Banner
C3 Voting ends in
2 DAYS, 6 HOURS, 24 MINUTES AND 35 SECONDS
Views: 875,192,720
Time:
14 users online:  Atari2.0, BabaYegha, cozyduck, DasFueller,  dtothefourth, FireSeraphim, Infinity, Lunming Gaming, mish1, Paithus, princess98, Qwoll, Rykon-V73, Vash the fairytail - Guests: 72 - Bots: 71 Users: 48,803 (2,458 active)
Latest: YourBoyRudy
Winter C3 2021 Content Spotlight
lx5's "Dynamic Spriteset System" and More!
Not logged in.
Zero Tolerance Approach to Harmful Beliefs and Discrimination
Forum Index - Important - Announcements - Zero Tolerance Approach to Harmful Beliefs and Discrimination
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 » Link
Originally posted by Aguni_
I love how you all immediately tag someone as a heterosexual white male with lots of money living in a first world country who's completely wrong about everything he does or even thinks if they don't agree with you.
And no, of course that wasn't revenge, it was "holding someone accountable....for not agreeing with me"

Not one person told him that his views were invalid because he's heterosexual, white, or male. The reason people disagreed with him was because the things he was saying were (badly) misinformed. You may say that Naro was just "disagreeing" with us, but by that logic the rest of us were only "disagreeing" with him back in return. I don't see any hypocrisy there.

And if you're talking about Ezek by any chance, he was banned because his post was actually a pretty inflammatory and hateful message (before it was edited out, that is).
Originally posted by Aguni_
I love how you all immediately tag someone as a heterosexual white male with lots of money living in a first world country who's completely wrong about everything he does or even thinks if they don't agree with you.
And no, of course that wasn't revenge, it was "holding someone accountable....for not agreeing with me"
Anyways, f this place, can someone please just delete my shitty hacks and account from this website? It bothers me a lot knowing something i once made, even if it's just a romhack, remains in this website.


Good riddance. I don't need people around who would wish death on me simply for existing. I hope you have a bad day.


[CW: Death wishes and misgendering]









Wishing death to anyone sounds like a compelling ban reason, especially to a staff member. Not even giving a reason could help in that regard. This is not a place for such things. Every life matters.

Aguni, if you don't truly enjoy this website any more, you can leave it. We don't force you, but anyone can take a break from it. You can get away with your username as idol mentioned. That's your choice whether you leave or not. We're a respectful community.
I have a Discord server as well!

Der ver zwei peanuts, valking down der Straße, und von vas assaulted...peanut. Ohohohoho!
Originally posted by Deakula
Good riddance. I don't need people around who would wish death on me simply for existing. I hope you have a bad day.


CW: Death wishes and misgendering





What Aguni has said to you off-site is completely and totally unacceptable, and they will no longer be welcome in this community.

To everyone else reading, these examples are the kinds of things that would get you banned for breaking Rule A3. If you aren't wishing death on others or disparaging trans people, for example, then you are unlikely to run afoul of the rule.

If anyone else is aware of similar situations happening to others, not just from Aguni, but from anyone, then please let the staff know.
I truly, in a heartfelt way, apologize for what you've been through Deakula. You do not deserve such hate in any way, shape, or form.

As for what just happened, all it does is further prove the point of this thread.

-----------

STELLA!


Good riddance tho
No idea what the deal with that Aguni fellow was, going by their past history, they didn't appear to be pleasant in the first place. How convenient that they seemingly came back from hibernation just to be a bigot in this thread. It's a big shame you had to go through with that, Deakula, especially considering it's probably not the first time it's happened.

Now that we've had an example of what could possibly qualify for violating the new rule, I think that should clear up people's concerns over what could possibly get them punished.

I also wanna give big thanks to everyone who contributed to the new rule being put in place, you're legitimely contributing towards a greater cause!
A change of scenery is always nice.

I play forum games and draw furries. I'm mostly active on Discord and Twitter.
It's been pretty disheartening to see prominent members of smwc double down on their support of transphobia over the last few months. It shows how necessary it is that this policy be loud and clear. No, not even a niche forum for enthusiasts of a 30-year-old video game is above criticism for failing to evolve with the rest of us, and the 'drama' and 'division' we're 'suddenly having' is a long-overdue and much-needed reckoning with the kind of nonsense that's been allowed to exist/thrive in this community throughout its entire lifetime. If the result is more people being 'outed' for the reprehensible way they treat others, good. It's about time we take out the trash.

I've spent a lot of time here and in the discord for resources and support, but to be frank, I've never felt comfortable as a community member because of how it's been home to some particular unsavory people and behavior. So, I'm very glad to see this announcement. It obviously doesn't mean that these problems will disappear immediately or entirely, but it's a step in the right direction that shows the staff are taking their users' safety more seriously.
Y'know, I find it weird that a lot of these people think everyone who supports basic human decency is some kind of super radical leftist who is out to kill everyone who isn't an "SJW".

That couldn't be further from the truth.
There are a wide variety of people, with different levels of engagement and understandment of this type of stuff (mine being admitably low), but as I said, we just support basic human rights. And basic human rights aren't "political".

We all have different different opinions, experiences and perspectives about the world as a whole, the fact that we can agree over this little ruleset, shows that it's no big deal that it exists.

--------------------
Хуй войне!

Bacon is kind of a pig vegetable.
We appreciate all the feedback from you all on this process. As stated by a few users, our moderation stance on this kind of behaviour hasn't really changed since before or after the rule change, we were just looking to formalise our process on this.

We have been listening to the feedback we've received across a multitude of sources. However, when we published this announcement and rule change to the userbase, we didn't quite expect to deal with such rule-breaks as quickly as we did, and thus this brought up a couple of flaws we had not thought of when handling such situations - this lead to us having to make some quick decisions on our processes whilst dealing with these situations. However, whether these rule-breaks had happened five minutes after the announcement, or five months after, it would have been a learning curve for us sooner or later.

We also picked up on an issue in our site banning system, where users who have their account disabled can't be made aware of why unless they check the public ban log, or we have contact details for them. In one of our rule-break instances, we did not have any method to contact a user as to why we disabled their account. Therefore, this is something we're rectifying internally, to ensure we are able to inform users when they do have their account disabled in the future why this has happened.


Clarifying our Definition on "Educating"

We stated in our announcement that "we will do our best as a moderation team to educate these users on why this kind of behaviour could be seen as harmful to others.". By this, when we warn users, we will reinforce Rule A3's Justification. This does not mean we will try to change a user's beliefs, as we do not believe as moderation teams that is our job. However, we will do our best to explain the rules, and justify them.

With that, and updating our internal banning systems to ensure a user is notified when we disable their account and why, we believe this is a solid platform for us to move forward on with enforcing this rule. We completely acknowledge people's beliefs can change, and you can become a better person, so we believe it's important for users to be made aware why what they did was wrong.


Our Process for Dealing With Rule A3 Offences

When a severe violation of Rule A3 happens, we will be following the below process during our investigation. This process applies to both the site forums, and our Discord server. A "severe" violation is where a user is being deliberately hateful towards another marginalised group.

1. We will edit out/delete the offending content.
By removing the content, we are minimising the impact it makes. This way, as few users as possible are caused any upset by the content.

2. The offending user will have their posting privileges revoked until the investigation has reached an outcome.
We want to ensure that the offending user does not have the opportunity to add their content back, or say anything further that could cause upset.

3. We will explain to the offending user why what they did was wrong.
This is our "educating" part of the process. Instead of just stating to the user "this violates Rule A3", we will additionally explain why Rule A3 exists and how it prevents upset to minority groups on SMW Central. This explanation will not go any further than the Justification part of the rule. This will either be issued by a site warning, or a DM on Discord - depending on which is the most suitable method of contact.

4. If a user understands what they did wrong, then we will not take any further action for this offence.
The user will be left with a warning on their record, and if they violate Rule A3 again in the future, this offence will be taken into consideration. If a user is adamant on their position, and such a position would bring a harmful environment to the community, their account will be disabled.



With all this in mind, we have made a tweak to Rule A3's Consequence, where the action we take against a user is now more open for interpretation, based on the circumstance of the rule break. Additionally, it now mentions that while violations are being investigated, users may have their posting privileges revoked.

Originally posted by Rule A3 Consequence Revision
SMW Central has a zero tolerance stance on this kind of behaviour, and each instance will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. While any potential instances are being investigated, the offending user(s) may have their posting privileges revoked until an outcome is reached.


This revision does not change anything for our moderation teams operationally, it just further clarifies our process.


Again, we thank you for your feedback on this, and we hope to continue to make SMW Central a more inclusive, friendly place!
Originally posted by Y.Y.
It's really hard to be banned accidentally.
If you think about what you say before you post it, things will be fine, if you make a mistake, someone will tell you, and you can move on from there and use that as an opportunity to not make the same mistake.

To get banned, especially in a major way, or have your account disabled, you really have to be pushing it. Like ignoring rules, being hostile or whatever. It doesn't happen at random like that.


Yeah, it's always worked like this. The issue with a zero-tolerance policy is whether it continues to be the case whether you "really have to be pushing it." I think this new process is really a good one. Thanks to the mods for clarifying how they will determine if a statement is made "in bad faith" vs. one that comes about because of a language barrier or harmless difference of opinion.

--------------------
NewPointless
Originally posted by Tahixham
...

Again, we thank you for your feedback on this, and we hope to continue to make SMW Central a more inclusive, friendly place!


i didnt read anything after page 3 but i like the wording on this a lot more than from december. i see no faults and hte ban-notifcation thing seems cool either way (i mean cool in the sense that the moderators show .... empathy? for rule-violators)

--------------------

Originally posted by Tahixham
We also picked up on an issue in our site banning system, where users who have their account disabled can't be made aware of why unless they check the public ban log, or we have contact details for them. In one of our rule-break instances, we did not have any method to contact a user as to why we disabled their account. Therefore, this is something we're rectifying internally, to ensure we are able to inform users when they do have their account disabled in the future why this has happened.



Quote
With that, and updating our internal banning systems to ensure a user is notified when we disable their account and why, we believe this is a solid platform for us to move forward on with enforcing this rule. We completely acknowledge people's beliefs can change, and you can become a better person, so we believe it's important for users to be made aware why what they did was wrong.


Given SMW Central has an active development team, I'd suggest to make it possible when an account disabled user attempts logging in, instead of showing "Login failed" or "You're banned" (I don't remember what text exactly it shows since I left the team around 2017), actually show a detailed message notifying that their account was disabled and the reasons why.

In the past, administrators used to put the ban reason on the user's title but that is not just a weird way but also makes it entirely public, while my suggestion allows for more private, detailed reason.

--------------------
GitHub - Twitter - YouTube - SnesLab Discord
Originally posted by Vitor Vilela
Given SMW Central has an active development team, I'd suggest to make it possible when an account disabled user attempts logging in, instead of showing "Login failed" or "You're banned" (I don't remember what text exactly it shows since I left the team around 2017), actually show a detailed message notifying that their account was disabled and the reasons why.

In the past, administrators used to put the ban reason on the user's title but that is not just a weird way but also makes it entirely public, while my suggestion allows for more private, detailed reason.

Yeah, this is actually something that has come up multiple times in our internal discussions, and we're looking to come up with some sort of solution to that as well as revoking posting privileges while still allowing us to send PMs to infringing users. It's definitely something that we're working on, amidst everything else.

--------------------
Bio.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 » Link
Forum Index - Important - Announcements - Zero Tolerance Approach to Harmful Beliefs and Discrimination

The purpose of this site is not to distribute copyrighted material, but to honor one of our favourite games.

Copyright © 2005 - 2021 - SMW Central
Legal Information - Privacy Policy - Link To Us


Menu

Follow Us On

  • YouTube
  • Twitch
  • Twitter

Affiliates

  • Super Mario Bros. X Community
  • ROMhacking.net
  • Mario Fan Games Galaxy
  • sm64romhacks