Baozi

2 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

I mean it'd be nice to know what revisions are being considered if you want BoG opinion. Otherwise I think most people have said their piece?

We were just going to review the entire thing and then go from there based on any feedback from BOG.

Just a gentle reminder that we'll be ending feedback and continuing with the revisions after tomorrow unless more time is warranted.

On 4/13/2023 at 4:24 PM, MubbleFubbles said:

Just for the second point on Moderator Process and Penalties, I wanted to ask a couple of questions regarding approach to multi's that I had been wondering about as someone who does not currently know the process. 

 

1) What is the formula regarding the approach to the length and type of ban a user receives for creating a multi? The reason I ask is that there were a couple of bans that struck me as egregious from the information that was displayed but maybe there are reasons for those bans I am not aware:

- The 2 week TPE ban of @ericeroth, a user who created two multis at same time as main but never did anything with either of the 3 players (no TPE earning, no player signing) and just generally seemed lost given they made a post a month after their ban that made it clear they thought we were a CHEL league. That seems like an instance where you could just go "look, we don't do that here" and retire the two multis behind the scenes and use the opportunity to help the new member rather than give a punishment to a member who just seems confused about the whole thing. 

- The 1 Week TPE ban of @axtron came after someone (presumably a mod) had retired Quinn Clark behind the scenes (as evidenced by the lack of a retirement post in the retirement forum) for 4 weeks, then un-retired them and issued a one week ban, effectively meaning that Clark served a 5 week TPE ban for making one multi rather than one week. 

 

2) What is the approach that moderators make to checking accounts for multi cases? E.g. With the Dack case, was that triggered by a request for a check by a user or was that something that was instigated by a moderator and is there a system in place that will flag up identical IPs upon creation or is that something that has to be manually checked?

1 Week Per Player Found

0.5 Week Per Player Confessed & Not Originally Found By Mod Team

0.5x Multiplier For First Offender/New Member Within X Months

1.5x Multiplier For ANY Case Of Lying/Withholding Information

Subject to some discretion, but that's the base formula we start with, then make adjustments from there.

Per your second part we have a bot that checks for multies but sometimes they use VPNs so the base tools don't find them and we have to manually check the other tools to spot them. In Dack's case we were informed of him by a concerned party.

2 hours ago, Gustav said:

I think this depends. I'd like to think a mod should be able to use their best judgment in a debate, and to be able to "take the mod hat off" and speak as an equal rather than an authority figure. I understand that appearing as someone in a moderation job will always bring a certain ethos (in the same way that I'm more likely to be taken seriously about VHLM things) that you can't really do anything about one way or another...and I think that as long as you're civilized there isn't a problem. If you'd slap a regular member for saying something, don't say it yourself.

 

BUT.

 

When the mod hat "comes off" for a debate, I'll also add that it's literally the opposite of taking off the hat to deal out a punishment to someone disagreeing with you. Believing in "taking off the mod hat" fundamentally means that you're against some of the proposed courses of action in this thread--otherwise, the hat is never off.

As a public servant I'm allowed to voice myself as both an individual and as a federal servant as well, I just have to be distinctly clear which I'm doing so I am familiar with the process of separation of person/positions.

So also a clarification point on whether this should be treated as allowable or not for future references would be good if you guys (other than yourself and jacob have voiced) can decide on this as a whole.

6 hours ago, Doomsday said:

Believe what you want to believe. But if you cannot convey your beliefs in a respectful manner to other members, then there is no place for it here. 

If someone can be respectfully racist can they be then?

IE "I simply believe the gene makeup of an African American is subpar to those of European descent." One can look at Shapiro and Jordan Peterson as prime examples of people that have incredibly wrong beliefs but they can convey them very respectfully or in a debate setting.

9 hours ago, Spartan said:

Personally I agree that abortion should be a right, I don't want any of my thoughts above about allowing differences of opinion to infer anything about my own political or moral leanings.

So one of the things I posted earlier in here was that, you may not want to have a stance, but we can absolutely set a stance here as right. Like we already have taken the stance than LGBTQ+ is protected here, we already take a stance on such matters like human rights ones, abortion isn't far off because that too is a human right to be able to choose what to do with your own body.

Food for thought of course.

9 hours ago, Spartan said:

Would also just like to see what impact the discussion in here is having and what changes or tweaks are being considered, even in an early phase since I figured that was what this thread was for.

Will follow up on this shortly.

I also don't really want to debate too much on any particular topic, I wanted the BOG feedback, not to put my own views forward as we review the COC. Just a clarification there.

Claim 2 out of 2

15 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

I think the key words here are "to me". Why should the head mod/mod team in general be the ones deciding what opinions are allowed on the forums and what opinions arent? Obviously you're coming from a place of making VHL inclusive and hate-free, which I respect, but if someone else was head-mod and they thought that pro-choice was killing babies and is therefore clearly wrong, so they punish anyone who shares a pro-choice opinion, it'd be ridiculous, because like I said, why does their personal moral standards dictate the standards of the entire community? So I think your moral standards also shouldn't be dictating the community, even if they are from the other side.

This is why I'm engaging BOG to discuss this specifically. Is what standard are we using? My standard was set before when I was originally hired and over the last few issues, feel its something to address on what standard we should set because when I was first hired for my role, I was told I could set the standard and that's what I've been moving along during this time. So I would like to have this standard set by BOG and blue, like what standard do we want to go with? More importantly, lets set this standard so we have a direction we want to move the community in.

15 minutes ago, Nykonax said:

And if people in the VHL don't like their opinion they can choose to not like the person and to just laugh at their stupid opinion, or engage in respectful debate. 

Ok but I did this and now have been reported several times for not liking what someone did and the more recent situation I was still respectful in word choice. So clearly this isn't a recognized standard yet otherwise nobody would have an issue if I were to roast someone over a bad take.

9 hours ago, Spartan said:

I'd probably point to abortion being a fairly recent incident back during the overturning of Roe v Wade, and the incidents that occurred then. Being anti-abortion is not being hateful, nor should people who hold those opinions be discriminated against despite the majority of us likely dissenting with them. If someone is openly mocking, insulting, harassing someone for their identity - that should absolutely be moderated and handled. People can disagree on hot topic issues while still being relatively respectful to other people.

So I do want to point out to this example which I feel was definitely in the back of my mind. I think being anti-abortion is hateful and wrong. So this and some other things I feel are probably why I wanted to bring about the original discussion with the "bigotry and hate" line which to me doesn't necessarily mean homophobia. In my mind, Roe v Wade issues is actually a clear example of "right vs wrong" and I really don't see how that can be thought of otherwise. This along with a host of other stances I personally feel are things we should likely decide upon to either support or allow or at least give a semblance of what we deem as right/wrong.

15 hours ago, Gustav said:

The CoC SHOULD exist and it SHOULD serve as a set of general guidelines for how to conduct oneself within the community--but it should remain a Code of Conduct and not a Code of Law.

This part is also an important point to note as we want to go towards this where COC isn't a lawbook, but a guidebook. However that means we are leaning more towards an interpretative side of the book rather than literal.

9 hours ago, Spartan said:

I absolutely hated the way the AJ situation was handled. I sent all evidence to Fong, who also received other information in prior days leading up to Dack's ban, and there was no decision to investigate AJ for rule breaking. I do not understand how helping someone ban evade is not within the mod umbrella, but the situation is open for public criticism and humiliation from members of the mod team after the punishment is deferred to VHLM Commissioners. Add in that the thread was locked by moderators for little valid reason and that I was brushed off when asked for clarification - it did not seem like a moderation team that was working as intended, and I know there are mods who agree with that sentiment.

Myself and Spart have had a reasonable amount of communication on this topic of course so I'm not sure howmuch more re-hashing we need to do on it. Something that was born out of what I felt was a good jurisdictional move turned out less than ideal. On review when I looked at what I said I didn't even think I was that harsh regardless on the subject at least not anywhere near the extent of the Jruutuu conversation. One of the key issues there was that on the original reply from AJ, I also felt he didn't understand the gravity of the situation because he seemed to be taking it too lightly. This was confirmed after my posts and he had a conversation with one of the mods that gave me an overview that he wasn't actually aware of all the issues outstanding with Dack/Zap/Achillies. I did feel I was in control of what I said and nothing overly harsh was written. I'm also willing to also reveal that there was an inquiry as well opened up into what I said since I was reported twice during that conversation. This was also another one of those points where I felt that clarification also should exist on what stances the community wants to partake in.

15 hours ago, Gustav said:

I'm mostly curious what this point aims to accomplish because it can't just be talking about "allowing hate"--we already don't do that and I know there's no way you're considering doing that. If I just confirm that I'd rather not have people dropping derogatory shit on the forum, what policy change does that lead to? Is the goal of asking for confirmation of the more obvious point just a vector for something entirely different and possibly controversial? "Do you want hate speech?" might be an entirely different question from "here's the policy change; do you agree with it?"

We don't allow hate I guess from my POV should be expanded to "Should we encourage people of a certain type of thinking to leave or still remain?" By this I refer to people with mysognistic views, or anti abortion etc...a host of issues one can weigh in on. While this can be deemed as "opinion" I think certain topics (like roe v wade as example again) to me are clearly right/wrong and people supporting these measures should be encouraged to leave. But I recognize that this was a policy instilled on me by prior commishes and not necessarily where the community stands now so this item is something I want to discuss as well. There are multiple individuals that fall under this umbrella, not going to name them but like for example Andrew Tate supporters that lurk are potential ticking time bombs as well. In this regard I've wanted to be pro active in just not having them here because allowing them here, before they give some opinion, just in itself gives them the opportunity to do harm at some point. A pro active response would be if we found out an individual was such, they would have less leash and potentially no warning given if they were to engage in whatever it is Tate supporters do. This is just a rough example of course.

(I just got into the office to type this so this is morning brain and if something comes off a little off, just ask for clarification due to morning brain fog.)

Edit Update:

So just to elaborate a bit more on what I mean by proactive since the example just came up in chat. If the VHL is looking to create a safe community then there are certain things people typically adhere to. The example I want to use in this case is abortion. 

Pro life vs pro choice. 

Some would say "well this is just an opinion, its best if we allow for this and just not talk about it." So therein lies the issue I have with the prior directive and that is, in order to create a safe community, then there simply is just one answer for this. Pro choice allows the user to both have the choice of having an abortion or not. Pro life removes that option entirely. Is this merely an opinion (because in my mind this is a right/wrong answer). 

Well the second part of this is, "why even allow this discussion?". Well in order to foster a healthy future community, then it goes back to what ideals and what things do you want your members to be part of. One of them in the abortion discussion is womens rights and equality. pro choice gives that right and power, pro life takes it away. So in order to foster a healthy community that respects women's rights then there really is only one stance you can take in this argument and that is pro choice. So my conundrum here and what I'd like you all to take note of is, do we foster and encourage people to realize this. Or do we stay silent and ignore it? One of this is helping to build a safe community, the other basically allows for intolerance which goes back to the whole "are we going to proactively fight against hate/mysogny/bigotry/ etc.?

It has been a little over 2 years since the creation and formulization of the Code of Conduct (https://vhlforum.com/topic/110979-vhl-code-of-conduct/) so I feel that we've had a good enough time frame in which to look at it back in review as well as certain processes and directions that'd we like to head towards.

Currently we (well Sam is heading it) are reviewing the current state of the COC and looking at refining and changing certain aspects of it. As leaders and representatives of the community, I felt that this should be opened up to the BOG as well since you represent the community that we work for and its very important for myself and the team to get this feedback in order to know how to proceed with the future of moderation.

I'd like to open up several topics here I'd suggest you all leave feedback for and perhaps vote/group decide that we entail in the process but due to the nature of the revamp, It would be a limited time discussion while we work at reviewing the COC at the same time as well as bring some urgency to the issue.

1. Community Well-being and inclusion

 - People are likely no strangers to my hard approach to this. This was what I was originally brought on by generations ago commishes to bring about a hard stance to change out the old guard of hate and bigotry and create a safe space here for LGBTQ and others. This has recently in several cases come into conflict with myself due to the nature of what I was brought on for, and I feel that adequate discussion or verification of what/how we should be approaching these matters should be. Is this supposed to be a safe haven with zero tolerance towards bigotry and hate? Or do those opinions stand as well?

2. Moderation Penalties/Process/Warnings

- There has often been confusion in how we exact penalties but there are certain formulas we do follow and precedents we adhere to. It was rocky to start but for the most part we have learned to be more consistent. Like howmany warnings is enough? What kind of activities should be blatantly gotten rid of?

3. Pro-active or reactive?

- We have plenty of proactive initiatives throughout the year here for LGBTQ and equality related events. This applies to how we treat certain situations as well.

4. Other general ideas/thoughts.

Mostly I want to get a sense from BOG of what direction you want to head towards as we build the community into the future. This is your chance to speak now as we work to re-shape and refine the goals and nature of the team.

Would like to have your folks feedback in the next 2 weeks of sorts to bring back to the team. Silence is telling me we're fine and we'll push ahead as we are.

Deadline setting for April 19, 2023.

5FD96439497476349

$1M Player Store Cash (How to Claim)

5 TPE Uncapped

Doubles Week (6 TPE uncapped from a PT being done)

Claim 1 out of 2

Thank you @Ricer13 for joining the Mod team!

3 hours ago, Bojovnik said:

I'm sorry, are you speaking as a moderator, poster or some other type of sentient being? I don't follow.

? I'm a Baozi obviously.

3 hours ago, Bojovnik said:

Ok. Aggressive moderator/user/whatever giving off very bad vibes.

 

Thanks for explaining lol.

You're welcome.

I just want to clarify since some individuals seem to be confused about it, but there was no "moderating" of AJ. I don't believe he violated anything in the COC so I did not ask my team to investigate anything other making sure the individual being brought back was once again removed from the community. So while I could've asked this all as a moderator, I feel this wasn't warranted. Mods removed the COC violator after confirming with multiple sources who the person was. At no point in time prior did I ask AJ any of this.

13 hours ago, Prof. Zach Enron said:

Hey everyone, for a while I've been noticing there is a rather regular occurrence of posts both featuring and or advertising the use of illicit substances - while understandably it's not the intention of the posters themselves to be advocating drug/alcohol use amongst all forum users I think it'd be pretty ignorant to act like this isn't something possibly happening especially considering there is all types of ages within the VHL. The VHL has taken many steps in recent years or even months to protect it's users and make it's users feel much more comfortable and safe, with countless rule changes surrounding potential harassment and making the forums safer for all groups of people and while this is amazing news it is unfortunate to see in getting this it has created this complacency surrounding other potential security risks to members. I don't think you could create a world where both drug and alcohol culture are non existent obviously but there's a fine line between glorifying and promoting the effects of illicit substances and trying to keep the younger members safe that may not be being met.  

-Prof. Z.E

For open discussion's sake, do you have any particular posts you're looking at that you feel have crossed this line? Due to varying laws in different countries and regions, the grey zone of these topics is extremely wide of course and you already acknowledged understanding that so presumably there are certain posts that you feel are way beyond any reasonable line.

12 hours ago, UnknownMinion said:

Hmm Mod bullying AJ over something quick a few people would do, Public shame really? The punishment being made public was more then enough, crazy unfair. Poor AJ.

If I hadn't replied and pointed out that Achillies had numerous violations in other communities multiple times and also harassed staff, would you know about it? Did you know yourself that he had recently had another incident? Where is the bullying in all this? Did you even read my statements? Remember when you said you were bullied a while back and you wished someone would stand up for you? I'm standing up for those I advocate for in the LGBTQ community. I asked questions so that I didn't have to assume anything. 

7 hours ago, Bojovnik said:

Aggressive moderating giving off very bad vibes ngl.

I nor anyone on the mod team moderated anyone. This punishment was handed out by he VHLM commish and mods were already arms length from the situation. I'm allowed to have my opinion on someone bringing a high risk individual back into the community illegally and I said so in a respectful manner and questioned the action. Exactly the same thing you are doing except I'm explaining to you how none of what I did is remotely moderating or related.

1 minute ago, AJW said:

 

You're the only one asking right now. DM me if you want.

My concern is for the general public community, not for my own being. I have no desire to hide this conversation anywhere. I would like to know why you felt you were in best position to decide this course of action was the best for the community and what you would think if you were wrong and sometime down the road another incident occurred.  I mean you're not obligated to answer since I'm just inquiring as a member of said community.

1 minute ago, AJW said:

 

I don't understand why you feel the need to question me publicly in front of the whole community. We obviously have different point of views on Achilles and if you'd like to discuss them then my DMs are open.

Well as indicated, I wanted to know what the thought process was and if you actually looked into what he said or you just took it at face value. As to why I asked in public and not DMs, is because it is a public matter and if the general public is going to be put in possible risk of having to deal with people like this, they deserve to know as well.

5 minutes ago, AJW said:

I just do believe he didn't mean to cause anymore harm.

Did he tell you about his recent ban Jan 2023 for transphobic and generally toxic comments in SHL? That was his second chance already at SHL, so if you want to combine all of these incidents he has well over 7-9 incidents with multiple chances.

You know this isn't even the second chance? Howmany chances would you like? Do you know how recent his last infractions were elsewhere? SHL recently banned banned him in January. His twitter was filled with hate speech in December. Did you even do your due diligence when dealing with Achillies? There have been 4 (5th including this one) incidents regarding him, I'd show you what he DMed some of the staff in december, but I don't feel the need to rehash any or want to post those messages. He has not ever shown any remorse for his actions at all. If you notice this convertsation, you see that he "blames it on" external factors and doesn't even take into consideration his own actions.

Or its really simple, he was just conning you so that you would help him get back into these communities. How do you know anything he said you was even true?

17 minutes ago, AJW said:

Sorry to anyone this may have hurt. I had no bad intentions bringing Achilles back, they were great as Dack and Houston had no problems with them while they were here. 

Modding hat aside. I'm not quite sure what you were thinking. Achillies was also "fine" for the earlier time he was here until he revealed himself to be a bigoted, racist hate speech person that he is. Not just here, but in multiple communities. In what world do you think that is ok to accept back into the community without asking anyone else if that was an advisable move? Why did you think someone that was permabanned for violation of major rules something alright to decide on your own?

Bumping for inventory.