Announcements to server rules changes should come with a summary of all changes

[main estuary]

Earlier today, there was a conversation that, to my knowledge, do violate Rule 5.5 No sexually explicit comments. As permitted by Varia in a separate conversation, the image of the offending conversation is attached.

On closer inspection of the rule (and I have to paraphrase since I don't remember the exact wording), the line where comments would be judged less severely/to a lesser degree is no longer present.

I know it used to be there as it was a key point I brought up when I appealed a similar prior offence on 31 May 2022. So sometime between my successful appeal and 10 September 2022, when it was announced that the NSFW rules were updated, that line was removed.

Unless someone were to keep a close eye on every single rule change, it would be unrealistic to expect them to be aware of undocumented omissions to rule updates as it isn't possible to view edit history on Discord from the perspective of a regular user.

In the case of the attached conversation, had people been aware of the explicit removal of that change in the way such comments were judged, for one, Kaiser wouldn't even be required to give a prior warning. Two, it would be explicitly clear that the severity of such comments is now on the same level as the other content above it. Three, there wouldn't be an unnecessary breach of trust and confidence in moderation when Kaiser later backtracked on the former decision and upheld rules in its current wording.

This was not clearly communicated in the 10 September 2022 announcement. Considering rules have generally been on the vague side for the server in favour of moderators' agency, I would at least ask that when changes are made, especially to judging criteria, the differences should be made explicit.

I humbly accept my own warn as I previously promised to refrain from making such jokes, but I would appeal on behalf of everyone else that was warned as it isn't fair to them if they had complied with stopping yet got formally warned later.

[ornate beacon]

If "appeal" here isn't figurative, but literal - then every user can ask for an appeal by themselves. But we expect users to read rules when we announce changes, so "I didn't think this part has changed" is not really an excuse when new text does reflect this change.

But you have a valid point about explaining what changed, we will try to explain changes moving forward.

[main estuary]

I'm making that appeal in a literal manner. It shouldn't require every involved party to make an appeal for something to be corrected when I do see valid grounds for their formal warning to be repealed. I doubt one would only declare one party innocent because they showed up at a hearing while the others remain guilty on the books just because they were absent even though the same facts applies to everyone involved.

I won't deny that it could be seen as a common excuse if people just claim "I didn't think this part has changed" whenever rules get broken. But this is a case of intended omission on the new rules, yet with no way for users to cross-reference to old rules, what is omitted can't be realistically conveyed to someone re-reading the rules as having been omitted.

Even if you maintain the stance that it is an excuse, then is the rule retroactive? Cos we still have a pin in #al-general of a mod playing Koikatsu Party. It is similarly pretty much in the context of humour which is fairly typical of most alleged NSFW commentary.

And extending the reference to Koikatsu Party, is a mere mention to something with sexual connotations considered sexually explicit? The argument can really be made as to whether a conversation has sexual undertones (e.g. humour with sexual elements involved) or is actually sexually explicit as written in the rules (e.g. blatant erotic text roleplay).

While I would be in favour of formal warnings given the attached conversation since the topic was NNN and is explicitly about abstaining from ejaculation, there's also clearly other comments like mine who are merely joking about it in a more figurative manner. Which I would argue as sexual, yet not actually explicit. Or even that other user who allegedly may not even know what NNN actually is and is admittedly, participating in the topic, yet not the one actually being explicit.

[ornate beacon]

1. It is not "omitted", it's directly stated in rules.
2. Every person made their own comment. Every person has to respond for their own actions. It's not a collective punishment. So if someone thinks their warning wasn't fair - they can ask to appeal their warning.

[main estuary]

I'm sorry, I should make what was omitted clearer. It was the fact that such comments would be judged more leniently that is now omitted.

And well, except it was a collective punishment for several parties that were in that conversation. Kaiser warned first, and as I pointed out, wouldn't have to if it had been clear that the omission I just clarified was explicitly stated when the rule got updated.

It was after the conversation has long passed, at least a full 25 minutes before the formal warnings were then issued. And that's even when users complied to a mod's instruction. Only to effectively get backstabbed anyway? At the very least, I was under the impression that since I made just one joke, and completely withdrew from participating in the conversation after Kaiser stepped in, I should have been fine. I believe I'm not alone under that impression.

[main estuary]

Given this response and how you jumped to highlight the existing part, it kinda affirms my point that even you may not have realised that the rule has an omitted part now.

[ornate beacon]

I wrote them.

[main estuary]

Yes, you did. I'm not sure if you recall, but back in May, I literally quoted the leniency part in my appeal to my very first warning on this server

[ornate beacon]

And rules changed since then

[main estuary]

Yes, I'm saying that the omission was not communicated. And that to expect an omission to be conveyed without explicitly stating so is unrealistic and unfair to users.

[ornate beacon]

There was a rule that text messages are judged less strictly.
Then the rule was removed and replaced with a new rule that directly prohibits such messages.
I agree that it would've been better to list changes, but the change in rules was communicated clearly.
There was no reason to read "no sexually explicit comments" and assume that "comments are judged less strictly" is still in place.

So I agree with suggestion to list changes moving forward, but we will not be appealing warns based on people "assuming" what isn't there when we told people to read new rule.

[main estuary]

Again, I need to reiterate that I am in favour of the formal warnings being issued. But I'd also like to reiterate that if the rule was in effect as written, then Kaiser should be aware of it, issued formal warnings immediately, instead of causing this lapse of trust and confidence.

I do find it demeaning if you sincerely think that this situation is merely an assumption only on the users' end. It is quite clear to me you are also assuming that an undocumented omission to new rules is expected to be conveyed to all users despite, not actually pinging everyone in the announcement, and as I've repeated over and over now, it wasn't communicated.

[ornate beacon]

Yes, Kaiser should've done that. Cut them some slack, they're a new mod.

Yes, we do assume people read rules. I understand not everyone checks server-news, but we cannot operate on assumption that they don't. It is not realistic, so don't expect us to. If it was yesterday - maybe. Not a month ago.

[main estuary]

Sure, I'm cutting Kaiser some slack which is why I'm not actually blaming them for the situation, but rather looking into what might have been the root of it.

Conversely, you are a senior moderator here, yet pretty much blatantly shoving this double standard into this discussion. It's extremely clear to me that users' have plausible deniability in this situation. If you can deem your circumstances as unrealistic, we pretty much have an equal right to claim such too.

Are you seriously gonna tell me that your assumption that users would read the new rules without a ping hold any weight?

[ornate beacon]

Yes, users are expected to read and follow rules. Not reading rules, or assuming something that isn't there, is not an excuse for not following them.
If you disagree with this - we can agree to disagree I guess, but this won't be changed.

[main estuary]

Are you just gonna disregard the fact that no real attempt was made in actually notifying users of the rule update?

That's no fault of a user, just saying

[pulsar osprey]

You could at least timestamp when the last update was.

[ornate beacon]

You can already see it, discord shows when the last time message was edited.

[pulsar osprey]

Does it?

Not on mobile.

AFAIK

[main estuary]

Well, for the record then, that rule was changed on 7 September 2022, the announcement was then made 10 September 2022 with no ping whatsoever

So now not only is there a lack of actual communication, there's also a lapse in when rules are rewritten and announced

[ornate beacon]

No, I already answered that, you just disagree that it was sufficient.
And I agree that we should list changes moving forward, which we will. But it doesn't excuse not following them.
This discussion will just go full circle.

[main estuary]

You know, all you had to concede was that rule changes will be explicitly detailed and subsequent ones will ping everyone. Yet you do an awful lot of sidestepping and making excuses for current moderation efforts for some reason?

[ornate beacon]

Yes, we were waiting on vote about nsfw art list before making an announcement. It took a while longer.
Actual change didn't go into effect until we announced it and we didn't punish people until then.

[ornate beacon]

That was my very first message.

[main estuary]

You really don't expect me to just take your privileged assumption as something absolute with no measures to actually protect your stance

[ornate beacon]

I don't even know what that means

[pulsar osprey]

[main estuary]

It means that you get to have your double standard and make it seem like there's nothing you can do about it

[ornate beacon]

That didn't explain anything.

You know, all you had to concede was that rule changes will be explicitly detailed and subsequent ones will ping everyone.
I did that. (minus that ping part, we will not be everyone pinging 180k people)
Do you need anything else or are we done?

[main estuary]

How do I make it clearer?

Let's see, I acknowledge that you will be explaining changes going forward.

Yet I find it suspect that you are adamant that users should read the rules despite no prompt whatsoever, and you went at least 4 responses without addressing that fact until I spell it out for you to ping everyone.

[pulsar osprey]

You know you don't have to ping everyone about rule changes. Discord has an unread system.

[main estuary]

I mean, they do, but are you gonna add to their already large assumption that everyone reads rules without prompting?

[main estuary]

Well, if you're not pinging rule changes, and still gonna continue with an improbable assumption that everyone reads rules, there's really nothing else I have to say regarding that.

I do, however, am still appealing for the ones who got a formal warning on what seems to be a lack of communication from you, the one who rewrote the rules to omit the leniency bit, to educate newer mods. And how it is still a matter of a breach of trust and confidence thanks to this incident.

If your response is to await appeals from every involved party, I guess I'm just done. Thank you for your time.

[ornate beacon]

I hope my promise to do better with announcements moving forward will fix that trust and confidence in us
And the answer about appeal doesn't change, no.
Thanks for your feedback then

[pulsar osprey]

Is every involved party even informed on what the severity of the formal warning was? This seems never well explained to me.

[main estuary]

Then I guess, somewhat out of spite due to my broken confidence, I'm now appealing my own warn. I now find it unfair that inter-mod miscommunication effectively resulted in my warn