Important Important Rule Changes

Pierogi

Special Properations
Director
Developer
Prestigious
VIP
Legacy
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?
We'll scale back the complete lid on discussion at some point in the future, it's just a cooldown period. I can't think of any other banned users who were in this weird situation where they kinda made their information public to AHG, but not explicitly on its platforms, so I don't anticipate this to be effective for anyone else. Can't claim something is personal information if you intentionally made it public.

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.

I really don't understand why someone would be comfortable going public without at least trying to get staff to act first. My concern is that public allegations, even if true, run the risk of some completely unqualified people acting as vigilantes and harming potential legal outcomes, allowing the accused to re-offend elsewhere. But look, if someone is an actual victim we're not going to ban them. This section was more addressed to deal with people who weaponize false **** allegations, like this:
S4X8mrq.jpeg

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.

I was never a fan of this policy, and I've personally supported every appeal of a legacy COI ban issued for this reason. AHG is not in the business of banning victims, so we would not ban a hypothetical person involved in such a situation.
 

Lunar

8:00 PM
Banned
VIP
Legacy
h
We'll scale back the complete lid on discussion at some point in the future, it's just a cooldown period. I can't think of any other banned users who were in this weird situation where they kinda made their information public to AHG, but not explicitly on its platforms, so I don't anticipate this to be effective for anyone else. Can't claim something is personal information if you intentionally made it public.



I really don't understand why someone would be comfortable going public without at least trying to get staff to act first. My concern is that public allegations, even if true, run the risk of some completely unqualified people acting as vigilantes and harming potential legal outcomes, allowing the accused to re-offend elsewhere. But look, if someone is an actual victim we're not going to ban them. This section was more addressed to deal with people who weaponize false **** allegations, like this:
S4X8mrq.jpeg



I was never a fan of this policy, and I've personally supported every appeal of a legacy COI ban issued for this reason. AHG is not in the business of banning victims, so we would not ban a hypothetical person involved in such a situation.
ey
 
Top