So 3 main points I see-
I am kinda new and I do not even know if I have ever interacted with Remy but my vote is largely in line with the prosecutions early points. The sites code of conduct has a very clear standard of behavior that is being flagrantly disregarded. I have not seen a single person argue either that its not happening or (and more importantly) that it is not intentional. The defense even acknowledges the behavior as intentional followed by the prosecutor pointing out Remy himself repeatedly refers to his posts as rage bait.
So if we unpack what rage bait is- Its an attempt to piss people off causing harm so they can laugh at the person being upset and troll. This is toxic negative behavior that is done in absolute bad faith that is against the spirit of the COC as pointed out by Kohai.
I have a lot of experience managing communities and I have a simple belief that such bad faith actors are essentially parasites. They need a healthy community to troll in and cause harm for their enjoyment at the expense of others while the community itself is worse off for them being there. This cripples the growth driving off other good faith actors fostering an environment that would not encourage healthy good faith discussion that will- "foster an environment in which logical precision, rhetorical dexterity, and mutual respect are not merely compatible, but expected." or be a "structured venue for high‑caliber intellectual engagement."
One major consideration I always have in moderation is the intent of the offender. It would be one thing if they truly had beliefs that edged rules and they struggled to interact while keeping quite on an offensive view. Or if they were ignorant of what they were behavior and unintentionally offensive. I have not seen anyone argue Remys conduct is anything but intentionally designed to offend as they do as much as they feel they can get away with following only the rules enforced upon them.
What that translates to in my experience is an individual that can not be rehabilitated until they grow as a person. Corrective measures work for good faith actors. By the defences words the previous moderation resulted in them avoiding one specific topic while still embracing the underlying toxic behavior. For that reason I do not see justification in repeating the same actions just to 'check a box' and say more chances were given.
If we accept they know what they are doing is wrong, that it has been constantly communicated over a long period of time with multiple warnings and actions by staff and they just want to keep up the same behavior I do not see validity in demanding more lower moderation.
The second point people keep bringing up 'free speech.' I flatly do not see how that applies to a community. I am totally free to tell someone I feel they are an absolute idiot and the greatest thing they could do for humanity is kill themselves so not reproduce and spread their stupidity with free speech. Should such conduct be allowed in a community? Absolutely not.
There are many hard limitations on free speech for any community to exist at all, much less foster a healthy environment like this community is striving for. I do not think that should carry over to limiting topics. Some of the most interesting topics to me edge on very uncomfortable subjects that require an open mind to discuss without someone assuming the opposing party is overtly hateful. The beauty of debate itself is that it fosters the understanding of views you do not hold and allows you to understand other perspectives.
In Remys situation I again look at intent. A substantial number of his posts may not be because he is a hateful person (he may or may not be. I do not know.) They were not an reasoned examination of an uncomfortable subject discussing ugly subjects objectively. They were designed to piss people off and cause harm for fun. While freedom of speech declares such conduct may be allowed in his country this community has its own established rules that say its unacceptable.
The third point is something I will mention that almost had me vote for a tie. From everything I have seen communicated in this debate, my digging through the forum, reading others vote reasoning, and reading the comments I believe there is an issue in the 'culture of moderation' that slightly excuses his behavior. This user has been allowed to behave in this way for a very long time and has gotten use to flirting with the lines and disregarding poorly enforced standards. As many have pointed out more could have been done by moderators.
I am not saying that as a jab at the mod team, I do hope that some post action is held by them after this situation is resolved on steps moving forward to improve. But I do feel a portion of the blame for the extent of Remys behavior can be attributed to enforcement. There may be some obscure law in Gainesville Georgia that "It is strictly illegal to eat fried chicken with a fork or any other eating utensil" (Gainesville Code of Ordinances under Section 4-3-38) but if not enforced how much blame can be placed on someone for not following it? This is worth consideration when discussing an individuals punishment. Ultimately I disregarded it given the volume of communication I saw from the community and team that he was crossing lines but I figured its worth mentioning.
TLDR-
I would favor a perma-ban with an option to appeal after a measure of time. At the end of the day the potential harm to the community should be considered at a greater level than the technical arguments to excuse edging rules in bad faith to cause harm.
I am kinda new and I do not even know if I have ever interacted with Remy but my vote is largely in line with the prosecutions early points. The sites code of conduct has a very clear standard of behavior that is being flagrantly disregarded. I have not seen a single person argue either that its not happening or (and more importantly) that it is not intentional. The defense even acknowledges the behavior as intentional followed by the prosecutor pointing out Remy himself repeatedly refers to his posts as rage bait.
So if we unpack what rage bait is- Its an attempt to piss people off causing harm so they can laugh at the person being upset and troll. This is toxic negative behavior that is done in absolute bad faith that is against the spirit of the COC as pointed out by Kohai.
I have a lot of experience managing communities and I have a simple belief that such bad faith actors are essentially parasites. They need a healthy community to troll in and cause harm for their enjoyment at the expense of others while the community itself is worse off for them being there. This cripples the growth driving off other good faith actors fostering an environment that would not encourage healthy good faith discussion that will- "foster an environment in which logical precision, rhetorical dexterity, and mutual respect are not merely compatible, but expected." or be a "structured venue for high‑caliber intellectual engagement."
One major consideration I always have in moderation is the intent of the offender. It would be one thing if they truly had beliefs that edged rules and they struggled to interact while keeping quite on an offensive view. Or if they were ignorant of what they were behavior and unintentionally offensive. I have not seen anyone argue Remys conduct is anything but intentionally designed to offend as they do as much as they feel they can get away with following only the rules enforced upon them.
What that translates to in my experience is an individual that can not be rehabilitated until they grow as a person. Corrective measures work for good faith actors. By the defences words the previous moderation resulted in them avoiding one specific topic while still embracing the underlying toxic behavior. For that reason I do not see justification in repeating the same actions just to 'check a box' and say more chances were given.
If we accept they know what they are doing is wrong, that it has been constantly communicated over a long period of time with multiple warnings and actions by staff and they just want to keep up the same behavior I do not see validity in demanding more lower moderation.
The second point people keep bringing up 'free speech.' I flatly do not see how that applies to a community. I am totally free to tell someone I feel they are an absolute idiot and the greatest thing they could do for humanity is kill themselves so not reproduce and spread their stupidity with free speech. Should such conduct be allowed in a community? Absolutely not.
There are many hard limitations on free speech for any community to exist at all, much less foster a healthy environment like this community is striving for. I do not think that should carry over to limiting topics. Some of the most interesting topics to me edge on very uncomfortable subjects that require an open mind to discuss without someone assuming the opposing party is overtly hateful. The beauty of debate itself is that it fosters the understanding of views you do not hold and allows you to understand other perspectives.
In Remys situation I again look at intent. A substantial number of his posts may not be because he is a hateful person (he may or may not be. I do not know.) They were not an reasoned examination of an uncomfortable subject discussing ugly subjects objectively. They were designed to piss people off and cause harm for fun. While freedom of speech declares such conduct may be allowed in his country this community has its own established rules that say its unacceptable.
The third point is something I will mention that almost had me vote for a tie. From everything I have seen communicated in this debate, my digging through the forum, reading others vote reasoning, and reading the comments I believe there is an issue in the 'culture of moderation' that slightly excuses his behavior. This user has been allowed to behave in this way for a very long time and has gotten use to flirting with the lines and disregarding poorly enforced standards. As many have pointed out more could have been done by moderators.
I am not saying that as a jab at the mod team, I do hope that some post action is held by them after this situation is resolved on steps moving forward to improve. But I do feel a portion of the blame for the extent of Remys behavior can be attributed to enforcement. There may be some obscure law in Gainesville Georgia that "It is strictly illegal to eat fried chicken with a fork or any other eating utensil" (Gainesville Code of Ordinances under Section 4-3-38) but if not enforced how much blame can be placed on someone for not following it? This is worth consideration when discussing an individuals punishment. Ultimately I disregarded it given the volume of communication I saw from the community and team that he was crossing lines but I figured its worth mentioning.
TLDR-
I would favor a perma-ban with an option to appeal after a measure of time. At the end of the day the potential harm to the community should be considered at a greater level than the technical arguments to excuse edging rules in bad faith to cause harm.