Mod Evidence Review

I received some screenshots of mod chat from Despin, which give context to three parts of my ban response. In each case, I will state the claims I made in my ban response, post the mod chat evidence, then interpret it.

1. Unilateral Toburr Ban

The contention here is the following quote from my “Jeff and Me” ban response, talking about Jeff’s alleged use of speculation

he asserted that my ban of Toburr was unilateral despite, in fact, 1ups having assented to it

Evidence

Imperfect information is important here, so the context is key:

This following mod discussion is from after I published the ban rationale but before anyone knew that 1ups replied affirmatively. People somehow still didn’t know she did until October 2022. But this imperfect information is crucial context in the mod discussion.

Shine Heads was effectively an unmoderated server where nobody ever talked about bans, which is why I paid no mind to neither mod replying to my intent to ban for 3 days. I think this was clear enuff to the mods given its history.

This is about me reserving trust for the mods, which I was proven right to given #community-reconciliation was later used against me despite its one-way abuse context.

It should but unfortunately the server was basically unmoderated. 1ups specifically appointed me because she “trusted” me and then chose to not engage with the ban discussion for unknown reasons. FYG didn’t know the mod channel existed. It being unmoderated wasn’t my fault.

Here, Jeff implies multiple people didn’t agree the ban, which was false, but true to the best of his knowledge in the context of the rationale being the subject of discussion.

Same here – 1ups did give input, but only after I wrote the rationale.

“That feels strange” is a foghorn that they should’ve consulted me for clarification.

Shine Heads was run like a small streamer Discord. And still is. Lego is the only mod. And Lego banned me, meaning 1 person banned me.

A favourable interpretation of Jeff’s words here says he’s unhappy the decision wasn’t unanimous at the point of the ban.

EDIT 2024/08: There’s also an odd little lie from Jeff in here I just spotted, about the ban being permanent (it was actually indefinite until apology and appealable).

Both did go with it, tho this wasn’t known within this conversation.

Jeff is correct that “the doc said [other] mods were not explicitly in favor”. I wasn’t lying, but Jeff didn’t notice the doc wasn’t the final word on the situation. And there is a clear thread of speculation from Jeff starting here (with the decision to not ask me about what he was confused about) that eventually led him to like Toburr’s September tweet claiming the ban was done without other mods’ consent.

Noting that Jeff was aware of risk of speculation and reasonable doubt and had reason to consult me, so establishing his guilt for later speculating.

Interpretation

I think my statement is weakly true. It is true as stated – Jeff asserted the ban was unilateral (specifically, he asserted a lack of explicit consent), and this was false. The context of the conversation justifies the assertion. However, the reason this is still problematic speculation is, despite the awareness Despin raised to apparent inconsistencies in the ban reports and pressing the other mods to ask for clarification, nobody did.

That’s how we have this situation where Jeff, understandably but undoubtedly, asserted an untrue statement in mod chat. He then spoke to 1ups herself, and somehow still ended up believing the untrue statement. I think a reasonable expectation here is that 1ups would be the one to clear up the situation, but she didn’t for unknown reasons.

That should hopefully fill in some blanks and let the reader judge my reasoning for why I see Jeff’s secret DM discussions about this as mod abuse and why I (wrongly) felt entitled to air my suspicions about him in public.

2. Receptivity to Criticism

The contention here is the following quote from my “The Mods and Me” ban response, talking about, when the mods first had problems with my behaviour in March 2022, how the resolution went down. It’s a justification for why they opted to communicate with me only thru Despin.

Despin claims the other mods thought I wouldn’t be receptive to criticism, which Warspy denies, but offers no alternative explanation.

Evidence

To clarify this speculation, I have never disliked someone based on the substance of a debate.

Lego and I both habitually argue uncompromisingly and conclude that our opponent is not being receptive when we disagree. He characterises me as in these screenshots while I here characterised him (pre-community-reconciliation) as:

the same arrogant derisory aggression that he had shown me in every discussion we had previously had about, say, the wiki [etc]

These establish that the mods expected my reaction to a group conversation to be defensiveness.

Interpretation

I think Despin is right and Warspy wrong to deny it. I think the bar for the mods thinking I wouldn’t be “receptive to criticism” is substantially met by them prejudicially expecting me to be defensive. However, a reasonable interpretation is that the mods hoped for “receptivity to criticism” via sugarcoating it thru the use of a friendly mod (Despin). But I consider the phrase itself to describe one who is able to look past who makes the point in favour of the point itself, which is why I side with Despin.

Moreover, the expectation of defensiveness was irrational. I had had mod roles in the SMS community and led on IL modding late 2020–late 2021 almost entirely without drama, and part of why I was popular with colleagues and the public was high receptivity to criticism. Including, say, the thoro explanations I gave after fixing my mistake deleting rudhira’s IL. From my deposition:

my main comment on everything is that the content of what i’m saying matters and why i’m saying it doesn’t matter. criticism and unpopular opinions are sacred, and i felt like that when i ran the il sheet just as i do now. the reason we have a contrast rule is because i read thru a thread of sm64 runners shitting on people having illegible colours on the sms il sheet and mentioning a website that can correct that. that’s the mentality the mods should converge towards imo

imagine saying this about me of all ppl lol. means they don’t like it when ppl disagree with them (“not receptive to an opinion” ≠ “highly critical of an opinion”). even when i think someone is completely full of cap, i’m receptive to eir criticism and look for things i agree with. e.g. this is my full dm history with gd (refers to this). also worth reading how i patiently answered questions about the rudhira il deletion

Things are ofc different now that I’ve been defending from sms community abuse for almost a year. I tend to not be receptive to mod criticism because trust is broken. But all my arguments are still from inner convictions, not defensiveness, and I tried to honestly reflect on the ban material in my responses.

Consequences

In hindsight, this is what should’ve happened instead of the conversation with Despin:

Most of my response to the mods was correcting false narratives, and I became defensive from the fact that the other mods weren’t there so I wasn’t able to face the accusations themselves (given Despin himself disagreed with them). Some of my response acknowledged and pledged to cut out behaviours.

Despin relayed my responses via a voice chat with mods, of which there is no record, and when I posted my text responses a month later, the mods were shook and said “there is so much to unpack”. The mods’ approach, then, inevitably led to miscommunication where it wasn’t clear to either party which behaviours I rebuked and which I pledged to fix.

This should give more context to my review of the deposition “chance” I was given.

3. Correcting False Narratives Among Mods

A bit of evidence to flesh out a point I made here about the “apparent heavy tribulation of correcting false narratives” among mods.