[Nyctaeus]

2) The fact that Fusion's original moderated account had received a general Discord fan wasn't a factor in the decision, as the moderators didn't know about it until Fusion brought it up in this thread. We're actively discussing about whether to make this a formal policy going forward, because as Grizzly pointed out, using an alt account to evade a platform ban is explicitly against Discord's community guidelines.

Banning an account for simply being on a server but without any activity on this given server for long years is also not a valid reason to ban an account. Discord explicitly lists the possible causes of ban and by giving mass-ban for people who simply follow stuff on the server, Discord didn't follow their own rules... But they are large corporation and their platforms hosts millions of users and thousands of servers, so they why would they care?

3) By far the most important: Fusion has on two separate occasions used blatantly antisemitic language around members of the HLP community. He was initially banned for the first incident a few years ago, but that ban was rescinded with the understanding that he would be closely scrutinized going forward. (I'd like to direct attention to Fusion's public apology after that incident, in which he fully acknowledged and accepted that fact.) After the second incident several months ago, Fusion came extremely close to being banned, and it was only after prolonged discussion that his Discord account was placed in a restricted role that prevented him from interacting with general discussion channels. Suffice it to say that Fusion was operating on incredibly thin ice, and when it was discovered that he'd had an unrestricted alternate account on the server that he never notified the moderators about, that was considered the last straw, and the decision was made to ban him.

But for his past transgressions, he as been already punished. This is not questioned in this case and I see no voices that finds his previous punishment as unjust.

How much time passed since the last accident involving Fusion? Did anybody report anykind of suspicious, provocative or toxic behaviour of this user after that?

I say some time passed and I had my own objections about this person in the past, denying him access to some projects and social circles I'm associated with. But nothing raised my suspicion after that and other members of the community started to speak about Fusion with more appreciative tone. Eventually I was forced to reconsider my stance and allow him to approach to social circles I'm part of, because I simply could not find a reason to not to. Just like Administrator and Moderator crew right now.

The mighty head of the HLP Banhammer of Ownage cannot hang above person's head forever. This is not how any law in the world works. Especially in situations like that, as we handle simple misunderstanding caused by neglect, lack of communication and information inertia. The Banhammer is the ultimate tool to solve cases, while [with all due respect to Fusion] good, old Hanlon's Razor is more then enough in this case.

To some of the broader points being raised: when making moderation decisions about a user, we do not take into account what projects they may be working on, or how skilled they are at writing code or modeling ships. What concerns us is whether the user has been adhering to the guidelines for behavior that have been established for this community. Fusion made extremely disturbing public comments on multiple occasions, and this is the eventual consequence of those actions.

We do not try to redeem possible misdoings of Fusion by highlighting his contributions. We do highlight that majority of his behaviour in the community is correct and it is so for quite some time, and moderation team seems to be completely ignoring that in their judgement. By bringing up some details from behind the scenes, as well as opinions of multiple community members expressed in this thread, we also try to make you aware, that many people in the community disagree with the decisionmaking of the moderation team in this case.

You - as moderation team - are obliged to take those voices into consideration, because you're supposed to maintain order in the community, not commence actions against the will of many of it's members. I specifically oppose against banning people for being sloppy at managing their accounts and making a fuzz... Which unfortunately happens all the time, because we're all simple humans and we're quite messy kind by our very default. Aside Grizzly, I see no voices of support for your doings.

I also do not see any real arguments to support your stance - which is pretty much 'because he was doing something stupid years ago'. I also did. We all did... But we changed, and so did Fusion. I also see no arguments that make this decision any compatible with moderation standards as specified by members of the moderation itself.

[Fusion]

I apologize for the delay in replying to this. In addition to the collective moderator position that karajorma posted above, I wanted to clarify a few more points that have been raised:

I reached out to Chief yesterday evening - was able to add him because I saw he was also in the FOTG server - to try and pursue the Rule 12 solution of appealing to a moderator, which I had at the time been evidently unable to do. The discussion I had with him seemed to showcase the moderator team's justification for the ban is actively in flux and is not explicitly representative of karajorma's response. I'd like to add that the following list of chronological responses regarding the mods' apparent justifications and opinions are not explicitly Chief's own.

>The new account was an attempt at ban circumvention, despite karajorma having already acknowledged the account wasn't new
>The account wasn't new, but it was new to HLP Discord
>The account wasn't new to HLP Discord
>Because the backup account was made to ensure I could still be active in the community despite a nuke of my main account, this is justification for my ban despite neither the rules nor past precedent saying such
>Rules 6 and 8 don't apply because the main account got banned by Discord, despite again this having nothing to do with the community
>Simply giving my backup account the restriction role now that it was active was the wrong action to take, despite it being objectively the "least serious moderation tool" to "correct [the] behavior" of me having access to those channels
>Using the backup account means that the mods can supersede the existing guidelines to ban it despite no rules being broken
>The mod team doesn't care about why the main account was banned - the fact the backup account is being used itself is justification enough for a ban despite the rules and past precedent saying it isn't
>There's no precedent where the mod team let someone remain in the community who had a previous account nuked by Discord that they knew about - which ignores the fact that I am literally the precedent for that since my original Discord account was nuked 1-2 years before the initial debacle happened in 2021
>Using the backup account period, without having let the mod team know, constitutes an attempt to circumvent the mod team's restrictions through the role assignment

I'd like to now address the points in Mongoose's post directly.

1) The moderators were not aware that Fusion had an alternate account on the server before this. As you can imagine, we don't exactly have the time to regularly scroll through thousands of offline server members to see if any names or icons match those of moderated individuals. We only realized that this account belonged to Fusion when he posted in the website support channel a few days ago, and we noticed the account name/icon similarities.

The account's presence was verifiable for years. It would've been visible in the join logs for the server, in the member records, and most importantly, it would've shown up any time my main account was tagged since it had almost the same name(Fusionblaster). If the moderators weren't aware that I had a backup account on the server for over half a decade, I really don't know what to say - there certainly was plenty of time and plenty of opportunities in discussion over the years where it would've been noticed and could've been brought up, so I'm admittedly not sure how this is a failure on my part to disclose its existence. Again, if the mods wanted me to say "hey, I'm using a backup account now, can you give me the restriction role," then I'm sorry I didn't do that, but respectfully, I was more immediately focused on rebuilding my friend and server list, and any lingering thought I may have had about that went away when the restriction role got applied.

2) The fact that Fusion's original moderated account had received a general Discord fan wasn't a factor in the decision, as the moderators didn't know about it until Fusion brought it up in this thread. We're actively discussing about whether to make this a formal policy going forward, because as Grizzly pointed out, using an alt account to evade a platform ban is explicitly against Discord's community guidelines.

Based on the discussion I had with Chief, this is apparently untrue that it wasn't a factor in the decision - if anything, it was made clear that it is being used as a justification to keep the ban in place despite the ban having not occurred due to any violations of the community's rules. Frankly the fact the moderators are seeking to create new rules and retroactively apply them to justify preexisting punishments is very concerning, especially given that HLP and Discord, aside from the former using the latter as a platform, have no direct affiliation and the former is not obligated to enforce the rules of the latter on an individual basis.

3) By far the most important: Fusion has on two separate occasions used blatantly antisemitic language around members of the HLP community. He was initially banned for the first incident a few years ago, but that ban was rescinded with the understanding that he would be closely scrutinized going forward. (I'd like to direct attention to Fusion's public apology after that incident, in which he fully acknowledged and accepted that fact.) After the second incident several months ago, Fusion came extremely close to being banned, and it was only after prolonged discussion that his Discord account was placed in a restricted role that prevented him from interacting with general discussion channels. Suffice it to say that Fusion was operating on incredibly thin ice, and when it was discovered that he'd had an unrestricted alternate account on the server that he never notified the moderators about, that was considered the last straw, and the decision was made to ban him.

What is the relevance of my past misdeeds to this? For half a decade since this, with the exception of the political discussion that gave me the restriction role due to it being "borderline," I haven't caused trouble. I've been a positive, contributing member of the community, interacting with other members, working on other projects, and contributing to an "inclusive community." I've followed the rules as they were explicitly agreed to. If the claim is going to be made that I've been on "incredibly thin ice" despite having had exactly one issue pop up over that half-decade time period, then respectfully, that seems ridiculous. The fact this entire incident has nothing to do with a violation of the rules, and is based on the fact that the moderator team either apparently negligently ignored the fact I had a backup account for years that they didn't give the restriction role when the incident happened (an account that, again, I hadn't logged into since 2020), is absolutely insane to be considered the "last straw" and justification to permanently ban me from the HLP Discord.

To some of the broader points being raised: when making moderation decisions about a user, we do not take into account what projects they may be working on, or how skilled they are at writing code or modeling ships. What concerns us is whether the user has been adhering to the guidelines for behavior that have been established for this community. Fusion made extremely disturbing public comments on multiple occasions, and this is the eventual consequence of those actions.

I have been adhering to "the guidelines that have been established for this community" for over half a decade. The single incident over that time in which it was decided that I had said something contrary to such was resolved according to the very guidelines in question. To claim that a permaban from the HLP Discord over a non-rule violation, whose justification has evidently changed substantially over the past few days, is "the eventual consequences" of this is absolutely crazy given I have by all accounts been a member of nominally good standing for years.

Finally, since Fusion has shown interest in quoting various parts of our community guidelines, I'd like to point out one of those as well:

12. Appeals:  A user subject to moderation action may consider appealing in private to a member of the moderation team.

At the time I was banned, I had no member of the moderator team to talk to on Discord, hence my rationale for making this thread. Attempting to reach out to anyone on the forum would take weeks given the forum is mostly inactive except for threads like this and campaign/model releases, so I could not realistically make an appeal in any reasonable period of time after the ban. It was days after the ban that I was able to reach out to Chief and talk with him - and the resulting talk I had seemed to showcase the fluctuating rationale of the mod team for keeping this ban in place, along with the apparent willingness of presumably a majority of the mods to ignore (and per Mongoose's comment, seemingly seek to manipulate through retroactive application of new policy) the rules the community are supposed to follow. I'm genuinely concerned now about this whole thing since it feels like something that was already resolved (when my backup account was given the restriction role) is being massively blown out of proportion as a form of... I don't know. Excessive punishment? Retaliation for past misdeeds? I really don't know the right word to describe it, only that it feels wrong, and I honestly feel frustrated about it.

[lordhood117]

2) The fact that Fusion's original moderated account had received a general Discord fan wasn't a factor in the decision, as the moderators didn't know about it until Fusion brought it up in this thread. We're actively discussing about whether to make this a formal policy going forward, because as Grizzly pointed out, using an alt account to evade a platform ban is explicitly against Discord's community guidelines.

Suffice it to say that Fusion was operating on incredibly thin ice, and when it was discovered that he'd had an unrestricted alternate account on the server that he never notified the moderators about, that was considered the last straw, and the decision was made to ban him.

This is an entirely inappropriate action for the moderation team to take.  This is HLP.  We are not run by Discord.  As such, Discord Terms of Service do not, and should not, affect HLP policy now or in the future.  In addition, alt accounts are against ToS namely for when the alt account is used to violate elements of the ToS (I.e. ban evasion).  There was no ban in place at the time of discovery, just a restriction.  As such, the appropriate move, under HLP rules, would be to add the role-based restriction to the alt as well and contact the user to judge whether a genuine attempt to bypass the restriction was involved.  The bans are an unwarranted escalation, and should be rescinded.

To some of the broader points being raised: when making moderation decisions about a user, we do not take into account what projects they may be working on, or how skilled they are at writing code or modeling ships. What concerns us is whether the user has been adhering to the guidelines for behavior that have been established for this community. Fusion made extremely disturbing public comments on multiple occasions, and this is the eventual consequence of those actions.

Is the written word not correctable by nature?
Is there evidence of someone from a protected group being offended by Fusion’s most recent words?  If so, what specifically was offensive?  If not, was this judgement based solely on the views of the moderation team?  If that’s the case, this is not punishment.  This is language policing, and I will not stand for such an abuse of power in this community.

Finally, since Fusion has shown interest in quoting various parts of our community guidelines, I'd like to point out one of those as well:

12. Appeals:  A user subject to moderation action may consider appealing in private to a member of the moderation team.

This is not appropriate conduct for someone in charge of moderating the content of a website to conform with site rules of conduct and the laws and regulations on web content imposed by countries.  This kind of passive-aggression and “gotcha” moment-seeking attitude is unprofessional and unwelcome.

We need cooler heads to prevail here, and this vindictiveness and closed-mindedness serves only to make things worse for all.

[shiv]

Let me rephrase this once again: nobody is trying to justify Fusion’s past actions for which he was punished. He was punished for antisemitic comments, and rightly so. There is nothing more disgusting than racism, Nazism, or any other form of hatred. But Fusion has already been punished for that.

In your argument, you’re saying that Fusion was banned because he was already on thin ice. However, this logic does not take into account the fact that he did not act deliberately or maliciously. He simply made a mistake, with no harmful intent whatsoever. Most importantly, there was no intention of repeating the same mistake for a third time.

Yet you keep bringing up issues for which he has already been punished, as if they were directly related to the harmless behavior he recently displayed. Let me remind you that no legal system I know of allows a person to be punished twice for the same offense. There is even a Latin term for this principle: non bis in idem.

Many voices have raised concerns that this ban is too severe a punishment for something Fusion tried to explain and apologize for. If the staff does not take these concerns into consideration, then please explain: is the HLP crew’s decision truly the voice of the community, or is it an echo of their own subjective biases?

[Belisarius]

1) The moderators were not aware that Fusion had an alternate account on the server before this. As you can imagine, we don't exactly have the time to regularly scroll through thousands of offline server members to see if any names or icons match those of moderated individuals. We only realized that this account belonged to Fusion when he posted in the website support channel a few days ago, and we noticed the account name/icon similarities.

So there obviously was no intent for Fusion to evade any ban at all. Otherwise he would've chosen another name and profile picture.

This also means that you're punishing him twice for the same violation.

2) The fact that Fusion's original moderated account had received a general Discord fan wasn't a factor in the decision, as the moderators didn't know about it until Fusion brought it up in this thread. We're actively discussing about whether to make this a formal policy going forward, because as Grizzly pointed out, using an alt account to evade a platform ban is explicitly against Discord's community guidelines.

Not only are you admitting that you want to deliberately punish him twice for the same rule violation that happened a long time ago, but you also want to start a vendetta against unpopular opinions and are using the Discord rules as justification for this. Who do you think you are? The Discord online police? Stop this nonsense! That's just malicious and contributes absolutely nothing to a lively, inclusive online community.

3) By far the most important: Fusion has on two separate occasions used blatantly antisemitic language around members of the HLP community. He was initially banned for the first incident a few years ago, but that ban was rescinded with the understanding that he would be closely scrutinized going forward. (I'd like to direct attention to Fusion's public apology after that incident, in which he fully acknowledged and accepted that fact.) After the second incident several months ago, Fusion came extremely close to being banned, and it was only after prolonged discussion that his Discord account was placed in a restricted role that prevented him from interacting with general discussion channels. Suffice it to say that Fusion was operating on incredibly thin ice, and when it was discovered that he'd had an unrestricted alternate account on the server that he never notified the moderators about, that was considered the last straw, and the decision was made to ban him.

So you were just waiting for him to make a mistake, which isn't even one, so you could finally get rid of him. What kind of people are you?

To some of the broader points being raised: when making moderation decisions about a user, we do not take into account what projects they may be working on, or how skilled they are at writing code or modeling ships. What concerns us is whether the user has been adhering to the guidelines for behavior that have been established for this community. Fusion made extremely disturbing public comments on multiple occasions, and this is the eventual consequence of those actions.

Maybe you should start doing that, because your main page still says “modding community” and nothing about a “personal feelings are everything” community. You've completely forgotten what this is actually about. If we knew each other personally, we could at worst punch each other in the face when we disagree, but this is an international community that was originally dedicated to modding Freespace. Please grow up and stop looking for ways to get at each other. That's not just deliberate power play, it's abuse.

And Mongoose, I'm no native english speaker, so maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but "may consider" still means that he can, not that he must.

You're really doing everything to tear the last bits of this community, that is holding it together, apart.