Important Important Rule Changes

[Pierogi]

Hello After Hours Community.
I have had a very fun past week explaining to various parties, including Facepunch, why AHG is not some evil cabal of predatory doxxers. Now that things seem to have settled down, I would like to announce some new policies to ensure compliance with Facepunch's ruling.

Chad
Many of you are familiar with the player "Chad" from SGM. Under no reason should anyone from AHG:

1. Make contact with Chad in any way
2. Post pictures/personal information of Chad, regardless of if he intentionally made it public before

We also ask that users avoid any public discussion of this person. Due to the severity of the situation, anyone who violates the above rules will be permanently banned from AHG with no chance of appeal.


Disturbing Content

1. Any discussion of CSAM or sexual assault is completely prohibited. Although we have warned before banning for this in the past, our new protocol is that this will be an immediate ban. The lengths will vary based on context, but you can expect this to be anywhere from a 16 week to a permanent ban.
2. Baseless accusations of pedophilia will be a permanent ban on first offense. This includes accusations without evidence, or taking someone's words out of context to make them look like a predator.
   1. If you have concerns about inappropriate conduct, do not publicly confront the individual. Report them to staff and we will forward it to the relevant law enforcement agencies. Public accusations can lead to large amount of bad outcomes ranging from defamation/witch hunting to potentially damaging a criminal case against the person in question.
3. The threshold for content to be "sexualized" is being substantially reduced. As a general rule, if you have to ask, don't share it.

Hate Speech

1. Sarcastic hate speech will now be treated as regular hate speech. We have given some leeway in the past, but this can look bad to outsiders who don't understand it's sarcasm.

 

[8BitF0x]

wow thats crazy!

 

[Grumble]

He who must not be named..

 

[wallace]

crazy

 

[Pokeben10]

Serious question: What about the people who are friends with Chad (if there are any)?

 

[Pierogi]

Serious question: What about the people who are friends with Chad (if there are any)?

Goodbye.

 

[burger king]

Serious question: What about the people who are friends with Chad (if there are any)?

see you later, PAL

 

[capri sun]

Deadass Voldemort now, ain't that somethin'

 

[Pokeben10]

Goodbye.

 

[Blue Subaru]

literally 1984

 

[Black]

He who must not be named cucked pierogi infront of the facepunch devs

 

[Everlong]

So that explains the discord announcement from a few weeks ago that got deleted-

 

[Nathan776]

My main question is why this is the case for a specific user in particular and not a blanket rule for users who are banned (in regards to public discussion). Can a user request the same treatment if they are banned? How would users be notified if a banned user requested such? If the goal is to not speak about banned users, would it not be beneficial to hide the ban list?
I think its pretty much a given posting a persons personal information on AHG anyway would result in a ban? I'm assuming this may be more related to things not relating to AHG - but still in general if somebody is doing something that is intended to cause harm would they not already of been removed from the community?
The things around CSAM and Sexual Assault make sense - again I thought most of this was already taken seriously, assuming this means the sarcasm part etc applies here too?
Accusing somebody publicly would almost certainly be an issue - my concern is why a user would feel comfortable talking to staff members about their issues and what steps would be taken to enable a user to do so anonymously?
Can't really judge about the "Sexualised" bit. Any community has different standards on things and I'd have to see where this sits in the next few days.

 

[Pokeben10]

My main question is why this is the case for a specific user in particular and not a blanket rule for users who are banned (in regards to public discussion). Can a user request the same treatment if they are banned? How would users be notified if a banned user requested such? If the goal is to not speak about banned users, would it not be beneficial to hide the ban list?
I think its pretty much a given posting a persons personal information on AHG anyway would result in a ban? I'm assuming this may be more related to things not relating to AHG - but still in general if somebody is doing something that is intended to cause harm would they not already of been removed from the community?
The things around CSAM and Sexual Assault make sense - again I thought most of this was already taken seriously, assuming this means the sarcasm part etc applies here too?
Accusing somebody publicly would almost certainly be an issue - my concern is why a user would feel comfortable talking to staff members about their issues and what steps would be taken to enable a user to do so anonymously?
Can't really judge about the "Sexualised" bit. Any community has different standards on things and I'd have to see where this sits in the next few days.

In Pierogi's defense, Chad is not just a "banned player". Chad has a dark and storied history in this community. And correct me if I'm wrong @Pierogi, but it wasn't Chad who requested to not be talked about but rather Pierogi and the other higher ups who decided he shouldn't be talked about.

 

[The Memelord]

In Pierogi's defense, Chad is not just a "banned player". Chad has a dark and storied history in this community. And correct me if I'm wrong @Pierogi, but it wasn't Chad who requested to not be talked about but rather Pierogi and the other higher ups who decided he shouldn't be talked about.

when will you learn...

 

[FrogDoggo]

He who must not be named..

Wait who now

 

[RODSIN]

Damn, he remembers me from a moustache paintor man

 

[Pierogi]

My main question is why this is the case for a specific user in particular and not a blanket rule for users who are banned (in regards to public discussion). Can a user request the same treatment if they are banned? How would users be notified if a banned user requested such? If the goal is to not speak about banned users, would it not be beneficial to hide the ban list?
I think its pretty much a given posting a persons personal information on AHG anyway would result in a ban? I'm assuming this may be more related to things not relating to AHG - but still in general if somebody is doing something that is intended to cause harm would they not already of been removed from the community?

Please re-read the part where I discussed compliance with Facepunch's ruling. I do not personally believe that the "doxxing" evidence that was shared with me contained non-public information. However, I'm not going to get into a game of chicken with someone who can press a few buttons and effectively kill this community. The reason I'm okay with this being the case for this specific user is because there's a grey area in whether the information was private or public, in that the user knowingly published personal information on SGM and to many people in AHG, but not AHG itself. I want to avoid even the appearance of sharing non-public information.

The things around CSAM and Sexual Assault make sense - again I thought most of this was already taken seriously, assuming this means the sarcasm part etc applies here too?

Yeah, we're just removing warnings as part of the protocol. Here's some things we warned for recently that would now result in an instant ban:

Spoiler

Accusing somebody publicly would almost certainly be an issue - my concern is why a user would feel comfortable talking to staff members about their issues and what steps would be taken to enable a user to do so anonymously?

Why they would be comfortable talking to staff about their issues and wanting to remain anonymous, as opposed to public accusations?

 

[FrogDoggo]

Please re-read the part where I discussed compliance with Facepunch's ruling. I do not personally believe that the "doxxing" evidence that was shared with me contained non-public information. However, I'm not going to get into a game of chicken with someone who can press a few buttons and effectively kill this community. The reason I'm okay with this being the case for this specific user is because there's a grey area in whether the information was private or public, in that the user knowingly published personal information on SGM and to many people in AHG, but not AHG itself. I want to avoid even the appearance of sharing non-public information.



Yeah, we're just removing warnings as part of the protocol. Here's some things we warned for recently that would now result in an instant ban:

Spoiler

Why they would be comfortable talking to staff about their issues and wanting to remain anonymous, as opposed to public accusations?

Please re-read the part where I discussed compliance with Facepunch's ruling. I do not personally believe that the "doxxing" evidence that was shared with me contained non-public information. However, I'm not going to get into a game of chicken with someone who can press a few buttons and effectively kill this community. The reason I'm okay with this being the case for this specific user is because there's a grey area in whether the information was private or public, in that the user knowingly published personal information on SGM and to many people in AHG, but not AHG itself. I want to avoid even the appearance of sharing non-public information.



Yeah, we're just removing warnings as part of the protocol. Here's some things we warned for recently that would now result in an instant ban:

Spoiler

Why they would be comfortable talking to staff about their issues and wanting to remain anonymous, as opposed to public accusations?

It’s like the Daza thing I think right? Didn’t people do it in public first or it eventually got into the public and that definitely caused a really big game of chicken.

 

[Nathan776]

Please re-read the part where I discussed compliance with Facepunch's ruling. I do not personally believe that the "doxxing" evidence that was shared with me contained non-public information. However, I'm not going to get into a game of chicken with someone who can press a few buttons and effectively kill this community. The reason I'm okay with this being the case for this specific user is because there's a grey area in whether the information was private or public, in that the user knowingly published personal information on SGM and to many people in AHG, but not AHG itself. I want to avoid even the appearance of sharing non-public information.



Yeah, we're just removing warnings as part of the protocol. Here's some things we warned for recently that would now result in an instant ban:

Spoiler

Why they would be comfortable talking to staff about their issues and wanting to remain anonymous, as opposed to public accusations?

I see what you are saying about this being specific for Chad due to the the blend of information being vague of origin (in respect to Facepunch's view) and not wanting to push it with their ruling. However does this not invite other banned users to attempt the same to limit what is discussed about themselves? Surely this makes it so reaching out to Facepunch is an effective strategy in dealing with these issues?

Thanks for making the CSAM and Sexual Assault portion more clear.

A public accusation makes things more actionable in the eyes of the accuser. If the community is speaking about it - it does multiple things such as: creating a sense of urgency to resolve the issue, enables others who have either experienced similar behaviours or have supporting evidence to come forward and enables members of the community to rally around a user and offer their support. While as I say - it makes sense that an accusation isn't made publicly (on a platform ran by AHG) a private message to a staff member isn't always the best option in the eyes of someone who is looking to accuse.

One thing that would undoubtedly be of concern is the potential for that information to be leaked. Throughout my time as staff through GMOD servers I've learned that people can't always keep their mouth shut even about the most serious of topics (realistically any community should be built with the expectation of leaks to occur) and to be frank - creating rumours about issues can be more damaging to a accuser than simply stating something. Heck, I've had people simply go and ask if I wanted to see the evidence on X or Y when the evidence was collected in confidence (eg statements). Enabling a method for a user to anonymously contact staff about such an issue helps ensure that these rumours don't fall back on them.

A one on one conversation will frequently come across as more probing to somebody and may cause users to become reluctant to discuss their issues - especially if their identity is know to the person they are speaking to.

The other thought is something that more so dates back to SGM (as I'm not 100% on the policy here). When an user engages with somebody that is underage - the standard policy was that both users were banned. This created a feeling amongst some users that it would not be worth reporting serious incidents as you'd essentially be removing yourself from the community. Anonymously being able to talk to staff would offer users reassurance somewhat that they would be able to remain in the community.