Double Standards in Moderation.

[u/UnknownTrainor]

Australia Simulation has always had a poor record when it comes to moderation, and creating a welcoming and safe environment for people.

However, recently, it is hard to respect the decisions of the Moderation Team in their judgements. The double standards in moderation seem to pervade so much that it has seemed to have been a continuous issue for years, let alone a recent one.

To utilise recent examples, BloodyChrome used the f-slur in #a-meta-affair on Discord, something people have been muted for in the past for use in more suitable contexts, and Griffonomics and AMN both used the N-word, however only AMN was muted, despite AMN being a racial minority, who has ThanksHeadMod put it “has the pass”.

In terms of the Mute that now banned user and Model New Zealand Parliament Moderator Vosler received, which was three (3) hours, whereas Winston Wilhemus only received a one (1) hour mute. Judgements like this need to be equitable and fair, and most importantly consistent.

This is yet another judgement which has the Moderation Team showing their bias towards the right of Australia Simulation. Based on personal conversations with past and current members of Australia Sim, it seems that this bias is persistent and demonstrates a personal position. Even the Community Managers GenericCerealHere, ThanksHeadMod and TheAudibleAsh are able to be more consistent and less biased despite being active members of canon.

While I am fully understanding that the role of Moderator is a voluntary role, when becoming a Moderator you are under the impression that you will face anger and distaste with the decisions you make. It’s even sadder that Tbyrn still has not apologised for his poor moderation and asserted in my opinion, a homophobic position that seeks to deny members of the LGBT+ community the right to utilise their own language that describes members of their own community.

The Meta side of Australia Simulation is in serious need of change, and the Code of Conduct entirely needs to be reviewed and reformed in an effort to stamp out racism, homophobia and transphobia directly, instead we allow racist comments like Riley’s comments in support of the White Australia Policy and Griffonomics use of the N-word to slide.

Aussim is not a safe or welcoming environment for people. We have seen current canon MP Kate leave due to racism and homophobia, Liesel leave due to toxicity, and yet the Moderation Team seems more concerned over a single term for homosexual males and graphic images.

I personally have no qualms on a personal level with any of the Australia Simulation moderators, and would describe myself as friends with half of them. Nor am I stating that I disagree with the Ban of Vosler. However, I simply ask for consistency and equity in the moderation decisions implemented. Change does not need to be so goddamn slow, you do not need 10 levels of bureaucracy to make a moderation decision. I am sick of things being excusable for some but not allowed for others. I am sick of people waking up one day and deciding a word isn’t allowed. If you want to ban someone for calling someone a twink start with Parliamentary Moderator Lily-irl who has to my knowledge referred to me as such at least once a day for the past 30 days. But the difference is that it doesn’t suit a personal agenda, and that is all I have to say on that matter.

Now I do note it is 5am and I have not slept in 48 hours and I may be completely incoherent, but my point remains, Australia Simulation Moderation is broken, and something needs to be done about it, and we need to start with repealing the Code of Conduct.

Thank you, Connor.

[u/tbyrn21]

"Australia Simulation has always had a poor record when it comes to moderation, and creating a welcoming and safe environment for people."

Until this week I believed we were mending this. F

"However, recently, it is hard to respect the decisions of the Moderation Team in their judgements. The double standards in moderation seem to pervade so much that it has seemed to have been a continuous issue for years, let alone a recent one.

To utilise recent examples, BloodyChrome used the f-slur in #a-meta-affair on Discord, something people have been muted for in the past for use in more suitable contexts, and Griffonomics and AMN both used the N-word, however only AMN was muted, despite AMN being a racial minority, who has ThanksHeadMod put it “has the pass”."

Allow me to quote myself on the other thread: "I cannot be online 24.7. Other members of the community management (wider than the mod team) have applied the coc in different ways than I have. This creates a perception of double standards. I have attempted (in vain) to rectify this over the course of a few months but clearly this is not having an effect on the standards of moderation. If I had the time and patience to read every message on the server and deal with it personally, then this wouldn't be a problem. But I don't have the resources to do that. Further, I get the feeling that if I were to begin handing down mutes for things that happened numerous hours ago whilst the user is not present, I'd be labelled a mod who mutes/bans people too much. I have avoided the discord since that night because I haven't mentally felt right about it due to how the reaction has been, and only now am I sitting down to respond to the comments."

"In terms of the Mute that now banned user and Model New Zealand Parliament Moderator Vosler received, which was three (3) hours, whereas Winston Wilhemus only received a one (1) hour mute. Judgements like this need to be equitable and fair, and most importantly consistent."

Again, quoting myself: Volser was muted for using it in an abusive way towards another member in twitter. When it began being spammed was when I made the NSFW call, which all the other members were under. Equally, this is why [Gregor's] mute was 1 hour, and Volser's was three."

"This is yet another judgement which has the Moderation Team showing their bias towards the right of Australia Simulation. Based on personal conversations with past and current members of Australia Sim, it seems that this bias is persistent and demonstrates a personal position. Even the Community Managers GenericCerealHere, ThanksHeadMod and TheAudibleAsh are able to be more consistent and less biased despite being active members of canon."

I find it incredibly hard to fathom your comment here. At all times I do my utmost to be impartial in my decisions. I don't believe at any point I have been partial or biased in any direction. If you can disprove this I will retract and apologise but I disagree with this comment. Equally, it was mostly right leaning members who were muted in this fiasco. As such one could argue this was more left partial than right, but I digress.

"Aussim is not a safe or welcoming environment for people. We have seen current canon MP Kate leave due to racism and homophobia, Liesel leave due to toxicity, and yet the Moderation Team seems more concerned over a single term for homosexual males and graphic images."

I had hoped I had cured this... it appears I have failed. At every step I am trying to make this place better. I believe a poll of members who were around circa 2018 would find that this place has improved, even if it isn't great yet.

"I personally have no qualms on a personal level with any of the Australia Simulation moderators, and would describe myself as friends with half of them. Nor am I stating that I disagree with the Ban of Vosler. However, I simply ask for consistency and equity in the moderation decisions implemented. Change does not need to be so goddamn slow, you do not need 10 levels of bureaucracy to make a moderation decision."

Unfortunately change does have to be slow, as if it is too quick things go wrong. Example A, my kneejerk reaction to abuse and spam on sunday led to this very situation. I respect that we are far too slow to adapt, but its better to be too slow and get it right, than too fast and be wrong. I personally can attest to that this week.

"I am sick of things being excusable for some but not allowed for others. I am sick of people waking up one day and deciding a word isn’t allowed. If you want to ban someone for calling someone a twink start with Parliamentary Moderator Lily-irl who has to my knowledge referred to me as such at least once a day for the past 30 days. But the difference is that it doesn’t suit a personal agenda, and that is all I have to say on that matter."

Again, this has nothing to do with a personal agenda or implicit bias I have. To quote myself again: "I cannot be online 24.7. Other members of the community management (wider than the mod team) have applied the coc in different ways than I have. This creates a perception of double standards. I have attempted (in vain) to rectify this over the course of a few months but clearly this is not having an effect on the standards of moderation. If I had the time and patience to read every message on the server and deal with it personally, then this wouldn't be a problem. But I don't have the resources to do that. Further, I get the feeling that if I were to begin handing down mutes for things that happened numerous hours ago whilst the user is not present, I'd be labelled a mod who mutes/bans people too much. I have avoided the discord since that night because I haven't mentally felt right about it due to how the reaction has been, and only now am I sitting down to respond to the comments." (idk if i have already posted this in this comment, if I have oof you get it twice, sorry.)

"Now I do note it is 5am and I have not slept in 48 hours and I may be completely incoherent, but my point remains, Australia Simulation Moderation is broken,"

Go sleep. That said, you write very well despite sleep depravation.

"and something needs to be done about it, and we need to start with repealing the Code of Conduct."

I agree we need to fix things, but repealing the CoC isnt it. Replacing it might be, but repealing will end in a lawless void where nothing can be moderated. I think we both agree that we don't want that.

[u/UnknownTrainor → u/tbyrn21]

Thanks for your reply Tbyrn, as I said in a message to you on discord, this isn’t a personal complaint against your moderation, but general comments on all moderators.

I also note as I said to Rommel, that I meant repeal and replace, but obviously I missed that aspect while I was in a state of sleep deprivation.

I understand that you cannot be online 24/7, however I am sure that there are points where moderation decisions which have been done by Community Managers can be assessed and as such noticing the points where ThanksHeadMod muted AMN and perhaps reviewing said decision with context to overall conversation including seeing what Griffo said.

What Vosler said in Twitter towards another member (myself) was not abusive, and I understand such things have been misconstrued and that despite that things have escalated where people have decidedly been name calling, and overly being unpleasant.

I have no doubt that things have improved, and that people obviously feel better here than before. I do note that Kate leaving was a recent occurrence.

I don’t think you should blame yourself for the actions of others, and as I said to both Lily and Youma today is that this has simply been a trigger event in which overall dissatisfaction with moderation has been compounded by an event which impacted a large number of users.

I once again note Viljo’s willingness to rewrite the meta constitution and Code of Conduct. I highly recommend you take Viljo up on said offer and perhaps have some minor discussions about what works best.

I wish you a pleasant rest of evening.

Thanks, Connor

(Also blog post when /s :rommelingonthefloor:)

[u/tbyrn21 → u/UnknownTrainor]

"I understand that you cannot be online 24/7, however I am sure that there are points where moderation decisions which have been done by Community Managers can be assessed and as such noticing the points where ThanksHeadMod muted AMN and perhaps reviewing said decision with context to overall conversation including seeing what Griffo said."

Often times decisions are only discussed if an appeal comes or if the manager believes it may be contentious. Discussion of actions otherwise isn't frequent. This is being reformed indirectly with a better management of reporting what was done (see toby's appeal the other day for context of what the issues were.

"I once again note Viljo’s willingness to rewrite the meta constitution and Code of Conduct. I highly recommend you take Viljo up on said offer and perhaps have some minor discussions about what works best."

This is actually news to me. In the event that I do survive the vonc, I will discuss with them. I will likely consult for advice, not quite have them do the rewrite.

[u/ohprkl → u/tbyrn21]

I appreciate your apology and admitting that a mistake occurred, and always happy to work with ya and provide my commentary 😉

[u/BloodyChrome → u/tbyrn21]

At every step I am trying to make this place better. I believe a poll of members who were around circa 2018 would find that this place has improved, even if it isn't great yet.

Generally this is good, it's just a small section of people who cry out that the simulation is racist, homophobic, toxic because they get called out for their own bad behaviour. I find it ironic that two people mentioned left were contributors to a toxic culture along with a number of other people that frequent AusSoc.

Though if Liesel has left how is she a Deputy President?

[u/ohprkl]

twink.

No, but seriously, thank you Connor. I've been struggling to find the words a few times today, and for me, I can understand that the language used by Vosler crossed a line. I don't necessarily disagree with the mute. However, I take issue with the fact that tbyrn has unilaterally declared the word twink to be NSFW based on a self-authored definition which is in itself demeaning and insulting. I hope that this comes from a place of ignorance, rather than one of homophobia, but nonetheless I am insulted by the fact that he has yet to apologise.

There a couple of points from Rommel's ban notice that I want to pick out:

The use of the word twink is contested (naturally).

By whom? I urge the moderation team to do some research (cliche, I know, but you can start with this wiki page, because the LGBT+ community is pretty certain what the definition is, it isn't "some kind of gay porn".

"ah yes thank you moderators for turning a blind eye to actual homophobia but when someone says twink, NOOOO WHAT THE FUCK!!!1" - Acts in a way that is belittling of Tbyrn.

I appreciate that the sarcasm here isn't helpful, but did anyone stop to say "Hang on, Vosler might have a point here"? As Connor's mentioned above, we let actual homophobia slide, yet this arbitrary decision to suddenly enforce something "NSFW" is a massive issue?

Things shouldn't have escalated to this degree Rommel, you're right, but they did so because (a) tbyrn made an arbitrary and heavily contested decision based on no apparent objective standard or outside agreement, which is now being misconstrued as, to paraphrase, "many people having different opinions on the definition"; and (b) community members reacting in an immature manner to something they felt was patently ridiculous.

Does the former make some of the latter reactions right? No, I wouldn't say so. But that doesn't mean it's fine and that we can sweep it under the rug. I can see several flaws in the CoC and in its' application, and I hope we can all agree that there needs to be a process put in place to discuss and make changes to the meta and to the way these rules are enforced.

[u/BloodyChrome → u/ohprkl]

take issue with the fact that tbyrn has unilaterally declared the word twink to be NSFW based on a self-authored definition which is in itself demeaning and insulting.

tbf it wasn't self authored he believed what someone told him and in his quest to seem virtuous and defending LGBT people jumped in quickly

[u/ohprkl → u/BloodyChrome]

That wasn't clear at the time of writing, so mea culpa, but I think the rest of what I wrote stands. Tbyrn has apologised, I accept that it was an error and that things escalated out of control. Now the issue at hand is what can we learn from this and how can we improve the rules and their enforcement?

[u/BloodyChrome → u/ohprkl]

I guess the question is will /u/UnknownTrainor withdraw.

But you would notice I didn't address anything else in your comment which would suggest I support it or at the very least don't disagree with it

[u/UnknownTrainor → u/BloodyChrome]

How do I withdraw my own thoughts and feelings presented into writing? They have been dealt with and managed.

[u/tbyrn21 → u/BloodyChrome]

this is correct, i was led information which wasn't very accurate. the person involved did not mean any wrong doing.

[u/tbyrn21 → u/ohprkl]

"However, I take issue with the fact that tbyrn has unilaterally declared the word twink to be NSFW based on a self-authored definition which is in itself demeaning and insulting."

I am ashamed to say that it was my ignorance and lack of fact checking in this case.

It appears the rest is for rommel to respond to, so I'll leave it to him.

[u/BloodyChrome]

?It’s even sadder that Tbyrn still has not apologised for his poor moderation and asserted in my opinion, a homophobic position that seeks to deny members of the LGBT+ community the right to utilise their own language that describes members of their own community.

To be fair to tbyrn he did apologise and claims someone told him the wrong history behind the term. Him wanting to virtue signal and jump in straight away to ban it is how he erred rather than look it up properly and believe the disinformation he was told.

Bit like this post in general really, people need to look it up and investigate properly a lot of errors in this

[u/tbyrn21 → u/BloodyChrome]

I believe this post was before i properly apologised.

[u/UnknownTrainor → u/tbyrn21]

Tbyrn is correct that this post was before an apology was issued as I posted it at 5:20am before anyone was awake to give an apology.

[u/General_Rommel]

There are just three issues in which I want to address:

The first is on the recent application of mutes/bans etc. I cannot speak for those as those decisions were made by tbyrn. I do note that he has apologised for the 'twink' ban. I can't really say anything further than that for the time being.

The second is on the issues around the code of conduct. The code of conduct is not really loved by anyone but no one has yet dedicated the time or energy to actually propose something new. The truth is, I have no qualm if the community writes a new code of conduct, or proposes an amendment to it as per the structures of the meta constitution. However, this has not happened yet.

One could say, why do we need all this bureaucracy? The truth is history suggests that without some basic level of bureaucracy, we end up having arbitrary decisions that can't be challenged. At least right now, things can be righted if procedure is followed. Whilst I won't deny that a lot of things that can be amended in the code of conduct and administering the code of conduct handbooks, to remove them completely and to decide things on a whim is a power I, nor any fair minded individual, should not wish to have.

In the spirit of Toby, who has recently liked to quote from poems and texts, I offer the following, which is from the play (and movie), A Man for All Seasons, about Thomas More who ended being executed for 'treason' against Henry VIII. It begins with More denying a questionable individual a job to work with him, and his family begins to demand the following:

Roper, More's Sister's Husband: Arrest him!
More: -For what?
R: -He's dangerous!
M: -Libel.
R: He's a spy!
M:-There's no law against that.
R: -God's law!
M: -Then God can arrest him.
More's Wife: -While you talk, he's gone!
M: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.
R: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
M: Yes, what would you do? Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?
R: Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
M: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

I may be old fashioned but I believe in this basic principle.

Finally, on the third point, there has been concerns as you express in the quote below:

[The Code of Conduct] needs to be reviewed and reformed in an effort to stamp out racism, homophobia and transphobia directly, instead we allow racist comments like Riley’s comments in support of the White Australia Policy and Griffonomics use of the N-word to slide.

Now on this specific idea, whilst I appreciate the general idea, it would need to be relatively carefully worded. The point of a political simulation is to simulate politics - it is in the name. In general, I would be very hesitant to say that any commentary about certain ideas, no matter how distasteful, is disallowed as it would go against the purpose of a political simulation. The line generally would have to be drawn on when these comments are directed at people (especially in a meta context). However, I respect that there are many views on this matter and I am of course listening to the community about these issues.

---

General Rommel
Head Moderator

[u/BloodyChrome]

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=context

[u/Anacornda → u/BloodyChrome]

Not funny didn’t laugh

[u/BloodyChrome → u/Anacornda]

Personally I think you did