View Topic

Since we're still on the topic of real-world analogies, I don't think this is accurate. There are certain individuals, such as those working at schools or in healthcare, who have a legal duty to report crimes that they witness or hear about because their job involves working with vulnerable people. In general, witnessing and not reporting sexual violence is not a crime. In fact, guides on what to do if a friend has been sexually assaulted typically emphasize the need to respect the friend's decision on whether or not to report.

The training that I receive on a yearly basis for my job always strongly emphases that if you witness or are told about sexual harassment, you must report it. The training advises that even if you think they're about to tell you something about it, that you should tell them that if they do so then you're legally obligated to report it. You could be right that it's specific to the industry I work in (higher education) and some others, but I was going off of personal experience.

Precisely, the idea is that some people in specific positions have a special duty to report things that they see.

My point really was that there are some examples where failing to report something makes you partly responsible, and I think for something as serious as this, it's inexcusable for someone who directly responded to what was said and was even on our server at the time to not report it. The sad thing is the only person there that did report it was the person that's never been here and has virtually no ties to the region.

And my point is that such responsibility to go above and beyond should and does fall on select individuals, not everyone. The idea that all subjects have a duty to report on what they see is literally (as discussed earlier) a medieval one.

(Edit: To reiterate what I said in my first post, I'm not completely opposed to some form of punishment. But what I'm seeing here seems quite extreme.)

You're arguing a real-life technicality in what was just an example I was using. My point is that I believe based on Gatto's knowledge, involvement in the discussion, and the fact that he was on the server at the time that his failure to report it is negligent to the point of sharing responsibility.

I am not speaking in technicalities here; I pointed out your misconception about the real-life example and then moved on once I did. My discussion may have veered theoretical, but theory guides practice. I do not believe that simply witnessing, discussing, and not reporting something should be harshly punished, if at all, and this informs my opinion that the punishment against Gattoartico et al. appears inordinate.

With all due respect, this is an inordinate infraction.

We're not talking about a case of spam or flaming or someone said something bad about someone else, we're talking about someone boasting that they could and would destroy the website and forums. It was serious enough for someone who has never even been here to report the whole thing, and we treated it as a serious threat as well, to the point of backing up the website and contacting our host to help check our security. This is a big deal. It's inordinate.

And it's not just the fact that it wasn't reported. It's the fact that they knew this was being said and going on, and didn't even care. We're talking about forum destruction here, and Gatto's biggest concern is the impact his involvement with the chat on the server might have on his Discord account. He won't survive a second strike, he says. Fucking pathetic. And this is somebody who has been around NationStates and knows how serious regions take this topic. But to react with so little regard about something so malicious and so serious goes beyond just being inappropriate or abetting what was being said. It's unconscionable.

So I don't understand how anyone can say that the punishment is inordinate. It reads to me like trying to say what happened just wasn't that big of a deal and doesn't warrant much punishment, but it does. The act itself, the malice behind the boasts, and how little the other people involved in that conversation care about it...I'm beside myself at how anyone can think this deserves a lessor punishment.

Can we just agree to disagree? You're going back and forth at this point.

I came in here like a tank and you just calmly stood your ground. I was honestly ready to wage war over everything that happened, but somehow, this ended in peace for all sides. Good going, @Aragonn, @Emoticonius and @Wintermoot. I'd ping AJ and Mars too, but I don't recall their names on the forum.

Pinging because Lau forgot their forum names: @AJ BLarg and @Marzipan

I've gone ahead and begun logging the discussion last night. You can see what I have so far here.

It is not complete since the formatting got stripped out and I think I missed a few sections, but the links to the enlarged views of all the images should all be present. I'll be going through later tonight or tomorrow to add the missing bits back in, but until then, it's a lot easier than scrolling through Discord.

I definitely missed a few sections, which are back where they belong with formatting and everything. Log complete!

Wow, what an absolute roller coaster. Glad things are getting settled and back to normal.

We've still got work to do to ever get back to normal, but what matters is that now we can effectively figure out the way to get back there.

gally and lau are entirely innocent.
Shadow was the main problem. And the only problem.

Banning gally is like banning luna. Because they were involved doesnt mean they caused it

The evidence shows that Gally was the primary perpetrator in all this.
Laurentus did do something wrong. He tipped Gally off. Warned him that the ops team was aware of his activities. We know that he did not want the site destroyed. That's why all he got was a slap on the wrist.

this post is outdated.
And katie is cursed with 0.000000001 seconds of corn guy memes for liking my mistake. Dont take it literally katie.