New rule against offsite harassment

[Mordeth]

TL;DR version:

Quote

Doomworld is implementing a new rule per Wednesday August 25th, 2021. Harassment directed against a Doomworld member on other social media sites / the internet at large can now be reported to the Doomworld staff by the affected member, and it may be treated as if it happened on Doomworld itself. Furthermore, if there are other users who facilitate such conduct going unaddressed, they also may have action taken against their Doomworld accounts.

 

 

As time goes on, we are seeing more instances of harassment of Doomworld members on other social media sites, with the posters intentionally avoiding making such comments on Doomworld directly in order to sidestep potential moderation or bans, or relying on the impunity of having already been banned.

 

We have a long history of having to deal with people who have registered accounts in bad faith, with the intent of stalking or harassing other members. It's become clear that we need to expand the umbrella of this policy. If a Doomworld member is being targeted by harassment on other social media sites by a user on that site who is also a Doomworld member, we may at our discretion take action against the harassing user's Doomworld account, irrespective of the fact that the language / behavior occurred on another site. To the extent that there are social media sites out there that allow such offenses to go unmoderated, we may also at our discretion take action against the Doomworld accounts of users who clearly facilitate this conduct.

 

To be clear: this new rule is meant for serious (potential bannable) offenses only, in the realm of targeted harassment, incitement thereof, hate speech, directly or indirectly soliciting violence, doxxing, spreading hurtful / baseless rumors, etc. Not for when somebody calls you names once or gives your Doom level a bad review.

 

We will take an extremely dim view of people trying to circumvent, abuse, bait or skirt this new rule. When caught, it will add to the severity of the penalty. We also don't want 'white knights' reporting on other people's behalf, unless the intended victim is no longer around to defend themselves.

 

This new rule goes into effect from August 25th. Behavior from before August 24th is ignored in this context. Only reported incidents after this date will be taken into consideration.

 

If you find yourself the victim of this type of conduct after this date by a member of the larger Doom community on another social media site AND the site moderation either proved impractical to contact or didn't remedy the situation, please report it to the Doomworld staff with details and relevant link(s) to the offensive material.

[Mordeth]

(reserved for answering potential questions)

 

Reading through this thread, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what constitutes harassment. A few people seem to be clinging to the belief that any offensive remark offsite would get them in trouble under the new rule. This is not the case. Even posts that would get you in trouble on Doomworld if those were posted here, do not get you in trouble when posted offsite under this new rule. We're not internet police, nor intending to act like one. And frankly, nor do we care. We are not your babysitters.

 

This rule is about a targeted, continued campaign of serious types of harassment against an individual user here, and which has been as such reported by that same targeted individual, with perpetrators and/or facilitators having also accounts here.

 

This rule is also not really a completely new concept.  We've seen this recently when a modder got his temporary ban upgraded to a permanent one, a decision partly based on his continued conduct towards community members offsite. Or much further back in time, when a Doomworld member was bragging here about defacing the ZDoom website and got himself banned for it here. These were exceptions, because the staff here (as a general observation) doesn't usually look at internet drama elsewhere. But recent complaints prompted us to formally announce our intent to do more to protect our members, if possible, from being heaped with abuse elsewhere while the perpetrators and their facilitators still get to roam free here and virtually thumbing their nose at their target.

 

Moderation under this new rule doesn't automatically mean a permanent ban. Previous instances of would-be stalkers bothering their target here went through the normal process of first receiving a warning and depending on persistence / severity getting upgraded to a temporary ban until a final permanent ban.

 

There was a question about what constitutes "facilitating" his type of conduct. What it is not: being deemed guilty by association. "Facilitating" is (for example) when you're asking on the usual shady sites to target a Doomworld member's twitter feed with threats or transphobic comments, or uploading snippets offsite in order to rile up a mob, or giving feedback to the perpetrators on the damage done and thus being part of the "fun", or act as a go-between between perpetrator and their intended target. Because while this person is not personally harassing the target, they are facilitating it. A facilitator is an integral part of the problem.  Merely engaging in conversation or doing projects together does not make one guilty.

 

As such, a moderator or administrator elsewhere is not automatically seen as facilitating this type of conduct, even when refusing to act against their own members engaging in this type of harassment. But if an offsite moderator is seen to actively encourage this type of behavior on their site, that will be reason to regard them as a facilitator.

[Redneckerz]

This is.... interesting.

 

As much as i understand stuff from before 24 august is going to be ignored, the rammifications are severe, especially the spreading of rumors or general trashtalking.

 

For this to take effect, this should be enforced for everyone.

 

Other than that, its just wait and see, i suppose.

 

I appreciate the DoomWorld staff for taking a position as this, including the rammifications this may lead to. If anything else, i applaud the staff for taking a step to innovate. Whether or not it succeeds or remains at a stand still is something left said to time.

[The Almighty Egg]

I support this, it really could help battle toxicity.

[Chip]

19 minutes ago, Mordeth said:

We also don't want 'white knights' reporting on other people's behalf, unless the intended victim is no longer around to defend themselves.

I have a question about this. What if you see some really really terrible stuff said about somebody on another social platform, and that person has not seen that specific post. Should we inform that person? Should we just do nothing? 

[dmslr]

Maybe it'll sound much but, please, give us a complete set of rules.

[MattFright]

I second dmslr's request. I do support banning people who are intentionally creating a hostile environment around or outside of here that affect community members, but it's clear that i'm not the only one concerned about the arbitrariness of the rules and the lack of transparency as to what rules to even follow here on Doomworld, especially now that the "common sense" argument doesn't apply where most people disagree on a decision that was justified with "common sense".

 

Also another positive (albeit minor) side of this would be that you wouldn't have to pin a new rule to different sub-forums whenever there's need for one... Wads and Mods' first page now is almost 1/3 pinned threads.

[Bucket]

It'll be interesting to see how enforceable this is, considering all the lengths internet trolls go to to avoid consequences of their words, like sock puppetry and such.

[Major Arlene]

We have been working on an FAQ/rules list which will be ready to post shortly. We recognize the lack of clear rules is less than ideal.

[Bridgeburner56]

10 minutes ago, MattFright said:

Also another positive (albeit minor) side of this would be that you wouldn't have to pin a new rule to different sub-forums whenever there's need for one... Wads and Mods' first page now is almost 1/3 pinned threads.

I believe this will be addressed with the restructuring of the threads that Lut has been discussing here. Keeping sticky posts to a minimum per forum topic is one of the goals.

[WashingMachineEnthusiasts]

As written, these rules don't apply to harassment perpetrated against non-Doomworld members or former Doomworld members by current Doomworld members. Is that the intention or just an oversight? If the problem is the behaviour, wouldn't it be better to clamp down on the behaviour regardless of the target?

[NeilForshaw]

59 minutes ago, Mordeth said:

or relying on the impunity of having already been banned.

 

What can anyone do against that? If they're not on doomworld then... :(

[Linguica]

1 hour ago, dmslr said:

Maybe it'll sound much but, please, give us a complete set of rules.

 

I figure I should address this given that I own the site, etc. I have been on something of a sabbatical in recent months (not covid, just usual stuff) so I have not been following recent developments but the lack of a clearly delineated set of rules has been a long standing insistence of mine. I have been on the internet long enough to know that trying to craft a complete set of rules of what is and is not allowed is generally a fool's errand as people inevitably find ways to game the system or do things that are technically allowed but are clearly antisocial. To that end the forum rules have at my insistence remained a sort of amorphous "don't be antisocial" rule. A clearly expressed and maintained analogue (although I'm not hereby endorsing it) is the Contributor Covenant. We may or may not need to adopt an actual literal set of rules in the future but at the moment it is intentionally quite vague.

[dmslr]

@LinguicaI think people don't mind updates on rules.

5 minutes ago, Linguica said:

as people inevitably find ways to game the system or do things that are technically allowed but are clearly antisocial

If this happens, adding a new rule / updating the old rule could help 

[msx2plus]

7 minutes ago, Linguica said:

people inevitably find ways to game the system

upholding morals > enforcing laws. morals cast a wide net that people tend to fall into naturally based on the people they cohabitat with, laws attract lawbreakers.

[MattFright]

11 minutes ago, Linguica said:

people inevitably find ways to game the system

 

I don't mean to sound rude but whenever i've seen a moderator use this argument in any community i've been a part of it sounded like they aren't actually considering the well being of the members caught in the crossfire (the large majority in this case). I'd rather deal with a few people trying to find loopholes and inevitably getting clowned on by the community than seeing everyone fearful of moderators potentially abusing their role to do selfish things that don't actually benefit the community. Because no matter how good of people you may have in your mod team, nothing's stopping anyone from doing that, and with that philosophy people will remain fearful of that possibility no matter what you say to justify it.

 

And on that note, you guys should be focusing on what's best for the community. Throughout this whole situation i've not seen anyone argue for the good of the community, and i feel like that's a massive red flag for the current state of the moderation of DW given everyone's concerns.

[Nikku4211]

1 hour ago, MattFright said:

I'd rather deal with a few people trying to find loopholes and inevitably getting clowned on by the community than seeing everyone fearful of moderators potentially abusing their role to do selfish things that don't actually benefit the community. Because no matter how good of people you may have in your mod team, nothing's stopping anyone from doing that, and with that philosophy people will remain fearful of that possibility no matter what you say to justify it.

True, to be honest.

 

I am generally afraid of people in staff teams of sites in general abusing their moderation powers for petty things. It is hard for me to develop trust for other people in general for personal reasons you'd best not hear.

1 hour ago, MattFright said:

And on that note, you guys should be focusing on what's best for the community. Throughout this whole situation i've not seen anyone argue for the good of the community, and i feel like that's a massive red flag for the current state of the moderation of DW given everyone's concerns.

Isn't fighting against harassment itself a good thing for the community?

 

Nobody here deserves to get their information leaked. That's just going too far. It's clear we need to take action against this, even if it's not happening yet, if we want to be a good community.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Nikku4211

[7Mahonin]

I support such a notion because it would help combat cyber bullying, but… How can we as users trust that moderators will not just take someone’s word for offsite abuse and will actually put strict efforts into ensuring the reports are genuine before taking action against the accused?
 

I have faith in Doomworld’s admin and moderation team, but would like to know how they’d go about ensuring the reports are legitimate, including ensuring that any sort of screenshots or chat logs that may be shared to them from the offended to prove the abuse are proven to be accurate and legitimate, among other things.

Edited August 22, 2021 by TelicAx7

[MattFright]

3 minutes ago, Nikku4211 said:

Isn't fighting against harassment itself a good thing for the community?

 

50 minutes ago, MattFright said:

I do support banning people who are intentionally creating a hostile environment around or outside of here that affect community members

 

[Mayomancer]

Creating a complete set of rules that encompasses everything is indeed a fools errand, but i do believe that setting the current important rules and guidelines in an easily accessible way is really essential.

Attempts to exploit loopholes could be dealt at the discretion of the moderators as they go against the intent of the established guidelines, the likes of the covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the world of contract law.

The issue that's left is the balance of transparency in decision making of staff to the userbase vs. privacy of the people involved... But i do believe it's good practice to make information on bans and restrictions publicly available without the need for callout posts or drama in other social media.

 

Edit: I do agree with the offsite harassment rule completely. Was just replying to the topics brought up by @MattFright and @Linguica.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Mayomancer

[msx2plus]

5 minutes ago, MattFright said:

no matter how good of people you may have in your mod team, nothing's stopping anyone from doing that, and with that philosophy people will remain fearful of that possibility no matter what you say to justify it.

i think this is more a general moderation/administration curse than anything. as mentioned, people game the system, rules eventually get amended with additional clauses, and as more rules are tacked on/reworded/etc, the rules become easier to apply to more situations, and you wind up in another situation where moderators have the same power as they would in a scenario where a general "morally acceptable behaviour" model is in place.

 

i think the real discussion is the job of the moderator, not a ruleset - how should a mod handle something? what community input should there be? when is it suitable for a mod to clamp down on something vs trying to guide a discussion back to a reasonable place? by having a more generalized approach, i think all of these can be more granular too, it's just a case of the moderators actually being open to it. in this situation, a good moderator will assess, consult other mods, and take action for the community and potentially do so with community input. i think with a hard set of rules (especially an ever-expanding one) is that a moderator may feel as though there is more black and white to their actions and it's a simple do or don't.

 

i would, naturally, need moderator input on such a thing, this is just my outlook on it and how i handle it. moderation is a community effort, moderators are just the ones that make the call at the end of the day. we all moderate, in a sense.

[Remilia Scarlet]

34 minutes ago, Linguica said:

 

I figure I should address this given that I own the site, etc. I have been on something of a sabbatical in recent months so I have not been following recent developments but the lack of a clearly delineated set of rules has been a long standing insistence of mine. I have been on the internet long enough to know that trying to craft a complete set of rules of what is and is not allowed is generally a fool's errand as people inevitably find ways to game the system or do things that are technically allowed but are clearly antisocial. To that end the forum rules have at my insistence remained a sort of amorphous "don't be antisocial" rule. A clearly expressed and maintained analogue (although I'm not hereby endorsing it) is the Contributor Covenant. We may or may not need to adopt an actual literal set of rules in the future but at the moment it is intentionally quite vague.

I know you aren't endorsing it, but I recognize the Contributor Covenant from its use by the Crystal language folks.  It was comforting and welcoming to read it when I first started interacting with that community (as little as I do).  Something along those lines can be useful if implemented carefully.  I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with.

Personally, I believe that a vague* backdrop of rules has to go along with two other things, though: well meaning moderators, and a granular approach to moderation.  With my first point, know that I'm not pointing it at anyone here or elsewhere, I'm just stating "well meaning moderators" in a very generic and hypothetical sense.  Moderators for any community that adopt this style of rules should be held as accountable as anyone else, and there should be a clear and non-threatening-as-possible way for the community to bring up moderators who need looked at.  In other words, moderators should not be feared and should be held to the same standards.

With my second point, I think it would be summed up as "A general, wide foundation, but directed and targeted enforcement."  After all, people have bad days and make mistakes.  We're an international community, and people elsewhere are subject to different laws (and therefore may have formed different opinions on things).  Also, while people are definitely inter-connected and there are cliques that exhibit an overall group behavior, blanket moderation feels (usually) like a net overall negative in terms of community health.  There's exceptions, but I think this again gets into "targeted enforcement" territory.

^{*vague isn't quite the term I want to use, but I can't think of a better word at the moment}

[msx2plus]

1 minute ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

We're an international community, and people elsewhere are subject to different laws (and therefore may have formed different opinions on things)

this is imo often overlooked - between cultural and language gaps (and neurodiversity!) i think a hard rule set can quickly set situations up for failure.

[Killer5]

Wait. This website is trying to restrict speech anywhere on the internet in the form of a ban? This is idiotic. Now we all have to pay the price because of all of this shit flinging in the past few days?

 

God forbid people now have different political views than the fragile souls of this website. This is actually one of the dumbest things I have read in a while (and that includes everything going on the past few days).

[dmslr]

1 minute ago, Killer5 said:

restrict speech

Not speech. Harassment.

[msx2plus]

 

1 minute ago, Killer5 said:

This website is trying to restrict speech anywhere on the internet in the form of a ban?

 

that's not what it says at all - "in the realm of targeted harassment, incitement thereof, hate speech, directly or indirectly soliciting violence, doxxing, spreading hurtful / baseless rumors , etc"

[7Mahonin]

4 minutes ago, Killer5 said:

Wait. This website is trying to restrict speech anywhere on the internet in the form of a ban? This is idiotic. Now we all have to pay the price because of all of this shit flinging in the past few days?

 

God forbid people now have different political views than the fragile souls of this website. This is actually one of the dumbest things I have read in a while (and that includes everything going on the past few days).

Verbally abusing someone, stalking them, etc is a political view that you are willing to defend? Is it even a political ideology to begin with? 

[Killer5]

'hate speech'

This right here is completely political.

[Killer5]

If people cant deal with the consequences of shit they have already spewed on this site then they have bigger problems to contend with. It is not my responsibility to fall in line in order to protect the smallest of minorities (the fraction of people using this site who care about this) from bad people on the internet.

[dew]

22 minutes ago, msx2plus said:

We're an international community, and people elsewhere are subject to different laws (and therefore may have formed different opinions on things)

This is a valid point, but then you need to realize that doomworld is run in the US, by a citizen of the US, so that citizen needs to cover their back using the legal framework of their country. No get out of the jail free cards because XY is legal in Vanuatu.