Disciplinary - ramendik
Disciplinary - ramendik
Forum
» Rule Application & Record-Keeping / Disciplinary Records
» Disciplinary - ramendik
Summary:
Obscene forum posting
I'd recommend this be referred to Disc.
User responded to the post blanking with the following:
Okay, I did not know NSFW could not be *implied*. Sorry.
Moving this to Disc.
I think at the very least this needs a short ban, we can't start with a warning when someone does something so clearly egregious and their response to the blanking shows me they're not understanding the inappropriateness of the post. I would not be opposed to just booting them from the site, we don't need this kind of foulness, but I'm willing to go with the consensus on what the Disc response should be.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Boot him from the site. That's my suggestion.
I'm calling for a permanent ban.
Agreeing with permaban, posting something like that just isn't acceptable on so many levels.
Banned, ban PM sent:
Hello,
As outlined in this thread you have been permanently banned from the SCP Wiki. This ban can be appealed in one year, on April 27, 2021. If you have any questions please respond to this PM or use the staff help IRC channel, #site17.
- Roget
SCP Wiki Administrator
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Had a PM exchange last night, the 27th of April:
(9:07 p.m.)My initial message:
Hello,
As outlined in this thread you have been permanently banned from the SCP Wiki. This ban can be appealed in one year, on April 27, 2021. If you have any questions please respond to this PM or use the staff help IRC channel, #site17.
- Roget
SCP Wiki Administrator
(9:42)First ramendik reply:
Hello,
I would like to request explanation of my ban. I do understand I tripped a rule without realizing it, the material was removed, I apologized without further action, I don't see what warrants the ban. (I am not appealing the removal itself)
(9:56 p.m.)Second ramendik reply:
Sorry - did not realize the link to the thread. Read it now.
Seeing as SCP is a work of fiction and the characters I mentioned (JGT, GAW, and dado) are not meant to be "good", I really did not imagine that a description of genuinely egregious acts by them would in itself break any roles. This is why I assumed that the rule I broke had to do with NSFW content.
It was, of course, never my intention to glorify such action in any way. The "moral" of the suggested story was, rather, that the conditioning performed by JGT was factual grooming for rape, despite "KeeLee" probably not intending this effect.
Moreover I have re-read the rules at http://www.scp-wiki.net/site-rules and did not find what I broke.
I probably should have considered the mater of age-appropriate material, seeing as there is no express age limit on the site, but it is not in the rules. I would therefore request a shorter ban and a clarification of rules in this regard. Please note I am not asking for a complete exoneration.
(10:16 p.m.)Third ramendik reply:
Upon further thought, I realized that my apparently flippant tone about the Foundation's reaction to use of memetics for rape may have been read as my own view of the matter. It was, of course, my attempt at reconstruction of the Foundation's view, cold and all. But I probably should have dwelled on this more to add the GOC summarily shooting the bastards, just to avoid a possibility of a wrong reading.
To summarize, my post was ill-considered and I apologize, however, in mitigation rather than defence, the rules appear to be not clear, possibly relying on a community diffusion approach which I sadly failed to grasp.
Whatever the eventual decision, I am of course not posting any stories with JGT (nor ripoffs), on the wiki nor on ao3 nor anywhere else, without permission of the creator of JGT; nor am I asking for this permission unless I know for certain they are over 18. This is not an attempt to bargain as it stands even if the permaban stands; rather, this is an affirmation of basic decency.
(10:35 p.m.)My reply, referencing Miller Test standard for obscenity:
Hello,
For further clarification: Your post reflected immoderate and unwholesome interests, was completely devoid of any redeeming value, and goes against our community's standard of conduct. We reserve the right to immediately and permanently ban members who engage in severe misconduct.
Your replies have been taken into account and will be reviewed by the relevant members of the SCP Wiki staff.
Roget
SCP Wiki Administrator
(11:54 p.m.)Fourth ramendik reply:
Thank you for the clarification! This was in fact my misunderstanding - I was not aware of "wholesome" being a criterion, nor of any particular standards this would violate. Regardless of the outcome of my case I would suggest adding this to the rules in some form, just so others are not tripped. If needed I will gladly suggest rough drafts.
I will await the review.
If any other members of the disciplinary committee feels they have any further commentary or further review of our actions so far please do so.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
This, not being an appeal, does not need to be treated as one. However, if it were an appeal, I would suggest to deny it.
He hasn't provided a satisfactory answer to writing out a shock fantastical sexual scenario (not his personal fantasy - I doubt this is his personal fantasy) that had little benefit and provided no interesting addition to the existence of GAW, dado, or whatever JGT is (I am unfamiliar).
I feel his ban should be upheld and considering the level of argument in his PMs are consistent, I cannot anticipate a time I could be convinced otherwise in the near future.
/forum/t-13273586/disciplinary-ramendik#post-
