A Community Note from your Wolfery moderation staff

1

A Community Note from your Wolfery moderation staff

As many of you are aware, our community has two ongoing issues which must be addressed. Both of these events have important implications on the management and growth of our community, and we, as stewards of this community, wish to address the concerns we are hearing directly and openly.

For those who are not familiar with both situations, they are: a long term suspension of a regular player; and the banning of Dust Escurak.

In the first case:
This suspension is being issued because the player in question has recently published, and subsequently redacted, expressions of suicidal ideation.

To be clear: We take mental health issues seriously. Our policy is to consider every such statement as genuine and intentional, and to make every effort to ensure that people in crisis are referred to help.

It is our utmost aim that Wolfery is a safe environment for everyone- this includes people who need to reach out for help. We want people to reach out for help. If you are hurting, and you are reading this message, we want you to reach out to appropriate resources, we will help you find the help you need.

It is also important to understand that words, even on a furry roleplay site, have an impact. Presentation of suicidal ideation can be destructive to the mental health of others, and we have a responsibility, as stewards of a community, to provide good faith protections to all within that community.

Because of the nature of the inciting incident has been determined to be a result of community interaction, and the implications of the impulsivity of the response, we have decided that it is in the best interest of both this player and the community that there be a strongly delimited break in contact.

After extensive discussion we have come to the opinion that the situation can only improve if they step away for a time. Therefore, a break is the healthiest option going forward, in order to allow an opportunity for recovery. The player in question has agreed with us on this matter.

In the second case:
Dust Escurak has been banned due to ban evasion. As many of you are aware, this is connected to the ongoing issues of ban avoidance associated with Pheonix Remmington.

The chain of events is thus:

  • Pheonix Remmington, under many aliases, has been creating new accounts to evade their ban for several months.
  • Character A, who has admitted to another player that they are Pheonix, has been banned.
  • A further character, Character B, has been banned due to sharing an IP address with Character A
  • Dust has been banned due to sharing an IP address with Character B.

There are three possibilities that explain this:

  1. Dust is also Pheonix. In this case, the bans are extensions of previous action.
  2. Dust is not Pheonix, but at some point claimed to be. This is impersonation, and is a bannable offense.
  3. The IP addresses are consistently conflated across weeks. Even assuming geographic proximity, the odds of this are are enormously low.

If case 1 is true, then the ban was valid predicated on prior bans. If case 2 is true, then the ban is valid on basis of the impersonation rule. If case 3 is true, then we uphold the ban on basis of the necessity that, for the safety and well being of the community, these actions must be taken with regards to the most likely truth, not unlikely outliers.

However, this rationale is entirely and exclusively to explain that our initial reaction was not made flippantly, nor arbitrarily. Further, we are open to appeals, and are open to revising our judgment. In this case, however, the preceding points are moot.

Pursuant to the ban of Dust and Character B, we performed several character inspections, which revealed that the player behind Dust willfully engaged in ban evasion no less than 24 hours prior to filing any appeals. This, in and of itself, is a bannable offense, and thus regardless of the connection to Pheonix, Dust’s ban is upheld.

We outline these reasons to inform the community of the process and thought we have invested in resolving these two high profile and high priority issues. In doing so, we hope to establish that due consideration is being taken, and that our top priorities are the health and safety of our community.

4 Likes
5

To address the concerns presented here by Kelmi:

  • " Why do you completely sidestep the incredibly likely scenario that both Dust and Character B are prolific users of a very common VPN service, which absolutely would cause the IP addresses to match from a longer duration?"

We are not sidestepping it, we are disagreeing with you on the overall likelihoood. Presume that Dust is on a VPN, and sharing an IP with Pheonix, but the two are distinct. There is evidence that if both are distinct users, in a pooled VPN IP cluster, then they both moved from that IP cluster to the exact same new one within a span of 4 minutes. We find the odds that they both sat on the same IP cluster for weeks and then both changed to the exact same new cluster, itself unlikely, within such a short period, to be sufficiently unlikely.

  • " Based on the above premises, I don’t see where the impersonation would’ve happened. It seems to me like the claim of impersonation here relies on not one but two steps of separation through (potentially faulty) IP matching."

The impersonation claim is to address the notion that Character A, Character B, and Dust, who are associated with one another, but not by IP evidence with Pheonix, may have been initially banned without cause. In this case, there is a conversation in which Character A claims to be Pheonix. Whether this is true or not it warrants the ban.

  • “I think this sounds incredibly closely like what the police in the US are accused of very commonly: fabricate an offense and act on it, which causes the victim due to a very understandable reaction of human nature to panic”

Fabricating an offense would, in this case, be equivalent to planting evidence. I assure you, if I were going to do that, I would plant better than this. I agree that this is an edge case, and it is a very real possibility that Dust is a casualty of the means we have to protect our community. We make these choices for the good of the group, not any individual.

  • " am not happy to hear this is how you handle the case… sticking to a technicality do avoid admitting potential fault in your original process. It just seems petty to me."

We know there are faults in our process, and are not attempting to claim that there are not. Rather, we are accepting that some measure of uncertainty is an inherent limit of the medium through which we interact.

I will say here what I said to Dust: if we discover additional evidence that exonerates them, then we will happily welcome them back. We continue to monitor the Pheonix situation, which may provide further clues.

However, evidence that it is possible for us to be wrong is not evidence that we are wrong in this circumstance. We recognize the possibility that our process has false positives, and have made the choice that the cost of those false positives is worth paying.

Without using these tools, with all their inherent risks, our community becomes open to all manner of bad actors. False positives vis-a-vis a conflation over a VPN is, in our opinion, an acceptable cost. A VPN is a valuable privacy tool, but like our moderation tools, it comes with risks. In this case, the opportunity cost of anonymity is that it becomes very hard to prove your identity.

The trouble with proving identity is that it treads on privacy or freedom, both of which are key pillars of our community. I will say here what I said to Kelmi in private: you cannot have an anonymous, low-trust environment with transparency. Not for long.

I know that, because for so many of us Wolfery is an incredibly important place, this is a point of anxiety. How you can avoid this risk is simple: not use a VPN. But what if you want the anonymity of the VPN, too? Sadly, these are a non-zero-sum game. The value of one comes at the cost of risk in the other. The very principles which make Wolfery such a lovely place, flaws and all, make this so.

To conclude, I am sorry that the explanation is insufficient to settle your mind, but I will summarize the discrepancies in a few points:

  • Moderation staff disagrees with you on the likelihood of the IP conflation, especially in light of the temporal relation between matches across multiple players.
  • I am, here, as staff, formally making sure you know we have acknowledge that it is indeed possible, though, for IP conflation to occur.
  • Relational linking of users by IP address, character admissions, and player links, is a limited mechanism, but necessary to protect our community from bad actors
  • We choose to use less powerful, less invasive tools because they are the tools which are fitting for the kind of community we want.
  • We accept the possibility of inaccuracy as a necessary compromise
1 Like
8

First, two notes, to not create the impression I am ignoring them:

  • “You have a log where Character A claims to be P, and then that means that Dust has claimed to be P? Surely you see how faulty that argument is without me spelling it out for you.”

This is a misunderstanding. The chain of connection begins with an unassailable ban on character A. Character B is suspected via information in a log to be Pheonix, which is backed up by IP correlations to character A. Dust is banned by virtue of being the same player account as Character B. The Connection between A and P is unassailable, and the connection between B and Dust is unassailable. The connection between B and A is backed up by information in a log and IP correlation.

  • " Further, if they actually were P ban evading, why would they only now go through all this effort to try and prove they’re not guilty? Why would they spend time even trying to engage with the moderation team, when their modus operandi in the past has been to simply roll a new account again."

Firstly, by all appearances, both are happening. If they are not the same, then Pheonix is being Pheonix. If they are the same, then they are trying a new strategy with both arms at the same time. This would absolutely be in keeping with Pheonix’s MO, they have demonstrated an exceptional degree of adaptivity in evading our actions, and surprised us more than once. It really is a shame they’ve chosen violence.

Second, we do have our theories about the motivations behind the current state of affairs. However, to reveal either the theory or the direct evidence thereof would both eliminate our ability to use those to determine Pheonix’s activities, and by virtue of being public completely eliminate the logic behind Dust’s recourse to ban reversal.

That is to say: explaining it would make it useless in the future, making situations like this more likely, explaining it would eliminate its utility in determining at some future point that Dust is in fact a victim of circumstance, and explaining the nature of it itself only barely does not present a risk of these things happening, hence why I am explaining it.

And to the real heart of the matter:

  • “To me that sounds like potentially a VPN endpoint going down for a scheduled maintenance break or something similar, shifting users off of one to another one. Hardly conclusive.”
    “Evidence that it is possible for you to be wrong is necessary to highlight the fact that you have no evidence that you are conclusively right either.”

I believe that this is the fundamental incompatibility. To wit: We do not believe that it is necessary to have conclusive evidence to take action. We choose to act when we reach consensus that the expected benefit to the community is greater than the cost of taking action.

  • " You would rather ban an innocent player just to stand on principle, than what? Potentially let a player who might or might not have been previously banned back in. That is a wild conclusion and a really weird perversion of justice."

The issue with this statement is that it presumes that letting in a potentially innocent player does not de facto let in the bad actor. In this case, it does. Pheonix has clearly indicated a willingness to use many measures to subvert our tools, and has engaged in harmful behavior in periods between when they are caught. Opening an exclusion would increase the harm done by limiting our ability to catch them.

  • “… if they were actually harmful to the community surely they’d be reported again on some actual infringement that causes actual harm to the community”

We work very hard to address such issues proactively. Our goal with bans is not to punish users for bad behavior, it is to prevent harm to other users. We use a system of slowly escalating interventions specifically to this purpose. Because Pheonix consistently causes harm, waiting for an independently verifiable report of their admitted presence based solely on character interactions would result in their capacity for harm to be massively increased.

Not using the tools we have would therefor either: A) require us to be as strict with all users as we would be with Pheonix; or B) allow Pheonix essentially free reign under the graduated scale of intervention we normally use.

  • “The balance of outcomes here is wildly in disfavor of banning someone “just in case” based on nothing but evidence of circumstance”

Considering that this case is sufficiently anomalous to warrant such a strong reaction (which, for the record, I approve of), I would argue that the balance is in fact not wildly in favor of banning just in case. Rather, we are seeing an edge case.

  • " Someone, who many players have found to be a valuable member of the community, a supporter and a friend of many"

That the player is a valuable member of the community and a friend is not in doubt. If people independently see Dust as beneficial to the community, then it is the case that they are in their capacity to those people. Unfortunately, it is also true that people can be a boon in one persona and a harm in another. Further, the truly tragic nature of communities such as ours is that it is very easy for a single bad actor to cause far more harm than any upstanding member. This is simply the nature of entropy, it is much easier to destroy things than build them up.

Consider the case study of a masked trolley problem, in which the alternate track may or may not have a person on it. Quite a bit of this discussion has been focused on whether determining whether the alternate track actually has a person on it or not. At a fundamental level, though, we have determined that not pulling the level leads to more harm, regardless of whether the person is there. If future evidence reveals that there is another track with no one on it, then we will make another change. For the time being, however, our perspective has us choosing between possibly one, and definitely many.

Further, consider some future point. If it turns out that we find evidence that demonstrates that Dust is indeed due for unbanning, we will happily reverse the ban at that time. However, at current time, our conclusion is that the most likely true state of affairs is one in which Dust’s ban is to be upheld.

To not seem as though I am dismissing it: we are aware of and have evaluated the additional evidence that Dust has presented, and find it unconvincing. Not only is this evidence, at face value, not substantive, it is also ineffectual vis-a-vis opportunity cost. To elaborate further would, again, undermine the value of any future corrections it could provide.

I acknowledge that you disagree with the principles which underwrite this decision. I cannot fault you for that in the slightest. Such disagreements are inevitable within any community, and are welcome and valuable. We strive to embody the principles which are set forth, and dedicate ourselves to this task because we believe in the type of community they will result in.

3 Likes
10

This is so hypocritical. In our DMs, y’all clearly stated that this wasn’t about whether I am or am not Pheonix. I sent logs of Pheonix and I clearly rp’ing with each other. I sent y’all a list of players to reach out to that could, without a shadow of a doubt prove that we were separate people because they were involved in rps with Pheonix and I’s characters. The fact that y’all lied to me about that fact is, to me, quite telling about this whole thing. I’m sorry that my frustration has and will continue to get the better of me during all this. I also hate that I had to bring other people into this to try and prove my innocence and that’s seemingly done nothing, or y’all didn’t even try to reach out to those individuals for their testimonies and statements of proof that I’m not Pheonix. I honestly wish y’all would give me something to definitively prove I’m not her. The fact that everything I’ve sent so far as evidence has lead to basically nothing makes me feel like nothing I send will be able to convince y’all of anything other than the conclusions y’all have come to on this matter. All of the anxiety, hope, loss of sleep and everything else over the past week and a half for me has been an amazing experience to go through and it fills me with utter despair that y’all wasted my time, made a whole community post to try and clear things up, and then doubled down and made everything worse somehow. I hope this whole thing doesn’t hurt any of the mods or their relationships in any way, but ultimately I did everything I could and in the right way so any harm to y’all is your own damn faults.

5 Likes
11
  • “At which point the harm to the innocent player and their social circle will already be way past any recompense you could possibly begin to offer.”

This indicates a sharp discontinuity between the perceived harm associated with a ban. Unpleasant as it is, being removed from a social community for a period of time is not an irreversible harm.

  • “But I personally doubt that you will find such evidence, considering you’re unwilling to hear any reason that contradicts the choice you’ve already made.”

At this point, I am afraid we are at an impasse. I have made every effort to address each point you make individually and comprehensively. It is important to recognize that we may come to different conclusions when viewing the same evidence, for many reasons. Just because we disagree does not mean we do not listen.

2 Likes
12
  • “In our DMs, y’all clearly stated that this wasn’t about whether I am or am not Pheonix.”

This is inaccurate. We have stated repeatedly that a connection to Pheonix is an element of many which factors into the situation.

  • “I sent logs of Pheonix and I clearly rp’ing with each other”

This is not effectual evidence. In the context in which they were presented, there are a multitude of ways they could have been simulated. Roleplay between two characters is not a demonstration that the entities behind them are distinct.

  • “I sent y’all a list of players to reach out to that could, without a shadow of a doubt prove that we were separate people”

We have spoken to them, and the evidence they provided was of the same character as that which you provided. It was not effective evidence for the same reasons as mentioned previously. I know that you feel is is comprehensive evidence, but from the outside it is not.

  • “The fact that y’all lied to me about that fact is, to me, quite telling about this whole thing”

We have not lied. You have consistently focused on a specific area of the issue and drawn assumptive conclusions based on that. We have gone out of our way on multiple occasions to express that this is a complex issue with many factors.

  • " I also hate that I had to bring other people into this to try and prove my innocence and that’s seemingly done nothing, or y’all didn’t even try to reach out to those individuals for their testimonies and statements of proof that I’m not Pheonix."

You did not have to do this. You rallied many people to come to your defense through several channels. We investigated the claims presented to us, and concluded that what they could offer does not constitute proof. I personally spoke to three individuals you referred.

  • " honestly wish y’all would give me something to definitively prove I’m not her"

This is a complex issue, fraught with all manner of challenges, both technical and legal. We are not holding back some conditions out of spite. There is no easy solution to this problem that does not necessitate vastly invasive tracking.

  • “makes me feel like nothing I send will be able to convince y’all of anything other than the conclusions y’all have come to on this matter”

As discussed at length above, the nature of this form of community is, in essence, anonymous and low trust. That means that there is little that can be actively done. Most things which indicate the existence of two entities can be faked with little to no effort.

  • " All of the anxiety, hope, loss of sleep and everything else over the past week and a half for me has been an amazing experience to go through and it fills me with utter despair that y’all wasted my time,"

I am very sorry to hear that you have been struggling as a result of this. However, I would strongly encourage you to seek the reasons for which activity in this environment can be so potently impactful. As wonderful as it is, Wolfery is not a substitute for other human needs, and if it forms a keystone of your well being that is an inherently tenuous place to be.

  • “made a whole community post to try and clear things up, and then doubled down and made everything worse somehow.”

We did not make the post to ‘clear things up’. We made the post because we wanted to express to a community with questions why the events of the past few weeks have been the way that they are. It is not intended to fix anything, it is intended to provide answers, even if those answers are not what people want to hear.

  • “I hope this whole thing doesn’t hurt any of the mods or their relationships in any way, but ultimately I did everything I could and in the right way so any harm to y’all is your own damn faults.”

Accepting the strain of these tasks is part of our mandate as moderators. We do these things so that the community as a whole can run well. Our key obligation here is to make decisions based on the most likely state of affairs, and take the actions which we believe to be in the best interest of the community as a whole. This sometimes means making decisions which are the least of two ills, and accepting the role of doing so.

2 Likes
13

After a week of silence this was the first thing in the group DM not sent by me.

image
image811×222 18.4 KB
I’m sure you’ll say I am misinterpreting Raeth’s words, but to me this is saying my relation to being or impersonating or whatever with Pheonix means nothing and only the ban evasion claims matter. As for bringing other people into this, all of them can testify that I told them not to stick their necks out for me or say anything. I only asked one to reach out to clarify things with you because I was getting absolutely nothing from the other mods. I never rallied them to my defense, I simply gave them the fact I was banned and that it was unjustified. All of the friends I’ve made that have come to my defense have done so of their own free will and fully put their faith in me and I can’t thank them enough for it.

4 Likes
15
  • “I’m sure you’ll say I am misinterpreting Raeth’s words, but to me this is saying my relation to being or impersonating or whatever with Pheonix means nothing and only the ban evasion claims matter”

The claims are relevant to the entire story. It must be viewed as a holistic event. It all matters, but in the chain of logic, proving that you are not Pheonix is not sufficient to revoke your ban.

The takeaway there is that the ban is upheld on basis of ban evasion. No evidence presented regarding roleplay attends to the data which suggests ban evasion occurring after the initial ban. Ban evasion, even if you have been banned in error, is a bannable offense. You would have to prove to us that you did not engage in that activity.

  • " As for bringing other people into this, all of them can testify that I told them not to stick their necks out for me or say anything. I only asked one to reach out to clarify things with you because I was getting absolutely nothing from the other mods"

I want to address this by making two very important points:

  1. There’s nothing wrong with rallying people to your defense. We are happy to talk with people and get all sides of the story. That all sides of the story reinforce our perspective is immaterial- getting all sides of your story does not mean we must necessarily agree with you. Further, we strongly encourage people to support their friends. To all reading this, you will never be faulted, punished, or subject to retributive action for trying to help your friends prove their case, even if we find that they are in violation.

I want to assert here: for those friends of Shinyzorua07 who came to their defense, I commend you. That is excellent communal spirit, and I deeply appreciate your willingness to participate, and stand up for your friend. That we have come to a conclusion which is in opposition to your position in no way means that your choice to be supportive is wrong, or discouraged.

  1. It may have seemed that you were getting nothing because of the time delay. This is because we are very careful about our decisions. We take time to investigate, gather information, debate and discuss hypothesis and come to consensus on the implications of the data we have.

Because I feel it’s very important: this imposes a heavy requirement for patience. In the cases that we have reversed bans in the past, they typically take months. It takes a long time to gather, analyze, and process the information. It often requires very complex logistical arrangements among staff. In at least one case, we have had to consult a lawyer

  • “I simply gave them the fact I was banned and that it was unjustified.”

I feel the need to point out that you being banned is verifiable as a fact. That is was unjustified is the starting point from which you are coming, but it is by no means a verified fact from our perspective.

2 Likes
16
  • “Yet you’re so confident in your ability to undo that anonymity and claim that these two accounts must be the same person… This has definitely shown me the low trust I have in the staff to do the right thing, if anything.”

There is a difference between anonymity and strict uniqueness. We can connect two accounts to one another by many means. We cannot connect those accounts directly to a real, singular entity behind them positively or definitely. That is the core subtle elements that is so tricky here.

However, if the structures we have implemented to construct a community of this sort are discomfiting for you, then it may unfortunately come down to a matter of deciding to what degree the proxy trust invested impacts your experience. As I have discussed with you at length in private, the form of governance we have selected for this community may be fundamentally incompatible with your principles.

  • “I imagine you probably didn’t mean for this to sound condescending, but it does. Very much so. Additionally, it’s displaying a very considerable lack of connection with the social nature of the platform for folk. It reads something along the lines of “we didn’t expect people to form meaningful social connections on Wolfery or online” to me.”

Unfortunately, in this case I can understand why, in context, one might not be inclined to interpret my sentiment here as genuine. However, there is nothing for me to say except that it is true. We expect people to form meaningful connections here, that is the entire point. We also want to work towards building a community which steers people away from social dependence on it. This is an area of active work for us. Wolfery is not, and cannot be, a replacement for other emotional needs. We want people to have emotional relationships, but without encouraging over-reliance on the platform for those needs.

1 Like
19

Y’alls perspective means nothing to me when I know for a fact that I have never created more than one account EVER. And in the same case I have never been banned EVER till now. I know both of these to be true, but disregarding my evidence over and over shows that it doesn’t matter. To add on to the disregarding of evidence and prove that you’ve lied. I reached out to the individuals I said could prove Pheonix and I were different since they were involved in rps with the two of us and all of them have said they haven’t been reached out to by mods at all. So keep digging your grave of being honest.

Every time I bring up not being Pheonix it’s either, “It doesn’t matter if you are or aren’t Pheonix, you ban evaded.” Or “Well that’s only part of it, you also have to prove that you haven’t ban evaded.” I didn’t even create another account to reach out and tell others that I was banned, I simply relied on the friends I thankfully had on discord to help push out the message. I haven’t been on wolfery for the entire time I have been banned for the first time ever this week and a half. As usual I wish there was some way to prove that I’ve only had one account, but the only thing I can think of is my first registration email that was probably deleted once it was confirmed. Any other emails from wolfery that I got were either mails that were sent to me or forum posts that mentioned me.

3 Likes
21

I want to step in and say my part here, if that’s alright.
As a supporter, player, area owner, and a friend of Dust’s-
who hasn’t been in contact with the mods-
To say the mods prioritise the health and safety of the community is hard to hear.

The way Dust was seemingly treated to begin with, seemed to be with none of that in mind. What should have been a professional explanation of the situation, and the reasoning behind the following ban, seemed like an attack against him, with no heed to his health or wellbeing, and was more of a slap on the wrist from what felt like a primary school teacher handing out detentions.

To attack someone so blatantly, accusing them, calling them harmful words, and following it with a confusing and seemingly unwarranted ban seems so wrong on so many levels. At no point did it seem like someone had provided him with details on how to go about solving the situation in a professional manner.

As an area owner with prior intention to reach out about expanding my area, I have been nervous and anxious to reach out to the mod team, and any staff for that fact in order to do so. For the blatant mistreatment of my friend. Hell, even posting this has caused me enough stress to need a moment away from things. Worried that the same unexpected, unwarranted fate might fall on me next.

5 Likes
22
  • “And this one still sounds really questionable considering you admitted out elsewhere that you don’t proactively let people know how they could even begin to discuss a ban being reversed or how to file a grievance.”

To clarify, what I expressed elsewhere, and happily express here because it is indeed an ongoing concern for us is: we currently struggle to get players to develop awareness of the rules and expectations in a reliable way. The most visible case of this is the frequency with which Area Rules are not consulted, and thus infractions occur.

We have rules, we point to them, they are published and available. It is a problem that ‘You fox prevent errors caused by not reading the manual in the manual’. We have made some strides in improving this situation, but it is far from perfect.

Additionally, we make a point, when we discuss a ban being issued, of informing the users directly what their options of appeal are. Bans are, contrary to the impression on might get reading this discussion, exceedingly rare, and we outline them clearly.

It is important to note that Shinyzorua07 was informed that they can make an appeal here on the forum, even though the deduction at the time was that they were a user who had already been banned and made well aware of their means of contesting the ban, out of our commitment to due diligence.

  • “No, it sounds like to you it just matters that it’s another bannable offense that makes it easier for you to just move on and forget having to potentially correct a mistake you made.”

This is primarily a matter of establishing expectations. Again, it is required for harm mitigation: we need people under a ban to remain off Wolfery until such time as we can establish that their ban merits a reversal. If not, then bad actors have leeway to continue harm during the, as mentioned, very long review point.

  • “my principles of assuming people are innocent until they’ve been proven guilty of causing some harm, the principle of not holding people liable for offenses caused through entrapment and the principle of considering the least harm solutions to issues of authority.”

As mentioned, we do not operate under the idea that conclusive proof is required for action. Conclusive proof as a requirement would cripple our community. We operate on reaching a consensus as to the most likely action which has the greatest benefit for the community. Further, we hold at any point in time the position that we act in accordance with what the most likely state of affairs is.

I will note, also, that the claim of entrapment is baseless. That would imply that we provided incentives to act outside the rules, which I discussed above is not substantiated as a claim here.

On the least harm point, we are in agreement about the principle itself, but not about what constitutes the action of least harm. We have, previously, talked about this at length. You believe that a ban should require definitive proof, we do not. You believe that a single good actor is more positive for a community than a bad actor is negative, we do not.

  • " know for a fact that I have never created more than one account EVER. And in the same case I have never been banned EVER till now. I know both of these to be true,"

You may personally know that for a fact, but we don’t. If we based our judgements on the degree of fervency with which people asserted their position, there would be no recourse to any form of safety or stability. We simply cannot just take people at their word.

  • “disregarding my evidence over and over”

We are not disregarding it, we are disagreeing with your judgement of its value as evidence.

  • " I reached out to the individuals I said could prove Pheonix and I were different since they were involved in rps with the two of us and all of them have said they haven’t been reached out to by mods at all."

This is a verifiable falsehood. I have spoken to several of them. Either they are lying to you, or you are lying to us.

  • “Every time I bring up not being Pheonix it’s either, “It doesn’t matter if you are or aren’t Pheonix, you ban evaded.” Or “Well that’s only part of it, you also have to prove that you haven’t ban evaded.””

This is correct, it’s not one or the other, both issues are relevant, but require different information and have different implications. It is a complex issue, hence the length of this discussion.

  • “didn’t even create another account to reach out and tell others that I was banned, I simply relied on the friends I thankfully had on discord to help push out the message”

This is good, and perfectly fine. It is not a problem to reach out to your friends. And from the information available, we are fairly certain you didn’t create an account to reach out to them. That does not mean you did not create an account, though. And it doesn’t mean you did.

The implication is centered around the probability that ban evasion took place is simply more likely, given the number of correlations we can observe, than the combination of circumstances which would need to happen to cause this to be by accident. Therefor, until such time as we can identify evidence which makes those coincidences more likely than ban evasion, we will act as though ban evasion is the state of affairs.

  • “As usual I wish there was some way to prove that I’ve only had one account, but the only thing I can think of is my first registration email that was probably deleted once it was confirmed. Any other emails from wolfery that I got were either mails that were sent to me or forum posts that mentioned me.”

This gets at the heart of the matter as a complex issue: even if you could show us those emails, they would not prove that you did not engage in ban evasion last week. And, for what it’s worth, they would not prove that you are distinct from Pheonix. In an anonymous environment, it is trivial to separate completely two different account clusters.

1 Like
23

I am very sorry that you feel this way, but if the environment is not in alignment with your principles, then I cannot fault you for feeling so. We truly try to make it a community which is as receptive to everyone as possible, but there are distinct opportunity costs to every choice we make.

2 Likes
24
  • “The way Dust was seemingly treated to begin with, seemed to be with none of that in mind. What should have been a professional explanation of the situation,”

Reading the logs, I would disagree with this interpretation. A measure of defensiveness is understandable in such a situation, but to my estimation, Raeth was calm and direct. He gave frank advice which is intended to help, and informed Shinyzorua07 of the means to appeal.

  • “To attack someone so blatantly, accusing them, calling them harmful words, and following it with a confusing and seemingly unwarranted ban seems so wrong on so many levels.”

The conversation was neither attacking, not accusatory. I can see one instance where a turn of phrase can be considered harmful, though it refers to a behavior, and not their character. That the ban would be confusing or unwarranted is, at length, what has been discussed here, but for all the reasons above simply stating that it is felt to be unwarranted is a distinction of perspective.

We recognize that you and Shinyzorua07’s friends believe that the ban is unwarranted. We do not. It is not absolute, and my yet be overturned on discovery of further evidence. But, because that evidence is not currently extant, that means that our consensus is that, at this moment with the evidence we have, the ban is warranted.

  • “At no point did it seem like someone had provided him with details on how to go about solving the situation in a professional manner.”

They were very directly informed that recourse to an appeal was via the forums, and ongoing contact was held. We do regret that the timeframe is so long, but the difficulties in establishing and acquiring evidence of this nature are substantial.

  • “As an area owner with prior intention to reach out about expanding my area, I have been nervous and anxious to reach out to the mod team, and any staff for that fact in order to do so. For the blatant mistreatment of my friend. Hell, even posting this has caused me enough stress to need a moment away from things. Worried that the same unexpected, unwarranted fate might fall on me next.”

Though it is a constituent point which is contingent on other elements of trust, I will reiterate that we make a policy of very firmly seeking out input from everyone, and actively want people to participate in these actions as much as possible.

I recognize that the perception is ‘someone was banned flippantly, and thus anything I might do is dangerous’. However, though it is the perspective of Shinyzorua07 that their ban was thoughtless and random, and unwarranted, we have outlined in detail the reasons for which this is not the case.

It has been well established by now that if the ban is, in the future, one which will be reascended, it will be done so on basis of the fact that we find viable evidence that an outlier anomaly did indeed occur- a situation in which a collection of several unlikely occurrences lined up. For the same fate to occur, similar unlikely situations would also have to occur.

Now, I know that part of the discussion has been the exact degree of likelihood of those situations. To which I will reply again that the key factor is that we are in agreement that they are sufficiently unlikely to warrant action when weighed against the consequences of not acting.

Does that mean that it is possible for a ban to be issued to a player on basis of an accidental alignment of unlikely factors? Yes, absolutely. This is unfortunate, but an unavoidable consequence of the environment. To implement a system which would be sufficiently unlikely to allow that from happening would reduce the capability of staff to respond to threats beyond a level which is sustainable for an online community.

1 Like
25

I know for a fact they didn’t lie. I reached out to Selene, Pepper, and Imeros and all three haven’t heard anything from mods. They have no reason to lie about that and I’d gladly say if one had been reached out to. So if y’all did in fact reach out to them I’d like to know who you did. Because I can’t reasonably believe that y’all reached out to all of them when all of them agree that they didn’t get any sort of message from y’all.

And since we’re now bringing up Raeth, his behavior is far from calm and direct for the most part. I’m not sure if you’ve seen the logs when he banned me from wolfery itself, but he was simply attacking me and not listening to a single thing I said. The same was true to a certain point on the forums dms where he suddenly flips to being somewhat professional in his wording of things before shutting everything I said down and simply saying he’s done with the matter when I was not. Many of the things he’s said after the fact, including the screenshot above, were written in a somewhat passive aggressive way.

3 Likes
26

Hmmmmm not threatening right? RIGHT?!!!
image|690x93

3 Likes
27

The intersection of your list and mine are neither perfectly overlapping, nor disjoint. If any of them reach out to me and discuss the situation, then I will bring up their interactions if they wish.

I have seen the logs of the night on which you were banned, I have seen the logs of your conversations on the forums, and I have seen the logs of the associated character’s interactions at which points the prior bans were issued.

I recognize that you feel he was attacking you, and I am very sorry that there is a miscommunication on the tenor of the conversation there, but I do not believe that his conduct was unprofessional.

In terms of the notion that it seems as though he has shut you down, or been finished with the matter, there is a limit to how much productive back and forth we can have. As I say, there is an amount of necessary patience in resolving these issues, and little more productivity that can be gained in response to more of the same sort of evidence. His curtness is a reflection of that, but to impose that brevity implies unprofessionalism is unwarranted.

1 Like
28

This is not threatening. This is earnest advice given to a person who, in your experience, is taking a dangerous and hard road. I know it can be tough to hear, but when we give people this sort of feedback, it is out of a desire for them to turn around.

If you presume that, in contradiction to the available evidence, Raeth was not communicating with a person of ongoing rapport, this could certainly seem uncalled for, but contextually it is appropriate and, in point of fact, an attempt to bolster that very sense of well-being we discussed earlier.

1 Like
29

It’s not that his brevity was unprofessional it’s the fact that I continued to ask for more information to help y’all realize I am innocent and not Pheonix, the same thing I’m still doing now, and y’all can’t give me anything I can give you to prove my innocence in the same way y’all won’t provide the minute details of why I’m banned past an IP match, continued belief that I am Pheonix, and the fact that I have ban evaded before. Past the IP match you’ve given me no proof past your words and after definitely lying about reaching out to those I said could vouch for me not being Pheonix I will have trouble believing anything you say further as truth in any way. I wish I could believe you wish me the best, but all today has done is make me think y’all simply want to be done with this and sweep it under the rug which will not happen.

It is most certainly threatening, especially in the context of me telling him I’m not Pheonix and attempting to ask how I can prove it. He had his mind set on being “holier than thou” and just spouting something I can’t use for myself before banning me. I knew when he wasn’t listening that I would have to save that to show others how Raeth truly is behind the kind character he plays.

2 Likes
30
  • " ask for more information to help y’all realize I am innocent and not Pheonix, the same thing I’m still doing now, and y’all can’t give me anything I can give you to prove my innocence in the same way y’all won’t provide the minute details of why I’m banned past an IP match"

We cannot give you what we do not have, and we will not give you information which would undermine our ability to moderate the community.

  • " Past the IP match you’ve given me no proof past your words "

This is because the information, aside from the IP match, is information which is privileged by virtue of its impact on our reasoning. If we give it to you, you would be able to fake any proof we might identify later, it would make your ban permanent and un-appealable.

  • “will have trouble believing anything you say further as truth in any way”

I am sorry that this is the case. I recognize that you are more inclined to believe your friends than us, but unfortunately there is nothing I can do to assuage that, given that the requirements to demonstrate the contrary would be inimical to our principles.

-“y’all simply want to be done with this and sweep it under the rug which will not happen”

I have dedicated my entire day to replying in detail to every concern addressed, and providing as much feedback and explanation as is possibly. If I wanted to sweep it under the rug, I would have taken substantially different actions.

-“It is most certainly threatening, especially in the context of me telling him I’m not Pheonix and attempting to ask how I can prove it. He had his mind set on being “holier than thou” and just spouting something I can’t use for myself before banning me. I knew when he wasn’t listening that I would have to save that to show others how Raeth truly is behind the kind character he plays.”

Alternatively, in the context that the available evidence suggests that you are Pheonix, a person with whom he has a history and rapport, then his attempts to converse and get through are a direct sign that he is trying to help. Remember, no matter how firmly you assert that you are not Pheonix, his actions are to be taken in the context of his perception of the situation: that you are Pheonix.

We do not, here, evaluate people on basis of their behavior as though they are perfectly appraised of the state of the world, we evaluate them on basis of their actions in context of what information they have access to.

1 Like