon and dealt with appropriately by the NS admin within a very reasonable timescale. The NS team aren't here to right all the wrongs in the world, they're here mostly to get rid of spam.

[Unibot III]

I'm curious, NERVUN, the old rule suggested that someone violating this part "Please don't bring non-NationStates business ..." would be subject to the same penalties as 'defamation.' Is that no longer the case, if you're bringing non-NationStates business, will you be slapped on the wrist for a new offense, like 'jurisdiction' or something?

And how are players supposed to interpret "non-NationStates"? That seems to be widely disputed. Most players consider regional forums and Discord/IRC to be a part of "NationStates." Indeed, if we were to interpret "non-NationStates" as meaning offsite, that would act as a gag on discussing almost anything related to Gameplay - that very same sentence makes reference to #themodcave, even, which is also offsite.

In short I'm asking whether the old gag rule has been removed or whether the penalty has been renamed?

The defamation rule has been moved to harassment and the name dropped, plus clarified. Jurisdiction has been slightly reworded. Reporting guidelines has been slightly rearranged, and #themodcave IRC channel has had the time-sensitive line removed (More coverage of the GHR system makes it redundant). Those are the changes.

And as always, we cannot rule on hypotheticals.

Note: The final question was not hypothetical. I asked how "non-NationStates" was to be interpreted. Does it include offsite activity or not? Yes or No. This is not a hypothetical matter, if the moderator team does not know the answer to this question, you're going to have to find one at some point.

I'm not as confident that the rules have been, as you say, "clarified."

You say that the defamation rule has been moved to harassment. Is this to say that if you discuss offsite harassment in multiple threads that that will be treated as harassment now, but that the old rule, where any discussion of offsite harassment at all was treated as defamation no longer applies? Or is there no requirement for multiple threads for the discussion to be treated as harassment?

An answer to the negative suggests that there has in fact been no material change in the rules regarding the discussion of offsite behaviour.

[Escade]

Enfaru - how about it not be a norm to get a sexually explicit picture or any sexual message or content from someone unsolicited at all. People do not have to "accept" or "tolerate" any form of sexual harassment or harassment at all.

How about - instead of telling people to hide\evade\just click the x button we tell people "don't act as like vile trash and respect other people's personal space and preferences."

However - you do provide the perspective that unless it's punished in unalterable and permanent ways that sexual harassers will not stop even if there victim indicates discomfort or hides because the sick individual will choose another target. That insidious form of harassment is even harder to discuss and has lasting mental emotional and physical trauma. For that you would have to read up on abusive and manipulative relationships and behaviors.

For those who need clarity on what constitutes basic and obvious forms of sexual harassment - here are some resources:
https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-harassment
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -weinstein

While I thank the Moderation/Admin team for moving to act, there are still a number of people here who seem to be missing a critical point.

Abuse and harassment are committed sometimes by people right off the bat. The response is to ban and report, and that is that. Problem solved.

Now, let's look at those who want something from another player, and know how to do it right. A skilled abuser does not drop negative behavior on the victim right away. A skilled abuser befriends and endears themselves to the intended victim. They test the waters gradually, seeing what they can get away with and what they can't. When they've tested it enough to understand that they can get away with x but not y, they start with x. From there they increase the pressure they put on the victim. This victim trusts this abuser, because the victim has no idea what the abuser is really like. The victim gradually becomes uncomfortable or unhappy, but they are manipulated into believing that they will be betraying their abuser by saying anything. As the quiet extends under that belief, the abuser continues to intensify their mistreatment. Whether it is emotional or sexual is irrelevant, because the abuser is carefully grooming the victim into exactly what they want.

If they manage to break away, the abuser may not let them go without stalking them - frequently this is a fact rather than a possibility. It is easier to stalk online. They simply make new accounts to get around blocks on Discord, Skype, IRC, etc. If they have more contact information than the victim can block in time, they will find ways to send them an apology, or to guilt-trip them. Alternately, they will guilt-trip them through a well-worded "apology". They will isolate them from those who originally helped them out of that situation. They are brilliant at this.

These are the people the community worries about. There is nothing scary about a mindless harasser who doesn't take time to establish a bond that will silence the victim. There is nothing frightening about someone who is verbally abusive to everyone. They can certainly be blocked without trouble. They are easily disposed of.

Circumstances always differ. Abusers do not always act criminally. That is what makes an abuser dangerous. You can be devastatingly harmful without actually breaking the law, and it shouldn't be abhorrent to want to act to protect others from these people.

This is absolutely on point. There are degrees between the in your face harasser and the psychological manipulators.

One way to deal with this would be to make that thread that I believe Reppy mentioned previously on signs and symptoms of abusive behavior and harassment and direct people to that. The other way would be to have people and possibly off-site resources that a person could use to help. Maybe like people like Asta who someone could contact for help.

It's scary because it's emotionally heartbreaking and scarring. I made a server for female players based on a forum that Xoriet had made when I first played this game. It was a non-political space and meant for there to be more comfortable place to talk about things whether feminine or other. It was infiltrated by players who don't really care for others haven or sanctuarys. So I don't know what the solution is but at least we can try.

1. Bring more awareness to what are acceptable norms and what is unacceptable or warning signs
2. Have locations whether a Discord or other place for help

[Forever Frolicking Bunnies]

If they're not doing anything wrong they should not be penalized for good behaviour they should only be penalized for bad behaviour. If a "skilled" abuser takes two years to commence actually abusing someone, then it should take two years in order to ban them. The very idea of Moderation (clue in the name there) is to use powers proportionately, at the right time, in keeping with the severity of the offence. If a person abuses once and takes two years, then does exactly the same in two years time under a different account then they should receive a worse punishment than before. However they should not be punished for not abusing. That's just corruption of justice. We're not going to start monitoring every single conversation because someone doesn't know how to say "no that's not appropriate" or some parents have a "hands off" approach to rearing children. There are literally laws against that kind of practice, not just in Canada but Germany and Australia.

I wonder what it would be like if we used that same logic in our prisons. Here's how I would imagine it going:

Prison Guard: Well sir it's time to let you go. You haven't murdered anyone since we locked you up, and it would be a corruption of justice to keep you locked away in here.

Murderer: Wow, thanks! *walks out, murders prison guard*

Now obviously harassment isn't equivalent to murder, but you see where I'm getting at.

I hope this isn't the kind of logic you were using and maybe I just misread what you were trying to say, because it's terribly faulty.

While murder is usually an isolated crime, sexual harassment is not. Sexual harassers are rarely one-time offenders. Their off-time is just waiting for their next victim. I prefer to keep the jail cell locked.