[NSG Senate] Lobby-ing a Scimitar

[Ikania]

Misgendering someone only digs your hole deeper, Kam. Every person deserves that basic respect.

However I'm distressed by the willingness of the admins to let a doxxer back into the fold while threatening to dole out punishments to those who oppose it. I'm not willing to let this issue slide just because you don't want to talk about it. These kinds of actions sets a precedent in favour of easily forgiving unsavoury activities while running out an active member for being a social conservative.

Also Belmaria, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified to speak about civil disagreement.

If you have evidence of doxxing, please file a Getting Help Request.

Plenty of evidence, but it's off-site, so she'd get off on a technicality. Everything was on IRC so it's probably none of the mod team's concern.

[Costa Fierro]

I agree that far, the lobby should be a civil place free of flambe. But as polite as need be, I don't want to just let the discussion die. There is a serious problem here that I don't think is being acted on the right way.

Yo Zudril, appreciate the sentiment, but are you a member? Never seen you around.

I feel like this ending in NWO's expulsion will be the only thing that'll satiate the objectors.

Both need to go, as far as I am concerned. It sets a really bad precedent if the admins tacitly approve of this behaviour through not issuing appropriate punishments.

[Zudril]

I feel like this ending in NWO's expulsion will be the only thing that'll satiate the objectors.

Both need to go, as far as I am concerned. It sets a really bad precedent if the admins tacitly approve of this behaviour through not issuing appropriate punishments.

The real icing on the cake is that there are multiple people making excuses for NWO's actions.

If I had an employee who did nothing but give what is essentially a verbal warning to a subordinate who hazed another, just because they didn't like that other, they'd be fired on the spot.

[MERIZoC]

Like I told Belmaria, if you wish to rejoin the senate please reapply. These threads are for senate members only.

[Zudril]

Like I told Belmaria, if you wish to rejoin the senate please reapply. These threads are for senate members only.

Well, I don't under this leadership, so I'll take my leave.

[Costa Fierro]

Like I told Belmaria, if you wish to rejoin the senate please reapply. These threads are for senate members only.

*looks at senate member list*

*sees name*

I mean hey, I'm only number four but I can't complain.

[DrWinner]

Only took me fifty years to figure out how to exit the IRC without closing the tab.... Go, intelligence!!!

[Reploid Productions]

Plenty of evidence, but it's off-site, so she'd get off on a technicality. Everything was on IRC so it's probably none of the mod team's concern.

While it is true that we cannot act on offsite evidence alone, due to the fact we have no way to verify its authenticity, it can provide a starting point for an on-site investigation. Offsite drama that spills over onsite could very well turn up actionable on-site material, especially in cases where the drama involves user-to-user harassment.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Ikania]

I highly doubt she went so far as to commit on-site harassment/bullying/other crimes, and she can speak for herself on that. You'll definitely hear from one of us if something happens, but you're free to investigate as you please.

[The Sarian]

We (the admin team) would like to make it clear that we're not going to be accepting any more harassment of NWO, given that this has been a bit of a problem in the last couple of days. You're free to put her on ignore, but there's no need to remind us every day of that. It begins to cross the line into baiting/trolling. Additionally, enough with the continued character attacks. "Revolting woman" and the like are not tolerable. After this point, we will start handing out warnings for this kind of behavior.

Once again, you have absolutely no moral authority. From your time as an IRC Op and now as an admin you make decisions based on who you like and who you don't. You like eh, you are friends with eh. You don't like some of the people opposed to letting a doxxer back into the RP. Simple.

[The New World Oceania]

While we're at it I think Nihil should be banned because I don't like him and he was mean once. Any refusal to cede to this request is indicative of corruption.

[Britanno 3]

For the record, I think what NWO did is disgusting and shameful. I personally think she should be too ashamed of what she did to ever show her face around here again. I, despite those feelings, looked at the case in a non-biased way and came to the conclusion that she should not be banned from the senate, because at the time IRC actions were not punishable with forum-based suspensions. As much as I would like to see NWO out of this RP, I don't think it would be right.

Other admins may or may not feel the same way. They may like Kam, they may like NWO or they may like neither. It doesn't, and shouldn't, matter. Decisions were not made based off friendships. We made the decision we believed to be correct and I stand by it. If you disagree with the decision, then fine. But that doesn't mean you can resort to questioning the motives of an admin who made a decision you disagree with.

[Ikania]

For the record, I think what NWO did is disgusting and shameful. I personally think she should be too ashamed of what she did to ever show her face around here again. I, despite those feelings, looked at the case in a non-biased way and came to the conclusion that she should not be banned from the senate, because at the time IRC actions were not punishable with forum-based suspensions. As much as I would like to see NWO out of this RP, I don't think it would be right.

Other admins may or may not feel the same way. They may like Kam, they may like NWO or they may like neither. It doesn't, and shouldn't, matter. Decisions were not made based off friendships. We made the decision we believed to be correct and I stand by it. If you disagree with the decision, then fine. But that doesn't mean you can resort to questioning the motives of an admin who made a decision you disagree with.

The justification or righteousness of an action should not be determined by a technicality. Technicalities are the bane of morality and are used to let people get off with despicable things because it wasn't technically illegal, as if the perpetrator didn't know full well that what they did is wrong. The basic principle is that we shouldn't allow such things to be forgiven easily, not even when 'technically legal', as if revealing someone's personal information is somehow legal by default.

The admins should man up and stop cowering behind technicalities and bias.

[The Nihilistic view]

I see a difference between technicalities to do with our own in house RP rules which don't affect the people outside of the RP. Things like meta gaming, godmoding, trashing the chamber etc. And stuff that is against NS site rules. I don't really see the need to pull the technicality card when it's something if done on the site and not IRC would have been delete worthy even maybe DOS worthy. I think that's fundamentally the difference and why a good number see "hiding" behind a technicality as morally bankrupt and in the situation bad for the RP. We are not talking about a case of somebody claiming they 360 no scoped the president in the chamber with pea shooter, we are talking about doxing. They are so far removed from each other they are not even the same sport let alone league.

[Britanno 3]

The justification or righteousness of an action should not be determined by a technicality. Technicalities are the bane of morality and are used to let people get off with despicable things because it wasn't technically illegal, as if the perpetrator didn't know full well that what they did is wrong. The basic principle is that we shouldn't allow such things to be forgiven easily, not even when 'technically legal', as if revealing someone's personal information is somehow legal by default.

The admins should man up and stop cowering behind technicalities and bias.

What you're proposing is that we make up rules as we go along. You wanted us to punish someone forum-side for something we couldn't punish them for forum-side. That is the simple fact behind it. The ruling would be the same if it were you, me or even Kam who had done the doxing on the IRC. Now you seem to think that we are taking the easy route here. Trust me, it would have saved us a hell of a lot of time and effort if we'd just banned NWO and been done with it. But we're standing by our ruling because it's the right one.

Nice to see my call for not attacking the motives of admins went on deaf ears though.

[Ikania]

The justification or righteousness of an action should not be determined by a technicality. Technicalities are the bane of morality and are used to let people get off with despicable things because it wasn't technically illegal, as if the perpetrator didn't know full well that what they did is wrong. The basic principle is that we shouldn't allow such things to be forgiven easily, not even when 'technically legal', as if revealing someone's personal information is somehow legal by default.

The admins should man up and stop cowering behind technicalities and bias.

What you're proposing is that we make up rules as we go along. You wanted us to punish someone forum-side for something we couldn't punish them for forum-side. That is the simple fact behind it. The ruling would be the same if it were you, me or even Kam who had done the doxing on the IRC. Now you seem to think that we are taking the easy route here. Trust me, it would have saved us a hell of a lot of time and effort if we'd just banned NWO and been done with it. But we're standing by our ruling because it's the right one.

Nice to see my call for not attacking the motives of admins went on deaf ears though.

It's not the right one, it's absolutely terrible and completely ignores common sense. Your ruling is flawed, your motives are flawed and your justifications are pitiful. All I see is "technically it didn't happen here so it's none of our business". No. Bullshit. It's more of the same flawed logic used to hide bias. What matters is the crime itself, not where it was committed or what the rules you set say. The rules you created simply didn't account for a whole lot of shit, and that's on you, the people who created them. Your team should have principles and act on them with logic and rationality in mind, not hide behind technicalities and use them to justify the next bullshit you let someone get off with.

[Britanno 3]

It's not the right one, it's absolutely terrible and completely ignores common sense. Your ruling is flawed, your motives are flawed and your justifications are pitiful. All I see is "technically it didn't happen here so it's none of our business". No. Bullshit. It's more of the same flawed logic used to hide bias. What matters is the crime itself, not where it was committed or what the rules you set say. The rules you created simply didn't account for a whole lot of shit, and that's on you, the people who created them. Your team should have principles and act on them with logic and rationality in mind, not hide behind technicalities and use them to justify the next bullshit you let someone get off with.

But your entire point is based off this myth that the admin team wants to help NWO get "off". I would have loved to see NWO get banned for what she did, but the rules are the rules. That you're willing to bypass is your business, but you're not the one responsible for the decision, we are. We concluded that while the final ruling might not be ideal, it was the only fair ruling that could be given.

[Ikania]

It's not the right one, it's absolutely terrible and completely ignores common sense. Your ruling is flawed, your motives are flawed and your justifications are pitiful. All I see is "technically it didn't happen here so it's none of our business". No. Bullshit. It's more of the same flawed logic used to hide bias. What matters is the crime itself, not where it was committed or what the rules you set say. The rules you created simply didn't account for a whole lot of shit, and that's on you, the people who created them. Your team should have principles and act on them with logic and rationality in mind, not hide behind technicalities and use them to justify the next bullshit you let someone get off with.

But your entire point is based off this myth that the admin team wants to help NWO get "off". I would have loved to see NWO get banned for what she did, but the rules are the rules. That you're willing to bypass is your business, but you're not the one responsible for the decision, we are. We concluded that while the final ruling might not be ideal, it was the only fair ruling that could be given.

Then your concept of 'fair' is so fucking irrational that words cannot begin to express. The logic is nonexistent, the justification is pitiful and the ethics are flawed. I've never seen such incompetence from this team.

[The Nihilistic view]

That's not true at all. There are no established rules on doxing in the Senate. The precedent you have set is Doxing does not get you banned. When put up against the precedent that persistent godmoding gets you banned for a very very long time I.e dragomere it's totally pathetic. The Admins made that up as they went along too, why? Because it was not something that had rules and a process before Dragomere joined the senate but people realised it was wrong and a process was established. This was the time for a process to be established for dealing with doxing and other like actions. You failed totally and utterly.

If it was not for the seriousness of the action it would be rather amusing that godmoding gets a greater sanction than doxing for the ridiculousness that people could actually act in a way that does not just suggest it but sets such a precedent.

[Britanno 3]

That's not true at all. There are no established rules on doxing in the Senate. The precedent you have set is Doxing does not get you banned. When put up against the precedent that persistent godmoding gets you banned for a very very long time I.e dragomere it's totally pathetic. The Admins made that up as they went along too, why? Because it was not something that had rules and a process before Dragomere joined the senate but people realised it was wrong and a process was established. This was the time for a process to be established for dealing with doxing and other like actions. You failed totally and utterly.

If it was not for the seriousness of the action it would be rather amusing that godmoding gets a greater sanction than doxing for the ridiculousness that people could actually act in a way that does not just suggest it but sets such a precedent.

What are you talking about? No, there was no precedent for doxing. There was, however, precedent that IRC actions don't get you bans on the forums.

Then your concept of 'fair' is so fucking irrational that words cannot begin to express. The logic is nonexistent, the justification is pitiful and the ethics are flawed. I've never seen such incompetence from this team.

Thanks for making your concerns so specific.

[The Nihilistic view]

I don't believe hunting down a child was on the minds of Admins or players when said rule was agreed. In fact I would go as far as to say nobody even dreamed something like that would happen in the senate. It was intended for gameside type stuff and petty insults don't be a douch type stuff. It's another thing to claim that the rule was intended to cover things like doxing. It just wasn't.

[DrWinner]

Hate to take attention away from how truly evil our NSGS admins are (insert sarcasm), but-

Nihilistic, might I ask why you've voted against the current bill?

[The Nihilistic view]

Boris thinks for a second more "thinking about it it also probably makes stopping a loss making product or closing a shop to restructure illegal too."

[DrWinner]

Hate to take attention away from how truly evil our NSGS admins are (insert sarcasm), but-

Nihilistic, might I ask why you've voted against the current bill?

"There is a clause in the bill which effecivly makes a firm filing for bankruptcy illegal. Since withdrawing from the market place reduces competition."

Alright, thank you. I was curious.

[The Nihilistic view]

Basically good intentions, badly written in parts, unintended consequences. Or At least I hope unintended lol.