Completed Report against Glyph

Name of Staff/Player:

Glyph​

Steam ID of Staff/Player:

STEAM_0:0:7095639​

Your Steam ID:

idk​

Which Server:

West 2​

Which Map:

n/a​

Which Round:

n/a​

Time of Occurence:

idk​

Reason For Report:

False ban of Tommy Robinson.

https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/tommy-robinsons-appeal.52012/#post-546817


before continuing, i ask that you go read this report in it's entirety, and make sure you look at all the screenshots provided by glyph.​

Evidence And/Or Witnesses:

Now you're probably wondering how I got here.


well, did you see that 'evidence' ?
Hate speech? Really? LMAO.

This is why Glyph should not be a mod. Not only are they overly sensitive, but they are biased in their punishing, and they literally go out of their way to see insults / bigotry / harassment where there fucking isn't any.

The cherry ontop was when tommy got banned for talking about chiggers, which, by the way, ARE A REAL FUCKING BUG. Like, you can't just fucking thought police and say "hm, that word rhymes with ******, i better fucking ban them."

Demote Glyph. They do not deserve the rank of mod, @Highwon; you allow staff deny people's appeals because 'this individual's reputation makes our community look bad', well guess what cupcake, your servers turning into fucking twitter jr.


Tagging @Glyph to form a poorly worded response.

I am also requesting that another staff member who is not >biased< to go handle that ban appeal.​

 

Hey there,

Let me tag the reported person @Glyph and their admin @Lordyhgm.

Sadly highwon shall not be here for this report.

I do hope i helped you the best i can

 

Something I did catch in passing notice that might be information of value for all parties; from what I read in shoutbox it was a trial moderator who provided all the evidence seen in the decided-appeal.

Not the end of the world or anything major, but evidence providing better context (console screenshots of chat for example) would of gone a far way here in the evidence department, and something that can be used as a learning tool for that trial moderator.

 

that'll do, pig. that'll do.

 

So, to explain myself here:

I punished Tommy Robinson because he had an extensive history of this exact behavior. I was not 'overly sensitive'; if you rant for over two maps about how transgender people aren't real and they 'go against nature', even after I tell you to stop, that is clearly against our rules and is deliberately inflammatory behavior. There are more screenshots which I did not post that showed more of them talking about this topic, for over 5 consecutive rounds.

https://i.imgur.com/4VbGepH.png
https://i.imgur.com/sAZxXn1.png
https://i.imgur.com/9iuxBT8.png
https://i.imgur.com/bwGH5vb.png
https://i.imgur.com/0xM2VVx.png

This was going on for multiple maps and as you can see I warned this player not once but TWICE, which is even more leeway than I have to offer by the protocol. I was not even the one who kicked them when they were kicked for insulting Peepstar, being their technical second strike; this was done by @Kythol , who can confirm the player was acting toxic. I will also tag @Ronald McDonald , who was there to witness this behavior and can back me up.

@Pacifist was also present when I banned the player in question for loopholing, as was Kythol, and can further corroborate my story that Tommy was deliberately loopholing and participating spurred by other players who were loopholing and discussing the n word.

I did my job. In fact, I gave MORE leeway than I am required to by my job. The only reason anyone thinks I am 'overly sensitive' is because I work to enforce harassment, hate speech and slur rules to a BASICALLY decent degree, which is just too much for some people who think they should have the ability to say whatever they want whenever they want with no consequences.

I do not feel any remorse or that I made any mistake in banning this player. The one thing I do regret is that I do not collect evidence diligently enough. I often make the mistake of thinking that players who break rules will just accept the consequences of their actions, and do not think to screenshot or record every person I warn, kick or ban for such behavior.

That'll change in the future. So, that's on me. I didn't have good enough quality evidence there, but I had enough to uphold the ban in my opinion because I knew the ban was right based on what I and other mods experienced.

 

I know that maybe my evidence lacks the quality, but still is evidence of his behavior.The lack of quality is due to when all that was happening, I had to deal with another reports, so I stop recording and closed gmod, when Glyph asked me for the evidence I had two options, upload a 40 min. video or take the screenshots for a faster answer. And indeed I witness all what had happend and can corrovorate Glyph's story, I can also say that Glyph acted acording to the protocol.

 

Screenshot #1: Looks like Dani mentions something related to trasngenderism first.
Screenshot #2: Looks like both him and fatcow had something to say. This is the only one I agree with that pushes the boundaries of comfortable behavior. The recommended course of action would be to message him and ask him to stop.
Screenshot #3: Looks like it's missing context since you said "nah" to something.
Screenshot #4: again, lacking context.
Screenshot #5: i don't understand why this was provided as evidence. it doesn't show anything but you warning him for no reason.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Looks like emotions were uh, elevated. But, harassment? No. This is exactly like @Grumble 's "statistics" rants, which make no sense and are unwarranted but nobody really cares about them or gets offended by it. Like, if <staff priorities> are seriously taking someone talking about Transgenderism are harassment then either our rules are fucked, or we need to re-evaluate our standards. Banning for this is bullshit, and the evidence provided? That's just, no. That's barely even enough for a warning. He said nothing hateful, he didn't say anything that even resembled hate speech, he just made edgy statements which, I might add, some people actually believe. So, let's quit thought policing -- I want to remind you all that he got banned after mentioning a Chigger Repellent, which is literally a real thing. Was his timing of using that word a bit off-color? Perhaps, but how can you prove that? Banning someone on an assumption of malice IS malicious.

At the very most, I think Tommy should've gotten warned or kicked, not banned.

 

I'd like now to move the discussion into the punishment phase of this encounter.

Was Tommy Robinson muted / kicked before the 1 day ban?

 

You don't mute for harassment. As I mentioned, Tommy Robinson was kicked for their comments towards Peepstar by Kythol, shown in one of the screenshots in the mentioned reports. Also, a mod can be offended even if players aren't; we are not robots (hilarious that people complain we act like robots and then get mad when we don't), and being that I am literally trans and have met other players who are also trans on this server, I will never allow a player to sit around making obvious anti-trans comments that have no place in our server. It's a videogame, as I am often told; you don't need to be ranting about how transgender people 'go against nature', and when a transgender mod is offended by those unnecessary rants and warns you to stop... sorry, you walked into that rake yourself.

Some people also believe gay people should be burned at the stake, or other races are savages. I don't care if 'some people believe this', that doesn't make it okay to say. I showed the screenshots I had which have, I believe, enough evidence to provide context for the ban even though it misses a critical moment (when Tommy was making statements indicating transgender people were delusional for thinking they could 'go against nature' AFTER I told them to stop talking about it in the previous map).

Hell, I give a shit about Grumble's rants too, because when we allow people to come onto our server and spout racist propaganda and dogwhistles with statistics taken wildly out of their socieconomic context, it makes our server look AWFUL.

Also, screenshot #5 was provided to again show that I warned not once but twice (as I warned before in a previously shown screenshot) and there's a bit of evidence towards what I am saying Tommy said about transgenders 'thinking they can go against nature' with Dani's response comparing transgenderism to a real medical condition like phantom limb pain.

 

So you basically just admitted that you were indeed emotionally compromised and are not able to handle situations involving the use of transgenderism due to your affliction or whatever the word for it is. Again, none of the screenshots provided show sufficient evidence of harassment. You know what makes our community look AWFUL, is overly sensitive staff who ban people for discussing buzz-topics. Nothing Dani or Tommy said were incorrect, it's all a matter of perspective, and I didn't see anyone else having a crisis over it but you, which is particularly troublesome, since you're both the offended party and the one who is using their power to ban people.

 

I don't ask for staff to be robots, I ask for them to be unbiased. Due to Glyph's situation, I believe they are extremely biased in this case, and I would like another staff member to look over the evidence provided.

 

Yes, and I'm also the one who has to answer to my higher ups on this matter. Mods aren't robots, and we are allowed to be offended just as players are. The harassment & hatespeech rules apply just as much to us as they do to any other player. It is up to every mod's discretion in every situation whether or not we consider something harassment or hate speech.

I don't think these screenshots provide great context, but I think they provide enough. They miss key bits of context that I and other players witnessed that were important, most particularly the very explicit comments about how transgenders 'go against nature' which is what I was warning for. It is important to keep that in mind. You are not seeing the full picture, but I think I gave enough to maintain the ban and deny the appeal, and that's all I had to do. I know what I saw and read while I was in the server.

I was not 'emotionally compromised'. I do not care in particular if Tommy Robinson thinks that transgender people are real, because, to say the least, I do not value his opinion very highly. What is important, however, is keeping our server safe for all types of people, and as I have met multiple trans people on SGM, I'm not going to fuck around with letting people go on bigoted rants in our server, not to mention the optics of that.

 

@Glyph

My recommendation for that situation would have been that you report Tommy Robinson for harassment, since you were the offended party in this case. It looks quite negative when you are both the offended party AND the judge/punisher.
That would have been the best course of action.

I request the ban be nullified until a report has been filed by you against Tommy, and the proceedings thus will be legitimate. As they stand currently, I strongly believe this is a false ban, and if indeed your report be valid, then the ban should remain un-nullified and on record.

 

Lol, no, it wouldn't have. Mods have authority for a reason, not so we can tie ourselves in red tape trying to punish people who obviously have bad intentions. Adding more restrictions to mods' abilities to handle harassment and hatespeech conduct is the last thing we need, and moreover it is not our current protocol, either.

 

The staff system should not be a monocratic system in which a staff member can both report someone, and then handle their own report and punish based on their own biased perspective. That's corrupt as fuck, and I won't be having that any time soon I can promise you all that. Staff should absolutely allow other staff to handle situations unless it's just obvious RDM. For harassment? Absolutely not, that is when you gather data and then make a report, you definitely should not be allowed to handle your own reports while you are upset, biased AND the one in power.

 

And, again. Not one of those screenshots showed anything remotely resembling hatespeech. They were right-leaning statements meant to bring attention to a buzz-topic at the most, but harassment? Ridiculous.

 

But it wasnt hate speech Glyph. Just because you're trans doesnt mean you have to try and censor any badmouthing of the trans people. Its like me banning someone because they used "small dick" as an insult to their friends. Even with the so called harassment of peepstar, you must be an extremely sensitive and emotional person if you take "frickin retard buffoon mongaloid" to be an insult to an obvious friend.

 

I'll let my admin handle this, because I am done trying to justify myself. If this is insufficient evidence, fine. But what I saw was hatespeech, even if it isn't reflected well in the screenshots since, regrettably, the trial mod in question hadn't fully loaded in when Tommy made his most egregious statement. And no, it's not like 'used small dick as an insult' because that is just a physical trait and not one that is genuinely often discriminated against. But you know that, and I know that, and you made that comparison in bad faith.

 

Yeah what YOU saw was hatespeech, no one else saw it as hatespeech otherwise there would've been complaints about it. This is exactly what hongo is talking about, you using your own emotions to punish people instead of actually following the rules about hatespeech. This is obvious because what I may have said was clearly not hatespeech, however you're too tangled up in your own transgender issues and classing anything that closely resembles hatespeech as actual hatespeech. But you're too deluded to see that.