06-03-2022, 04:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2022, 06:25 PM by chelllman. Edited 3 times in total.)
Let's straighten out a few things that some people seem to be missing.
1. The admins reserve the right to ban people for actions outside the Dinks community in order to protect the Dinks community and its members.
The admins routinely ban people who have never even touched Dinks simply because their actions in other communities make them a liability. These people aren't given the chance to cause issues. The admins have banned individuals in the Dinks community for their actions outside the community before in order to protect the members here.
2. The question is "Is putting the face of a Dinks member next to the face of a known pedo worthy of a ban?", not "Can we ban people for actions outside the community?".
Regardless of NotRand's intentions when he made the picture, the picture made it's way to the victim. Let me be explicitly clear: it does not matter how the picture made its way to the victim, all the matters is that it did make it there. Even if NotRand intended for the image to only be shared between a select group of people, it got out and thus he shares some blame. If I made a computer virus, gave it to some friends saying "Don't share this", and someone shared it, I would certainly hope I would be punished.
I certainly think what he did was worth some punishment. It wasn't a "meme", it was a malicious attack on someone's character. Intentions matter little; outcomes are really what matter.
3. Assuming what NotRand did was worth a ban, should he be unbanned after this amount of time?
I don't know the answer to this. What I do know is that this should be NotRand's last chance if he is unbanned.
4. The broader implications of not punishing what NotRand did are really unpleasant.
Some people don't think he should have been punished at all. This is what that would have allowed:
Person A could make malicious pictures about someone and hide behind the excuse "I didn't intend for them to see it!". Deep down, we will never know if that excuse is exactly true. All it shows is that person A can't directly send it to someone, but it can be sent by proxy.
5. My personal message to NotRand.
You're at a crossroad whether you like it or not. I hope you sincerely choose the right path.
1. The admins reserve the right to ban people for actions outside the Dinks community in order to protect the Dinks community and its members.
The admins routinely ban people who have never even touched Dinks simply because their actions in other communities make them a liability. These people aren't given the chance to cause issues. The admins have banned individuals in the Dinks community for their actions outside the community before in order to protect the members here.
2. The question is "Is putting the face of a Dinks member next to the face of a known pedo worthy of a ban?", not "Can we ban people for actions outside the community?".
Regardless of NotRand's intentions when he made the picture, the picture made it's way to the victim. Let me be explicitly clear: it does not matter how the picture made its way to the victim, all the matters is that it did make it there. Even if NotRand intended for the image to only be shared between a select group of people, it got out and thus he shares some blame. If I made a computer virus, gave it to some friends saying "Don't share this", and someone shared it, I would certainly hope I would be punished.
I certainly think what he did was worth some punishment. It wasn't a "meme", it was a malicious attack on someone's character. Intentions matter little; outcomes are really what matter.
3. Assuming what NotRand did was worth a ban, should he be unbanned after this amount of time?
I don't know the answer to this. What I do know is that this should be NotRand's last chance if he is unbanned.
4. The broader implications of not punishing what NotRand did are really unpleasant.
Some people don't think he should have been punished at all. This is what that would have allowed:
Person A could make malicious pictures about someone and hide behind the excuse "I didn't intend for them to see it!". Deep down, we will never know if that excuse is exactly true. All it shows is that person A can't directly send it to someone, but it can be sent by proxy.
5. My personal message to NotRand.
You're at a crossroad whether you like it or not. I hope you sincerely choose the right path.
