Information was volunteered that CFOperator has been calling for downvotes on Kinch's 4000 entry. Contest staff will, of course, be alerted.
Screenshot of the RPC discord:
This is downvote brigading plain and simple.
I move for an immediate ban.
Agree with immediate ban.
EDIT: Apparently as an Admin, I am Disc.
EDIT: all right, so apparently things changed since the last time I was an admin. So let's do this the right way.
I'm proposing a 24 hour ban (and a warning that further attempts to incite off-site users to downvote SCPs will result in further penalties) as a compromise between those who think that CFOperator deserves a perma, and those who want to err on the side of caution. Anyone opposed?
I'm good with a 24. I would also prefer the warning include something that addresses their behavior in the forum/discussion threads.
[Added:] Account revoked, PM sent. CFO is eligible to reapply and be accepted 6 July at 14:30 EDT.
Not disc, but please for the love of god ban.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is this calling for/enacting a brigade? It's negative, yes, but I'm not seeing any language to the effect of "go and downvote this piece of crap".
Yeah I don’t know if this really constitutes brigading. It’s definitely expressing a negative opinion but I don’t see any incitement to downvote en masse. Do we have evidence that it resulted in en masse downvotes?
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Some context: CFOperator is the administrator of RPC Authority, a site largely made up of a group of disaffected users who have already downvote brigaded an article written by one of the authors of this one. He applied for a membership here a few days ago.
EDIT: I assumed that there was a deal made that he wouldn't start any conflicts, but that was incorrect. I feel that should have taken place when his application was considered, given his history with our site.
He applied for a membership here a few days ago, and was brought in on the promise that he would not start any conflicts.
So, how is this starting a conflict that isn't already there? Are we going to start policing the opinions owners of "Hooker and Blackjack" sites?
What CFOperator posted was boneheaded. I'm not Disc, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in this scenario. Wasn't the Social Media Fiasco caused by staff doing something boneheaded and not realizing how that would reflect on us? I mean, a gentle PM reminder of "Hey, you're in a position of authority, and your people might see this as permission to do a raid" should be sent, but I think a ban is all kinds of overkill.
CFO's shit has also directly led to kinch being a target of harassment, for context.
CFO's shit has also directly led to kinch being a target of harassment, for context.
This is better context; now we have a case where this person has already caused harm by their words. Is it possible to port that relevant stuff here?
Sorry ahead of time for insisting we go through the wringer on this, but this is one of those cases where we probably need to get all the relevant details out in the open, show that we're not doing this out of some knee-jerk reaction.
If CFOperator had otherwise been an upright and decent user, I'd agree with you, but his short history as a site member shows a clear pattern. A couple of examples:
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-6294411/rpc-authority#post-3860866
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1218274/scp-7143-j#post-3859317
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-6274592/4000contestcwwktkb#post-3860123
Each of these threads shows the same pattern: CFOperator comes into some thread vaguely related to RPC Authority and makes some statement calculated to get an emotional response. He then draws out the argument by using rhetorical tricks and switching up the goalposts in order to try and get people arguing with him over and over until they do or say something stupid. Then CFO comes in again and says, "AHA! You broke these rules because you were pissed off at a troll! Now you should get in trouble!" Classic play from Alt-Right playbook: redefining the victim.
I've become convinced that the only reason he's even on SCP Foundation right now is to stroke his own ego and show off for his userbase. I am also convinced that this will end in one of two ways: either he sticks around for a while and trolls it up and gets a bunch of users upset at him, or we ban him and he uses it as evidence that we're a bunch of overreaching mods "for no reason." Given these two choices, I'd rather just cut the knot right now and tell him to go on his merry way.
If CFOperator had otherwise been an upright and decent user, I'd agree with you
My worry isn't so much about CFOperator, but all the people he's gonna show this thread to should he get banned. The ones on the fence? The ones whose kneejerk reaction isn't "pfft, they're just salty SJW assholes"? They're the ones who need the proof we're acting in good faith, not him.
Building a case; showing that he's not acting in good faith? That's good supporting evidence to show that we're not doing this because we have some bias against him.
The majority of people who are going to think we're SJW assholes already think it; that damage has been done by the video and the general backlash at us.
What about the people who think they can get away with things because we'll sit back and take time to build a case even when presented with pretty blatant evidence?
The majority of people who are going to think we're SJW assholes already think it; that damage has been done by the video and the general backlash at us.
That damage has been done now. What about six months in the future, should the RPC still be a Thing and attracting members who aren't aware of the Fiasco? Or those who aren't against us and still think the RPC is ruled by honorable staff?
What about the people who think they can get away with things because we'll sit back and take time to build a case even when presented with pretty blatant evidence?
Depends. Are these people the heads of a hooker-and-blackjack style spinoff sites with something to prove to their userbase?
Most people who would get hit by this aren't in a position of authority where a ban coukd strengthen their arguments.
This guy is. And proving him to be acting under bad faith is further damage control.
I don’t think he would be showing the thread in any case, it’s more likely he would just tell people the SJW clique banned him for loving free speech too much or something.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
was brought in on the promise that he would not start any conflicts.
As the person who approved his app I am not aware of any such deal, he submitted a correct application and was approved on that merit alone.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
So much for not raiding us and going our separate ways, eh?
Not disc team, but I'm not in favor of banning him and don't think it would really do much.
I'm not sure how much would be accomplished by banning CFOperator - there's no stopping him from trying to do the same thing again, and the accounts downvoting a presumably not his accounts (and please don't suggest a mass banning). In addition, he could argue "oh no I'm just showing this article, I didn't say specifically to downvote!" and he would be technically correct, even though we all know he isn't trying to be impartial.
On the other hand, I don't see what he adds to our site. CFOperator is so obsessed with trying to provoke people it's a bit strange. Doesn't he have a website to run? He seems much more interested in a misguided way to prove something (that we're SJWs? that we allow articles he doesn't like? I don't really know). I'm sure he will parade this thread as proof that he was banned by the evil SJW cabal because we are triggered or something to keep up his persecution complex.
I really had high hopes for RPC, because I looked forward healthy competition (and as I said many times, a good story is a good story regardless where it is), but I guess I was wrong.
I can't support permabanning CFO for the events and behavior described in the thread. Full disclosure, I do not want CFO on the site because of the shit they have stirred up directly and indirectly. But, while the statement CFO made about kinch's (and CWW's) entry could be interpreted as inciting a downvote brigade, it's not clear cut, and permabans should only arise from strong, unambiguous evidence.
This is not to diminish or discount CFO's behavior on the site (or adjacent to it). They argue in bad faith, point out articles they have personal issues with, arguably have a vendetta against kinch (and possibly other users), and keep some questionable company (which is not actually actionable, but certainly colors everything else). But in my opinion, the evidence is not strong enough to jump straight to permaban. I recommend issuing CFO a warning, to cease and desist problematic behaviors (which I'm sure will need to be exhaustively listed)… and if they continue engaging in any problematic behavior, then a month-long ban would be the next step (with the option to still go straight to perma if their behavior is unambiguously egregious).
I agree with Quik. We cannot say this is an outright call to downvote brigading, and people are totally allowed to talk about how they don't like an article. However, I will suggest that CFOperator may be spoken to in order to suggest that this is shitty behavior in general, and goes against the spirit of the SCP Foundation's collaborative fiction project.
While we cannot tell CFOperator that they can't say elsewhere that they dislike certain articles, attempting to draw attention to articles they personally dislike with such strong claims shows that this user is not interested in approaching participation the way fiction workshops generally go. This is not something that can be pursued, however, and I recommend other staff don't bias their decisions based on this lack of collaborative attitude. We do not screen for lack of 'play-nice' personality.
My suggestion is therefore to talk to CFOperator that the above is dangerously close to an explicit downvote brigade, and while he is free to discuss articles he dislikes wherever he pleases, telling people they "need" to see this bad article is fairly close to inciting a brigade. It may be prudent to also remind CFOperator that the SCP Foundation and the RPC Authority (which CFOperator runs) have agreed on mutually enforcing anti-brigading policies.
EDIT: As a result of CFOperator continuing to post about specific users and repeatedly linking to articles and encouraging people to view how bad they are, I am under the impression CFOperator may be, in fact, fully aware and intending to harass specific staff, users, and bring negative attention to articles that are considered "too political" for CFOperator's personal tastes.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
My suggestion is therefore to talk to CFOperator that the above is dangerously close to an explicit downvote brigade
It may be prudent to also remind CFOperator that the SCP Foundation and the RPC Authority (which CFOperator runs) have agreed on mutually enforcing anti-brigading policies.
Any volunteers?
ETA: to confirm, this isn't a vote for or against a ban.
If necessary, I could do this. Provided no one else steps up.
I think it would be more meaningful coming from a member of Administration. I’m willing to take it on if no other admin wishes to.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Some additional screenshots, some containing slurs.
I don't think we can really process this user's actions as being in good faith anymore.
EDIT: If you're not familiar with the soy meme, it's basically a transphobic dogwhistle calling men feminised for not being right-wing. Wikidot has blacklisted the knowyourmeme link so I can't add it here.
Frankly, I don't really care that CFOperator talks about transphobic stuff offsite. We cannot be expected to police the language of any user on mediums outside of the SCP Foundation. If we use to use it as a way to discern whether or not that behavior is vote brigading, that's something else, and I don't really know the answer to that one. I will note that CFOperator continues to link to the SCP Foundation in ways that are dangerously close to trying to instigate downvote brigading, which is problematic.
EDIT: That being said, since I believe staff as a whole are in agreement that this is likely a downvote brigade and an attempt to harass, we should evaluate this as such.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
As I have argued many, many times in the past, I don't believe that we should ban people for their off site behavior.
The question then is: if the off site behavior is in targeting specific members. As a person of authority in another site, does this count as an exception, or are there no exceptions even if an on-site member is targeting other members?
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
Above and beyond anything else, for his actions in what is CLEARLY an attempt to brigade, I think we need to ban him. Now. Permanently. He has not argued in good faith, he has repeatedly posted SPECIFICALLY to pick fights, he has, in short, been a Dick, which is against our rules.
I do not want this to go on as it has for several other users where we say "Oh, well, while he's close to breaking the rules, he possibly hasn't quite yet.' He is in clear violation, and not someone we need on our site.
Admin, SCP Wiki
I will agree that I don’t feel CFO is a good influence on the site and would like to see him removed. In our rules, being a dick isn’t against the rules. It is for chat, but not the main wiki.
It’s mentioned that it will make your life easier in the GfN but nowhere in the Site Rules is it stated that being a dick is against the rules.
We can ban him for instigating harassment and downvoting, though, which I agree is likely the case here. I'm under the impression most staff agree that this is the case, so it should be established that we are banning explicitly for that, and not because he's "being a dick" or w/e. That being said, we need to be explicit that that is why he is being banned, and not because we personally dislike his attitude when posting.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
Got a few PMs yesterday, didn't have time to collate them yesterday.
Please contact me immediately. I am being ignored by the site staff and I have proof of multiple users inciting raids against my site. You can contact me through wikidot, or preferably, my discord CFOperator #8736. Please get back to me as soon as you see this message.
I should remind you that I'm not disciplinary, but what would you like me to help with?
First of all thank you for responding. I know you aren't disciplinary, but I feel I am being ignored by the staff.
As you know, the RPC Authority is under intense and unwanted scrutiny from many sources. One of these sources is the SCP Declassified server. While this is not an official server, it is host to many established authors and influential members of the SCP community.
Here is djkaktus threatening my site and trying to force us to ban a user
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/457433333102542851/463792645584715776/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/457433333102542851/463792652605980693/image.pngHere is djkaktus publicly posting a private chat between me and him:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458399164926263316/464111511661445120/Screenshot_31.pngHere are multiple users, including established authors and Floppy Phoenix herself, calling for or endorsing raids raids on my site:
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121985463615489/Screenshot_35.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458399164926263316/464121988294770698/Screenshot_37.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458399164926263316/464121989712445440/Screenshot_38.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/458399164926263316/464121991050559498/Screenshot_41.png
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121992854110208/Screenshot_43.png
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121994951262208/Screenshot_45.pngIf you could just…I don't know, forward these to someone in charge of this I would honestly appreciate it so much. This has been really stressful for me and I'd prefer no ill will between RPC and SCP. Thanks for at least taking the time, I really mean it.
I get that you're stressed, but I have to say that I don't think those are actual calls to raids. They're not nice, but they're comments about the site itself. This isn't the same thing as saying: ''Let's all make accounts and downvote because we can.''
I get that it's hurtful to have your site insulted like that, but in the future, I recommend to change the tone you used when posting on the SCP wiki. If you're the master administrator, you have a certain obligation to represent your community and be a rolemodel. This:
Oh look at me, I'm flattered at all the attention I'm getting. But in all seriousness, RPC has no interest in being a GOI on this site and never will. If you have questions about it, message me.1
Makes you look petty and egocentrical, not the leader of a Site that's only concerned with fiction. If you're insulted, be the better person and don't fall for the bait, essentially.
If you could just…I don't know, forward these to someone in charge of this I would honestly appreciate it so much. This has been really stressful for me and I'd prefer no ill will between RPC and SCP. Thanks for at least taking the time, I really mean it.
Try to keep a clear head and see a few people for what they are, a few people. Take a look at the thread made here: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-6314817/preventing-downvote-bombing-on-rpc-authority
We have it covered, don't worry.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121988294770698/Screenshot_37.png
"I'm going to go join RPC and feed them my shit articles to lower their quality"https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121989712445440/Screenshot_38.png
"Someone port 952 to RPC and see if they eat it up."https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/458399164926263316/464121994271653901/Screenshot_44.png
"To showcase how low RPCs, I've coldposted two articles their, and I got upvoted for it"So not only are people trying to lower the quality of my site, but they even admit to breaking the rules. You said , "have to say that I don't think those are actual calls to raid" but that's blatantly false. You accuse me of being egocentric right after you finish lying to me. I won't tell you how to do your job, but don't play me for a fool. If your team had it covered, you'd be just as angry as I am about these posts. I'll use your own words "Lately, members of our site as well as the offshoot site have been involved in frankly embarrassingly petty squabbles and ad hominem insults". You should know that your personal bias should not interfere with your staff duties. I ban my users when they raid your site. In fact, I just banned one today, because that's the right thing to do. Reciprocation would be appreciated.
So not only are people trying to lower the quality of my site, but they even admit to breaking the rules. You said , "have to say that I don't think those are actual calls to raid" but that's blatantly false. You accuse me of being egocentric right after you finish lying to me.
If you want someone to help you, in and outside of staff capacity, don't antagonise them.
You should know that your personal bias should not interfere with your staff duties.
Note that I'm calling people out from both sides.
You accuse me of being egocentric right after you finish lying to me. I won't tell you how to do your job, but don't play me for a fool.
I'm trying to calm you down, because I can tell that it's stressful to you. If you then turn around and say things like that, talk to disc staff or an administrator, because I was trying to meet you halfway, even though this is technically a disciplinary issue.
I stand by what I said earlier, we need to reel in users that are being unnecessarily vehement to users of both wiki's, or we're no better than them. That said, CFOperator lost what little credibility he had and the site is better off without him, at least if you ask me.
I should note that, despite CFOperator's claims that staff have been ignoring him, I responded to a PM about kaktus in which he was inquiring on kaktus's position within the staff structure and found that language threatening. I responded to let me know if kaktus continued that behavior and confirmed that kaktus was not a member of staff and therefore had no authority/could not hurt him.
So, basically, CFOperator was being dishonest to you.
EDIT: Also I'd like to repeat that I am strongly against policing what people say and joke about offsite. If there is any actual evidence that those members have actually done what they say they'd do, I really don't think it's a problem. Furthermore, several of the language there is completely innocuous and ambigous. "Meme it to hell" can mean make fun of it privately/make memes out of it without ever interacting. Someone else suggested just joining the site and participating as a regular user, which isn't itself raiding behavior. I wouldn't pursue any of these lines as a disciplinary matter unless they are also paired with actual on-RPC behavior on their parts.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
So, basically, CFOperator was being dishonest to you.
Should we add being dishonest to staff to the reasons for disciplinary, then?
So, basically, CFOperator was being dishonest to you.
Yeah, I figured as much. I mainly posted this here to avoid the guy accusing me of agreeing with him behind closed doors or something, who knows these days. I'm just glad that I managed to keep my composure. He turns on you at a moments notice and really tries to get under your skin, it was perplexing, really.
EDIT: Also I'd like to repeat that I am strongly against policing what people say and joke about offsite.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that we can't call our users out on it. Say that your kid is bullying another kid and threatens to beat him up1, and we say: ''Well, he didn't actually beat anyone up and it didn't happen in my house, so it's not my job to police that until they actually do it.''
We need to find a good middle ground between ''hands off approach until shit hits the fan'' and ''babysitting the chat and squashing any passing comment unrelated to the wiki''. Of course, I'll leave the decision-making to you all on that part.
Posted at kinch's request, with her permission:
[11:46:14] <kinch> you are you here
[11:46:35] <Quikngruvn> Sort of. What's up?
[11:47:47] <kinch> yo! i just want it like, on the record for the cfoperator thing. he's mentioning that he's like getting rid of his problem users and we're not doing enough or something
[11:48:23] <kinch> but it should be noted one of his users directly messaged scans to call me a t-slur and the dude refused to ban him because you need to send multiple messages for it to count as harassment
[11:48:37] <kinch> multiple messages w/in a short amount of time
[11:48:57] <Quikngruvn> Gods.
[11:49:53] <kinch> i just think that should definitely be mentioned because he's acting like he's the disciplinarian here
[11:50:32] <Quikngruvn> OK. Would you like me to post this in one of the 05 threads going on?
[11:50:33] <kinch> he basically kept moving goalposts and then demanded i try to "work something out" with the dude who called me a slur, whatever that means
[11:51:03] <kinch> idk if thats like supr important to note in the thread but i think it should be
[11:51:07] <kinch> yes
[11:51:14] <kinch> i didnt see that you had spoke again lmao
[11:51:21] <Quikngruvn> Oh, no problem.
[11:51:53] <kinch> i think staff needs to factor in the fact that his users are being basically set by him against me and he refuses to do anything about it
[11:54:06] <Quikngruvn> Aight. I'll add this to the CFO Disciplinary thread.
[11:54:22] <kinch> do you think its worth factoring in
[11:54:28] <kinch> i DID just wake up so i could be thinking fuzzy
[11:55:34] <Quikngruvn> If not for the current disciplinary action, then certainly as additional context for any future disciplinary action.
[11:56:23] <kinch> nice. well, ty. gnna go do stuff have a good one.
