[poop MANIAC(fecal frenzy!!!!!!!!]

The claim double punishment isn't what you guys want to do for no reason wich in on itself is fair enough, however the problem I am seeing here as an outside viewer is the simple fact that these people, members of the community at one point, have casually fucking lied to get a person banned, get their reputation dragged through the Mariana Trench and caused potentially significantly mental anguish, yet these people still seem to be deserving of A: The Victim's Banner of Anonymity and B: The Unknown Punishment wich is insane to me. Since we're being left out the loop what that punishment was it can just as easely appear that the punishment was "Now you rapscallion, don't you do that again!" whilst I think people would agree with me if I say this should be a Community Ban.

And if what Battons said there is true, that person 1 is just as despicable as the one who lied and should receive similar punishment, aka a Community Ban. That type of people should NOT be permitted to interact with the community because when will be the next time some poor fucker they don't like get their charachter assassinated and then banned on trumped up charges?

Honestly I think the focus should be on the staff for pushing this through. Some fool lying their brains out wouldn't mean spittle if they were actually acting like a moderation team, taking their position seriously and having the common human decency to talk to a person before they threw them to the curb. This is not okay and they can not get away with this, their actions are just as insidious and far more systemically corrosive.

[Battons]

Responding to Dutch: It seems person 1 was asked for a specific convo, and supplied that convo while also asking it not be used as evidence for a ban.I don’t hold them to any fault.

This is correct, I apologize for any miscommunication leading to a false representation of the event that occurred. Person 1 is almost as much a victim in this as much as Jack is, although they didn’t receive a ban their wishes were explicitly ignored for a desire to ban Jack. Either out of negligent investigation or willingly malicious intent.
And before I receive any nasty DMs, I do have proof of this, but will not share it here, just know that it exists and is with a trusted staff member.

[chibill]

Responding to Dutch: It seems person 1 was asked for a specific convo, and supplied that convo while also asking it not be used as evidence for a ban.I don’t hold them to any fault.

This is correct, I apologize for any miscommunication leading to a false representation of the event that occurred. Person 1 is almost as much a victim in this as much as Jack is, although they didn’t receive a ban their wishes were explicitly ignored for a desire to ban Jack. Either out of negligent investigation or willingly malicious intent.
And before I receive any nasty DMs, I do have proof of this, but will not share it here, just know that it exists and is with a trusted staff member.

That person that has misconnuncation never said it couldnt be used as evidence for a ban, then just werent told why the admin that was asking about it was showing it to the admin team. Only during your appeal did they say bring up that they didnt know it was going to be used as evidence for a han and if they had know they would not have provided it.


Dont comment on something you dont have the information about.

[TDawg4]

We are not litigating/pulling individual screenshots and posting them in this thread. If you want to make an abuse thread make an abuse thread. If you want something looked at that you think has not been considered send it to me or a staff member you trust.

Person 1 at the time of the initial ban (April) did not communicate that they did not want the evidence to be used at that time (to my knowledge). They did communicate this after the ban went through, when they realized what had occurred and took major issue with what they sent being used for his ban.

Harassment and/or following someone to other communities should be submitted to a staff member you trust, or formed into something substantial for a ban request. Or even make a request in that other community for it to be handled.

[Jammin]

How about we post the admin conversations had during this time? No more of the he-said she-said and let people see the decision making process.

With respect, this sets a bad precedent. There is a trust in the admin team that evidence/data/information sent to them is kept confidential, and I'm not convinced even a redacted admin chat posting would be worth posting.

There are members of both sides of the 'cliques' on the admin team, and I trust the current team to be level headed and unbiased enough to service things moving forward.

Plus I trust this community to collectively make decisions almost as much as I trust radioactive waste to serve as good insulation. I'll take the admin team over a massive hivemind jury.

Edit: responding to @kessler. in an edit to not clog up the thread here with bickering.
I'm not saying that clique representation needs to be present on the admin team, and I agree 100% that any admin should be capable of banning a friend, enemy, based on objective evidence - not mentality. What I intended to imply was that because there are voices on both sides of the 'spectrum' checks and balances are present for unanimous admin bans such as community and all server bans. My apologies for not being clearer on that point.

As for trusting the community, I disagree with the idea that the current admins are incompetent. I do find the idea of some kind of advisory committee intriguing, as my current community has had great success with such, but I don't trust a community hivemind that 5 months ago would have banned Battons for absolute dog shit. There are some in the community who would provide good insight, but opening that door to the community making decisions is utter nonsense.

Side note on cliques, if it's not as bad as it was then you can disregard my comment. I'm not in any side discords affected by the events of April so I wouldn't really be informed on the current state of things.

One final note I have, people make mistakes. It's human nature to make mistakes. There ought to be accountability for those mistakes. Accountability doesn't mean the nuclear option of nuking the admin team. Accountability means admins discussing the thought process, discussing the responses here, opening the line of conversation, making retribution/apologies where needed, and fixing policies/etc for the future. Opening the line of conversation shouldn't result in tdawg or tiefling or chibill or Ryan getting crucified for opening the line of questioning - that honor should be reserved for the Aussie.

[tiefling lesbian]

If what you are saying is true about person 1, then this would go from being a mistake to the equivalent of malicious prosecution. I’m not asking for it to be shared publicly, but you have proof of this, yes?

It's misinformation, intentional or otherwise. The person in question posted screenshots of conversations in a group chat, was privately asked if they were okay with those screenshots being used in admin chat, and said yes. There wasn't explicit mention of a ban, but it was made clear from the start that it was for admin purposes and there was no explicit request for it not to be used as evidence.

[RyanHighman]

If what you are saying is true about person 1, then this would go from being a mistake to the equivalent of malicious prosecution. I’m not asking for it to be shared publicly, but you have proof of this, yes?

It's misinformation, intentional or otherwise. The person in question posted screenshots of conversations in a group chat, was privately asked if they were okay with those screenshots being used in admin chat, and said yes. There wasn't explicit explicit mention of a ban, but it was made clear from the start that it was for admin purposes and there was no explicit request for it not to be used as evidence.

I edited my later post to clarify that there wasnt an explicit request to not use the screenshots for a ban at the time of sharing

[kessler.]

How about we post the admin conversations had during this time? No more of the he-said she-said and let people see the decision making process.

With respect, this sets a bad precedent. There is a trust in the admin team that evidence/data/information sent to them is kept confidential, and I'm not convinced even a redacted admin chat posting would be worth posting.

There are members of both sides of the 'cliques' on the admin team, and I trust the current team to be level headed and unbiased enough to service things moving forward.

Plus I trust this community to collectively make decisions almost as much as I trust radioactive waste to serve as good insulation. I'll take the admin team over a massive hivemind jury.

The cliquishness of the community has gotten bad enough that representatives of "both sides" are needed on the admin team? bryanbrr mentioned being able to ban a friend. The inverse, being able to treat someone you dislike fairly, is just as important in staffing. I understand that dinks has had many cliques before, and will inevitably have them so long as it is online, but this should not corrupt the staff.

As for not trusting the community, that's a horrible mindset. The evidence confidentiality should be maintained, however, seeing as it was grossly misused, I see no reason to trust incompetent admins over any Dinkleberg TTT member who cares enough to actually sift through all of this forum yap. The people who mishandled evidence don't deserve any more trust than the next person. It's not like the community properly elects staff. It's a club.

[茶 Tea]

ever notice how the only people railing against cliques are all friends with each other? friends who back each other up for all sorts of nasty behavior? there is only one group here that displays cliquish behavior. but even that's not really true. my guess is that before you met each other, around 2015, you all had the exact same opinions about the exact same women in gaming, opinions you never grew out of. in other words, your complaint is that people share the same opinions because they are friends with each other. my contention is that people who tend to share the same outlook on the world tend to become friends. that doesn't mean that all people in the same friend group share the exact same opinion on everything, but it does mean that if you see yourself as the perpetual victim, you naturally seek out others who see themselves the same way.

[Misstie6731]

ever notice how the only people railing against cliques are all friends with each other? friends who back each other up for all sorts of nasty behavior? there is only one group here that displays cliquish behavior. but even that's not really true. my guess is that before you met each other, around 2015, you all had the exact same opinions about the exact same women in gaming, opinions you never grew out of. in other words, your complaint is that people share the same opinions because they are friends with each other. my contention is that people who tend to share the same outlook on the world tend to become friends. that doesn't mean that all people in the same friend group share the exact same opinion on everything, but it does mean that if you see yourself as the perpetual victim, you naturally seek out others who see themselves the same way.

I know you are speaking of a friend group I am a part of and I can tell you this is further from the truth, we call bullshit like we see it, even with each other. We disagree ALL THE TIME but we are all still friends, because we have the mental capacity to think critically about situations and understand that shit ain't serious all the time. I have told my friends when something they said is fucked up and they need to change, and they have done it vice versa. we aren't just a bunch of dick riders who hype each other up.