If you read the dehubbing post, you’ll see the reasons, as well as previous posts regarding servers of this kind which are involved in this whole issue. Ample reason and justification was given. I felt it very transparent.
This is the case for the people involved in the DMCA, this is not the case for Peptide, which is why I have repeatedly said the former is justified and the latter is not. The justification given for the dehubbing of Peptide’s three servers involves an apparently load-bearing ‘trust me bro’.
I would like to correct smth I said previously though; I found the strike in question. I was expecting it to be in the name of the individual server(s), rather than Singularity Network, so that’s on me. There are, of course, no details or evidences present in this strike.
The hub is hosted by wizden, if they want to stay in it, they have to follow the set rules. Which includes a VERY reasonable “Don’t harrass”. Contributing is NOT a necessity of any kind. They will always retain full access to the main repo regardless of what they do, so they can make their OWN hub if they want to harrass communities.
I have already addressed this point. Saying someone dehubbed should simply make their own hub is like saying someone who’s bank accounts are shut down should just open their own bank. Regardless of who is hosting it, the main hub is accessed via Steam; it’s disingenous to pretend enough players will seek out an alternate hub to sustain a dehubbed server.
And the same applies here as in the heritability of hubministration responsibilities; Wizden in its current form do not hold this hub because they made it, the current group of Wizden maintainers inherited it from prior maintainers; while there might be some who have been here for the majority of development, to my knowledge the original SS14 are all gone, and some are banned.
The criteria for dehubbing are clear. The EE council violated them CONSTANTLY and repeatedly. They where, by definition of the criteria, overdue for a dehubbing.
Some did, yes. Some were not involved. You do seem to be focusing on this specific example quite hard, I would like to reiterate that I’m not playing defense attorney for Peptide, I just think this is a telling example for reasons already stated.
Taking the high road is not the win you think it is. In this situation, taking the high road would mean ignoring the constant rule violations.
Then we have cross-understandings of what ‘taking the high road’ means. At the risk of repeating myself; I am not advocating for less moderation or enforcement; if anything I’m advocating for more of it, and for it to be more active.
Some old cases of dehubs are lacking in information, yes. I agree those could have been handled better. And the “no one will check them anyway” argument from PJB sounds pretty detached. But that is not the case here.
The singularity network contains no information beyond ‘staff and users were harrassing and spreading disinfo’. This was issued 4 months ago.
The lighter action taken earlier was warning members of the council, they did not care. PJB reached out before about other cases of harrassment as shown in the post.
As I’ve said multiple times, PJB should not have been the one reaching out in this circumstance. Every time I’ve seen a DM where PJB is ‘reaching out’ to a server host relating to hub admin, she’s immediately openly hostile - which to repeat myself again, I’m sympathetic towards, but it does not help the situation.
They simply tought that if they did not contribute to it directly they would be immune to the rule
Personally, I think ‘if I do not contribute to breaking the rules, I will not be punished for breaking the rules’ is a fair thing to assume. Nowhere in the hub rules does it state, imply or indicate that this would be inaccurate - this is something being stated as obvious only after the judgement has been passed. To repeat myself once more; If hub moderation is just calvinball, why even have the hub rules in the first place?
I’m happy to talk further, but I’m going to pre-emptively say that if an answer to something is to repeat something I’ve already said, I’m probably going to just not respond to that point.