[Discussion] Critique of DEAT/DOS mod policy

[Valentine Z]

Reading through the replies including from that of a Senior Mod, thank you for the clarification and yes, my inquiries and concerns are on the general rulings and procedures as a whole, not simply because of one isolated incident.

I know it is easier said than done, but I was hoping that it would not too be too much even if you don't want to make it too public and instead maybe even give a TG or through filing a GHR on what happened and why. I am very much aware that a third party like me does not deserve to know and that I should mind my own business, but it will seriously put me (and I am sure a few others) at ease if we know the reasoning behind someone getting DOS'ed.

Am I going to abuse this to be nosy as possible and ask for every single DOS? No. Excuse the namecalling, but I frankly don't care that a lot for trolls or gorespammers, and it's obvious why they got the kick from the site. As for the other long-time players, or even people that we have known, 1 out of 20 times they get DEAT'ed or DOS'ed and we had little to no communication with them. Is it wrong to be curious? I have no such malicious intentions, but what happens if one day (touch wood) I get canned out of this site for whatever reason that might be? All my years of effort down to naught? And no one knows what happened to someone they have been friends with for years?

Mayhaps this is just my paranoia speaking, and I am once again sorry about my personal bias and for being overdramatic about this subject matter, but as someone who has received the blunt end of "Being kicked out for some smallest of reasons" IRL, to put it frankly, I am worried.

[Bloodshade]

No, not could, did. Folk are not deemed DOS on a whim; from what I know it involves discussions of several Moderators in the Mod Cave, where the points are put forward regarding why someone should be DOS, as well as any counterarguments. After discussions they vote on it, and a simple majority is needed for the DOS to pass.

And you’re so sure how exactly? You awfully assume the best out of them and I’m inclined to believe you have blind faith in their actions.

“From what I know” is not enough. Again, try to read my post from start to finish and understand the crux of what I’m trying to talk about because you’re frustratingly compliant to what the mods do and you might as well be reading from a script right now. I want your thoughts. I don’t want you explaining to me what the mods do behind closed doors. I don’t need you regurgitating information I already fucking know. You’re not helpful and neither are you making the case that the mods should not be obliged to share such information.

I’m not here to debate what the mods do in their echo chamber when deciding to ban someone or not. I’m here to talk about how trustworthy that process is to an outside viewer and why they don’t see fit to release any information about someone’s removal. You seem to be going by “Trust the mods, they know what’s best” when honestly, I’ve seen enough over the years that proves to me their needs to be more transparency. Why is that controversial? Wouldn’t that help foster a bit more trust? Is it too hard to ask? Again, I’m not here to defend Shtet. I am using Shtet as an example on why the mods need to be more transparent with their rulings.

Don’t be certain about your statements when you have absolutely no concrete information about the situation to back them up. You are just as clueless as I am. You can give the mods only so much benefit of the doubt until it gets tiresome.

If you plan on annoying me, congratulations. Thank you for not contributing to the thread whatsoever. Truly a gem.

I mean for real, some of you guys are acting like this is some huge injustice instead of just some kerfuffle that 99% of the players won't care about on a mediocre online game.

I mean, it’s a mediocre online game in which I’ve met a number of great and kind individuals who I can call friends. I value this site as a platform that’s helped me improve my writing and help me meet priceless people.

This was less of an unforgivable injustice and more of a catalyst of a number of issues caused by the majority of the mod team. I could always open up a general discussion thread about the mod team’s actions in general because I’ve witnessed rulings over the years that have pissed me off.

Hell, it’ll be a rather lengthy one if I go around asking but I am really not in a good mood these days and frankly, I feel like this was a mistake because chances are I’m going to break a nerve.

Underlining is mine.

Discussion threads are for general policy discussions, not reopening a specific incident you are unhappy with. Thus unhappiness with the Shtet situation does not belong here, and if it looks like people are continuing to use this thread to revisit it, we will either remove those posts or have to lock the thread.

A general discussion on what information Moderation provides on DOSes, including confirming whether a player is DOS or not, and commenting on the reasons, is perfectly acceptable.

I will note that it is common practice when a DOS attempts to return to the site for their "innocent enquiries" to be either ignored or given similarly blunt replies. For someone to reach the status of being permanently banned from the site, their rules violations will have been persistent and/or egregious, and they will have been given ample explanations and opportunities to rectify their behaviour before becoming DOS. Once they reach DOS status they are no longer welcome and we have no further reason to waste time on them beyond removing traces of their attempted return.

My policy discussion is in regards to the mod team not being transparent about the deletion of nations. I was using Shtet’s deletion as an example on why I believe that the lack of transparency and passing of information is nothing but detrimental to the relationship between the community and the moderators.

We have absolutely no evidence and no reason to believe Shtet did anything detrimental and if he did, why exactly is it hard to tell us why so we can put the matter to rest? A lot of people are not content with the way you just remove NSers on the spot. You claim that Shtet’s done reprehensible things. What’s stopping you from laying down the proof and solidifying your integrity as a mod? You’ll shut me and many others up when you explain just why Shtet deserve his DOS. No one likes being left in the dark and you lose nothing by telling us why a person has been deleted. In fact, you’ll gain our trust and also provide clear cut examples of what not to do so there aren’t any excuses when the banhammer arrives. If someone I know ends up getting banned for frivolous reasons that I will probably have no idea about, do you honestly expect me and others to just sit around and nod in response to your ruling? For the love of god, stop reading from a script for once and tell me why you think it’s a bad idea to share evidence and reasoning for why someone got banned? I’m not even asking for Shtet to be unbanned at this rate. I’m asking for the mod team to reconsider their approach when it comes to sharing reasoning and evidence. You guys keep mentioning just how human you are and so wouldn’t it be logical that in the case where you’re wrong, you’d have folk check on you?

Don’t try and throw this under the carpet, Sedge. Frankly, this isn’t hard. The mods can simply tell us why Shtet was banned, you can make me look like a fool who’s wasted his time and we can all go about our merry way. So much effort can be saved if you guys can just listen for once.

I think this Shtet person may have been economical with the truth here.

This isn’t an appeal for Shtet. Understand that.

If Shtet was economical, the mod team are absolutely ravenous with every bit of information in their grasp. There needs to be some quick, simple exchange of information.

“Why was Shtet banned?” - User

“He did so and so and he’s not welcome anymore.” - Mod

“Okay good, have a nice day. What a shame but that’s understandable”

This would be an ideal exchange that would save so many people’s time and energy as well as foster a trustful relationship. I, for one, don’t think we should succumb to a ‘Mods bad’ mindset but there is only so much one can handle until you just lose faith in a community’s supposed ‘leaders’.

I would ask for a second opinion on this but chances are I’m going to get the same blunt answer because apparently, they’re holding the secret to fire.

[The New California Republic]

No, not could, did. Folk are not deemed DOS on a whim; from what I know it involves discussions of several Moderators in the Mod Cave, where the points are put forward regarding why someone should be DOS, as well as any counterarguments. After discussions they vote on it, and a simple majority is needed for the DOS to pass.

And you’re so sure how exactly? You awfully assume the best out of them and I’m inclined to believe you have blind faith in their actions.

“From what I know” is not enough. Again, try to read my post from start to finish and understand the crux of what I’m trying to talk about because you’re frustratingly compliant to what the mods do and you might as well be reading from a script right now. I want your thoughts. I don’t want you explaining to me what the mods do behind closed doors. I don’t need you regurgitating information I already fucking know. You’re not helpful and neither are you making the case that the mods should not be obliged to share such information.

I’m not here to debate what the mods do in their echo chamber when deciding to ban someone or not. I’m here to talk about how trustworthy that process is to an outside viewer and why they don’t see fit to release any information about someone’s removal. You seem to be going by “Trust the mods, they know what’s best” when honestly, I’ve seen enough over the years that proves to me their needs to be more transparency. Why is that controversial? Wouldn’t that help foster a bit more trust? Is it too hard to ask? Again, I’m not here to defend Shtet. I am using Shtet as an example on why the mods need to be more transparent with their rulings.

Don’t be certain about your statements when you have absolutely no concrete information about the situation to back them up. You are just as clueless as I am. You can give the mods only so much benefit of the doubt until it gets tiresome.

If you plan on annoying me, congratulations. Thank you for not contributing to the thread whatsoever. Truly a gem.

If you are going to get angry with me about it for no real reason whatsoever other than I'm not giving you the answers you want to hear then I won't bother. If you want to rephrase your question with a little bit less of the going off half-cocked then I might consider responding to this.

[Bloodshade]

If you are going to get angry with me about it for no real reason whatsoever other than I'm not giving you the answers you want to hear then I won't bother. If you want to rephrase your question with a little bit less of the going off half-cocked then I might consider responding to this.

Let me rephrase for you, dear.

What reason is there for the mods to continue maintaining their radio silence on rulings when it comes to DEAT’d or DOS’d nations? Why should the mods continue to ‘not waste their time’ on explaining their rulings to us when it clearly only fosters mistrust and paranoia? Why should I trust a mod’s ruling when they have, on multiple occasions, proven to make mistakes since they keep claiming to be so on multiple occasions? I’m sure you remember when they were speechless about their response time to the gore posting spree and read from a script like how they are now?

[The New California Republic]

If you are going to get angry with me about it for no real reason whatsoever other than I'm not giving you the answers you want to hear then I won't bother. If you want to rephrase your question with a little bit less of the going off half-cocked then I might consider responding to this.

Let me rephrase for you, dear.

[...]

Nope. That's the second time you have aimed that condescending "dear" nonsense at me. We are done. I'll leave you to your thread. Enjoy.

[Outer Sparta]

While I wasn't that active that much in F7 if they were a DOS player then it's just mod policy to delete a player that might've had a long history of warnings.

You never know if they accumulated gameside warnings or not. Not everything is about the forums in regards to moderation history.

[Bloodshade]

NCR, I honestly don’t give a shit that I hurt your feelings. You’d think an NSGer would be more thick skinned but apparently, I’m wrong. Grow up and stop steering this topic away. You’re ignoring everything I have to say. You’re the one giving me basic regurgitated information and treating me like I just joined NS last week.

[Kiu Ghesik]

While I wasn't that active that much in F7 if they were a DOS player then it's just mod policy to delete a player that might've had a long history of warnings.

You never know if they accumulated gameside warnings or not. Not everything is about the forums in regards to moderation history.

While I agree, it still strikes me as out of character for Shtet to piss people off like that. He seemed mostly harmless.

And, to echo Blood, I really am not comfortable with having to rely on the mods' word that they were just in banning someone based on locked-door discussions. I would really like a little more transparency.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

And, to echo Blood, I really am not comfortable with having to rely on the mods' word that they were just in banning someone based on locked-door discussions. I would really like a little more transparency.

If you don't like it you can leave.

[Virgolia]

I'm pretty happy with the policy as it is, from my experience moderators have proved themselves trustworthy.

[Kiu Ghesik]

And, to echo Blood, I really am not comfortable with having to rely on the mods' word that they were just in banning someone based on locked-door discussions. I would really like a little more transparency.

If you don't like it you can leave.

I'm fine with the current arrangement. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. It could work better, is all. Blood at least is evidence a segment of the community is really distrustful of the mods, and that makes the mods less effective. They lose their credibility that way.

[Bloodshade]

If you don't like it you can leave.

Sorry but despite all it’s misgivings and mismanagements, I and many others value this site or well, we value the memories that this site has given us.

The reason some of us give a flying fuck is because we care about what happens to the site and I’d rather not see the mods keep making the same mistakes over and over again until people are sick of their shit and decide to migrate to other mediums.

A lot of people have given up about communicating the flaws of the moderation team and frankly, maybe I should too. When four, five or even greater year old members of this community give up, what does that say about the management of this site?

Honestly, I was always told that I’d get nothing but radio silence, regurgitation or boot licking but it feels fucking awful to actually see it happening right in front of me.

[Godular]

If you are going to get angry with me about it for no real reason whatsoever other than I'm not giving you the answers you want to hear then I won't bother. If you want to rephrase your question with a little bit less of the going off half-cocked then I might consider responding to this.

Let me rephrase for you, dear.

What reason is there for the mods to continue maintaining their radio silence on rulings when it comes to DEAT’d or DOS’d nations? Why should the mods continue to ‘not waste their time’ on explaining their rulings to us when it clearly only fosters mistrust and paranoia? Why should I trust a mod’s ruling when they have, on multiple occasions, proven to make mistakes since they keep claiming to be so on multiple occasions? I’m sure you remember when they were speechless about their response time to the gore posting spree and read from a script like how they are now?

Their response time was fine. I’ve seen longer delays for more egregious violations.

You are not owed an explanation as to why another player was rendered DOS, but you can be assured that it is not done without sufficient rationale or in a unilateral manner. It is quite possible for someone to be designated as DOS for gameside issues, which can understandably leave those who previously interacted with them on the forum to be left a little confused.

I know I was, and while this business saddens me, I will note that Shtet pretty much admitted to using an IP spoof that made them look like somebody else who may have been the target of a DOS ruling. In the same way that claiming the account was shared does not save your nation from mod action because the claim cannot be proven, Shtet’s story cannot be corroborated nor does it count as an alibi.

Such is unfortunate, but would reflect moderator consistency on the matter.

[Bloodshade]

Their response time was fine. I’ve seen longer delays for more egregious violations.

You are not owed an explanation as to why another player was rendered DOS, but you can be assured that it is not done without sufficient rationale or in a unilateral manner. It is quite possible for someone to be designated as DOS for gameside issues, which can understandably leave those who previously interacted with them on the forum to be left a little confused.

I know I was, and while this business saddens me, I will note that Shtet pretty much admitted to using an IP spoof that made them look like somebody else who may have been the target of a DOS ruling. In the same way that claiming the account was shared does not save your nation from mod action because the claim cannot be proven, Shtet’s story cannot be corroborated nor does it count as an alibi.

Such is unfortunate, but would reflect moderator consistency on the matter.

Eh, I was just using that example because it was rather recent in history and easy to recollect for many individuals but I see your point.

In any case, I should've expected as much. I don't know why I was fooling myself into thinking anything productive would come out of this thread.

I guess at the very least, I've expressed my dissatisfaction. I don't know if that amounts for something.

It's a very disappointing state of affairs that I'm witnessing but well, I thank you for taking the time to respond even if these answers are disappointing. There's not really much more I can do in this scenario then unless a mod decided to chime in. It's getting rather tiring. I don't know why I made this thread in the first place considering just how pointless this all is. I'm just going to fuck off under my rock.

[Lamoni]

NCR, I honestly don’t give a shit that I hurt your feelings. You’d think an NSGer would be more thick skinned but apparently, I’m wrong. Grow up and stop steering this topic away. You’re ignoring everything I have to say. You’re the one giving me basic regurgitated information and treating me like I just joined NS last week.

Between this post, and the two times that you have called NCR "dear," you are coming dangerously close to getting a warning for flaming. KNOCK IT OFF.

[Khoronzon]

Between this post, and the two times that you have called NCR "dear," you are coming dangerously close to getting a warning for flaming. KNOCK IT OFF.

Yes, focus on Bloodshade's frustrated attitude and cuss words (gasp!) instead of paying any heed to the points raised in this thread regarding transparency in moderation. Great stuff, keep it up. You're really discrediting everyone's grievances.

Their response time was fine. I’ve seen longer delays for more egregious violations.

You are not owed an explanation as to why another player was rendered DOS, but you can be assured that it is not done without sufficient rationale or in a unilateral manner. It is quite possible for someone to be designated as DOS for gameside issues, which can understandably leave those who previously interacted with them on the forum to be left a little confused.

Is this a good state of affairs? Do you think it fosters trust in the moderation team? How does the community benefit in any way from this utterly opaque approach?

[Godular]

Their response time was fine. I’ve seen longer delays for more egregious violations.

You are not owed an explanation as to why another player was rendered DOS, but you can be assured that it is not done without sufficient rationale or in a unilateral manner. It is quite possible for someone to be designated as DOS for gameside issues, which can understandably leave those who previously interacted with them on the forum to be left a little confused.

I know I was, and while this business saddens me, I will note that Shtet pretty much admitted to using an IP spoof that made them look like somebody else who may have been the target of a DOS ruling. In the same way that claiming the account was shared does not save your nation from mod action because the claim cannot be proven, Shtet’s story cannot be corroborated nor does it count as an alibi.

Such is unfortunate, but would reflect moderator consistency on the matter.

Eh, I was just using that example because it was rather recent in history and easy to recollect for many individuals but I see your point.

In any case, I should've expected as much. I don't know why I was fooling myself into thinking anything productive would come out of this thread.

I guess at the very least, I've expressed my dissatisfaction. I don't know if that amounts for something.

It's a very disappointing state of affairs that I'm witnessing but well, I thank you for taking the time to respond even if these answers are disappointing. There's not really much more I can do in this scenario then unless a mod decided to chime in. It's getting rather tiring. I don't know why I made this thread in the first place considering just how pointless this all is. I'm just going to fuck off under my rock.

Aye, it can seem unjust, and probably is for Shtet. It is however one of those things where seemingly minor actions can still have dire ramifications.

[Cekoviu]

while i'm unfamiliar with the circumstances of this particular banning, i agree with the problems stated in the OP. as i and many others brought up when the RWDT and LWDT were destroyed, the moderation team has a huge problem with transparency, or rather the lack thereof. their almost universal refusal to address user requests for information with anything other than hostility or form copypasted responses is very disheartening, especially given the utter lack of confidence that wide swathes of the userbase hold in the moderation team (to the point that there actually do not seem to be essentially any long-standing communities here that actually have a good relationship with the moderators, perhaps excluding GP). and in situations like this, being transparent comes at virtually no cost to the mods, so it seems like it is done out of habit or spite more than anything.

DEATing/DOSing policy in general is pretty problematic. obviously there are some people who were DOSed who definitely needed to be (e.g. 1000 Cats). but there are people on this website (i won't name names) who should be DOSed or should've been years ago, and who haven't been, whether because they contribute nothing to the community and constantly break rules in subtle ways, harass users offsite, or in the worst few cases, have [redacted potentially evidence locker-able content ] participated in grooming on and off-site with NSers. and at the same time, you have long time contributors (i'm using NSG examples bc i'm an NSGer, but i'm sure there are analogues in people's other communities) like questers, the east marches, and united marxist nations getting DEATed and DOSed or threatened with DOS for getting heated in a few arguments or making some edgy jokes despite making countless positive contributions and improving the community. the rigidity and inflexibility of the rules, mods' personal biases, and the site's poor system of reporting rulebreaking content are certainly contributors to this, but could be ultimately mitigated a lot if the users could actually serve as a regulatory mechanism and requests for transparency about a decision would be greeted with compromise rather than derision (even better if mods would be transparent on their own without requiring prodding from users).

[Bloodshade]

Between this post, and the two times that you have called NCR "dear," you are coming dangerously close to getting a warning for flaming. KNOCK IT OFF.

'Dear' is a cuss word now? Not to mention the fact that NCR kept on regurgitating the same information to me while ignoring my points and telling me to rephrase my questions? I have a right to be frustrated at his evasion of my points. Who asked him to discuss this topic with me if he can't reply in good faith? People on NSG get away with throwing serious cuss words at each other all the time and this is a problem? Whatever.

I've been trying to be as cordial as I can be in such a situation but it seems to me that the mods and a couple others enjoy taking the piss out of my sincere worries. Honestly, unbe-fucking-lievable

Rest assured, I've clearly knocked it off.

Please just give me some closure if you can, am I going to expect some serious consideration from the moderation team or are y'all going to sweep this under the rug as always? I've wasted so much time and it's insulting to have this be the second interaction with a mod. it's absolutely laughable and I don't mean this as an inflammatory remark. I am serious. All this time and energy about a serious problem with the moderation team and you end up focusing on my 'dear' remarks?

Fact of the matter is, the moderation team's integrity is currently in question and you are most certainly not helping the moderation team's case. Where you waiting all this time for me to slip up or something so you could have an excuse to post some red text while ignoring my OP?

Aye, it can seem unjust, and probably is for Shtet. It is however one of those things where seemingly minor actions can still have dire ramifications.

Yeah, I guess I've reached a blockade of sorts. Regardless, thank you for your contribution, Godular. Now it's either up to the mods or if anyone else can add, please do. I've said all I can and most recently, Cekoviu's been absolutely stellar with their own statement.

[Godular]

Between this post, and the two times that you have called NCR "dear," you are coming dangerously close to getting a warning for flaming. KNOCK IT OFF.

Yes, focus on Bloodshade's frustrated attitude and cuss words (gasp!) instead of paying any heed to the points raised in this thread regarding transparency in moderation. Great stuff, keep it up. You're really discrediting everyone's grievances.

Their response time was fine. I’ve seen longer delays for more egregious violations.

You are not owed an explanation as to why another player was rendered DOS, but you can be assured that it is not done without sufficient rationale or in a unilateral manner. It is quite possible for someone to be designated as DOS for gameside issues, which can understandably leave those who previously interacted with them on the forum to be left a little confused.

Is this a good state of affairs? Do you think it fosters trust in the moderation team? How does the community benefit in any way from this utterly opaque approach?

First: you’ll note the mod loom had nothing in it about Bloodshade’s cursing. Seriously, if cursing were considered actionable, I would’ve been DOS before 2007.

As to the presumed opacity: it isn’t your business. Callous as it might seem, this website is not public property nor subject to any kind of transparency protocols. That the mod team took the effort to build up evidence and treat a DOS declaration with ample gravity is to me showing a remarkable amount of largesse.

[Attempted Socialism]

While I am notoriously curious and would like to follow along, there are good reasons why not. I don't know the exact internal tools or reasons on the NS boards, but my experience as mod and admin elsewhere gives me a short list:
- Private or otherwise confidential information. While site policies most often allow for broad collection of data, sharing that data publicly can be problematic for legal reasons. Especially if you're also doing business in the EU, and the information could be used to identify a specific person and data protected under GDPR. I have been made to sign DPAs before moderating to protect both company and user data before, for instance.
- Maintaining trust with users. Sure, you want to know. The issue then becomes, would you like everyone else to know in case you got banned for something? Having a moderation forum as open as this is, in my experience, very much not the norm because you don't want to have discussions with or about warned or banned users out in public.
- Internal procedures. Revealing what lead to a ban is also revealing much of what tools moderators have and how they work. While many things can be inferred, they may not want to open their mouths and reveal all doubt.
- Open discussions lead to flamewars. Both directed at users, especially if a banned person belonged to a clique at odds with another clique, and at mods.
- "Full transparency" can be a lot of hard work, and only doing it partially or on request leads inevitably to claims or partisanship. It may also risk revealing internal policy disagreements in a team that for morale and consistency purposes tries to defend the collective.

I don't think there's anything new to this list for people with broad internet fora experience. I also don't know exactly which points weigh heaviest for the NS moderators. But why should moderators disregard good reasons for keeping some decisions close to the chest, to satisfy what is essentially our curiosity?

[The New California Republic]

Seems like I'm getting roped into this again.

NCR kept on regurgitating the same information to me

Did I? Where?

while ignoring my points

Nope I didn't. I was addressing them. Sure, I cut down the length of some of your posts I was quoting for brevity, but I was making an attempt to address them.

and telling me to rephrase my questions?

Rephrased without the anger and hostility in it, a reasonable request; but you doubled down, so...

Who asked him to discuss this topic with me if he can't reply in good faith?

I was replying in good faith. You not liking the answers I was giving you =/= bad faith.

[Bloodshade]

I'd rather you not make this about yourself again and detract from the thread's main point. For your sake and mine, it's for the best that you do something more productive than waste your time on this thread. Maybe I should follow suit and go do something more productive as well

[Socialist Macronesia]

Side note to everyone: according to the site rules and after further examination of the private policy and the data it has collected, I must note that NationStates has logged over twenty IP addresses of mine (probably from my recent move) and while it is unlikely I do believe that Wuchu may indeed have accidentally used another user's WA nation IP address due to his VPN. Or, even then, he could have been around someone who uses NS also and is in the WA, and may have interacted with their internet. I am no computer expert but if he got banned for WA multi-ing then that may be the problem. Now, if he did something truly egregious, then he deserves to be banned. However, I haven't seen any super controversial messages in his factbooks or forum posts, and he seemed to try to remain out of trouble (at least what I could see) and so although it isn't my concern by far, I think the mods may have made an honest mistake.

Or heck, what if he was staying in a hotel with someone, who happened to play NS also and had a WA nation?

The problem is that if you don't say what Wuchu did, people will say it was mod-abuse, but if you do say what he did, he'll be humiliated.

[Godular]

Side note to everyone: according to the site rules and after further examination of the private policy and the data it has collected, I must note that NationStates has logged over twenty IP addresses of mine (probably from my recent move) and while it is unlikely I do believe that Wuchu may indeed have accidentally used another user's WA nation IP address due to his VPN. Or, even then, he could have been around someone who uses NS also and is in the WA, and may have interacted with their internet. I am no computer expert but if he got banned for WA multi-ing then that may be the problem. Now, if he did something truly egregious, then he deserves to be banned. However, I haven't seen any super controversial messages in his factbooks or forum posts, and he seemed to try to remain out of trouble (at least what I could see) and so although it isn't my concern by far, I think the mods may have made an honest mistake.

The problem is that if you don't say what Wuchu did, people will say it was mod-abuse, but if you do say what he did, he'll be humiliated.

There is precedent for seemingly innocent people getting blasted for using the same IP as someone else who did get DOS’d. To that person it could indeed seem unjust, but the mod team would have no means of proving that the folks are different people without violating other privacy laws.