This was an expected development. Setting aside my personal opinions on the ban, I will thoroughly review each point you've raised and provide a summary of the moderation team's shared opinion in response.
Whether these crimes occurred two years ago, last year, in the past month, a week ago, or even yesterday, the focus should not be on the timing to absolve the wrongdoer. Instead, we should consider the timing alongside the nature of the crime. For two years, someone's information was leaked to the public, for two years, those affected had no safety or privacy online, and for two years, the case remained 'closed,' with the only comfort for the victims being that their perpetrator would face a mere 3-month ban from a video game.
By stepping back and considering both sides, it becomes abundantly clear how unfairly Drezdin and Kitkat were treated throughout this entire incident. Regarding your complaints about a perceived 'wall' and the fruitlessness of discussing matters with the GMs, despite being directed to communicate through Modmail, I'm unsure of what else we can do, show, or tell you to satisfy you. We won't simply say 'We will do better next time' or admit fault where we believe there is none.
You don't need to apologize for restating the purpose of the thread. Now, regarding your implication in this portion, I fail to see how either the GMs' or the current community's involvement with the case affects whether it should be re-reviewed. I believe it stands to reason that with how uninvolved the GMs may appear to you, it supports, in a way, the impartiality and fairness of our judgment after reviewing the evidence, both old and new.
Regarding your characterization of this as 'stirring the pot,' it comes across as somewhat disingenuous and even personally insulting. Never have I, during my time as a GM, considered that I took this position to fracture or dissociate myself from this community. Never have I been motivated to act for the sole purpose of inciting drama, and neither has anyone else who joins me in this position.
Laws do not change retroactively; they evolve as our way of life and work changes. With these shifts, laws can become outdated, new laws can emerge, and existing laws can be reaffirmed. In this case, a new law was referenced: the disclosure of private information to the public, or doxxing, is abhorrent and unacceptable. Any such act will be met with swift and harsh punishment, as we have pledged to enforce more rigorously.
Mismanagement of how this issue was handled and a failure to grasp the severity of their actions have plagued this case. Our current actions demonstrate two things: we are remaining consistent in our rulings, and we are taking steps to mend the trauma experienced and resolve the distrust harbored by the victims involved.
I'll be brief because this needs to be said plainly. You are welcome to argue the nature of the ban and present new evidence, but you have no right to presume how either party feels about the ruling. Regarding the notion of 'double jeopardy' that keeps coming up: case reviews have always been a possibility. However, it is rare for a review to result in a change. If there is fear that reopening an older case will lead to harsher punishment, then the nature of the case itself would have warranted such an outcome.
You are entitled to your opinion, as is your right, just as it is your right to have created this thread. However, to suggest that doxxing was ever tolerated in the past is irresponsible and appalling. It was not. The case was mishandled, and we have rectified that today.
If you fail to understand who benefits from this decision, what this ban signifies, and the reasons behind the ban, then perhaps this thread was unnecessary and a ban appeal would've served the intended goal.
Quote:Except that isn't the case, actually! Y'see, These crimes were committed around 2+ years ago!
https://neus-projects.net/forums/showthr...p?tid=8764
Now I get it. Doxxing is bad. Its one of the worst things you can do on the internet. But this sets a precedent. And quite frankly rather than watching the GMs flounder around giving multiple statements in the midst of chaos and outrage, Discussion around the subject would probably be better spent with them being able to speak in solidarity. Even if its going to be more of the same. Theres never really any discussion to be had with the GMs in any meaningful- its their word, and its always final. Theres never "we'll do better next time" or "maybe we were wrong."
Whether these crimes occurred two years ago, last year, in the past month, a week ago, or even yesterday, the focus should not be on the timing to absolve the wrongdoer. Instead, we should consider the timing alongside the nature of the crime. For two years, someone's information was leaked to the public, for two years, those affected had no safety or privacy online, and for two years, the case remained 'closed,' with the only comfort for the victims being that their perpetrator would face a mere 3-month ban from a video game.
By stepping back and considering both sides, it becomes abundantly clear how unfairly Drezdin and Kitkat were treated throughout this entire incident. Regarding your complaints about a perceived 'wall' and the fruitlessness of discussing matters with the GMs, despite being directed to communicate through Modmail, I'm unsure of what else we can do, show, or tell you to satisfy you. We won't simply say 'We will do better next time' or admit fault where we believe there is none.
Quote:Apologies for the somewhat pointed topic. But I feel Hoot has shown remorse not only in that post from 2+ years ago, but from their actions since being unbanned the first time. And the GMs feeling the need to dig up old skeletons is a constant thing that I have always not been a fan of. And it felt like it happened all the time with harassment cases in particular for a certain period of time.
Why do we need to stir the pot for something that, in this case, over half the community weren't even *here* for? I dont even some of the GMs were present for this particular incident, even.
You don't need to apologize for restating the purpose of the thread. Now, regarding your implication in this portion, I fail to see how either the GMs' or the current community's involvement with the case affects whether it should be re-reviewed. I believe it stands to reason that with how uninvolved the GMs may appear to you, it supports, in a way, the impartiality and fairness of our judgment after reviewing the evidence, both old and new.
Regarding your characterization of this as 'stirring the pot,' it comes across as somewhat disingenuous and even personally insulting. Never have I, during my time as a GM, considered that I took this position to fracture or dissociate myself from this community. Never have I been motivated to act for the sole purpose of inciting drama, and neither has anyone else who joins me in this position.
Quote:Maybe Im not the most level headed person to be starting the discussion at the moment. Im not even the victim. Heck. I have absolutely nothing to do with either party in terms of the accused or the victim. I certainly dont want to downplay their struggles. And I genuinely think what the had to go through was rough. One of the worst things I can probably imagine happening to somone on the internet. You can get harassed, threatened, or even worse even offline as a result of such things.
The reason why laws change retroactively irl is usually because it serves some benefit for the victim. The victim is who matters the most in this case, With my limited knowledge and understanding of the situation as a whole, I dont understand how this helps the victim at all, unless they felt Hoot was going to do it again.
Laws do not change retroactively; they evolve as our way of life and work changes. With these shifts, laws can become outdated, new laws can emerge, and existing laws can be reaffirmed. In this case, a new law was referenced: the disclosure of private information to the public, or doxxing, is abhorrent and unacceptable. Any such act will be met with swift and harsh punishment, as we have pledged to enforce more rigorously.
Mismanagement of how this issue was handled and a failure to grasp the severity of their actions have plagued this case. Our current actions demonstrate two things: we are remaining consistent in our rulings, and we are taking steps to mend the trauma experienced and resolve the distrust harbored by the victims involved.
Quote:But its also kinda fucked to go back to a years-old case, where it atleast *seems* like both parties have moved on. Hoot, having grown past their mistakes from all that time ago, I feel, from my limited interaction with them atleast. This was one the weird times where a person actually self-reflected on their ban! They knew what they did wrong, as opposed to the usual harassment cases where one is usually hit with it with no idea what their crime even is.
Then they got double-jeopardy'd.
The thing I dont like about this is the fact that if this can happen to Hoot. Whos to say it cant happen to any of the previous bans that we can view today in the now defunct Unban appeals? Or those that happened afterwards? Even the ones before which have no official public record?
You can do one thing wrong and now have it held over your head for the rest of your entire life in this community, even if you've already been punished for it. Admittedly it felt like this could happen already for some. But now, You can get punished *twice* for something you've done. And that punishment? It very well could be a permenant affair.
Do I expect this to actually happen? Well, I'd like to hope not. But I've had more than my fair share of both good and bad experiences from this community alone myself, and its starting to make me feel bitter in general. Right around when I was getting my passion back, I see another thing like this that absolutely needs to be discussed.
I'll be brief because this needs to be said plainly. You are welcome to argue the nature of the ban and present new evidence, but you have no right to presume how either party feels about the ruling. Regarding the notion of 'double jeopardy' that keeps coming up: case reviews have always been a possibility. However, it is rare for a review to result in a change. If there is fear that reopening an older case will lead to harsher punishment, then the nature of the case itself would have warranted such an outcome.
Quote:One of the GMs, amidst the chaos of the discord discourse, mentioned that the information is already out there, and that you cant really take that back. Theres no taking back the pain of things that happened in the past-- or could possibly be happening now. I think Doxxing should absolutely be a permenant ban without any tolerance. However, Back then, it -was- tolerated. Going back and changing that now opens a whole can of worms, And I am unsure who it really helps. I feel going forward, Firstly, The ban on Hoot should absolutely be reversed if they were not using the information in question from the doxxing since their ban.
Secondly, If anyone -was- using the information in question other than Hoot, it'd probably be a better avenue of punishment. I cant exactly say whats right or wrong. Im not really a GM, But I feel this is the most fair. But my opinion, in all honesty, after all this time of trying to appeal these things, probably doesn't matter whatsoever.
You are entitled to your opinion, as is your right, just as it is your right to have created this thread. However, to suggest that doxxing was ever tolerated in the past is irresponsible and appalling. It was not. The case was mishandled, and we have rectified that today.
If you fail to understand who benefits from this decision, what this ban signifies, and the reasons behind the ban, then perhaps this thread was unnecessary and a ban appeal would've served the intended goal.
![[-]](https://neus-projects.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
