D
Deleted member 1
Guest
There were the initial punishments:
User @MelancholicMechanicus received a one week Politics/NSFW Politics subforum ban and a two-week ban from the "complaining about other forums" thread. This was over using prohibited slurs. The individual in question was not definitely a Sietch member, though could be; but he was not a public figure. So the punishment is much smaller. User @Shipmaster Sane received a 60-day ban from Politics and Current Affairs, and a 90-day ban from NSFW politics and current affairs, and a permanent threadban from the complaining about other forums thread. Mr. Sane has a long history and his act including elements of defying the staff and essentially flagrant and willful contempt for the rules, so it was hit harder. It's not necessary to use a slur to argue for the rules to change, nor is the complaining thread the appropriate place to do so, nor is it appropriate to do so in a way calculated to produce a response. To be clear we all agreed that Shipmaster said it for the express purpose of baiting other users who were offended by the previous use of f*ggot and therefore, because it was to provoke bad blood inside the community, the punishment should be higher.
User @Urabrask Revealed was hit for creating a scenario in which British police being killed would let you finish your picnic, as an act of protest against quarantine restrictions. He came extremely close to advocating for this scenario, which would have led to his immediate permbanning and reporting to the appropriate authorities. As it was, we're arguably letting him off easy with the punishments he received, which were a 7-day forum temp ban, a 90-day subforum ban (expiring 8 January), and a permanent thread ban. He is also on notice that a repeat offence of the same character and type will lead to a 1-year temp ban. User @Lord Invictus demanded possibly classified information (or, more pertinently, information he i.e. LI may have believed was classified, which is where the conduct issue comes from) from a member of the armed forces, and engaged in harassing behaviour toward him. He was given a 1-week ban from politics and current affairs, and a longer threadban from the particular thread in The War College discussing this (generally more politically oriented) subject.
Subsequently, User @Shipmaster Sane showed contempt for the authority of the rules and the moderation and directly violated 2e during discussions on the first round of punishment in the commentary thread, to my knowledge the first cited 2e violation on this forum. While there was a clear element of humour, there was also a real dig at @Lord Invictus ' right-wing politics which contained real contempt for him, and so in the interests of preserving the force of rule 2e, which is designed to prevent the shutting down of debate by immediately resorting to calling your opponent an extremist, we hit him with an additional threadban to the discussion thread on implementation of the enforcement changes. There was no other punishment.
Several warnings were issued, but points associated with them do not count toward any kind of automatic punishment.
User @MelancholicMechanicus received a one week Politics/NSFW Politics subforum ban and a two-week ban from the "complaining about other forums" thread. This was over using prohibited slurs. The individual in question was not definitely a Sietch member, though could be; but he was not a public figure. So the punishment is much smaller. User @Shipmaster Sane received a 60-day ban from Politics and Current Affairs, and a 90-day ban from NSFW politics and current affairs, and a permanent threadban from the complaining about other forums thread. Mr. Sane has a long history and his act including elements of defying the staff and essentially flagrant and willful contempt for the rules, so it was hit harder. It's not necessary to use a slur to argue for the rules to change, nor is the complaining thread the appropriate place to do so, nor is it appropriate to do so in a way calculated to produce a response. To be clear we all agreed that Shipmaster said it for the express purpose of baiting other users who were offended by the previous use of f*ggot and therefore, because it was to provoke bad blood inside the community, the punishment should be higher.
User @Urabrask Revealed was hit for creating a scenario in which British police being killed would let you finish your picnic, as an act of protest against quarantine restrictions. He came extremely close to advocating for this scenario, which would have led to his immediate permbanning and reporting to the appropriate authorities. As it was, we're arguably letting him off easy with the punishments he received, which were a 7-day forum temp ban, a 90-day subforum ban (expiring 8 January), and a permanent thread ban. He is also on notice that a repeat offence of the same character and type will lead to a 1-year temp ban. User @Lord Invictus demanded possibly classified information (or, more pertinently, information he i.e. LI may have believed was classified, which is where the conduct issue comes from) from a member of the armed forces, and engaged in harassing behaviour toward him. He was given a 1-week ban from politics and current affairs, and a longer threadban from the particular thread in The War College discussing this (generally more politically oriented) subject.
Subsequently, User @Shipmaster Sane showed contempt for the authority of the rules and the moderation and directly violated 2e during discussions on the first round of punishment in the commentary thread, to my knowledge the first cited 2e violation on this forum. While there was a clear element of humour, there was also a real dig at @Lord Invictus ' right-wing politics which contained real contempt for him, and so in the interests of preserving the force of rule 2e, which is designed to prevent the shutting down of debate by immediately resorting to calling your opponent an extremist, we hit him with an additional threadban to the discussion thread on implementation of the enforcement changes. There was no other punishment.
Several warnings were issued, but points associated with them do not count toward any kind of automatic punishment.
