[Discussion] Critique of DEAT/DOS mod policy

[Bloodshade]

After the inconclusive and frankly infuriating and disappointing remark left by Sedgistan on this thread, I've decided to raise this topic as a general critique of the way the moderators handle information in regards to DOS'd nations and hope that this results in further transparency and communication between moderation and the community.

Not only have you completely disregarded Shtet's appeal and given him no concrete reasoning as to why he's a DOS, you've also refused to engage with him when he attempted to understand why he was banned in the first place. It is clear, particularly to the F7 community, that Wuchu was nothing but a cordial NSer who was a valuable part of NS, worldbuilding-wise.

Shtet has, in my opinion, cleared his name of any purposeful wrong-doing considering the fact that no mod has come forward to explain the reasoning behind the deletion of his nations which seems to be a complete misunderstanding and mistake on Shtet's part. However, here's where the problem arises.

"You're DOS. Go find some other site to spend your time on; you're not welcome here." is not sufficient enough reasoning to ban someone and frankly, it's insulting to our intelligence. The community deserves better transparency and more communication in regards to the deletion of nations off of the face of NS. I was worried that Shtet might've done something reprehensible game-side but from what I've witnessed, the moderation team have put in little to no effort in communicating with Shtet and attempting to locate and resolve the issue behind his deletion.

A few questions that I will most certainly not get any answers to due to the current moderator policy on staying radio silent:

• According to Shtet's statement, he was using a dodgy or illicit VPN service, does that compromise NationStates in any way, shape or form?
• According to Shtet's statement and clean prior history, he has done nothing gameside nor forumside that would bring his character or personality into question, why was he banned?
• Considering the lack of transparency in the way nations are deleted, how are we, as a community, supposed to trust a moderator's decision on banning a nation?

I might've bought the "Just trust us, we're the mods" reasoning back in the day but overtime, as a long time member of NationStates, my faith in the moderation team has reached an all time low. I continue to see spammers get away with meaningless bans or warnings while completely sucking the fun out of NS, especially F7. I've seen abusive nations get away with slaps on the wrist, allowing them to continue to abuse other nations. On one occasion, an NSer I know was slapped with a forum ban after an abusive nation reported them as a cruel joke and a mod decided to follow up and slap an idiotically lengthy ban on them which was soon revoked after much outcry. I continue to see reprehensible and divisive NSers keep adding their bile and rage to the site's community. I continue to see borderline pedophiles linger on this site, earning nothing but light slaps on the wrist or meaningless rule changes to address the situation. In conclusion, your priorities are in the wrong place. I obviously am not going to point fingers at any nations as that would be inflammatory and detract from my point but just like how you expect the community to believe you when you banned Shtet out of nowhere, believe me, I have many nations in mind who should’ve been gone a long time ago.

Fact of the matter is, the moderation is not owed any trust or respect, especially after the fiasco with Shtet. I have yet to be given a solid response or closure as to why Shtet was banned. He was one of the most interesting and nicest NSers in recent history. I am extremely worried and appalled by the way you treat established NSers, especially ones who keep to themselves.

Unless he was a brutal, genocidal dictator in his spare time, I have seen no concrete reasoning for why Shtet deserves to be banned and honestly, if this is the way you treat NSers who have done no visible wrong and have harmed nobody at all (Again, this is to the extent of my knowledge and according to what Shtet has said, I might not even be having this conversation if you guys explained why you banned them), then NationStates is on its way to the gutter soon enough.

I highly doubt I'm alone with my thoughts. Many other long-time members of NationStates are rather appalled with the way the moderation team has been acting not just lately but for a rather long while now. I don’t think I should remind the moderation team of the number of incidents this past year that has made them evermore unpopular and for good reason. You guys don’t take criticism or feedback at all. This is almost everyone’s perspective and even your most ardent of supporters are doubting your ability to effectively manage and maintain this site.

A personal message to Sedgistan because I truly cannot contain my frustration with your recent comment targeted towards Shtet, you clearly don’t get to say who is or isn’t welcome on this site considering your inability or reluctance to share why you think Shtet deserves a ban and if it’s as ridiculous as I think it is (WA bans), then you are in the wrong, plain and simple. I do hope that you understand that this is because I’m extremely frustrated by the mod policies and am not attempting to develop a grudge with you. I am simply appalled by the way the majority of the moderation team conduct themselves

[Valentine Z]

Hello, and greetings! I have been working on this part myself, so please hear me out.

Not as long-time as many other members, I know. Just starting off from 2015 and I am aware that there are a lot of things that I might have missed out over the past year and decades, but I believe that after 5 years or so, I have a degree of say as much as a few long-time players in here; to dismiss me simply because “Oh look, he’s still a young nation” would be disparaging. Anyway, I digress, because this is not the main crux of my argument.

I want to preface that I have been a long-time fan of Moderation’s long-time ruling. Compared to most sites I have been on, I do believe that the rulings are fair for the most parts and maybe other than a few nitpicks here and there, I simply read through and give no further thoughts afterwards. Why fix something that is not broken, right?

It’s all based on trust, and it can only go so far when there is no little to transparency on the rulings. Sure, the usual “Warned for trolling/nicknaming/flame-baiting/etc” were more or less covered properly and I am confident that these were well-made decisions for the most parts, with a proper appealing process. However, other than the most recent ruling, coupled with my recent personal happenings with people, I am having an increasing change of thought and concern on the rulings made, ultimately the trust I have towards people. I am aware that the Moderation might not want people to know for many reasons – be it in order to stop people from circumventing the ruling made, or for privacy reasons, among many other things that I could not think as of the moment. I am aware that the DOS'ed person in question, when they file a GHR, they can know themselves, but where does this lead us if they could never reach out to us (perhaps lack of Discord, lack of other communication channels)?

Still, the thing is that trust can only get you so far, which brings me to my actual point: How far am I supposed to trust someone, or a group of people making these rulings? Again, I have no issues personally for myself, but reading through concerns made by several separate players, how am I to trust that someone got DOS’ed for the right reasons? Going back to the Wuchu being a DOS, I can take the fact that he might have done something more heinous with other nations… or was it that he was using a VPN and that tripped the WA detection system wrongly? None of us normal players know. It is not that we want to circumvent the rules, but rather, a lot of us want to know what happened to the players that we have interacted with. Can you imagine a more long-time player being let go or shadow-banned from the site without as much as “He’s a DOS” and you never told us why he was even DOS in the first place? Maybe he has changed for the better, but your ruling from years ago has banned him yet again without even a second thought. Hell, what if there’s a personal grudge between the Mod and the nation and without transparency on what made them DOS, you could just give us any reason? I am aware of the SOP of need-to-know basis, but how far? No one is fully trustworthy, not even me.

I am sorry if my ramblings are increasingly fueled by paranoia. I am aware of the fact that DOS’ed nations can file a GHR and whatnot, on top of GHRing Moderation rulings or behavior. However, I believe that a more open ruling will work on our favor: At least tell us what happened not so that we can circumvent the rule, but rather to take it as “Ohh, so that was what they did / Ohh so they were [this DOS player].” I will feel better knowing about things such as this even though that person is possibly none of my business, because at least I will get some closure. At this rate, any of us could have been tried for being a DOS and being let go without as so much as a farewell. I don’t want to bring this to any RL counterparts, but just imagine one of those scenarios whereby a neighbor gets dragged away and you were met with “None of your business.” This worries me.

Not all of us have malicious intentions to know the DOS reasons or rulings in detail. At the same time, I have increasing concerns about me and other fellow players’ fate on this platform, regardless of the degree of actual innocence. EDIT: I am just so tired, I am sorry. I know personal bias should not come in, but I am getting increasingly concerned about myself both IRL and on here. Personal life issues with people, let's just put it that way.

Thank you for hearing me out. And hey, hope you all have a good day ahead.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Inclined to agree. I've seen nothing in F7 but... confusion. No-one knows why Wuchu got BLAM'd, and everyone views it as a net negative. If- and if- he got banned on suspicions of WA multi-ing, couldn't they have reached out and asked him, rather than- as Wuchu himself suggested- just putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger?

However, maybe this should go in general, given it's a discussion?

[Valentine Z]

Inclined to agree. I've seen nothing in F7 but... confusion. No-one knows why Wuchu got BLAM'd, and everyone views it as a net negative. If- and if- he got banned on suspicions of WA multi-ing, couldn't they have reached out and asked him, rather than- as Wuchu himself suggested- just putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger?

However, maybe this should go in general, given it's a discussion?

Not-a-Mod, but I believe that this can stay here, since it's a discussion on a Moderation ruling, or on the team as a whole.

NSG is more for politics, this is regarding concerns I (along with Bloodshade and others, I am certain) are having as of now.

I want to add in that Wuchu being DOS'ed is not the primary factor of me writing this out. I have had... other concerns, ones that span further but not before 2016; after all, that's when I first came to the site.

[Nuroblav]

I throw my two two cents/pence/labour notes/whatever into this.

Now unlike the two posters above, I haven't been on this for too long - although I have been here enough to know a bit on the site. I'll admit when I started out, I ran into the mods a little, although not in too serious terms. Once I was too critical of the harshness of the mods: to which I got this decent response:

'There's only so gentle you can be and people still get the message that they need to stop what they're doing. It varies how rough we are, but there's a certain amount that is just a necessary part of our job.'

My point? Perhaps the mods may have seemed harsh, but were not necessarily intending to. This is the Internet - text lacks emotion and more often than not is down to the reader to interpret.

I'll agree that the mods were harsh in their handling, but maybe they weren't intending to be so in their response.

With that out of the way though, I still concur that the situation was terribly handled. As Valentine Z mentions, I am aware of GHR (and I think it's an alright system), but it does seem a bit blunt when any non-malicious inquiries are met with 'none of your business'. But don't mind me - I'm just here, doing stuff.

(On a tangent, loving the new post review function )

[Kiu Ghesik]

I throw my two two cents/pence/labour notes/whatever into this.

Now unlike the two posters above, I haven't been on this for too long - although I have been here enough to know a bit on the site. I'll admit when I started out, I ran into the mods a little, although not in too serious terms. Once I was too critical of the harshness of the mods: to which I got this decent response:

'There's only so gentle you can be and people still get the message that they need to stop what they're doing. It varies how rough we are, but there's a certain amount that is just a necessary part of our job.'

My point? Perhaps the mods may have seemed harsh, but were not necessarily intending to. This is the Internet - text lacks emotion and more often than not is down to the reader to interpret.

I'll agree that the mods were harsh in their handling, but maybe they weren't intending to be so in their response.

With that out of the way though, I still concur that the situation was terribly handled. As Valentine Z mentions, I am aware of GHR (and I think it's an alright system), but it does seem a bit blunt when any non-malicious inquiries are met with 'none of your business'. But don't mind me - I'm just here, doing stuff.

(On a tangent, loving the new post review function )

I concur the mods are overall fair in their rulings. This case just stands out because in all the digging I did, Wuchu got no warning- he just got a DEAT. And given that he was an active community member, and a friendly one at that, whose absence is already sorely missed at least on my part, there's a bit of a desire for some transparency.

[Gandoor]

I mean it's fully possible that he was previously made DOS and the mods just didn't catch onto that this was the same user until just now.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it has happened, I can't remember their username off the top of my head, but there was that one nation themed after Imperial Germany (or something like that), who I think always used Harley Quinn flags, who got DOS after a history of rulebreaking and bans and stuff, and then a little later on, there was a new nation that was supposedly some Muslim teenage girl (or something like that) but it turned out that it was that DOS user trying to sneak back in, so their new account got deleted after some months too.

[The New California Republic]

Fact of the matter is, the moderation is not owed any trust or respect, especially after the fiasco with Shtet. I have yet to be given a solid response or closure as to why Shtet was banned.

As has been said previously, the Moderators are under no obligation to tell a third-party why someone was made DOS.

[Bloodshade]

I mean it's fully possible that he was previously made DOS and the mods just didn't catch onto that this was the same user until just now.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it has happened, I can't remember their username off the top of my head, but there was that one nation themed after Imperial Germany (or something like that), who I think always used Harley Quinn flags, who got DOS after a history of rulebreaking and bans and stuff, and then a little later on, there was a new nation that was supposedly some Muslim teenage girl (or something like that) but it turned out that it was that DOS user trying to sneak back in, so their new account got deleted after some months too.

You definitely raise some very good points of course. Shtet could have possibly done something reprehensible that would warrent a DOS in the past with other nations and recently sneaked through the moderator radar but we don't know that, do we? The only source of information is Shtet himself right before he got deleted again and the mods are simply letting us play a guessing game. This is the flaw in mod policy that I am hoping to change with my post.

However, there is little to suggest that Shtet would do something that would warrant a DOS. They've been on NS for almost a year and according to their visible history, nothing suggests that they would warrant a ban. Once more, that's to the extent of my knowledge as a non-mod.

As has been said previously, the Moderators are under no obligation to tell a third-party why someone was made DOS.

I am very aware. Thank you again for stating that.

[Kiu Ghesik]

I mean it's fully possible that he was previously made DOS and the mods just didn't catch onto that this was the same user until just now.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it has happened, I can't remember their username off the top of my head, but there was that one nation themed after Imperial Germany (or something like that), who I think always used Harley Quinn flags, who got DOS after a history of rulebreaking and bans and stuff, and then a little later on, there was a new nation that was supposedly some Muslim teenage girl (or something like that) but it turned out that it was that DOS user trying to sneak back in, so their new account got deleted after some months too.

You definitely raise some very good points of course. Shtet could have possibly done something reprehensible that would warrent a DOS in the past with other nations and recently sneaked through the moderator radar but we don't know that, do we? The only source of information is Shtet himself right before he got deleted again and the mods are simply letting us play a guessing game. This is the flaw in mod policy that I am hoping to change with my post.

However, there is little to suggest that Shtet would do something that would warrant a DOS. They've been on NS for almost a year and according to their visible history, nothing suggests that they would warrant a ban. Once more, that's to the extent of my knowledge as a non-mod.

As has been said previously, the Moderators are under no obligation to tell a third-party why someone was made DOS.

I am very aware. Thank you again for stating that.

According to what he himself said, his previous account was deleted some years ago, but he never found out why. He had to piece it together on his own.

[Khoronzon]

I mean it's fully possible that he was previously made DOS and the mods just didn't catch onto that this was the same user until just now.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it has happened, I can't remember their username off the top of my head, but there was that one nation themed after Imperial Germany (or something like that), who I think always used Harley Quinn flags, who got DOS after a history of rulebreaking and bans and stuff, and then a little later on, there was a new nation that was supposedly some Muslim teenage girl (or something like that) but it turned out that it was that DOS user trying to sneak back in, so their new account got deleted after some months too.

In this case, though, there wasn't any elaboration provided on what Shtet did to reach DOS status. No answer was provided to the original inquiry, and Shtet's own explanation of their side of the story wasn't even remotely addressed - it was just Sedgistan going "you're DOS", locking the thread, and completely ignoring Bloodshade's opening post.

As has been said previously, the Moderators are under no obligation to tell a third-party why someone was made DOS.

The point of this thread is that that's a terrible and absurd policy. How are we supposed to trust the moderators' judgement when they have "no obligation" to justify permanently erasing people, especially ones as well-liked and seemingly friendly as Shtet, from the site? How is that supposed to build faith in the moderation team? Does it not warrant criticism, at the very least?

[The New California Republic]

Shtet could have possibly done something reprehensible that would warrent a DOS in the past with other nations and recently sneaked through the moderator radar

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.

However, there is little to suggest that Shtet would do something that would warrant a DOS. They've been on NS for almost a year and according to their visible history, nothing suggests that they would warrant a ban. Once more, that's to the extent of my knowledge as a non-mod.

The Mods see a lot more than you or I can. There would have been persistently bad behaviour for enough Mods to look at said behaviour and vote "aye" on the DOS.

As has been said previously, the Moderators are under no obligation to tell a third-party why someone was made DOS.

The point of this thread is that that's a terrible and absurd policy. How are we supposed to trust the moderators' judgement when they have "no obligation" to justify permanently erasing people, especially ones as well-liked and seemingly friendly as Shtet, from the site? How is that supposed to build faith in the moderation team? Does it not warrant criticism, at the very least?

There are checks and balances, as I just pointed out in my post. They are under no obligation to justify it to a third-party, but they are obligated to justify it amongst themselves. There are no unilateral declarations of DOS.

[Gandoor]

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.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

Moderators don't identify DOS players for the same reason a government doesn't want terrorists' names to be released, it glorifies horrible things and can give encouragement to those on a ledge.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Thinking on this some more, there is justification for giving Wooch the DEAT, as much as I hate to say it. If, as he said, he had a previous account that got DOS'd:

I was deleted a bit over a year ago as my first nation - Leskya - and likewise related puppets... When I was deleted back then, I made several inquries, but were never told any reasons.

What that shows is a bad handling of the policy. Returning after a DOS results in an immediate deletion. It's possible that one of the mods, maybe Sedge, found out and promptly gave Shtet the boot. What should have happened is that the mods contacted him or responded to his requests after Leskya's deletion and explained what he was deleted for. Otherwise, he's justified for rationalizing it as a fluke and returning, given that there was no evidence presented to him that he violated any of the rules. After all, to quote the "Is there a God" thread and Godular's post there, "In the absence of evidence for a positive claim, the negative may be assumed true". So, with this evidence, I think we can construct a timeline of events:

1. Shtet, as Leskya, is deleted without explanation.
2. Shtet reaches out and receives no response. He rationalizes his deletion, but is wary of returning to NS.
3. Shtet comes back several months later. He thinks everything's fine, and rejoins the community, where he once again makes a positive contribution- several, in fact, in the forms of Wuchu, Euxropa, Obeehosee, and more.
4. Sedge (I assume it was him, given he responded to Shtet's post) finds out that Shtet is Leskya and enforces the DOS policy.
5. Shtet attempts to return and figure out what happened. He is able to give a meagre amount of context to our argument before Sedge brings down the hammer once more.

In this case, no one is in the right. Shtet, as much as I hate to say it, violated the DOS policy, which results in immediate ban. However, he shouldn't have been DOS'd in the first place, and his violation is excusable given that he wasn't informed of why he was banned in the first place, and per the oft-repeated claim,

Fact of the matter is, the moderation is not owed any trust or respect, especially after the fiasco with Shtet. I have yet to be given a solid response or closure as to why Shtet was banned.

As has been said previously, the Moderators are under no obligation to tell a third-party why someone was made DOS.

That implies they are obligated to tell the nation being deleted why they've been deleted. As far as we can tell, Shtet was not informed the reason for his DEAT either time he's been given the boot. Therefore, I would argue that Shtet deserves clemency, in light of his positive contribution and the evidence he's presented as to the circumstances of his deletion. If I may be permitted to say it, the moderation policy failed here, given that it failed to take into account that Shtet was not given a reason for his deletion in the first place.

Now, since this thread is about solutions to problems and not whinging about them, I would propose the following: One, someone makes a megathread detailing deletions and the reasons for them. To indulge my dramatic side, DOS'ing is internet death. You wouldn't kill someone without giving a public explanation for it. Besides, the vast majority of DEATs are for spam accounts. How hard is it to say "We gave BigDiccMcThunderCockson a summary DEAT for posting obscene material in General?" Two, there needs to be a discussion with every user about their deletion before they get deleted, at least in cases outside of "this fella's clearly a bad faith actor who's only here to cause trouble." If Leskya was banned for inappropriate behaviour, his months of good behaviour as Shtet/Wuchu/Obeehosee/Euxropa/All his other puppets is proof he's learned his lesson.

Ultimately, though, it's up to the mods and not us to make this decision, so.

Take this as you will.

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'm just bored honestly. Bored minds seek out drama at every turn.
And I enjoyed his content, so him being gone makes me quite sad.

[Khoronzon]

There are checks and balances, as I just pointed out in my post. They are under no obligation to justify it to a third-party, but they are obligated to justify it amongst themselves. There are no unilateral declarations of DOS.

And we're supposed to trust their internal communication... Why, exactly? As far as I can tell - which admittedly doesn't go very far, given the lack of transparency - the mods don't even communicate enough among themselves to coordinate activity periods, which has recently been made evident when a spammer posting gore, pornography, and racial slurs was left unchecked for over an hour. When their standards and professionalism are criticised, they invariably reply by stating that they're "just volunteers" and wave it off. As has been stated before, they aren't owed any trust, and they're providing no reason for trust to be given. I'm sorry if asking for them to be accountable to the community at large rather than their own closed, opaque group is too much.

[Outer Sparta]

The player who got DOSed gets to know why. With these cases, we can infer the player racked up an extensive history and that's why they are not welcome on the site.

[Kiu Ghesik]

The player who got DOSed gets to know why. With these cases, we can infer the player racked up an extensive history and that's why they are not welcome on the site.

We can't. The people in F7 are pissed because, in months of interacting with this user, they did absolutely nothing wrong that the forum was aware of. Look through the post history of any of his puppets if you want proof.
Here's one, go look in the boneyard if you want.

[Sedgistan]

Discussion threads. These should clearly labelled with [DISCUSSION] in the thread title, and are for discussion of moderation policy. You should not use Discussion threads to re-open discussion on specific incidents that have already been handled - they are for discussing wider policy. Anyone may post in Discussion threads; however, we expect people to express their opinions in good faith. Bad faith posts will be removed.

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.

[The New California Republic]

As has been said previously, the Moderators are under no obligation to tell a third-party why someone was made DOS.

That implies they are obligated to tell the nation being deleted why they've been deleted.

They can certainly ask:

The player behind those nations has a right to know. If either of those is your nation, file a Getting Help Request. If you are not the owner, you have no need to know.

---

As far as we can tell, Shtet was not informed the reason for his DEAT either time he's been given the boot. Therefore, I would argue that Shtet deserves clemency, in light of his positive contribution and the evidence he's presented as to the circumstances of his deletion. If I may be permitted to say it, the moderation policy failed here, given that it failed to take into account that Shtet was not given a reason for his deletion in the first place.

DOS status can actually be rescinded. It's not unheard of; but it's a mountain to climb, and rightly so. It should be made as difficult as possible for a DOS to be allowed back.

---

The player who got DOSed gets to know why. With these cases, we can infer the player racked up an extensive history and that's why they are not welcome on the site.

We can't.

Yes, we very much can. People are not made DOS on a whim.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

DOS status can actually be rescinded. It's not unheard of; but it's a mountain to climb, and rightly so. It should be made as difficult as possible for a DOS to be allowed back.

Hello!

I do believe I might be the only formerly Delete on Sight player on the website currently and whilst I don't know how such things are handled now, when I was handed my DOS back in 2014, I was informed via email that I was so. As for getting deleted, moderators have in the past always answered GHR requests about why I (or others I've spoken to) had a nation deleted.

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

[Kiu Ghesik]

That implies they are obligated to tell the nation being deleted why they've been deleted.

They can certainly ask:

The player behind those nations has a right to know. If either of those is your nation, file a Getting Help Request. If you are not the owner, you have no need to know.

---

As far as we can tell, Shtet was not informed the reason for his DEAT either time he's been given the boot. Therefore, I would argue that Shtet deserves clemency, in light of his positive contribution and the evidence he's presented as to the circumstances of his deletion. If I may be permitted to say it, the moderation policy failed here, given that it failed to take into account that Shtet was not given a reason for his deletion in the first place.

DOS status can actually be rescinded. It's not unheard of; but it's a mountain to climb, and rightly so. It should be made as difficult as possible for a DOS to be allowed back.

---

We can't.

Yes, we very much can. People are not made DOS on a whim.

Shtet asked. He didn't get a response, per his own words:

When I was deleted back then, I made several inquries, but were never told any reasons.

And did you read what I wrote? People are pissed because this feels like a DOS was handed out over something we haven't even seen evidence exists, and moderation's opacity is making it so that we won't ever know. At least when Quebec got DEAT'd we got that it was for his sig, however little penance that is.

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

It's possible, but it would certainly be an unexpected turn of events for a player who was nothing but kind in his time on the site.

[Aeritai]

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.

[The New California Republic]

Yes, we very much can. People are not made DOS on a whim.

Shtet asked. He didn't get a response, per his own words:

When I was deleted back then, I made several inquries, but were never told any reasons.

Basically what Jack just said:

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

---

And did you read what I wrote? People are pissed because this feels like a DOS was handed out over something we haven't even seen evidence exists, and moderation's opacity is making it so that we won't ever know. At least when Quebec got DEAT'd we got that it was for his sig, however little penance that is.

Yes I did read what you wrote, but your position of his innocence is based solely on the word of someone who has been declared DOS. Who knows what really bad shit they got up to that you or I can't see? It would have been bad enough for DOS, that's for sure.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Shtet asked. He didn't get a response, per his own words:

Basically what Jack just said:

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

---

And did you read what I wrote? People are pissed because this feels like a DOS was handed out over something we haven't even seen evidence exists, and moderation's opacity is making it so that we won't ever know. At least when Quebec got DEAT'd we got that it was for his sig, however little penance that is.

Yes I did read what you wrote, but your position of his innocence is based solely on the word of someone who has been declared DOS. Who knows what really bad shit they got up to that you or I can't see? It would have been bad enough for DOS, that's for sure.

That's partially true. I'm also incredibly active in F7, and I never once saw him- on any of his accounts- do anything out of the ordinary. The raciest he ever got was in character from the perspective of an anarcho-primitivist monke man, and even then it wasn't that controversial. I think he only posted outside of F7 a few times, as well.
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as irritated. I have only a minor stake in this, and very little to do otherwise.