Subject: Distaza - Request for Comment - Agris
Sent: January 24, 2022 1:33:39 PM CST
From: Olivier Poirier <distaza@nuegia.net>
To: wizzes@spindizzy.org
I am here on behalf of Agris to appeal his ban from SpinDizzy.
Barring that, as a neutral party, I at least want to discuss the circumstances around it.
I would like first to ask each and every one of you if you would like to read this e-mail.
If not, I would not hold it against you to close it provided that you choose not to act significantly for or against Agris beyond what has already taken place.
If you already know what you want to do whether or not you read this, I suggest that you make some time to come back with a fresh slate.
Otherwise, I'm afraid I won't be able to leave a good impression on you regardless of the contents of my words.
I want to stress that although I am Agris's friend, I don't want to be anyone's enemy.
I do not enjoy pointing accusatory fingers or hurting people. I don't think anyone, even Agris is important enough to do that for.
If you feel like I'm attacking your character just tell me. I'll do my best to avoid it. If I can't seem to comply I won't hold it against you to act however you see fit.
However, I will ask that you separate your actions towards me from those to Agris. He is not prompting my actions here and should not bear their repercussions.
I have taken some time to familiarize myself with both SpinDizzy and the events that have taken place, but it's possible that I'm not seeing the full picture.
Feel free to give me any information that you consider relevant. I'm perfectly alright with as lengthy a dialogue as you would like to foster, or as short.
However, I do intend to ask questions, and I will ensure as part of my responsibility that they remain unloaded. Please answer them if you are able to.
My initial concern is the purpose of the SpinDizzy administration. As far as I am aware, the AUP has been put into two different clothes - a simple, hard to break policy and a blank check.
The reason I say that is because I have seen logs paraphrasing administration, that the intent of the rules is both to be 'simple and easy to follow' and 'to prevent lawyering'.
If 'lawyering' is questioning the faithful implementation of such short, simple rules then it would be a blank check to all manner of rule-breaking and negligence.
It also suggests that a dialogue such as the one I would like to foster cannot take place, because an inconsistent administrative action is not possible or beneath notice, which worries me.
It needs to be made clear somehow exactly what the function of the SpinDizzy administration is, which brings me to my next concern.
I've noticed that there is a clear difference in appropriate administrative action within public versus private rooms. Essentially, what would normally require conformance to the AUP in a public space is completely absent in a private space. In other words, there is no unacceptable behavior in or concerning private spaces short of illegal or adult content, as far as I understand it.
Such behavior that is notably excepted from any moderation is harassment and blacklisting from private spaces.
To quote the AUP, "Of course, what you do or say in private is your own affair – people can always leave if they don’t like what’s happening."
That in mind, this leads to the next concern.
If there is a clear and serious difference in administrative tendencies regarding public and private behavior, and the policy is to not moderate behavior in private whatsoever, then given Voksa has done nothing publically against the AUP, in contrast, what has Agris done in public to violate the AUP?
If the things done in private are in fact able to be punished, then doesn't that undermine the foundation of Voksa's right to act indiscriminately, including bans, regardless of whether Agris is also punished?
And if not, doesn't it waive Agris of responsibility towards his own private affairs between members of SpinDizzy?
I think, unless there's some choice material I haven't seen, or unless private rooms are different from private messages or other forms of correspondence, that the enforcement of administrative action on those grounds towards either Voksa or Agris does not conform with the AUP as I know it, or acts as an unexplained extension of it which is otherwise invisible.
It's very difficult for anyone to avoid breaking rules which do not get laid out until after the fact. And to be punished as soon as or before such rules are revealed in full, without recourse and to the highest extent... well, it should make anyone balk.
Under what I understand Voksa and Agris should be left alone to solve their own problems no matter how petulant they act so long as they don't violate the AUP in public rooms, or until they violate rules which are laid out clearly, formally, as a direct order, a 'warning'. Such would be the first resort, especially concerning social boundaries which have not been made explicitly clear in a policy.
That said, it's entirely possible such formal warnings were made and I am not aware of them.
If such a warning could be considered formal with simply 'Do X or you'll be banned from here on', then it'd be relevant information. If the AUP saying 'Mods do not make suggestions' is supposed to indicate that the highest extent of punishment possible backs every administrative word or act, then it would also be relevant. If so, it would also make any construable disagreement with staff serviceable grounds for a permaban, among other subtleties.
To shift tones a bit, I also want to make clear that I don't hold any ill wishes with Voksa. I don't really know Voksa, and even if I did I'd need to be able to talk to them in order for any sort of friendship to happen, or at least to quell their doubts. Considering their decision to isolate themselves from what I understand, they must not be in the spirits to hold a discussion, and I think it would be best to leave them be for a while until a time where they can. Otherwise it simply wouldn't make sense to bother them.
However, if they are engaging in discussion about this topic I would urge them to share in this discourse if they are willing. I certainly consider them capable of relevant action.
The fact that my concern is not with Voksa, or any of you personally, is why I'm writing to you. I want to make it clear that I want to try to make everyone I know and everyone you know happy at once. I don't have any ill wishes, and I ask that if you can't regard me as a neutral party, to turn away in a neutral manner. I don't mind if you do. It's probably naive of me to try to please everyone, but if I don't give it a shot some part of me would curl up and die.
That said, my friend is shouldering a burden, and I'll share in it. I need to know what it's made of and if it's something I can lift. Only you have the power to decide its weight. If you decide it's impossibly heavy, I will still do all I can to lift it; I'll strain against it even after everyone moves on, and even if it's only a memory, one of my regrets. That's what it means to care about the outcome of something with the weight of your being, and that's what it means to have a friend. Maybe that makes me bad, or crazy. Maybe even both. But at least people can't tell me I don't care and that I don't remember.
People come to me sometimes to solve problems and the only thing I really fear is a weight I can't lift, but I'll never really know if I can't lift something until I stop being able to try. So it doesn't do me any good to freeze up. Don't let me freeze you up either. Do what you feel is right, and hopefully it'll work out.
Best Wishes,
Kohrokho, alias Distaza, friend of Agris
---
If you have received this e-mail, please consider sending a confirmation of its receipt, especially if a response might be sent in more than a week's time.