Online Dating Within AEGIS

[limber crane]

so you're now in a relationship if you match pfps then?

that is not a precedent any logical administration will want to set

[weak mauve]

well it's a good indicator

personally i think this suggestion has merit

but idk how youd enforce the edating thingy

i guess if it's super obvious someone is edating then you can enforce it

but if they both literally never show their friendship at all in aegis, yet keep it all secret

[limber crane]

Its a well-intentioned suggestion, sure, as ive said before its one of the most thoughtful policy suggestion to come forward in ages

[weak mauve]

youd never know if they knew eachother even if they joined a division at the same time

[limber crane]

i just don't see the practicality

[crystal ledge]

Maybe if we go back to the xMarshalx situation we could probably get an idea on how the ban on him was enforced to get a better understand on what counts as edating and not.

[vagrant scroll]

Marshals one wasnt really for edating lmao

[limber crane]

@crystal ledge

and again edating was hardly the biggest issue there lol

[vagrant scroll]

Marshals one wasnt really 'edating'

it was just pedophilia

[limber crane]

that was outright predatory

[crystal ledge]

right right

I see

[limber crane]

until you think about the practicality. Would you investigate every officer+ that matches a pfp with someone?

[muted venture]

Yeah apparently

[limber crane]

or would you say "you cannot match pfps with people as it is considered edating"

both alternatives sound terrible

[weak mauve]

probably not

but if you can see someone is edating, usually

usually they have something in their bio

and it can be obvious sometimes, thats if the rule does get put in place

but even then that causes conflict like you said so ban it or not itll still persist

[limber crane]

having something in your bio/status expressing your adoration for the other party would just fall under publicly confirming a relationship

the question at hand is what do we do for cases that don't publicly display their relationship

because that's all this rule will achieve

if even that

[weak mauve]

yeah idk

make aia do that ig

[gilded basin]

💀

[limber crane]

ah yes people getting banned for edating, and a "confirmed by AIA" label is all you'll ever see on the ban log

I'd rather discharge at that point

[weak mauve]

thats if the rule is put in place

like would there be people investigating edaters?

or would it just be like, if there obviously is one then tell the higher ranking one to stop or sm

[muted venture]

It's not so hard to see if someone is ranking up quickly (or anything else, not necessarily ranks) and is "suspected" to have a relation with someone

[weak mauve]

or just make sure all officer+ arent edating

because SOMEONE has to enforce that rules

wether or not it be officers or some other body

[limber crane]

if someone is ranking up too quickly due to support from another person it is nepotism, plain and simple

punish the higher up for that

not for edating

[muted venture]

Yeah but it could be linked to dating

but that requires deeper investigation

[limber crane]

why does it matter what its linked to

its punishable either way

i dont particularly care if someone is biased due to a relationship or a friendship, they're being biased all the same

[muted venture]

Yeah I agree

[limber crane]

and thus can be punished

[gilded basin]

what if they're ranking up quickly because they are actually qualified

i ranked up really quickly

i dont have a relationship with anyone

[brisk seal]

then people will see them being ranked up due to a relationship instead of being actually qualified, which will cause an argument

[limber crane]

then they get in shit for edating all the same, because people would rather believe there were external factors as opposed to accepting someone is actually talented

[weak mauve]

once i rejoined aegis at some time and i just instantly got ranked up to operative from no where so mb for edating

[gilded basin]

LOL

[muted venture]

I believe you could actually see if they're qualified or it's just free ranking

[limber crane]

it is rarely that simple

[muted venture]

sadly

[scenic lance]

It's more than just a bias issue, it's a breach of ethics and professional image as well as the mere potential for bias. The issue arises before any nepotism occurs.

If you want a working definition by the way, the definition of fraternization in the post works with minor adjustments.

The overall intent is the same, "an unduly personal relationship"

[limber crane]

And what constitutes an unduly personal relationship? At what point do you draw the line between a good friendship and what is termed as "an unduly personal relationship"

[gilded basin]

@limber crane let him cook

🔥 🔥 💯

[crystal ledge]

https://tenor.com/view/what-was-he-cooking-ishigami-kaguya-sama-kaguya-maxbooncito-gif-26386746

[rustic latch]

This discussion is still going on?

[brisk seal]

no your imagining things

real

[scenic lance]

Is that really a question that needs to be asked? You're holding this rule to an incredible level of scrutiny compared to rules that are already in place. I'm not saying this isn't fair, but it is useless considering those rules have been in place with just as much vaugeness and little to no negative consequence.

What is NSFW? Gore? To what degree? Is blood Gore? What if it's part of some AEGIS art? Then is it ok? Nazi/Communist? Does that mean other extremist ideologies are also forbidden? What is 'Communist'? Are everyday Soviet symbols and logos NSFW? Is the iron cross 'Nazi'? What about the curved swastika?

Advertising, what is that exactly? If posting a link to another milsim group is advertising shouldn't all links to external groups be advertising (but it isn't)? What about external games? Unofficial aegis discord servers? What about servers for friends in your bio?

The answer is context and smart moderation which uses precedent and peer reviewing to come to a proper decision.

[scenic lance]

(the curved swastika is allowed btw as per precedent set by Noah)

At least when I was officer

[muted venture]

https://tenor.com/view/aegis-day-of-dusk-the-border-border-raider-gif-26533484

[scenic lance]

But if you use it to bypass a swastika obv that's not ok, it's context

[scenic lance]

Considering AFA+ promotions involve virtually the entire chain of command, there is no reason we can't use smart moderation to deal with online dating.

During my time as Officer strictly defined rules did little to account for the wide array of bizarre behavior I'd have to moderate. If I fuck up or I perceive things differently, I always make sure to ask if my action is appropriate first.

There can be general guidelines to what defines something, but there's a reason literal laws are kept vauge and rely on precedent to be enforced.

[rustic latch]

https://tenor.com/view/lit-die-fortnite-dance-goku-gif-26491713

[scenic lance]

Cook off

[charred hound]

Cook off

[limber crane]

Im holding this rule to an incredible level of scrutiny because it allows for ranks people have worked for for years to be stripped away and/or for their personal lives to be ripped open and scrutinized extensively because they're possibly in a relationship with someone. Not to mention it opens up individuals to extensive scrutiny from the public as well. If someone gets promoted and it looks to be at the behest of someone else, this rule gives people the license to pry away at the lives of the two individuals and force individuals higher up the chain of command to do the same.

I for one am not comfortable with the idea that high-ranking individuals, people that have dedicated months if not years to this group can be held under investigation because they may possibly be in a relationship with someone. If you say such investigation may only be done when there's a clear reason to believe so, such as a paper trail of bias and nepotism, or perhaps predatory behavior, then you would be looking into those individuals for that very reason, not for being in a relationship.

You make a good point, a lot of the other rules we enforce here aren't as clear, but a lot of those rules are a lot clearer than "yeah if hicom thinks ur in a relationship you get demoted" and have years of precedent behind them, backed by general internet etiquette and discord service rules. And more crucially, these rules are charged against your common miscreant, and in 99% of cases are clear-cut violations. This rule would be targeted specifically against high ranking members of the group, with no clarity on what is and isn't allowed. You quoted the community guidelines of discord, which state they will remove servers centered around e-dating. But you'll notice they do not punish individuals for edating, only spaces that are made to facilitate this practice. And that is again for the simple reason that you cannot clearly define what constitutes edating.

most of all what im afraid of is, if you've been in and around aegis administration you'll have seen what a higher rank can do if they're out to get you. This is going to be exponentially worse if used in the wrong hands, and it is going to do very little to solve the issue you're attempting to solve

[limber crane]

honestly tho we're just goin back n forth at this point so imma call it a day and let hicom vote on this

either way i dont think its going to happen, at least not in the way you propose it

[tropic edge]

As long as anything will be done with it I'm fine

Like light said, we will leave all in hicoms hand now

[charred hound]

bloxer

[rustic latch]

https://tenor.com/view/die-lit-vegeta-fortnite-dragon-ball-z-gif-26756650

[wraith plinth]

Pretty sure HICOM discussed this where if people are edating as long as they don’t make any drama or publicize it it’s fine that was a while ago tho

[ashen hedge]

The discussion is wanted regardless if people go in circles. We read the chats.

[wild snow]

I think this is something that we can all agree on

[languid fractal]

sir stop date nova

[gilded basin]

quo me and nova are a thruple

[wild snow]

It’s simple and straight to the point

What i don’t agree on, which light and i have stated before is having those who have put in time and effort, despite this being a gsme, being stripped of their ranks or being put on hold because they grew close with another individual and developed more intimate feelings for them

[gilded basin]

let him cook

[languid fractal]

What i don’t agree on, which light and i have stated before is having those who have put in time and effort, despite this being a gsme, being stripped of their ranks or being put on hold because they grew close with another individual and developed more intimate feelings for them

[wild snow]

and if you’re worried about professional image and ethics, just make it clear to not bring your personal private business into aegis communities

if someone breaches that, then that would constitute a reasonable investigation on said individual

it’s pretty simple the way i see it

[amber marsh]

bobguy has already heard my opinion on this but i'll say it here again for good measure

i think restricting romance altogether in an organization is a lazy and fascist solution to relationship-based corruption

an organization (especially one like this) should absolutely never have control over your romantic life or other personal relationships unless your relationships are breaking some kind of law

even if online dating is a leading source of corruption in aegis, the idea that aegis would have any control over someone's romantic life is just ridiculous

instead what SHOULD be done is minimizing the corruption that occurs as a result of people's romantic lives

so if it seems like someone's being biased towards their partner, punish them for their bias, NOT because they have a partner

[amber marsh]

and like light said up here, the investigations that would have to occur to differentiate friendship from dating would be MASSIVE breaches of personal privacy, you absolutely cannot force someone to admit whether they have romantic feelings for another while threatening their rank over it

just the invasive investigations and the simple idea of banning romantic feelings is about as unethical as what you lot are fighting

[civic lodge]

this is the funniest thread to read

[limber crane]

shoulda seen the gamenight ping thread

[native spear]

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY PARAGARHS HERE

[limber crane]

i was being ultra vocal on this one though just because I was worried about a hicom vote being fasttracked like some decisions we've seen

im done now tho, hopefully

[native spear]

i thought you were married to dieabestees

[charred hound]

i aint reading allat

(i cant read)

[muted venture]

I read eveything

[gilded basin]

thats crazy

[muted venture]

Crazy ? I was cr..

[crystal ledge]

I think the best way to summarise this suggestion (from looking at both prospectives) is that this suggestion wants to stop the problems that are accruing from edating in this server with the higher up's (Officer+) due to it leading to bias/nepotism behaviour and other problems in the server, however the execution on how it will be done is the main problem with this suggestion.

[muted venture]

Friedo typing 🗣️🗣️

[crystal ledge]

What are they cooking?

[pastel path]

I done m yresearch

[gilded basin]

you cant stop e-dating

if they dont do it pubicly they just do it in private

[muted venture]

bet

lets see

[pastel path]

Having read everything, I believe there should be clarity, and I agree with both swifty and light here. But also understand the other side. And agree to an extent.

While it would eliminate nepotism and such it would come with the cost of a breach of personal privacy as such things do happen behind closed doors. Threatening someone who have worked hard, some even years, for that rank to strip them from it and thus breaching their privacy over it is certainly not the solution and could be considered a crime in certain cases. Below my concerns:

Some examples are as follows:

• A federal agency may infringe on an individual’s right to privacy when they disclose certain personal records from a government database without obtaining consent first;

• When law enforcement conducts an unlawful seizure or search (e.g., warrantless search or seizure where no exceptions apply);

One can be sued for violation of privacy as-well in the following examples:

• A person intrudes on their private affairs (Which applies in this case);
• Someone publicly discloses private facts about them to a third party (i.e., public disclosure of private facts);
• A person publishes sensitive information about them that places them in a “false” or misleading light; and
• Another person uses their identity (e.g., name or likeness) for personal gain.

It should be noted that the legal consequences for privacy violations can vary widely from case to case. For example, under Section 3 of the federal Privacy Act of 1974 (Based on US laws here), the penalty for violation of privacy in a criminal matter may lead to fines of up to $5,000 for willfully and knowingly gaining access or requesting a record concerning a certain individual based on false pretenses.

As for european areas: Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was drafted and adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950 and currently covers the whole European continent except for Belarus and Kosovo, protects the right to respect for private life: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

Where-as the UN General Assembly on December 18, 2013 adopted resolution 68/167 on the right to privacy in the digital age.
However article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations in 1966 also protects privacy: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
And so there are many more countries of course, which vary with data acts but not with the general privacy acts.

Therefore forcing someone to disclose such things would be:

• 1. A violation of Human rights as of December 18, 2013 for the digital area. (UN)
• 2. A violation of Human rights since 1966, unlawful or arbitrary interferrence. (UN)
• 3. In europe since 1950, according to Article 8 of the ECHP. (EU)
• 4. It would interferre with Article B. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2) – Individual of the 1974 Privacy Act. (US)

(4. elaborating on 'individual') The Privacy Act’s definition of “individual” is much narrower than the FOIA’s definition of “person,” which draws from the Administrative Procedures Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(2) (2018) (defining person as “an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than an agency.”)

And as in the one of the most above paragraphs, even the law enforcement has to 'tip-toe' around to avoid these things. And if the law enforcement more specifically federal agencies have to 'tip-toe' around with it, I don't believe we should even start on this as that doesn't seem like a very good idea.

Edit: Oh and it's unethical as hell to just ban such things as a whole.

[gilded basin]

man calm down

its a roblox game

[pastel path]

That doesn't mean something can't be a federal offense or breach of human rights, as stated above.

[gilded basin]

forcefully making someone speak up about their relationship is not a violation of a human right

thats no human right

[pastel path]

Technically one could consider it a breach of privacy.

As such things, if they keep it that way, happen behind closed doors.

[gilded basin]

how is it a breach of privacy if they're just gonna lie

and even if they said it

they said it of good will

[pastel path]

Because I believe we have all seen.
That once such things become public, either one of two things happen.

• They get called out for being a predator.
• They get called out for being biased as fuck.

So I'm not surprised if a lot of people want to keep it behind closed doors nowadays.

[gilded basin]

its not like anyone here is going to show up on their door step and intergortate them

also

its a roblox game

nobody is getting sued

even if they're going to sue they will prob get convicted themselves for the shit that happen in their dms

[pastel path]

Again.

Even if its just a lego game, doesn't mean what happens CAN'T be a federal offense, because it certainly can be.
I've seen that multiple times.
Once in this server couple other times with others.

[gilded basin]

and asking someone about a relationship is not a break of privacy

showing their dms together

is one

[gilded basin]

who cares

acting like the fbi is going to pull up

asking about a relationship

is not a violation of privacy

[pastel path]

Asking no, I'm not saying asking is.

[gilded basin]

one can argue that relationships are public knowledge

then what you mean by violation of privacy

you cant know if they're in a relationship without asking

[pastel path]

I'm saying that forcing someone to show/answer to is.

Or otherwise pressuring someone with their rank, that can be considered as one. (Though this one can be considered blackmail... I think...?)

[gilded basin]

eh

[pastel path]

You get my point now?

[gilded basin]

sort of

[pastel path]

Better than didn't getting it.

[gilded basin]

but agian who cares just do it forcefully

[pastel path]

Anyway having said and explained my take on this, I'm gonna go War thunder and blow some shit up.

[gilded basin]

sure

[empty rivet]

i thought i started re-downloading my war thunder but it was already installed and i deleted it

[civic lodge]

every time i open this its funnier

[pastel path]

I can agree with both sides though.
Cough marshxl incident

[gilded basin]

https://tenor.com/view/abhijit-naskar-naskar-science-scientist-biology-gif-22083099

[charred hound]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1125095419395981334/1135301745875107910/attachment.gif

[patent tinsel]

edating as a hole is cringe whether in aegis or outside

[charred hound]

i only edate men

[rare sun]

i only edate @charred hound 🤪

[charred hound]

leave me alone

[rare sun]

never ❤️

you are asian

i love asian

🌏

[charred hound]

actually

i identify as a garbage bin now

im no longer asian

[rare sun]

i love garbage bins too

if i was outside the gate

i sniffed the bins

[charred hound]

wtf

[rare sun]

they were delicious!

it smelled like a potato with butter

[quartz galleon]

that wasn't ready sorry for the ghsot ping

[pastel path]

Dw abt it

[plain ridge]

english i run to the bus

japanese - i the bus to run

english SVO (subject verb object) vs japanese SOV

anyway

online dating should be kept private

[rare sun]

yes

%

[plain ridge]

i dont think its logical or morally right to pry into peoples lives and relationships past that + the issues of deciding whos in a relationship and whats too far

with the exception of pedophile situations

[merry heron]

marshal

@quartz galleon please date me

[quartz galleon]

fr

[merry heron]

legit most of the roblox e dating community:

[plain ridge]

unfortunately true

[arctic skiff]

From my pov, it’s more about setting the precedent that it’s not allowed, expecting many to uphold it. I’m not gonna type an essay but if they keep it private, it’s not right to pry into that. The issue is when it becomes public, I agree that they should be punished for the bias not the relationship, but if relationships lead to the bias or nepotism it’s a decent step to place a carpet ban on that kinda thing. No one can stop private affairs, nor should they in an online roblox community, but it does or can play into how it affects others (misplaced promos, fast tracks, etc)

[merry heron]

Most of e dating has the same amount of energy of an SCPF owner

on roblox

[arctic skiff]

I think it’s fair to offer criticism of individuals for the bias, but placing a carpet ban on public or aegis involved relationships is also a fair step to me

[merry heron]

(only SCPF fans gets that reference)

[muted venture]

edating is stupid anyways

[arctic skiff]

That’s for a person to decide, but that shouldn’t be what dictates this decision

[scenic lance]

YES

[hearty grove]

We have no problems with relationships at all in general as we are as of right now an all male division although I think we may have one trialing female I’m not too sure on that though. Also no one talks about relationships much and if they do they keep it to a minimum. I don’t know what these other divisions status on relationships are but in MDF we have none that are causing an issue. Although I am 99.9 percent sure if an issue arouse regarding relationships MDF overwatch will deal with it accordingly and professionally we at MDF have not had a major problem in the passed year and that’s more then what some other divisions can say.

Now obviously this is not meant to be an attack at other divisions

And I support the issue here

I’m just simply saying what we incorporated has worked flawlessly

[unreal bridge]

Sorry but what defines a relationship to be just female and male? Will we not hold the same standards to a male x male relationship? Or do we simply pass them along as friends because they aren’t “public” enough.

[oak herald]

REAL!!

[scenic lance]

This should especially be considered.

"This post's goal is for general action against online dating to be taken place, these are mere suggestions as to what that action could look like."

Yes, I want restriction, yes, I personally recommend restriction and proper enforcement, but as I said in the post the most important thing is general action against edating.

I purposefully left the specifics of how this would be dealt with to the relevant authorities and it's been tossed back to me as if that somehow discounts my request for general action. Just because a solution isn't immediate doesn't mean it doesn't exist, furthermore, just because it may be difficult doesn't mean it won't be worthwhile.

The status quo we have now is clearly unacceptable to a vast majority of the AEGIS community, both old and new.

[brisk seal]

i never thought it was possible for both sides to cook this much

this is the most fire argument in a lifetime

[scenic lance]

A 103 to 6 is kind of ridiculous considering the magnitude of this suggestion, it clearly isn't an issue that we can just leave be.

[arctic skiff]

I think it’s worth considering how quickly this suggestion was ticked yes

[idle citrus]

🗣️

[arctic skiff]

Like 60+ votes within an hour

[brisk seal]

https://tenor.com/view/wawa-cat-wawawa-meme-gif-25812133

[weak mauve]

i love the aegis community

[brisk seal]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/873539944520486964/1134580874705379489/Vsauce_michal_here.mp4

[weak mauve]

@wild snow what is jit typin up

[scenic lance]

Took the burger off the grill too early

[weak mauve]

LOL

[arctic skiff]

pingity pong

[weak mauve]

bro saw an error

[arctic skiff]

I saw the notif but i'll wait a sec

[wild snow]

What actions would you take, personally, to confirm it was a romantic relationship? I'm curious as to how you would personally moderate this and how you would come up with a justifiable punishment. I agree that some relationships lead to bias but why are we supposed to ban the relationships and not the bias? Not once while I was in the AOA as a professor was there any punishment system put in place for bias or things alike. The only thing was simply being active and completing your quota. It's common sense to not use bias as a professor or in any authoritarian position. The issue is those who LACK the common sense. Not the relationship between two individuals. If one individual can have enough power to promote someone on their own then I think that's a matter of AOA leadership and how they moderate the professors. I think it's pretty clear that if 1 person having a bias to another indivudal can promote them amongst the ranks of AFA+, its a matter of administration, not relationships. I say this because there's over 15 other people who can stop the promotion, discuss it, argue it, or vote for them too. Another thing is, the one person who's in the relationship with the person being voted on, votes yes, but then 5 other people vote yes on them, does that mean they're bias too? This entire suggestion is impractical when it comes to investigation and moderation. There's no mitigating people's private lives.

[wild snow]

How are you going to offer criticism to those who have bias for another individual but then ban people being in close relationships with one another? The way you phrased "offer criticism" makes it seem like those who are bias but aren't in a relationship get a darn good stern talking to. It just doesn't make sense.

[wild snow]

The solution you want is just invading people's private lives and disregarding people's time and effort that they've put into this group. Why is this a pressing issue when it's only brought up once in a blue moon? I think the issue is the people who lack the common sense to realize that personal opinions can't interfere with facts. Not someones private life.

[weak mauve]

yall typing uP A STORM

[wild snow]

How are you going to try to justify adding suggestions just because some people clicked the upvote button? Half of them, I guarantee you, haven't read anything past the first line of Bobguys proposal.

That's like when someone posts a suggestion for something that breaks roblox tos to be added or is on the banned suggestion list should just be added right away because a fuckton of people liked the title of the post.

[wild snow]

Wasn't chared

[weak mauve]

now lets see what doge has to say

[arctic skiff]

I agree the bias should be restricted as well, I'm not part of AOA leadership nor have I ever really been close, so I can't speak for how promotions work there. The point of this post is to take one step further from preventing the bias from ever happening. Like I said the relationships aren't and can never be fully prohibited nor do I want them to, it's just that a private life should be kept private. I'm aware that can still be biased just in secret or having others unaware of the relationship.

As to what I would do personally, nothing. That's not my ground. Now my opinion of what should be done is similar to what IC does and how they get reports. Just formulated complaints that they investigate internally and decide what to do, whether these issues go to them, ToML, or both can be decided by HICOM. I will 100% agree with anyone that bias is the main issue, this post isn't trying to say it's not AFAIK, but as I've said taking a step in the right direction. Bias should be dealt with or locked down more and I'd support those measures same as these/

I am not a fan of banning them, that's extreme. I meant offer criticism as I'm speaking from an outside view. You can criticize bias and it is bad, and should lead to punishments like demotions or whatever as has been done before.

It doesn't make the suggestion god's word if many people upvote it, but the amount it gets in comparison to other suggestions is still worth looking at that number. I said it's worth considering, not that it makes it perfect or immediate. Obviously ToS violations won't be considered, that's a stupid counterpoint

I hate typing like that

[weak mauve]

DAMN

[arctic skiff]

Just kept going

[weak mauve]

what a comeback

[scenic lance]

I've created a monster (and I'm proud)

[arctic skiff]

cause nobody wants to see marshall no more (surprised the lyrics worked out this well)

[languid fractal]

@arctic skiff hey can i take you out to cuddling robloz game

[arctic skiff]

ofc

[languid fractal]

yipeee

[weak mauve]

bro said "marshall"

[arctic skiff]

ya?

its a song 🥱

[ebon mango]

and how exactly do you think this will ensure no one like him enters the community again

if no one steps up and reports people it won’t change anything lmao

marshals entire thing was kept in the dark until the people affected decided to say something about it

[arctic skiff]

I don't, I'm honestly not fully aware of that situation, I think I just stayed out of the loop for too long. I don't think that is the point of my argument though

[ebon mango]

regardless of this passing it’ll still happen, just privately

[arctic skiff]

If bobguy has thoughts on it he can display em

[ebon mango]

and i’ll put money on it not passing

[weak mauve]

it was also kept in the dark cuz no one cared

[arctic skiff]

but thats not my pov

[weak mauve]

i remember people used to expose him in chats

literally posting his stuff

yet no one really cared

[ebon mango]

well that’s a shame isn’t it

[weak mauve]

yeh

[arctic skiff]

But yes obviously if no one reports it it'll likely never be found out, that's just the nature of a secret

[weak mauve]

misclick

[arctic skiff]

nice

[ebon mango]

someone having a public relationship doesn’t necessarily change anything

even if it’s private your entire point of it causing bias can still happen

ppl just won’t know about it

[scenic lance]

That's true for literally anything, it's a choice, and if people want to make the wrong one this just encourages people to speak out.

[ebon mango]

how does it encourage anything

it should be common sense that if someone tells you something you don’t like, especially sexual harassment, you say something about it

quite literally common sense, i mean that’s pretty much taught anywhere

[arctic skiff]

My pov, as I've explained many time now, is that a carpet ban or misencouragement of an action largely prevents it. Bad people will be bad people (for lack of better terms at this point). There's plenty of rules in AEGIS that can be broken pretty easily and are, but largely are upheld because its an expectation

[ebon mango]

it won’t prevent bias, it already happens and this is just an excuse for people to target two close friends of the opposite sex which already happens very frequently

i already explained why it won’t really change anything on the predator side of tjings

and idk the other points but once again most of these things are already upheld

and if they aren’t dealt with accordingly then that’s just poor administration from higher ups

[arctic skiff]

I don't think it's an excuse for targeting, it's a step towards preventing the road to bias. If its generally discouraged, less people get in those relationships, leading to less bias specifically from those relationships. Bias will still happen, and should be tightened down on more if possible but that's another suggestion if you or someone else would like to make one

Just like IC dismisses many cases just cause people report something they're upset about, it would happen here

[ebon mango]

it literally is

[arctic skiff]

It's not an excuse

[ebon mango]

if 2 people are close and people claim they have something what are people gonna do

[arctic skiff]

Make some sort of report if they'd like and it can be investigated, if it comes out they're not oh well

People can falsely report bias as well

[ebon mango]

that’s the entire point of what people have been saying

if someone makes a false report

and their personal lives get intruded on by others

it won’t feel real nice will it

[tranquil solar]

Good question. To overall up sum of you questions. We base the rule based off this.
( I can’t send SS cause its disabled)

“”
I should also be clear, you can E-date another member of MDF **BUT ** it shouldn’t cross the lines to we’re your talking about in this server, or show public affection etc. We cant stop u from dating another MDF that’s invasion of your freedom but if it creates drama or problems then that’s when exile will be raised into question.
With that I want to make this known again that if you are found dating anyone underage there will be no leniency… “” etc -per mdf shout from a few months ago

Basically if us (divisional hicom of mdf) don’t see anything affecting mdf as a whole or it’s members and you keep your relationships to yourself it’s all good.

And you asked how many incidents have happened since this rule has been but in place. There been 0 because people usually respect the rules of a division they want to be in.

Now we have problems in the past which I will obviously not talk about at all because there confidential but if had this rule in place it could have been prevented.

Also a big point is sure you won’t know if someone dating someone else and making a problem within mdf all the time cause dc+ is spread thin but that’s were people that hear about problems report it to us. Basically with the rule it makes other members able to report easier if it causing a problem

[ebon mango]

this community is already full of drama and whatever

having to deal with that on top of it

well

yikes

[arctic skiff]

I personally wouldn't mind honestly, if you know you're not causing an issue there's no reason to not comply with that. An investigation requires some sort of decent proof or evidence, not just "I think they're dating sir"

[tranquil solar]

Bingo

Exactly how we have in mdf

[ebon mango]

what exactly would constitute as proof

two people claim to be dating, they say they arent, they still get investigated in the background

an assumption that they might be bias can ruin everything for one person

“they voted for them so they’re clearly bias”

[ashen hedge]

Another approach instead to outright ban edating or punishing people for it, we can make the prospect of edating seem something to steer away from when in relation to AEGIS.
Have those who are in relationships automatically placed into a bias assumption whether true or not, and encourage precautions to prevent their potential bias from being an issue where it matters. In votes for AOA or AA, or any promotion for that matter.

[arctic skiff]

Proof would still be decided by the investigatory group (IC/ToML) and can be dismissed by them as needed. Someone can forward SS's or a full report or personal accounts/statements from others.

[arctic skiff]

Thats a major part of what im saying

Its a precautionary measure at large to me, and will generally discourage that behaviour

[ashen hedge]

I believe taking the prevention approach rather than the outright ban approach will be better suited for a topic so sensitive. On one hand, we don't support edating, and everyone knows how I feel about that already. On the other, we also shouldn't be meddling in another person's personal life to the point where we're starting to get too personal with the one we're accusing. We can, however, regulate them around edating. Propose the risks, state that they will automatically be assumed for bias if they decide to vote on a particular topic related to their significant other, come down heavily on that if they can't defend themselves & justify their actions

[acoustic wind]

this is quite the debate

[ashen hedge]

Well it's an important issue and it's good some people feel so strongly about it.

Make fun of people typing paragraphs all you want, they're the ones pushing the discussion forward.

[acoustic wind]

i mean i dont care about the paragraphs i have no problem with it

[ebon mango]

hasn’t a shout just like that been made before

[arctic skiff]

I think I should clarify by carpet ban I mean the action being largely opposed. An outright ban is impossible and doesn't make sense logically, I think carpet ban was probably the wrong word but nonetheless

[ashen hedge]

It's not as cut and dry as I'm proposing. It's hard to 100% prove intention, especially malice, but with the justifiable warning of you alreadynbeing suspected of being bias automatically regardless if there's evidence or not would really help weave through the technicalities of it all. Things like this take a lot of investigation and it's honestly tiring.

[wild snow]

It's a stupid counterpoint yes, but am I wrong? If I posted a suggestion saying that Field Agent+ should get cuffs and it gets 100+ upvotes in 2 days does that mean the suggestion should even be remotely considered?

If you want to take a step forward in dealing with bias individuals and nepotism in general within this community, would that not be something that should be dealt with administration, or in this case HICOM? If we looked at the ratio of clear bias cases of those who weren't and were in a relationship at the time, what do you think that would be? Would the people who were in relationships with another individual be significantly higher? I don't think they would. My entire point is that relationships don't cause bias every time someone is in one with one another. And because of that it doesn't make sense to ban or try to censor online relationships.

[gilded basin]

id leave sc if field agents got cuffs

[arctic skiff]

Yes you are wrong because it's a stupid counterpoint and a strawman at best. If you point out specific scenarios that go against established guidelines you're wrong. The point is relationship can lead to bias, not that they always will

[gilded basin]

it isnt even relationships at this point

anything can lead to bias

a simple friendship

[arctic skiff]

This conversation is about relationships though

[gilded basin]

does that mean we should make sure nobody is friends in aegis?

[verbal pulsar]

( Tha word war..)

[arctic skiff]

If y'all just wanna keep pullin fallacies out of my argument go ahead, but they're illogical and not the point of this suggestion

[gilded basin]

💀

[arctic skiff]

This is a suggestion about one part of bias prevention

Not all of it

[verbal pulsar]

🤔

[reef marsh]

oh my

[arctic skiff]

Though I'd be down to discuss that if you made a suggestion

[wild snow]

This entire discussion is full of straw mans, and so is every argument ever when it gets deep. And if it has to come to this point then why would it still be considered even after all the logical points on why it shouldn't be accepted and on why it should be accepted. Clearly not everyone will agree with it and it's just going to cause more "innocent" people to be investigated and rank locked or even demoted or banned because of them wanting to pursue a relationship that they have built over months or even years.

[gilded basin]

Hi cutdata

[reef marsh]

can you link where i should start reading

[gilded basin]

at th etop

at the top

very top

just read the long paragraphs

[wild snow]

I totally agree that relationships CAN lead to bias but so can anything else. Simply building a friendship with one another can lead to bias too. If we're talking about taking steps then you would think that you would start with the leading cause of bias and it isn't e dating.

[ebon mango]

let’s ban close friendships too

any ties with one another

that’s how you REALLY get rid of bias

i’m a genius

[gilded basin]

nova dms

[weak mauve]

just ban everyone

[gilded basin]

honestly

me and raymen are too good of friends

bias

!!!

[civic lodge]

if you're in a relationship over a roblox group you have bigger problems than being prosecuted in the group imo

[gilded basin]

💀

[weak mauve]

nuh uh

i love this man

we're actually datin

he's free ranking me in sc

[arctic skiff]

Point out my argument having a strawman. Not every argument turns into strawmans, and they shouldn't. There's plenty of rules people don't agree with but logical points against and for it are both considered, Corpsii's worded it pretty nicely imo. Once again, if you'd like to tackle the leading cause of bias go make a suggestion or talk about that. It still can lead to the problems of this whole argument which is the whole point

[wild snow]

Why should it matter how it started, if the two feel things for each other and love each other then the way the met or found one another shouldn't be relevant to their loyalty and respect for each other.

[civic lodge]

you funny af quo 🙏

[weak mauve]

i was gonna say a joke

[arctic skiff]

i mean

meeting someone on discord is just kinda weird imo

[civic lodge]

my ass is not typing again please dont respond to what i typed

[arctic skiff]

but thats besides the point

[weak mauve]

"i met your mother in aegis"

[wild snow]

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you over the structure of your arguments and your points. Responding to the 2nd part of the paragraph, I don't see how you are just going to ignore the leading cause of the issue that this thread is based on and just go into a sub cause that is only relevant when brought up within the community.

[wild snow]

I get your point but if someones happy just let them be happy.

[gilded basin]

buddy is about to type again

[wild snow]

There is plenty of relationships, succesful ones that have started online.

Sure, Discord isn't the ideal place as there's dating apps and such but there also plenty succesful relationships that have started from games.

[arctic skiff]

¯_(ツ)_/¯

i just think its weird but idrc that much

I agree if they're happy be happy

not tryin to stop that

[gilded basin]

https://tenor.com/view/dont-care-idgaf-gif-5730259

if u dont care

you wouldnt be here arguing about it

for 30 minutes

[arctic skiff]

I care about the consequences

not the actions

[gilded basin]

so you care about it

[arctic skiff]

In general, no

[gilded basin]

those are basically the same thing

[arctic skiff]

I don't care if you date on discord

But keep it out of here

[gilded basin]

consquences are the result of the actions

[arctic skiff]

Actions in a specific space

[gilded basin]

if you care about one you should care about the other

[arctic skiff]

If it causes no issue here i dont care at all

Its that it can and has caused issued here that makes me care

[hearty grove]

Well we have not had a problem with this either. But the treatment will be the same obviously.

Also just cause I did not bring it up does not mean it was not accounted for.

@unreal bridge in conclusion a relationship is a relationship gender is not accounted for

[wild snow]

chat is this real

[limber crane]

I think this is already done, anyone in a high position knowns the implications of their actions and it is abundantly clear that if you're an a relationship or even just close friends with someone you're seen as biased when voting and whatnot. Pushing this even strongly would just make functioning in a leadership position even harder and will more often than not lead to wrongful conviction

[loud topaz]

i want to date everyone in aegis

😎

[arctic skiff]

Do it

[ashen hedge]

Not to that level, again.

[verbal pulsar]

https://tenor.com/view/cat-zoning-out-cat-stare-black-cat-black-cat-tiktok-stare-gif-6568742496074847242

[unreal bridge]

if u say this then ur statistics of which mdf are female or male are void

[pastel path]

@wild snow
As above here it appears we agree (#1135287416475885568 message)

CC: @arctic skiff regarding privacy invasion

As I have stated before, just because it is a lego game does not mean something cant be a criminal or even federal let alone a breach of human right to privacy.

Therefore even if we wanted to we can not properly enforce this without this turning from a Stratocracy to a bad ideology used in ww2 by the italian axis as thats basically forcing it upon another individual.

[gilded basin]

rreal

[gilded basin]

man its a roblox game you're really taking it too seriously

[deep umbra]

do SC or other divs count as people with leadership

[gilded basin]

like how do you even compare aegis with the axis ideology 💀

[pastel path]

Its kinda funny to me, how you're only saying it to me.

[gilded basin]

no i genuinely mean it to most people

[pastel path]

I dont, factually speaking AEGIS is a stratocracy.

An ideology where the highest in rank pretty much holds all power, see it as a pyramkd scheme.

Im saying outright banning such things could make it appear as

[gilded basin]

yeah what did you expect again its a roblox game

[deep umbra]

@pastel path wat do you think sur

[gilded basin]

there arent going to be referendums or political debates here

its a damn roblox game

[deep umbra]

i mean uhhhh political debates

[gilded basin]

related to aegis

not actual political debates genius

[deep umbra]

ok

[pastel path]

And again, as I said, just because it is a roblox game doesnt mean something can not be

• Federal offense
• Criminal Offense
• Breach of Human rights.

Becauze we all know that such things DO happen on roblox.

[gilded basin]

okay you act like the CIA is coming after aegis

or the UN is gonna shut down aegis

its a roblox game

not an actual country

ot goverment

or organization

[pastel path]

I dont I am just talking about my view on this suggestion and some more extensive parts of it, based off of research and historic facts of when things were introduced.

We have already had this debate I do not see the need to restart it from the same lawful point of view.

[steel locust]

The general point of this suggestion is to prevent bias WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. As it was said, bias can happen in friendships, so relationships are not the only problem here

Banning relationships is impossible, the only solution is to detect bias when its happening

[ember lichen]

if you want to date on discord so bad do it in another community 💯

[gilded basin]

fr

[pastel path]

Whereas some went further to say invesitgations upon it should happen, disclosing their private DMs with people which would be a breach of privacy.

[pastel path]

Exactly.

[gilded basin]

no it is not impossible just ban them, and when caught they will be demoted from their positions easy as that

[pastel path]

If that had happened already we wouldnt be here having this discussion.

[deep umbra]

W

[steel locust]

Yeah but you cant just ban people that are really close

[gilded basin]

yeah you can

[deep umbra]

also how abt if they are in a relationship before

[pastel path]

So what we gonna do next ban friendships? Because as he said relationships aint the only problem.

• Inhumane
• Unethical

[gilded basin]

bro you need to calm down with your seriousness

just ban relationships

1

[pastel path]

Essentially whay you are saying here is we should implement an inhumane option of outright banning friendships, relationships, emotion, and feelings.

[deep umbra]

it’s a serious topic

[gilded basin]

online dating is against

ROBLOX

FUCKING TOS

so why is this even a debate

its legit against the games TOS

[deep umbra]

friendships aren’t against tos

[gilded basin]

it shouæld've been banned

long time ago

[gilded basin]

online dating is you moron

READ

READ

[steel locust]

We are talking about discord here, not roblox

[gilded basin]

it is a roblox game is it not?

[deep umbra]

no but u said to ban friendships right

[gilded basin]

they can date on discord

i have no issue what so ever

but they should not be allowed to play the game

since it is against roblox ToSD

[steel locust]

????

What if they arent doing it on roblox?

[pastel path]

Okay but what if they are a couple irl?

[gilded basin]

no i said relationships as in people dating each other

[gilded basin]

then let them be

but who tf in aegis is a couple irl?

genius

like tell me one

[deep umbra]

both friendships and relationships cause bias

[steel locust]

^^^^^

W

[deep umbra]

xd

[gilded basin]

friendships are not against ToS asre they?

"Online dating is strongly discouraged by various Internet communities that do not intend to facilitate it, including Roblox. Online dating is currently against Roblox's Community Standards, and anyone who participates in said activities risks punishment to their account, such as their account being banned." from roblox tos

[pastel path]

No no, because if that happens right its also online dating according to you so they should be banned without any second thought.
Because theyre both on the same game too so then thatd be OD too no?

[steel locust]

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ROBLOX TOS HERE

[gilded basin]

mf

ITS A ROBLOX GAME

[deep umbra]

discord sur

[gilded basin]

ROBLOX GAME

ITS NOT ITS OWN GAME

THEREOFR U MUST ALSO FOLLLOW

ROBLOX

TOS

JEUSS CHRIST

[steel locust]

We are talking about BIAS that happens on DISCORD

[gilded basin]

USE YOUR BRAIN

[pastel path]

Calm your ass down.

[gilded basin]

FOR ONCE

[pastel path]

BOTH OF YOU SHUT UP

Calm your ass down

[deep umbra]

woah woah woah

[steel locust]

I cant even type fast am on mobile now lol

[pastel path]

So am I.

Okay so to sum it up real quick.

[gilded basin]

[deep umbra]

what is ur rebuttal to this suggestion sur

i am all ears

[gilded basin]

i was the first person to speak n this thread other than bobguy

[deep umbra]

why do you dislike the suggestion

[steel locust]

Problem = BIAS WITHIN AEGIS DISCORD (doesnt have to do anything with Roblox)

Both relationships and friendships cause bias in most cases

Solution is NOT to ban relationships because they are public

ONLY solution is to detect bias when it is happening, and to seize it

[gilded basin]

caus i can

[pastel path]

Relationships are not the only problem, outright banning them for suspicion of is inhumane and unethical (innocent till proven guilty) to prove this unless, its done willingly without pressure or threats, would be considered a breach of privacy.

Why is it not only relationships causing problems?
Glad you asked friendships do too.

So what would the next thing be, force them to cut off all ties with friends? Again inhumane.

Essentially the only thing we can do is take precautionaries against said bias.

[deep umbra]

do you have any logic behind it

[gilded basin]

yea

[deep umbra]

can u say

i am all ears

[gilded basin]

so roblox breaks international laws now or what?

how do you determine what is online dating and what isnt

basically what light said

[deep umbra]

👍

that’s true

what stage does it change from friendship to online dating

[gilded basin]

yuh

[steel locust]

You dont need to determine that, you just need to stop bias when it is happening

[gilded basin]

the stage when someone says they're dating

and have matching fucking pfp?

maybe ther

?

[steel locust]

LOL

This guy

[pastel path]

I am not saying they are, but if we force them to disclose under pressure etc, then it is breaking a law.

[deep umbra]

so as long as they don’t say they date they can do whatever bias they want??

[gilded basin]

nobodyu is forcing anyone to rbeak up

[deep umbra]

stoopid

[gilded basin]

its either aegis

or fuck off

guys i matched pfps with marshal once i guess i was dating him

true story btw

[deep umbra]

i date pedo 😱

[pastel path]

I have had matching pfps with people that are FRIENDS with me...

You never truly know who is and isnt

[gilded basin]

exactly

[steel locust]

Agreed

So blaze's argument is automatically VOIDED

[gilded basin]

@coral field

[deep umbra]

are we talking about leadership ingame or only discord

[steel locust]

Discord

[deep umbra]

@pastel path

oh

sorry for the ping friedo

[steel locust]

If it is ingame, its breaking tos

[gilded basin]

i legit saw luna and that bzu guy

calling each other

swweet names

in game

[deep umbra]

Bobguy argues anyone in AOA+ is in leadership right?

[gilded basin]

and acted like a copuple

[coral field]

Hollywood has entered the chat.

[gilded basin]

ban her

[coral field]

https://tenor.com/view/chrollo-lucilfer-chrollo-hxh-chrollo-requiem-hunter-x-hunter-requiem-requiem-gif-16556323

[gilded basin]

FR

[coral field]

Now..

What is this rambling about

I need context

[gilded basin]

they allow e-dating

disgusting

[steel locust]

You jusy dont understand

[deep umbra]

when was that said

[coral field]

they allow e-dating cuz they dont get bitches irl

[gilded basin]

oh shut up and feel the touch of a real person

[coral field]

they dont know the bitch th ey edating

is a man

after all

[gilded basin]

whatr do you mean i dont understand

i understand just perfectly

[steel locust]

You dont obviously

[charred hound]

this is wild

[deep umbra]

you said anyone with matching pfps are dating ☠️

[steel locust]

Yeah

LOOOOL

[coral field]

@gilded basin you gotta EDATE to understand

bro

[gilded basin]

i said most genius

[deep umbra]

maxed out the IQ there buddy

[gilded basin]

im sorry

[charred hound]

me and godgamer matched pfp on valentines day

[gilded basin]

sorry genius your iq is intimidating me

[steel locust]

Your*

[charred hound]

minor spelling mistake

[steel locust]

Ironic

[deep umbra]

so if I change my pfp to pure black I am edating thousands of people on discord???

[gilded basin]

a little slow there arent u buddy

[charred hound]

https://tenor.com/view/super-sonic-sonic-adventure-minor-spelling-mistake-minor-spelling-mistake-i-win-minor-spelling-mistake-i-win-meme-gif-24372166

[gilded basin]

gosh you guys are genuinely dumb

[deep umbra]

🤩 foot

[steel locust]

You just cant think of anything else, can you

[gilded basin]

no

i can not

im sorry

😱

[steel locust]

Cannot*

[deep umbra]

then stop repeating your logic-less points?

[coral field]

Edating shouldnt be allowed

[deep umbra]

yes

[coral field]

that shit is lame

and most of the time its a dude

[gilded basin]

bro u dumb

you can write both things

💀

[deep umbra]

what point would you define a friendship turning into edating

[gilded basin]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1128028854162833479/1136243222864211988/video0.mp4

[steel locust]

Its not HICOMs duty to determine that, its HICOMs duty to determine and prevent bias

WHICH IS THE POINT

[charred hound]

E dating is fine if it's like kept in dms

[gilded basin]

not in aegis

[coral field]

see THAT should be taken OUT OF aegis dont get your bitch relationship anywhere near aegis

[gilded basin]

aegis is a roblox game

and aegis has to follow roblox tos

online dating is not allowed on roblox

[charred hound]

If it's kept in dms

[deep umbra]

??? r u stupid you didn’t even touch on the question

[steel locust]

This is discord

[charred hound]

Ik you can't date on roblox

[gilded basin]

yes this is discord

but aegis

[coral field]

Anything related to Edating should be taken out of the game and PERSONAL DMS ONLY not fucking "i love u bae" in general chat bro

[gilded basin]

is not based on discord

[short aspen]

BAN THAT SHIRT

[gilded basin]

aegis uses

[deep umbra]

it would make bias tho

[gilded basin]

discord

as a platform

to communicate

u donkey

aegis is not based on DISCORD

therefor roblox ToS are prioity

[coral field]

No???

[gilded basin]

since it uses its platform

to create its game

how dumb are you jesus christ

[steel locust]

SO WHAT??? its a discord server which doesnt have to follow roblox TOS, discord has its own TOS

[gilded basin]

BUT AEGIS

[deep umbra]

when does a friendship turn into edating

[gilded basin]

IS NOT JUST A DISCORSD SEVER

[short aspen]

why did they ban the c word then

[gilded basin]

ITS A ROBLOX DISCORD SERVER

[charred hound]

Roblox literally

says

[coral field]

https://prnt.sc/cg8W3vAIgRU6

@deep umbra What I mean is anything related or between your relationship within edating shouldnt be involved within the game itself. I.e do not discuss about your relationship or send out fucking love letters in chat

[charred hound]

Other platforms have different tos

[short aspen]

they should follow it for some rules and then for some not according to you

[limber crane]

We don't enforce roblox ToS on discord, that's stupid. If we enforced roblox tos here this server would look much much different

[deep umbra]

it would be 🗑

[charred hound]

First would start of with no cursing

[steel locust]

EXACTLY what i was saying

[deep umbra]

no ‘hi’ since I got banned on roblox for saying hi

[short aspen]

██████.

[coral field]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/587290365371875328/1098367221283164281/darksorcererbronbron.gif

[gilded basin]

mf

luna

or rose

or what she is called

legit

kissedf

that bzunova

guy

IN GAME

WHICH IS CLEARLY

[steel locust]

Proof

[gilded basin]

A VIALOTION

[gilded basin]

why would i record it

[charred hound]

ain't guilty if got no proof

[gilded basin]

she legit dressed up as a prince

[limber crane]

If you see a ToS violation, report it

[gilded basin]

man how come we follow some ToS

but fuck the other ToS

how does that work

[coral field]

report the game

easy

not hard

[deep umbra]

[steel locust]

In this discord server, roblox TOS doesnt apply as LightiumZ said. DISCORD TOS APPLIES

[coral field]

discord TOS doesnt allow pedophila young man

[steel locust]

Is it that hard to understand

[coral field]

or predatory

[deep umbra]

continue

[steel locust]

I was talking about bias

But okay

[coral field]

@gilded basin but also u gotta stop being stupid

roblox and discord are 2 different platforms

bro

[gilded basin]

suck it

[deep umbra]

LOL

[steel locust]

Bro has nothing to say now

[gilded basin]

ur a dangerous gguy

[short aspen]

they are friends

[gilded basin]

im scared of u

[deep umbra]

bro turns on his friend the instant he raises a point against him

[steel locust]

You dont have to be

[gilded basin]

nah man who is drifty i only know uaedrifter

[coral field]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1049514595708059658/1049572667189108806/attachment.gif

[short aspen]

2016

[charred hound]

Who now?

[gilded basin]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/953336238478336053/1014206877594300426/8b85e5e359c1dca141cd3c17dce4e2c2.gif

[limber crane]

If you violate roblox tos on roblox, you can be punished. If you violate discord tos on discord, you can be punished. You're saying enforce roblox tos on discord

[short aspen]

me and ur mom

[charred hound]

zamn bro is at my grave

[gilded basin]

shouldnt moderation also enforce roblox tos in game?

[coral field]

arent u gay

[gilded basin]

and not vialote them?

[short aspen]

💯

[coral field]

?????????

ok atp

ur rambling

like deadass

[short aspen]

fake news

[deep umbra]

it does, if you see someone breaking it report it

[limber crane]

Roblox tos will be enforced in game yes

[deep umbra]

violate* 🤓

[steel locust]

People that break roblox tos in ROBLOX will be punished in ROBLOX

[fluid badger]

ayee you gonna let that slide? 🗣️

[gilded basin]

nah 🗣️

[fluid badger]

😂

[coral field]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1075235310939680909/1088033391498244129/stoprambling.gif

[limber crane]

Noah u r obese

[fluid badger]

ong

[gilded basin]

man i swear u donkeys support e-dating

disgusting as fuck

[coral field]

e-dating discussions or relationships shouldnt be taken into the games discord/game, should only be allowed in dms

[limber crane]

Bro you're bringing roblox tos into a discord policy conversation

Idk what ur on about

[gilded basin]

on god

[gilded basin]

im built like that

[coral field]

u are stupid

[steel locust]

I can see that

[gilded basin]

yeah yeah 100%

[gilded basin]

how can you see a discord debate

[short aspen]

man it brings nepotism into promotion if u wanna date do it outside

[steel locust]

Bro confirmed it with no sarcasm

[gilded basin]

you got some superpowers?

[gilded basin]

fr frf

[coral field]

^^

[limber crane]

We've had some really intelligent conversations within this thread and then we get this

[coral field]

fr bro

[deep umbra]

fr

[coral field]

stupid people

[gilded basin]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1075088495602847794/1136246230620586024/frosty_donkey.mp4

[short aspen]

hey its me!

[gilded basin]

average e-dater supporter

[gilded basin]

nah nah

[short aspen]

frosty donkey

[gilded basin]

ur the one signing

[charred hound]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1125095419395981334/1131724161480405144/attachment.gif

[coral field]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1062769204165615666/1064063148195319838/IMG_3535.png

[short aspen]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/866044404334329856/958380694155952198/3AA3195D-DC72-4A43-8871-D2AB76A2E6F6.gif

[charred hound]

i thought that was something 💀

[coral field]

yo mind is in the gutters

dirty thinking

man

[charred hound]

bro is shirtless

[gilded basin]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1075088495602847794/1136246506479943730/nerd_1_2.mp4

[charred hound]

mans just sending videos

[short aspen]

based

[gilded basin]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1075088495602847794/1136246446224588961/video0_8.mp4

[fluid badger]

don't litter this thread with useless stuff

[steel locust]

Your video has bad words!!! Guess I have to enforce roblox tos on discord

[gilded basin]

do it

[short aspen]

the whole debate is useless 🔥

[coral field]

can we edate again 🥺

[gilded basin]

clear the e-daters out

clear them ouit

we need a new start

[charred hound]

im out

[pastel path]

This is the difference.
That is where it becomes apparant in game, but I believe that there are more than we think there are and that those dont act like it ingame. But only on discord in dms etc.

[gilded basin]

clear them out

[haughty gale]

I call my friends (In DoD) sweet name as a meme...

[short aspen]

ukrainekun

[haughty gale]

Yes?

[pastel path]

Why would that be necessary?

Essentially we come back to the same shit again who is, who isnt and is just close friends

[gilded basin]

i said clear them out we need a new start

[pastel path]

Which would require an investigation of DM conversations, which if they are not willing to show that and you force them to by threatening rank, status whatever you get the point.

Is a breach of privacy.

[short aspen]

clear 'em out

rolling thunder

[pastel path]

So while we can go back and forth about this.

[gilded basin]

are you the damn ethical board or what?

[pastel path]

Let me make something clear,

[short aspen]

let me tell you something

[gilded basin]

https://tenor.com/view/sushichaeng-scared-shocked-scary-movie-heart-attack-gif-21684728

[haughty gale]

I think the only way is to ban dating mentions IN general chats like just keep them in DMs, because we won't need to break the persons privacy

[pastel path]

I agree with both sides.

I can agree that edating is a problem withon AEGIS regarding bias etc.

But if you look from the perspective of ethics and law.

Ethically we cant just outright ban a relationship, we cant really determine if someone is close friends yes or no and fucking about, or actually dating.

And from the lawful side
If they are not willing to disclose and thus as (some suggested not the OP) investigations via DMs, I think we can

1. All agree that you dont want to be a suspect nor being investigated because you are close friends with someone.

2. If forced to do so via threats or being pressured into doing so a breach of privacy.

So as said I agree with both sides but some things just arent always possible and both sides just have to meet somewhere in the middle

[gilded basin]

i told you lets clear them out

[pastel path]

At this point I might aswell apply.

[haughty gale]

I mean, Friedo has good points, and I agree with him in certain ways, that if you just ban who dates, it will be absurdly horrible, imagine the couple didn't do anything wrong, obey the rules, do their job very well, and just because someone said, now they need to either separate or get banned.

[short aspen]

ukrainekun

[gilded basin]

its in human nature to help people who are you close

so never going to happen

🗣️

[haughty gale]

Tf you talking about bruh 😭

[short aspen]

https://tenor.com/view/sparkles-and-champagne-gif-25482801

[pastel path]

Blaze as I said both sides will have to meet somewhere in the middle.

[limber crane]

Let's say we do "clear them out", how do you propose we find them

[pastel path]

^

[haughty gale]

Could you please stop calling me that :/

[pastel path]

Thats where breach of privacy comes in.

[short aspen]

wasabi

[gilded basin]

clear everyone suspicious

clear them out

[pastel path]

This is a huge red flag.

[gilded basin]

make it blue

[haughty gale]

That is dumb as hell though

[limber crane]

Remove people thatve been here years, because they might be in a relationship?

[haughty gale]

Yeah, this point I was trynna get

[gilded basin]

i mean i got removed because i had friends who were explioters

why not

🤷‍♂️

[limber crane]

Clearly it didn't hold up if you're back here

[pastel path]

You failed to report it, DesolatedAyee.

[gilded basin]

so lets make it a rule

report every daters

[pastel path]

This is not tf I mean jesus fucking christ

Exploiting and dating are 2 different things.

[gilded basin]

dating does more damage if not more

considering it messes with the order of hicom

[pastel path]

Tell me how then.

[gilded basin]

well if hr is bias

and promotes ppl they only like

[pastel path]

While I'll explain why its a red flag what you said.

[gilded basin]

it is corruption

which is worse than exploiters who are gone after 1 month

at most

[pastel path]

More things come into play

some of them are:

• Time in grade
• Did they complete quota?
• How often do they complete quota?
• Do they go above and beyond?
• How active are they and have they been?
• How professional are they?
• Last promotion/demotion date

etc etc.

Those are some of the most important aspects that come into play with promotions, not just if someone likes you.

We check who is fit for said promotion and why.

[gilded basin]

u went beyond and above look where that got u

💀

[deep umbra]

he works hard

[pastel path]

Yeah not far cause I was demoted to Veteran Officer, but I'm climbing back up anyway, like I always say "Fall 7 times? Then get back up eight!"

[gilded basin]

yeah man never back down never give up

the neckeh30 of aegis

https://tenor.com/view/nick-eh-30-never-back-down-never-give-up-gif-15938629783250590873

[short aspen]

this is off topic, but why were u demoted if I may ask

[pastel path]

Meanwhile let me explain to you while your "Let's clear the suspicious people out" is a red flag, not from you but it will be for the entire community, eventhough it should be self explanatory.

[gilded basin]

save aegis from e-daters

save aegis fr

[haughty gale]

'Clean them up' just because some are corrupted is a huge 🤨 I mean if they promote who doesn't deserve it without proper evidence and obeying those rules then 👊 but then again there may be HC couples who do their job right and haven't had problems with this, while it may be in the minority, it's not fair and won't work for everyone.

[gilded basin]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1075088495602847794/1136251598633443398/hank_meme_when_you_reailse.mp4

[limber crane]

I mean on the bright side at least someone's clearly showing what this rule taken to the extremes can do

And this is exactly why it shouldn't be implemented in this nature

[pastel path]

Why this essentially is a red flag is because this gives ToML+ the right to clear out anyone who they don't like under the motto of 'suspicious' if not other HR ranks who will be involved in this.

Essentially to prove their innocence they'd have to open up which is being put under pressure or otherwise forcibly breaking their privacy towards others in order to secure back their ranks.

While it is a problem I believe that if we were to clear everyone 'suspicious' out we might also fuck up those who aren't biased even though they are in an OR, and who actually do their job right and can back things up why they should and why they shouldn't be promoted/punished/demoted/exiled.

So in short, it can create unfair biased removals, possible privacy breach were it to happen if they want to keep their rank, and lastly it'll negatively affect the people who are actually doing their job really fucking well.

[gilded basin]

it should be implemented

[gilded basin]

good

[pastel path]

You stubborn S.O.B.

I'm out here trying to explain and saying I want to meet with both sides in the middle.

And you keep being stubborn saying "Nah my way is the only way"

[gilded basin]

what is both sides in the middle then

[pastel path]

When do you get it.

[short aspen]

specailly observant being?

[pastel path]

That shit doesn't work.

[gilded basin]

what is the middle

[pastel path]

Son of a bitch. (SOB)

[short aspen]

thanks

[gilded basin]

thats not a nice word!

[haughty gale]

Son Of a Bitch [SOB]

[haughty gale]

Like I'm so fucking tired oml we keep presenting new points and this dude can only send gifs and send 'Nah imma do this'

[limber crane]

That's when you stop

Ez

[haughty gale]

Fr

[gilded basin]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1075088495602847794/1136252713257144340/Wide_Slobodan_Milosevic_walk_1.mp4

🤝

but honestly what is the middle

[pastel path]

To be determined but being stubborn and continue to say "NO!!!! MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY!!!" isn't the solution.

Because essentially if we suspect someone we can take preventative measures and ban them from voting on said individual.

Because what we have in AOA and AA right now is we have a voting system where we discuss the promotions, everyone who is eligible gets their chance and is (usually) promoted but the only way to do this is to back it up with facts and that's how we can prevent bias from this in my opinion without banning it, as banning it would be inhumane and unethical.

[gilded basin]

man just explain what the middle is then

[pastel path]

I explained what I THINK is the middle.

[gilded basin]

where

ping me in it

i want to read it

[pastel path]

Because essentially if we suspect someone we can take preventative measures and ban them from voting on said individual.
What we have in AOA and AA right now is we have a voting system where we discuss the promotions, everyone who is eligible gets their chance and is (usually) promoted but the only way to do this is to back it up with facts and that's how we can prevent bias from this in my opinion without outright banning it.

[fluid badger]

Ok ayee this is getting brain-dead, if you aren't going contribute anything useful I'd suggest you leave

[gilded basin]

alright

[haughty gale]

Bro did not read every single word we sent

[pastel path]

I don't think so either.
I've been trying to keep it civil and so far I think I've done pretty well at that.

[haughty gale]

Yeah I think that just don't ban people right away.

[sturdy stratus]

@flint marsh 😂

[coral field]

@pastel path me personally i believe edating shouldnt be taken into the game’s discord/main game and should only be involved in dms

[haughty gale]

AA and AOA System seems fair and I trust it so.

[gilded basin]

🔥

[pastel path]

Yo danny what's up.

[haughty gale]

This

[sturdy stratus]

whats good man

[pastel path]

Exactly, hence my thought of meeting in the middle with not outright banning it but

Because essentially if we suspect someone we can take preventative measures and ban them from voting on said individual.
What we have in AOA and AA right now is we have a voting system where we discuss the promotions, everyone who is eligible gets their chance and is (usually) promoted but the only way to do this is to back it up with facts and that's how we can prevent bias from this in my opinion without outright banning it.

As a compromise.

[pastel path]

Nun much been arguing since I woke up here in, surprisingly, still a civil manner.

[haughty gale]

And maybe if someone does not respect the DMs thing, warnings/demotions could work depending on the person, banning is quite hmm

[sturdy stratus]

hahahah

[coral field]

Another method is having a vote with reasoning instead of blatantly voting a yes/no vote

[pastel path]

I'm surprised I haven't erupted in rage yet and I'm not joking.

[haughty gale]

I already erupted (Internally

[pastel path]

That is the system we have in AOA and AA right now, also being part of the 'counter'-proposal.

[sturdy stratus]

dis whole thing dumb af but im not even gonna speak on it

[flint marsh]

this aegis online dating situation is extremely serious we must not joke about this

[pastel path]

You might as-well read my take on it atp.

[sturdy stratus]

😭

[pastel path]

I have some huge af paragraph somewher.e

[haughty gale]

Everywhere.

[flint marsh]

we must not joke about a random persons online relationship as this is a serious matter i cannot believe this information currently i am bewildered

[ember lichen]

this discord shit serious 😭 💔

[coral field]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1086836690531917915/1106787985413902419/image_2023-03-05_175104295.gif

[sturdy stratus]

bewildered🤣

[gilded basin]

its crazy

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/569969884465856529/908433943626403950/shit_be_serious_dawg.gif

[sturdy stratus]

ill check

[pastel path]

@sturdy stratus

[sturdy stratus]

love

[pastel path]

That's basically my take on it.

[flint marsh]

danny better be careful too thuis might be involving him

dont act innocent

[sturdy stratus]

aint no way ur violating me here this is a very sensitive topic for me

why cant i love my little boo boo using my phone

[coral field]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1049514595708059658/1049572667189108806/attachment.gif

[sturdy stratus]

😂

[verbal pulsar]

https://tenor.com/view/cats-catitude-cattitude-cat-attitude-what-gif-22504374

[pastel path]

Refrain with the unnecessarily additions.

[limber crane]

Seeing as this thread has devolved into unnecessary arguments and conversation we are temporarily closing it. Hicom are discussing this suggestion internally and once a verdict is reached, it'll be reopened.

[scenic lance]

Do not engage in off topic conversation or otherwise non-productive/toxic dialogue.

There will always be time for jokes, but in this case these jokes are hindering our chances at a desired outcome. Please take this into account when speaking in the thread, thank you.

[frigid mason]

"even in a gc with aegis friends" wtff

[scenic lance]

@frigid mason @gilded basin

[frigid mason]

no

[thorny vale]

basically this comes down to:
online dating (within aegis) usually results in corruption

by corruption i mean all the usual suspects such as free ranking

this is why i'm in full support, and also why i am confused how people could deny something such as this

[ashen hedge]

That's not necessarily true.

Most edating cases lead to one or both parties being punished usually just for breaking normal rules ingame.

Well, demotable offenses for officer+ usually.

Very rarely has there ever been a confirmed free ranking instance.

[oak herald]

What about bias? Im sure there is def bias.

[frigid mason]

online dating shouldnt be allowed in aegis anyway

[thorny vale]

pretty much, yeah

[steel locust]

I dont think so

[ruby condor]

I think so because I feel like it creates unconditional bias

[steel locust]

You cant punish people for just being close

I dont see anything wrong with that

Although bias should be detected, and punished

[weak mauve]

yall didnt even read the whole suggestion

[muted venture]

i did read the full thing

[muted venture]

you know that

a good friendship is the same

not necessarily dating

[pastel path]

However Online Dating is not a leading cause to bias, that would be friendships.
So what's next then? Banning friendships?

[idle citrus]

this is a very good point

someone could just as easily be biased towards a friend as towards as someone they have a romantic interest in

[oak herald]

Def not at all, just should be taken into account.

[timber talon]

yes

friends neeed to be banned

[unreal bridge]

^^^

[knotty vessel]

Quote this

[sleek lark]

bob stop pls

ur hurting my brain

[scenic lance]

I don't want the focus to fall solely on bias as there are plenty of other issues with online dating that should be considered that aren't nearly as easy to discount compared to bias.

The whole ethical/professional image side hasn't been discussed much from what I see, and if that means we don't really have anything to say against it... that certainly shouldn't be forgotten when we're considering why we should take action.

Debates in AEGIS often get hyperfocused on 1 point of contention, neglecting the bigger picture.

[ashen hedge]

We aren't really in a position to decide what is ethical when it comes to someone's personal life. As for being professional, we also have to take into account for this is a game. Roblox of all things. You wouldn't see this being considered in esports tournaments, where being professional is arguably more important.

I don't think people are really neglecting that point, moreso the arguments are being made along side the other points.

[wild snow]

No one has the right to judge the ethicality or reason of someone's personal life and how they live it lol. And for the professional side of things, why are we even discussing standards if none have been set in the first place? For the longest high ranks and low ranks have always never set the standard. There's never really been any role models in aegis as to be frank, if you're uc+ you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want in terms of in-game permissions (with obvious limitations). And if you're an EFA below then you can do whatever the fuck you want on the discord side of things. People won't bother to report you for saying a slur in someone's dms because you aren't set to any standards as someone who's not in the aoa. You literally have nothing to lose because Officer+ can give two shits if someone who isn't in the aoa is breaking a rule discord side unless they're pinged for it. I know you can attest that when you were an officer you never strictly took the time to sit in a chat, read every message and moderate it as the way it has been for a while is just read when you're pinged. Got side tracked there but my main point is that if there are no standards set in the first place then how are we going to argue that there is a standard for someone having a relationship with another online?

[alpine leaf]

Fr

Oh wait no

Imagine edating

@gilded basin u love to edate

Dont u?

[limber crane]

Ethics and professionalism being a talking point when considering relationships. In a roblox game..

[gilded basin]

yo ts open again

[alpine leaf]

Its not fair how come i am not allowed to e date in roblox

Thats it

I am furious

[gilded basin]

yea

what u gon do about it

[alpine leaf]

Beat u up

In all seriousness

[limber crane]

I mean I'm not a fan of edating either it doesn't mean I'm gonna back a solution as invasive as this one with very little real benefit

[alpine leaf]

Yeah well thing is…

Why edate

In aegis

Its a military game

Not a family paradise copy

[gilded basin]

cus i can

[limber crane]

The biggest concern, and a really valid one, is the potential for bias. But I'd argue that stems more from friendships than relationships and does that mean people will want to ban friendships next

[alpine leaf]

Shut up scep u noob

[gilded basin]

ok bud

[alpine leaf]

I feel like doing something where e dating is limited to where you can but if it gets too out of hand then u punish whoever was in the wrong

Also make it so

Its easier to report it

So instead u can get like a submission where every officer+ can see conserns

Instead of sending in an officers dms