NationStates

Forever Frolicking Bunnies wrote:

Enfaru wrote: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.

This analogy doesn't even make sense.

Grand Britannia wrote:

Forever Frolicking Bunnies wrote:
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.

This analogy doesn't even make sense.

How does it not make sense? He literally says

Enfaru wrote: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... 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.

The analogy was to show how if you applied that "well it was just an isolated incident" rationale, it doesn't work. His logic is nonsensical. How else do you punish a sexual harasser in a moderate way without long-term repercussions? How would that even work? His point, if I'm reading it correctly (it was poorly laid out imo), is that such long punishments are unjust because they technically only harassed someone once. This logic is flawed because 1) most sexual harassers are not one-time offenders, which I touched on, and 2) it implies that the punishment should be directly related to the amount of time that person actively acted as a harasser, which also makes zero sense. It is illogical to assume that someone who had seriously harmed another player(s) will not do it again because they haven't in awhile. By placing unreasonable faith in a player who has sexually harassed players, you put yourself and everyone else at risk, like trusting that murderer to not kill you the second your back is turned.

Do tell me if I misread whatever logic Enfaru was attempting to use and I will gladly make a more applicable analogy

Enfaru wrote: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.

I'm glad that we don't have a statistically relevant number of cases, but point taken.

I think the problem now is that we're talking about a wide range of behaviors... that's what I meant by "talk about definitions first". A guy just carpetbombing a region with inappropriate pictures is quite different from a RL predator whose goal is to find someone and do very inappropriate things IRL is quite different from someone who engages in emotional abuse. Nr. 1 is quickly dealt with, Nr. 2 usually as well (and is a hot candidate for RL legal action if he crossed the line already).

Nr. 3 is a problem. Not one any proposal I've heard so far would solve, or even mitigate, but nonetheless a problem. Those people, once "skilled" or experienced enough, are usually very good at never doing anything that's technically actionable... they break no rules. But expanding the definition of harassment to include them would cast a net that's not just likely, but guaranteed to affect the wrong people. Good people who just freak out. People in friendships gone sour. It'd open the door to getting people in trouble over perfectly normal disputes, lend itself to abuse, etc. - and I believe in the old saying that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free, than to punish one innocent unjustly.

I concur with you that those cases are comparatively rare, and that changes to NS rules and procedures are not a suitable way to deal with them. But I do share the dissatisfaction of many that this is the case. Everyone who ever had to deal with such a person will probably be able to relate to it... and can attest to the fact that it's not trivial, not at all, to those affected. I further believe that, while outright sexual harassment may be exceedingly rare, there are quite a few emotional abusers and manipulators around. Few are "skilled", but we have our share of gifted amateurs.

Escade wrote: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.

First of all, what you're doing there is advocating the criminalization thought crime. If someone hasn't done something wrong, then we can't penalize them for it. We don't have to accept harassment, there's an ignore button, we can press it at will and we can report such behaviour where it happens on Nationstates to Nationstates moderators. Wham bam deat. So they come back under another name, rinse and repeat. The mods have ways of permanently getting rid of many folks very quickly. It's why the DOS procedure was invented and it is very good at its job.

We can tell people not to act like vile trash all day but in the end it is their choice and to an extent we must respect the right for other people to have a viewpoint other than own otherwise we become nothing more and nothing less than those we would otherwise seek to remove from power. Freedom is a double edged sword, sometimes people are going to do bad stuff and it is about making sure people are aware of the consequences and implementing the consequences appropriately. Crime → Punishment not Punishment → Hope the crime doesn't happen.

NS Moderators do punish harassers in unalterable and permanent ways. It's called DEAT and DOS. Anything else requires legal proceedings.

Forever Frolicking Bunnies wrote:
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.

I think you have gone on a tangent here and it's not in line with the topic so I'll stop the train. Needless to say I do not agree with your assumptions.

Forever Frolicking Bunnies wrote:

Enfaru wrote: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... 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.

The analogy was to show how if you applied that "well it was just an isolated incident" rationale, it doesn't work. His logic is nonsensical. How else do you punish a sexual harasser in a moderate way without long-term repercussions? How would that even work? His point, if I'm reading it correctly (it was poorly laid out imo), is that such long punishments are unjust because they technically only harassed someone once. This logic is flawed because 1) most sexual harassers are not one-time offenders, which I touched on, and 2) it implies that the punishment should be directly related to the amount of time that person actively acted as a harasser, which also makes zero sense. It is illogical to assume that someone who had seriously harmed another player(s) will not do it again because they haven't in awhile. By placing unreasonable faith in a player who has sexually harassed players, you put yourself and everyone else at risk, like trusting that murderer to not kill you the second your back is turned.

Do tell me if I misread whatever logic Enfaru was attempting to use and I will gladly make a more applicable analogy

Using my own quote. How else do you punish a sexual harasser in a moderate way without long-term repercussions...

"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."

In other words, the punishment should also be in proportion to the offence. 1 Dick Pic = 1 Deat. 2 Dick Pic = 1 x Police Referral and DOS. Assuming it happens on NS otherwise it's not the responsibility of NS to moderate other sites.

What I am saying is if you are Deated because of a Dick Pic, you should have your account Suspended, but be able to return. In other words a sentence has been given and served. Two years later the player issues another Dick Pic, I'd argue that a Deat should be considered never mind just a suspension. If you're saying that there should be an immediate and permanent ban because one person called another "Darling" and they didn't like it, well we'll agree to disagree.

The argument that most sexual harassers are not one-time offenders implies that they have already been referred to Moderators and dealt with effectively. Otherwise as far as NS is concerned, they are indeed first time offenders. You're more than welcome to file a police report if you think the punishment handed down by NS is insufficient.

Once a criminal always a criminal? Yes, lets throw away all the rehabilitation programs and Prison -> Work programs. Once they've stolen once, you never know they might rob a bank next, can't let them out ever again just in case. I am wholeheartedly of the idea of second chances just in case we got the first decision wrong in some way, and I much prefer the idea that after being punished the person will change their behaviour. (I wonder how many parents have the same view point of their children and how many teachers, police(wo)men, probation officers, judges... ) Looks like you have no concept of the phrase, "Sorry my bad, won't do it again" and actually not doing it again.

This isn't a legal court, Enfaru. Nothing is being criminalized. Site Management can ban anyone for whatever reason they want.

Enfaru's reasoning is so bafflingly illogical in his arguments that I'm not going to waste my breath. No amount of rational discussion is going to change this guy's opinion. Thankfully it isn't the majority's opinion.

I have some serious concerns that this would just lead to popularity driven witch hunts, supported by out of context limited evidence. I've been around long enough to know it's so easy for any player to lie from a position of power, and present what they want for themselves to look good and the person they are slandering to look like a monster. I just fear a player in power will get sick of someone for questioning their politics, flame bait that person then report that person for harassment.

I'm not even talking about the NS Moderation - I know the limitations there and I appreciate the small but worthwhile changes.

I'm talking about Enfaru's astoundingly bad form in telling people to "just get over it" and press the "ignore" button. No. How about don't violate people's personal space in the first place. Sure that's what people usually end up doing - trying to ignore and ignore and ignore. And then sadness.

Then, there are victims who are manipulable and innocent and don't know what the norms are so the norms shouldn't be set for them that in an online world or any world that its normal to play any game or be in a community and get sent di** pics or anything else. There are kids who play games and get things like that and have no fucking clue what they're being sent among other things that are said and done.

So yeah no we have to be like "Don't be a douchebag and learn some civility." Also at the end of the day it doesn't matter if its a kid or a adult or a elderly or a damn cat - if it doesn't want their micro sized picks or attention or one liners then stfu. The first line of defense is the people who make up the community. It's like "say something" when something sketchy or shady is going on no matter how awkward it seems.

Escade wrote:I'm not even talking about the NS Moderation - I know the limitations there and I appreciate the small but worthwhile changes.

I'm talking about Enfaru's astoundingly bad form in telling people to "just get over it" and press the "ignore" button. No. How about don't violate people's personal space in the first place. Sure that's what people usually end up doing - trying to ignore and ignore and ignore. And then sadness.

Then, there are victims who are manipulable and innocent and don't know what the norms are so the norms shouldn't be set for them that in an online world or any world that its normal to play any game or be in a community and get sent di** pics or anything else. There are kids who play games and get things like that and have no fucking clue what they're being sent among other things that are said and done.

So yeah no we have to be like "Don't be a douchebag and learn some civility." Also at the end of the day it doesn't matter if its a kid or a adult or a elderly or a damn cat - if it doesn't want their micro sized picks or attention or one liners then stfu. The first line of defense is the people who make up the community. It's like "say something" when something sketchy or shady is going on no matter how awkward it seems.

*applauds*

As someone who has actually had to deal with sexual harassment unrelated to NS, I can tell you confidently that simply blocking the person does not undo what has been done. It's beyond just exposing you to something you don't want, it's the level of degradation and lack of human dignity you feel. That's far beyond insensitivity, it's cruel and sick. Someone who sexually harasses people is either sick and a crazy narcissist who doesn't understand why people don't throw themselves at them, or they genuinely don't care about others as human beings. I'd rather deal with the problem than just hit the ignore button and let someone else fall victim to that.

Escade wrote:I'm not even talking about the NS Moderation - I know the limitations there and I appreciate the small but worthwhile changes.

I'm talking about Enfaru's astoundingly bad form in telling people to "just get over it" and press the "ignore" button. No. How about don't violate people's personal space in the first place. Sure that's what people usually end up doing - trying to ignore and ignore and ignore. And then sadness.

Then, there are victims who are manipulable and innocent and don't know what the norms are so the norms shouldn't be set for them that in an online world or any world that its normal to play any game or be in a community and get sent di** pics or anything else. There are kids who play games and get things like that and have no fucking clue what they're being sent among other things that are said and done.

So yeah no we have to be like "Don't be a douchebag and learn some civility." Also at the end of the day it doesn't matter if its a kid or a adult or a elderly or a damn cat - if it doesn't want their micro sized picks or attention or one liners then stfu. The first line of defense is the people who make up the community. It's like "say something" when something sketchy or shady is going on no matter how awkward it seems.

Sure. But what policy changes can we realistically make to have that happen? "Don't be a dick" is already the Prime Directive here. We get it, harassment is bad and yelling at people who are standing in front of the "but we have to do SOMETHING" train is fun, but it's not very productive.

Enfaru's not being dismissive, he's begin realistic. He's outlining steps you can take right now to keep yourself and your region safe. Unclutch your pearls and come back down to reality, please.

It isn't wrong to inform people that there are measures an individual can take to avoid harassment and abuse and when it is appropriate to use them. However, responsibility still lies with the perpetrator and the site does not do enough to prevent said perpetrators seeking further victims here.

I don't understand what the actual effect of these policy changes would make to the consideration of offsite evidence. Could someone please explain?

McChimp wrote:I don't understand what the actual effect of these policy changes would make to the consideration of offsite evidence. Could someone please explain?

The old text made it sound like GHRs about offsite evidence were not allowed. They are allowed.

USS Monitor wrote:
The old text made it sound like GHRs about offsite evidence were not allowed. They are allowed.

hooray

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Escade wrote:I'm not even talking about the NS Moderation - I know the limitations there and I appreciate the small but worthwhile changes.

I'm talking about Enfaru's astoundingly bad form in telling people to "just get over it" and press the "ignore" button. No. How about don't violate people's personal space in the first place. Sure that's what people usually end up doing - trying to ignore and ignore and ignore. And then sadness.

Then, there are victims who are manipulable and innocent and don't know what the norms are so the norms shouldn't be set for them that in an online world or any world that its normal to play any game or be in a community and get sent di** pics or anything else. There are kids who play games and get things like that and have no fucking clue what they're being sent among other things that are said and done.

So yeah no we have to be like "Don't be a douchebag and learn some civility." Also at the end of the day it doesn't matter if its a kid or a adult or a elderly or a damn cat - if it doesn't want their micro sized picks or attention or one liners then stfu. The first line of defense is the people who make up the community. It's like "say something" when something sketchy or shady is going on no matter how awkward it seems.

Sure. But what policy changes can we realistically make to have that happen? "Don't be a dick" is already the Prime Directive here. We get it, harassment is bad and yelling at people who are standing in front of the "but we have to do SOMETHING" train is fun, but it's not very productive.

Enfaru's not being dismissive, he's begin realistic. He's outlining steps you can take right now to keep yourself and your region safe. Unclutch your pearls and come back down to reality, please.

It isn't the prime directive because Enfaru's logic was literally "get over it since harassment is a norm bah."

Moderation has made some changes. Policy changes.

However, policy is informed by the people. Power and societal views are influenced by people. This petition was started by a person who went and did the effort needed to create awareness and change.

If Asta hadn't started the petition and worked on it with people across NS then GUESS WHAT there would be no changes. So yeah, people telling each other "that's some sick s***, something has got to change" is the real thing. As for Enfaru, I'm not going to reread what is possibly baity nonsense but telling people to get over being harassed or that you can't really address long term manipulation is blaming the victim or putting responsibility on the victim. Quit that shit and get over it.

Escade wrote:Moderation has made some changes. Policy changes.

Have they, though? I thought they just clarified existing policy a little.

USS Monitor wrote:The old text made it sound like GHRs about offsite evidence were not allowed. They are allowed.

Escade wrote:
It isn't the prime directive because Enfaru's logic was literally "get over it since harassment is a norm bah."

Moderation has made some changes. Policy changes.

However, policy is informed by the people. Power and societal views are influenced by people. This petition was started by a person who went and did the effort needed to create awareness and change.

If Asta hadn't started the petition and worked on it with people across NS then GUESS WHAT there would be no changes. So yeah, people telling each other "that's some sick s***, something has got to change" is the real thing. As for Enfaru, I'm not going to reread what is possibly baity nonsense but telling people to get over being harassed or that you can't really address long term manipulation is blaming the victim or putting responsibility on the victim. Quit that shit and get over it.

I made three primary points of logic.

1. The punishment should be proportionate to the wrong committed.
2. The punishment should come after the wrong.
3. Only evidence that can be verified that it was in fact the same person who committed the wrong should be used in deciding guilt.

I never once said or implied that harassment was the norm so users should get over it, that is in effect malicious quoting (see quote marks) please cease. Please see point of logic #2. Additionally I never said you can't address long term manipulation, however manipulation is not against the rules so far as I can tell. If it were, this wouldn't be much of a political simulator which is all about manipulation of views and ideas. If someone doesn't commit a wrong for two years and then starts harassing, that is not "long term harassment". The moment you feel you are harassed, please report it as soon as possible. If you feel uncomfortable, please report it. It is up to the victim when to say "no", or "enough is enough" otherwise are they actually a victim or are we just interfering busybodies? Some people live their lives and want to live their lives in a way that makes them comfortable even though it makes us think, "Oh god no that's awful. I couldn't do that." That's life we're not all the same and not all of us want to be treated in the same way either. For example in some faiths and cultures it is wrong to show hair in public, yet in other cultures we regard this as oppression and would consider it a form of harassment.

The punishment should come after the wrong, the procedure should be thus:

1. Person A commits wrong to Person B
2. Person B clicks ignore on Person A to prevent further wrongs and reports Person A to the Moderators with the required evidence.
3. Moderators decide whether Person A is guilty of the wrong by looking at and verifying the evidence. Such that it can be confirmed the wrong was committed by Person A.
4. If the Moderators decide guilty, then the Moderators should decide a punishment in proportion to the crime taking into account prior verifiable history.

Time to engage in a bit of not politically correct victim blaming. If I walk into the middle of a road knowing that there are some times high speed cars that travel along it. Do I blame the driver of the car if I get hit while crossing the road? Possibly. Are there steps that I can take to reduce my chances of being hit by said car. Yes. 1. Look both ways 2. Cross at designated safe places 3. Choose not to cross, 4. Use high visibility clothing, 5. Cross the road at less busy times, 6. Don't cross the road while drunk.

Likewise are there steps I can take to reduce my chances of being harassed. Yes. 1. Don't respond to harassers. 2. Report harassers promptly. 3. Click the ignore button.

If someone is going to paint a target on themselves and then whine after the inevitable harassment/abuse comes in, I'm not going to have much sympathy. Mods have ruled this way in the past that if you do something that might antagonize another group you have to take some of the blame or have to be willing to take some flak as it were. However that doesn't mean for one moment I don't think the mods shouldn't act, but I do think the victim should be promptly educated in ways to reduce their chances of being harassed.

Enfaru wrote:If someone is going to paint a target on themselves and then whine after the inevitable harassment/abuse comes in, I'm not going to have much sympathy

jesus....

RiderSyl wrote:

Enfaru wrote:If someone is going to paint a target on themselves and then whine after the inevitable harassment/abuse comes in, I'm not going to have much sympathy

jesus....

Yeah that statement pretty much tells me to not worry about reading the rest of his posts.

It might be time to lock this thread, honestly. People are just bickering at this point. Furthermore, as laid out in the OP:

Astarial wrote:Given the serious and often sensitive nature of such reported behavior, and out of consideration for all parties’ privacy while allegations are investigated, we want players to have the right to submit reports of harassment (sexual or otherwise), stalking, serious misrepresentation of identity (such as a known adult portraying themselves as a teenager in order to lure in younger players), and other predatory behavior via Getting Help Request, along with supporting and relevant evidence.

The Mod Team has agreed to allow this. In fact, they reminded us that they agreed to allow this many years ago, and has always been allowed.

Astarial wrote:We want NS moderation to commit to investigating and verifying these reports, in the same way that our community moderators and admins do.

They do this already. It's literally their job.

Astarial wrote:We want NS moderation to acknowledge that off-site punishments are insufficient, by themselves, to separate predators from potential victims, and to be willing to impose on-site punishments, up to and including DoS status, when a perpetrator’s behavior would have warranted those punishments if it had occurred on-site in the first place.

They will never do this and have been pretty clear about that before, during, and after.

NERVUN wrote:
Acting on off-site actions: The NS Moderation and Admin teams simply cannot take action on the NationStates site based on something someone did on another site. We are not the internet police.

Astarial wrote:And finally, we want DoS bans for harassment or abuse to be announced in public, in line with prior investigations into major cases of wrongdoing (as has been done in the past). Public acknowledgement that this kind of behavior does happen and demonstration that it is taken seriously are critical for forming and maintaining a community where harassment is not tolerated.

Same.

NERVUN wrote:With regards to the request to publicly announce when such individuals have been declared "Delete on Sight", that will not be happening as they often entail legal liabilities that we cannot comment on. We have never made such announcements and we will continue to not do so. As with all DOS players, it is enough to know that the team has determined that they are no longer welcome to play NationStates.

Unless there's another part being proposed that hasn't been addressed, we should probably close the thread before it burns down.

Actually, I believe that policy was (de-facto) changed, as it was acknowledged that punishments and DoS status may be awarded, in exceptional cases, to off-site action.