- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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. The Arcadia case was a matter of the founder not being online within the time frame between the warning and the dehubbing. Altho they where, knowingly, involved in a council that dedicated themselves to harrass wizden. They simply tought that if they did not contribute to it directly they would be immune to the rule, they wheren’t as explained in this post several times. They where also reinstated very soon after the fact.
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.
2 Likes
- I do not remember who Peptide is specifically, sorry if i misunderstood something there. That is one of the cases i am myself not happy with in how it was shared in the forum. You could maybe ask for some more info in another thread. (Not that it excuses how it was handled)
- The main issue in this discussion is that you do not agree that being in the circle but not contributing directly is an excuse. And i understand that, it is generally how things are handled in other communities. But it is simply harmful to let things like that slide and it is how wizden seems to be handling things. As was said, associating yourself with bad people enables them, it makes you part of the problem, and wizden is simply not willing to ignore that.
I am not going to say “you are wrong”. But your point of view simply differs from the staff, and the idea that sticking to “associating must be tolerated” is simply an opinion just like the staff’s here, both with merits. - PJB did not even have to reach out. Breaking rules is breaking rules, they don’t need to be explained what harrassment is. But the reach to Arcadia (the only one that was not contributing DIRECTLY) was made in a neutral manner. As for the rest, it has been made abundantly clear they could not care less about wizden’s demands, considering they had to be dehubbed for that very reason. This isn’t a corporation where you can just have a bot send a neutral “You will face consequences in 3 business days if you do not comply.” to any kind of threat and harrassment. These are volunteers.
If you meant Arcadis, I was involved in that, and made every effort to guide them through getting rehubbed. Based what I was told, PJB was very reluctant to even do that. And they have never been contacted with a warning prior to the dehub. Having zero prior notice is pretty unfair.
(I’m unfamiliar with arcadia, but I know what Arcadis is, so I’m kinda guessing)
I do not remember who Peptide is specifically
Peptide is the host/owner of the Singularity Network servers; three servers with one being a normal fork, one being a fallout conversion and one being a SCP conversion. He’s in two screenshots of the dehub post both presumably in the council discord, and in both he’s just commenting on how what the other guys are doing is going to result in them all getting dehubbed. At no point have I seen a shred of evidence that he was involved in any of the rulebreaking at all. He’s one of the few guys I’ve worked alongside in SS1X development who didn’t seem to have a hostile bone in his body, he’s a passionate developer who spent years making his servers.
The main issue in this discussion is that you do not agree that being in the circle but not contributing directly is an excuse.
The guilt by association treatment of Peptide is something I am strongly against, but it isn’t the main issue - the primary point I’m trying to make is that we need to be laying out and enforcing these rules clearly, sensibly, consistently and transparently. I believe that this situation is a result of poor hub management, but it’s a symptom rather than the disease.
As was said, associating yourself with bad people enables them, it makes you part of the problem, and wizden is simply not willing to ignore that.
Then this should be in the hub rules. Further to the point; going out of your way to futher alienate communities is going to make the problem much worse in the long term.
I am not going to say “you are wrong”. But your point of view simply differs from the staff, and the idea that sticking to “associating must be tolerated” is simply an opinion just like the staff’s here, both with merits.
I don’t think it must be, but I do think whether it is, or isn’t, the extent to which culpability is shared, and the actions taken in response to it, should be discussed with as round a table as possible, with the aim of bettering the community.
PJB did not even have to reach out.
Nobody needs to do anything. Any given maintainer could, if they so chose, ban every player account beginning with the letter J. This isn’t a question of what staff are obliged to do, it’s a question of what would create the best outcomes and lead to a better commnunity.
This isn’t a corporation where you can just have a bot send a neutral “You will face consequences in 3 business days if you do not comply.” to any kind of threat and harrassment. These are volunteers.
Why not? Wouldn’t this be better than ‘You have 5 minutes to disavow the people in this server or you’re getting dehubbed.’? I’ll take things feeling boring, or awkward, or hamfisted over things being precarious and driven by snap emotional decisionmaking. Better still, why not have a member of staff, maybe someone who already knows them, send a DM and ask what’s going on? Ask why they feel this way, maybe figure out the root cause or, at least, try to convey the situation from Wizden’s perspective and give them a heads up that action might be coming. Some of these people are probably glass eyed sociopaths who’d enjoy the chance to make the other guy dance, but to blanket assume that’s everyone and as a result only interact on hostile terms is not good for the community long-term, it’s cop city shit - I’m suggesting community policing.
At the end of the day I’m asking that we set and follow rules, that we be transparent where we’re able, that we have oversight, and that we try to de-escalate before attacking - I really don’t think I’m advocating for anything extreme.
I mostly agree with you, however I feel the dehub against peptide is justified, I hold… evidence of certain harassment against me, and others.
Guilt by association is bad, that I agree with. However the dehub and bans against peptide/singularity can be justified under a variety of different reasons. It’s ironic wizden never used any of those reasons, as it would have sounded better for them.
This is where transparency would be great. If Peptide has been doing shit to deserve what happened, then maybe I’d change my mind. As it stands, every reason for his dehubbing that’s actually been disclosed is a nothingburger and does not violate hub rules.
EDIT:
And musing for a moment, if the implication here is that Peptide being dehubbed following the EE situation was a cover for something else he did - I don’t think I really need to break down why that’s fucked up, or how it vindicates every single thing I’ve said about transparency, if true.
1 Like
Check your pms, I’m pretty sure that’s what happened.
2 Likes
As to the above, I got a lot of chatlogs which I’m lacking the context to completely understand, nothing I’ve seen there has changed my mind on anything I’ve said this thread so far, for whatever that’s worth.
This is blatantly untrue based on the evidence provided in the dehub announcement, and our past history with Peptide. He has repeatedly condoned and perpetuated harassment against us, even in EE.
I have already clearly explained above why Goobstation warranted a temporary dehub. They got away with no strike, which is an absolute slap on the wrist. Our hub rules clearly state that server names need to remain clean, which Goobstation did not do.
I don’t know what more you want here.
We do not take dehubbing lightly, and I am not sure where you think we are “pretending” otherwise.
He was present in a group of server hosts that repeatedly acted to harass and damage upstream SS14, and was fully aware of this fact. We gave him a chance to leave with evidence clearly presented, and he chose to side with harassers.
As I have clearly explained above, knowingly working together with people that do harassment is empowering them, and he should know this. His choice to continue to interact with the EE council reflects on him.
Of course, Peptide has way more skeletons in his closet, and his guilt is not merely “by association”. He has perpetuated harassment and misinformation towards us on many occasions in the past.
The only thing being “covered up” is the pages and pages of harassment we have received, because we either need to protect our sources, or we have lost it ourselves because we are not great at keeping track.
In many cases, we cannot provide evidence for confidentiality reasons. In other cases we are too fucking tired from having to deal with this shit. And in the cases where we do present all the evidence, it gets ignored anyways. People still quote exactly the same trivial to debunk bullshit from Nyanotrasen years later, because evidence does not matter to these people.
The only way that the Nyano dehub was handled poorly is that we gave them more ammo and leeway to fuel their misinformation and harassment than we should have. I fully believe that the way we acted, immediately dehubbing them, was in the best interest of the community.
None of the things you list apply to either the Nyano dehub or the EE dehub. I could maybe understand “rash decisionmaking” with hindsight, but the fact of the matter is that I believe all decisions ended up in the best interest of the community regardless.
This is a completely incorrect characterization of the actual communication, and it is either hearsay or misinformation.
Yeah see so what generally happens is:
- Harass wizden staff
- We tell them to “go fuck yourself” after dealing with their shit for months.
- Screenshot the above
- “Look at how rude wizden is.”
Peptide, for example, is plenty guilty of this.
All our hub decisions are made with PM staff consensus and they are not made rashly. Not the EE dehub, not the Nyano dehub, not Peptide’s strike for harassment.
You are free to file staff complaints for these.
We already do this, and I would like to have actual concrete examples where this is not the case.
The problem is that as soon we trust somebody to “be involved in the hub administration process”, they are by definition a member of wizden staff. We have plenty of PM staff that is actively involved in other servers, not just wizden, already.
We communicate plenty when it comes to hub rulings. People regularly ask us questions ahead of time. Both the Nyano and the EE dehubs were preempted with plenty of communication that went no where.
In fact, a strike is in and of itself a communication. We gave Peptide’s server a strike for harassment. That’s communication, because they can’t just undo their actions. Of course, they didn’t exactly use the opportunity to improve, so then they had to be dehubbed for harassment later anyways.
Well this is not true, SS14 was in limbo for two years since it was open sourced.
Everybody keeps suggesting this, but the fact of the matter is that it is basically impossible to be “neutral” like this. This kind of “neutrality” is the kind of thing people argue for to win an argument, not because it is practically achievable.
The fact of the matter is that the people that don’t harass us don’t have issues with how we run the hub.
This is, actually, the justification.
Harassment is clearly listed in the hub rules. And what steps do you believe were skipped?
The strike system clearly allows us to immediately go to three strikes if we deem it warranted. Given that EE literally tried to get the entire game taken down, and Peptide literally approved of the behavior, I believe it is warranted.
We have no obligation to be nice to people if they do not return the favor.
It absolutely does not by default. Having to have the 100th argument about hub rules enforcement only benefits the people that seek to violate them. Nyanotrasen does the most vile shit imaginary and I have to write an apology for “not following process”, like that minifies what Nyano did? Yeah, we see who this benefits.
You provide no material evidence that is consistent with the rules.
We gave Peptide a strike. And we tried to contact EE before going nuclear. Neither worked, and not for our lack of trying.
My brother in Christ, we literally have a screenshot of Peptide signing off on “yeah let’s take down wizden”. It’s in the dehub notice.
I have previously explained why we cannot always provide evidence. This is an example of it.
Well yes, because half the time I’m forced to reach out it’s because the person in question did heinous shit and I’m not messing around. Do you want me to be nicer to people that have gone out of their way to harass my friends for months?
The only reason you see only these screenshots is because exactly the kinds of people I have contact like this have no qualms spreading the DM screenshot around to further their harassment.
Well whatever you’ve been told is a lie, then. I was crystal clear that being in the EE council was the only issue. The moment they left it, they got rehubbed.
The reason it is not “in the hub rules” is because it is harassment regardless, and that is already covered. We already have a line in the hub rules explaining to people what harassment actually is, and most people can’t even follow that one. Let alone the entire blog post I had to write about it.
Well, they got 24 hours, and everybody that refused responded to the DM before those 24 hours were up.
Can’t figure out how to use replies. I’ll use images.
This is also a minimal response.
Like what? To be honest, all the evidence I’ve seen in this situation, mostly the actions you took, lead me to believe that their dislike of you is justifieid.
Being directly hostile to somebody leads to them speaking out against you for your bad actions. That’s not harrasment in the slightest.
- The only server host that could be considerably doing that was ONIKS, and they are on council because, like everyone else, they host a fork of Einstein Engines. That is the requirement for joining.
- From provided screenshots by those demanded to leave council, you did not provide “clear evidence”- you just told them that the actions in #council-discussion were proving harrasment against you. In my opinion, they weren’t. They were genuine concern about the threats being made, as well as warranted anger.
- Peptide “sided with the harassers” because of the way you had acted towards them.
You didn’t really clearly explain… This argument falls apart if you try to speak to the people in Einstein Engines about the situation.
Unlike you (and the rest of Wizden), they are polite, providing context, reasoning for their actions, and are generally much kinder people then the rest of Wizden administration.
They are not “doing harrasment”, they are speaking against the actions you took due to them being openly hostile.
Then post evidence instead of just saying it exists.
2 Likes
I’m sure the next page of text will convince these specific trolls that are barely able to quote on a forum.
2 Likes
(post deleted by author)
1 Like
Hey, cut me some slack. I haven’t used Discourse in like a year now.
And calling everyone who disagrees with you trolls isn’t the way to go here, bud.
3 Likes
I would take you seriously if you weren’t using basic bitch russian tactics for disinfo .
No but seriously, what are you on about? I’m just trying to hold an actual discussion here and you’re spouting nonsense. Consider going back to propaganda school because you clearly failed.
Why are you here buddy?
Okay lets stop going after each other, please.
1 Like
Because a friend of mine let me know about the thread, and I wanted to put in my two cents about the situation.
I’ll listen to Errant and stop here.
1 Like
Just block the two people, they are not here for a productive discussion. I had flagged changeling’s post as they violated community guidelines through disrespectful conduct.
1 Like