Return-Path: <austin@spindizzy.org>
Delivered-To: distaza@nuegia.net
X-Rspamd-Server: mail2
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.60 / 15.00];
RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[];
ARC_NA(0.00)[];
MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[];
FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[];
MV_CASE(0.50)[];
MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain];
PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[distaza@nuegia.net];
REPLY(-4.00)[];
RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[166.84.1.89:from];
DMARC_NA(0.00)[spindizzy.org];
AUTH_NA(1.00)[];
TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[];
RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2];
R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record];
FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[];
R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[];
MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
ASN(0.00)[asn:2033, ipnet:166.84.0.0/16, country:US];
RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2];
RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 389264ce
X-SenderScore: 99
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [166.84.1.89])
by mail2 (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPS id 389264ce (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO)
for <distaza@nuegia.net>;
Tue, 25 Jan 2022 04:21:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [38.131.232.202])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4JjYZf1n86zqCy;
Mon, 24 Jan 2022 23:21:30 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Subject: Re: Distaza - Request for Comment - Agris
From: Austin Dern <austin@spindizzy.org>
In-Reply-To: <A7168CBD-9D38-41C4-9F87-D969E7912937@nuegia.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 23:21:29 -0500
Cc: wizzes@spindizzy.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6B5D7F1A-361D-44A1-9FA2-EC5BF3F201CD@spindizzy.org>
References: <A7168CBD-9D38-41C4-9F87-D969E7912937@nuegia.net>
To: Olivier Poirier <distaza@nuegia.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Hello,=20
Your comment on Agris's suspension has been received. It will =
be given appropriate attention.
This should not be taken as a promise to do other than consider =
it. =20
Austin Dern
> On Jan 24, 2022, at 2:33 PM, Olivier Poirier <distaza@nuegia.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> I am here on behalf of Agris to appeal his ban from SpinDizzy.
>=20
> Barring that, as a neutral party, I at least want to discuss the =
circumstances around it.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> It needs to be made clear somehow exactly what the function of the =
SpinDizzy administration is, which brings me to my next concern.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> To quote the AUP, "Of course, what you do or say in private is your =
own affair =E2=80=93 people can always leave if they don=E2=80=99t like =
what=E2=80=99s happening."
>=20
> That in mind, this leads to the next concern.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> And if not, doesn't it waive Agris of responsibility towards his own =
private affairs between members of SpinDizzy?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> That said, it's entirely possible such formal warnings were made and I =
am not aware of them.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Best Wishes,
> Kohrokho, alias Distaza, friend of Agris
>=20
> ---
>=20
> 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.