Zap's Behaviour Punishment

[slate]

There needs to be a change in the systems that surround user safety in this league.

The rule that was passed did change the systems.
Now there is a process in place to immediately ban people in the future for this exact type of thing.

I definitely understand that it may have felt at the time scary not knowing whether and what action would be taken. I also understand HO's perspective in not wanting to be seen as overreaching because that has caused backlash in its own way in the past. The user in question was suspended from all league spaces very quickly, and then action was taken on the backend so that future similar situations can be handled even faster.

I think although there can be some misgivings about some of the particulars about communication with the league in general, the ultimate outcomes of this process should help people feel safe in the league.

[SchwarzNarr]

There needs to be a change in the systems that surround user safety in this league.

The rule that was passed did change the systems.
Now there is a process in place to immediately ban people in the future for this exact type of thing.

I definitely understand that it may have felt at the time scary not knowing whether and what action would be taken. I also understand HO's perspective in not wanting to be seen as overreaching because that has caused backlash in its own way in the past. The user in question was suspended from all league spaces very quickly, and then action was taken on the backend so that future similar situations can be handled even faster.

I think although there can be some misgivings about some of the particulars about communication with the league in general, the ultimate outcomes of this process should help people feel safe in the league.

And when something else happens that this rule doesn't quite cover, we'll have to what, wait another several days to see if those in charge will deal with it?

Sorry, but head office should be able to just do what is right in these situations without a rule summit. This is the biggest flaw to having a rule summit. Head Office is hired to run the league, they need to be given the authority to do that without waiting for GMs to agree.

You either trust their authority or you don't.

[voxaroth]

Let me preface this by stating this is 100% the correct move.

Here's the reality: the league had the opportunity to loudly and publicly decry bigotry, transphobia, sexism and homophobia. And instead of doing that quickly and loudly they felt that they couldn't.  Couple this with the message not coming from the leader of the league, it just feels weak and too little too late.

Queer members of this league need loud support so they know they can continue to be safe here. Female members need loud support so they can continue to be safe here.

But instead of loud support it was beaurocratic murmuring on why we can't take a strong stance against bigotry because we might... oust more bigots? Honestly I'm confused why we couldn't take a stronger stance.

This league is not a government its a hobby organization. You had to decide if protecting your members from bigotry was more important than the letter of rule (something, to be frank, the ISFL has loved to shy away from anyway). Instead of just denouncing it in a public way of acceptable and taking the easy win. You had to debate it. Privately and never announced to everyone that you publicly are not ok with this behavior and while you are fixing the rules to permanently remove this user because you didn't anticipate hatred, you made a choice. To say NOTHING. You had every chance to tell the userbase "we know this happened and we're handling it," and instead stayed mum to the people who aren't behind the curtain.

There needs to be a change in the systems that surround user safety in this league. There is zero reason to feel hamstringed by a rule summit to stop bigotry and it's ridiculous it is at this point.

To be fair, the HO banned him immediately to protect the league from him.  Upon doing so, they discovered that the rules actually didn't support their ability to do so.  In an attempt to make sure everyone knew the HO wasn't creating a loophole or abusing power, the rules change was deliberated and worked on by many people who gave a lot of time to it.  But he was gone well before this message was posted, and done by the commissioner.  

I'm just a new intern there, but there was nothing in this decision that wasn't handled quickly and with the benefit of the league in mind.

[RussDrivesTheBus]

But instead of loud support it was beaurocratic murmuring on why we can't take a strong stance against bigotry because we might... oust more bigots? Honestly I'm confused why we couldn't take a stronger stance.

To be clear, there was never any hesitation from HO or league leadership that Zap needed to be banned permanently. The bureaucratic tape that held this up is that he had not done anything in an ISFL space and, by our rules, HO felt they could not unilaterally remove this user. I respect that choice. However, there should have been an announcement when he was suspended, letting the community know that action had been taken and further action was being taken to ensure we have the protections in place that we need. 

With this being such a heavy topic, I want everyone to know that league leadership was in pretty constant discussion from last night until a little while before this post was made. And EVERYONE was agreed that he needed to be permanently removed. It was the "how" that held things up. Unilateral remove is always a scary precedent, so HO took what they felt to be necessary precautions.

[platanocat]

Plat don’t discriminate. Everyone hop into these DMs.

[SchwarzNarr]

But instead of loud support it was beaurocratic murmuring on why we can't take a strong stance against bigotry because we might... oust more bigots? Honestly I'm confused why we couldn't take a stronger stance.

To be clear, there was never any hesitation from HO or league leadership that Zap needed to be banned permanently. The bureaucratic tape that held this up is that he had not done anything in an ISFL space and, by our rules, HO felt they could not unilaterally remove this user. I respect that choice. However, there should have been an announcement when he was suspended, letting the community know that action had been taken and further action was being taken to ensure we have the protections in place that we need. 

With this being such a heavy topic, I want everyone to know that league leadership was in pretty constant discussion from last night until a little while before this post was made. And EVERYONE was agreed that he needed to be permanently removed. It was the "how" that held things up. Unilateral remove is always a scary precedent, so HO took what they felt to be necessary precautions.

But a loud vocal message of "Hey we know this has been a problematic user. Our current system doesn't let us handle this the way we need to. We are currently revamping the rules in order to create permanent solutions" goes a long, long way in making sure that queer users feel heard and safe.

I don't think you can truly understand how absolutely infuriating it is to see the user banned elsewhere, to see the vitriol and as someone not behind closed doors it read as: Holy hell the ISFL is legitimately ok with that kind of behavior?

You can't hide and wait for the process to finish sometimes.  Not when your goal is community support for these users. I literally felt that the ISFL was not going to do anything, because they hadn't broken a rule here. Great you all knew that wasn't the case but why wasn't it communicated to everyone?

And again: we should never need a rule summit to remove bigotry and hatred.

[PugWalrus]

Let me preface this by stating this is 100% the correct move.

Here's the reality: the league had the opportunity to loudly and publicly decry bigotry, transphobia, sexism and homophobia. And instead of doing that quickly and loudly they felt that they couldn't.  Couple this with the message not coming from the leader of the league, it just feels weak and too little too late.

Queer members of this league need loud support so they know they can continue to be safe here. Female members need loud support so they can continue to be safe here.

But instead of loud support it was beaurocratic murmuring on why we can't take a strong stance against bigotry because we might... oust more bigots? Honestly I'm confused why we couldn't take a stronger stance.

This league is not a government its a hobby organization. You had to decide if protecting your members from bigotry was more important than the letter of rule (something, to be frank, the ISFL has loved to shy away from anyway). Instead of just denouncing it in a public way of acceptable and taking the easy win. You had to debate it. Privately and never announced to everyone that you publicly are not ok with this behavior and while you are fixing the rules to permanently remove this user because you didn't anticipate hatred, you made a choice. To say NOTHING. You had every chance to tell the userbase "we know this happened and we're handling it," and instead stayed mum to the people who aren't behind the curtain.

There needs to be a change in the systems that surround user safety in this league. There is zero reason to feel hamstringed by a rule summit to stop bigotry and it's ridiculous it is at this point.

I think this is a slight misunderstanding of the situation.

Zap's actual ban was immediate. He was banned right after his hateful post on the PBE forums. 

The actual "bureaucratic" rule-voting process was based around the concept of expanding rules to give HO formal precedent to enact bans based on conduct in spaces beyond just the ISFL forums in future cases.

During this process the overwhelming sentiment was exactly the same as yours- "Dude's a jackass, this ban is a no-brainer, of course we should allow HO to conduct these bans even if the conduct isn't in the ISFL". The rule then passed with overwhelming support, with only a few people raising questions about potential HO overreach. But just about everyone agreed that that was not the important part of the conversation we were having.

I do agree that it's a good idea to issue a statement regarding the intolerance of hateful conduct in the league. Certainly doesn't hurt to be transparent about the situation right away and let people know that the league is a safe, supportive, and friendly place to enjoy this hobby. But I don't think that any of this was a matter of HO dragging their feet on the situation or trying to give leeway to a piece of shit like Zap. It was much more of a "ban him first, establish a rule/precedent for the ban afterwards" type of deal, which could end up being important for future HO members if a similar situation occurs down the road.

[soevil]

Damn, my punishment thread was already at 6 pages with 15 unique users commenting an hour after posting. This one sucks.

[infinitempg]

But a loud vocal message of "Hey we know this has been a problematic user. Our current system doesn't let us handle this the way we need to. We are currently revamping the rules in order to create permanent solutions" goes a long, long way in making sure that queer users feel heard and safe.

I don't think you can truly understand how absolutely infuriating it is to see the user banned elsewhere, to see the vitriol and as someone not behind closed doors it read as: Holy hell the ISFL is legitimately ok with that kind of behavior?

You can't hide and wait for the process to finish sometimes.  Not when your goal is community support for these users. I literally felt that the ISFL was not going to do anything, because they hadn't broken a rule here. Great you all knew that wasn't the case but why wasn't it communicated to everyone?

And again: we should never need a rule summit to remove bigotry and hatred.

I don't want to discount your post since much of the discussion has been behind closed doors, but many in leadership have expressed this same exact discontent with the response and if it's any consolation I think this has been heard loud and clear by HO.

[Modern_Duke]

I have always thought “HO needs to communicate more” is just a straw man argument people say when they are mad at HO and just want to rant, but it sounds like in this case it actually applies.

From what I can tell everything was done pretty well - this idiot was suspended immediately, then discussion about what HO could/should be able to do in these situations, then formal ban. That’s all basically how it should have happened, but to the average non-leadership non-WR user none of this was known! People just knew there was a bigot going off in other leagues, and weren’t sure what ISFL was doing about it. I know this because that’s the conversation that happened in London so I’m sure it was happening elsewhere too. Where was the HO announcement of “user is suspended, and we’re working on the formalities” rather than days of silence?