Relocated Off-Topic User Discussion

Post questions, comments, concerns, and suggestions about this forum here.
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

missemma wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:17 pm Moderator Note

The moderator team has extensively discussed the recent activity on the forum. We are aware that the tone of the conversation has been less civil and that some users have become frustrated while others have become discouraged from posting here or even visiting. We are also aware that specific events outside of the forum have spilled over into some members' concerns about behavior on the forum and have contributed to negative feelings between forum members.

While it's human nature to have your interactions with someone colored by things that you read off-forum, we cannot take action against those things. We also have no reasonable expectation of anyone to set aside their ethical or moral values in favor of feeling forced to interact with someone, we just ask that you keep in mind that In Depth Bants, the main thread in particular, is for the discussion of Dan and Phil and related topics.

We have specific requests of forum users going forward.

Stakhanov: Other people are capable of disagreeing without the conversation regularly devolving into frustration against them. The condescending language with which you often respond to users and the repetition of the same opinion several times is antagonizing. At this point, it is borderline trolling and trolling is a punishable offense. Please consider making new points instead of continuously reiterating the same ones to people who have expressed that they are finished having a conversation with you.

You have also demonstrated an inability to discern what is appropriate and inappropriate. This is something you've expressly argued this on this forum and in conversation with moderators in the past. If you are unable to make that call, please understand that we will make it for you. Safety of forum users is not something we are taking lightly. It is not up for debate.

Everyone else: If you find a post inflammatory or a poster frustrating, please consider simply not responding. If you do choose to respond, please be sure to keep your post respectful and on-topic, and in compliance with forum rules. Respectful and topically relevant disagreements are allowed, as always. For the most part, when people on this forum disagree the conversation continues in a passionate but respectful and mature fashion. That's how we'd like it to continue. If you feel like someone is antagonizing you report the post and allow a moderator to deal with it.

We are watching individual members' behavior closely, and we will be issuing warnings for trolling, disrespectful posts, and any other violations of the forum rules.

We do from time to time move topics to side threads (e.g., a discussion centered around another YouTuber), and any member is free to create threads in the various subforums. Disagreements between forum members that become off-topic will be removed from the main thread.

This forum is a labor of love for all of us on the moderator team. Please continue to let us know of any frustrations or concerns, so we can do our best to address them to make this forum a safe and welcoming place for everyone.

Otherwise, we hope this is the end of this particular conversation and the topic can continue to move on with what it was intended to be about: Dan and Phil.

Signed,
Your Moderators
This response is one-sided and just confirms to me that different standards are being applied to different people on the basis of personal like and dislake. I joined this forum in the hopes of finding a more open-minded and civil place than guru gossiper to discuss Dan and Phil within the community, instead is has devolved into a nightmare of bullying and personal attacks which turn every conversation into a struggle to express an opinion that's different from the norm and a failure of the moderating team to respect basic human decency.

What is really being enforced here? The last personal attack by Ablissa came when two users noticed that the tone some others struck with me was pretty hostile and after they dared express they started feeling uncomfortable reading that.
As a response, a cheap accusation around off-site drama gets brought up once again. A pretty ridiculous and deeply unfair character assassination which she knows nothing about other than the tweet where i'm being slandered as a pedophile creep for having made 3 or so sexually suggestive jokes in the presence of some minors in a twitter DM group.

My intent when I was invited to that horrible twitter chat was simply to find a group of people to have some fun with, talking about a shared interest: the two lovely, quirky nerds we all know and adore. Little did i realize which snake pit I entered.

Dan and Phil themselves are two adult youtubers aged 32 and 28 who, if I may say so, kind of have a habbit of making sexually suggestive jokes which are very much appreciated and often emulated by an audience of minors and adults alike. We celebrate (smutty) fanfiction, (erotic) fanart and social media is filled with creative variations on their own jokes A lot of people even presume they have a romantic and sexual relationship. One which gets followed with a lot of interest and has through the years always been a topic of conversation and speculation, despite their own public position on the matter. Considering how sex jokes and mature content are very present in the fandom experience at large, I find it completely preposterous and hypocritical if you want to crucify me for "sexualizing Dan and Phil" or making any kind of sexual joke about them. Yes, even a joke that you may find in bad taste and which was made without putting much thought in it or having much awareness of the diverse presence of people which I didn't know, including minors, in that chat. I never meant to cause any discomfort and I was never aware that this was making people uncomfortable. In the deceptively edited tweet, text is removed and pasted together to make it look like people were clearly reacting to the two or three jokes I made. In reality, the chat was pretty hectic (i think it was 30+ people) and I mostly just dropped in and out of it while I was doing other things. I basically just chimed in when other people brought up mature topics such as their feet kink for Phil or the posting of spongebob erotic art. When I suddenly got kicked, I sent a message to the girl who invited me to wish everyone the best and agreed the chat wasn't for me, as at that point, it was starting to dawn on me that this chat wouldn't work out, mostly because of a vicious attack I saw organized and launched at another person in their 'twittersphere'. She blocked me, I went to sleep and the next morning I have to read all these vile implied intents and slander about me. I was shocked and angry. I don't think this person realizes that posting such an accusation is a perfect way of destroying someones reputation in a community. If this wasn't done in the anonymity of the internet, I would use ever legal means at my disposal to get the truth out, because even digitally, I've seen the consequences and they frankly hurt. I lost contact to people in the community who I thought i had established some trust with and I have found out that people who already didn't like me because i have silghtly different political opinons started messaging people in private to 'drop' or be dropped themselves - people who i know are befriended or at least connected to a lot of the mods here btw.

Now, the allegations are used as a tool on this forum too to shut me up and to "warn, scrutinize and closely monitor me" to insure "the safe and comfort" of others. On what basis? If you don't monitor "off-site" events, why am being treated as some kind of pariah? If you're going to base yourself on this deeply deceptive tweet, are you going to apply that same standard to everyone? Shall everyone who gets accused "off-site" of anything be warned and scrutinized too? Is it acceptable now to just attack other users with whatever salient allegations we can hurl at them? I've asked for clarification on these questions to the mods too, but get no response. Instead I get this moderating note.

So what does this note say? I'm the only one that gets specifically named. My tone is again policed and found condescending. The tone and attitude of others apparently don't warrant being called out. The personal attack against me is still just on the forum and does not get removed. I am told that my posts are repetitive and that i continue a discussion when people don't want to converse anymore. It's all a one-way street apparently. When i make 'repetitive' posts, it's a sincere attempt to clarify or put nuance in my posts, almost always in response to many post of other users, which I try to all address best as I can. This isn't me trolling and this isn't me "demonstrating an inability to discern what is appropriate or inappropriate" (sounds kind of condescending, doesn't it?).
This is me trying to express a view, one that may be unpopular, at least with the group of regularly posting users here, but which is how I think about it and which I think should be allowed to posted, elaborated on and modified or restated without being considered "trolling", which just offers a handy way to shut me up and warn or ban me if I become to much of an annoyance.

I don't know if I want to engage here any more. Clearly my discomfort is of no concern, i'm supposed to just "suck it up" and be content that i'm only being watched and scrutinized as some potential criminal. I've talked about this situation with friends and with my therapist and the uniform reaction is to get out of that echo bubble and way from these hurtful and infuriating accusations for my own well being. But I admit to being stubborn. I know some people would be all to happy to spin that as some admission of guilt, I don't want to flee when I think a situation is unjust and I know that for everyone who posts, there are many more reading. I want to thank all the people who sent me private or public messages in support. It's nice to know that not everyone is willing to go along with the oppressive social dynamic that's fed by some. Maybe this post is all in vain, but at least people reading on can arrive at their own conclusions.
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her

As a temporary measure to allow forum users to express themselves but keep the main thread clear, if you wish to continue off topic conversation about moderation please use this thread.

Standard forum rules will apply.
User avatar
fancybum
senpai
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:06 am
Location: bork

Can I ask simple yes or no questions here to you Stahanov?

1. Do you think it’s appropriate to, as a grown adult, join a group chat full of minors (a fairly private space in the context of the internet) and make sexual jokes? Yes or no.

2. Do you think minors making sexual jokes among themselves in a private space makes it okay for you, as an adult, to do the same with them? Yes or no.

Maybe consider these scenarios in the context of approaching a group of minors while out at a concert (shared interest)- is it okay here to join in with the sexual jokes minors are making? Please consider your response and also the personal responsibility you hold, as an adult, in comparison to under-age minors.
Thanks and have a great day! Oil me
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

You know what, at this point, I don't feel like I have enough freedom to even answer those question in a thoughtful and mature way. Because I'm being "scrutinized" and "closely monitored" for any "patterns of behavior". After this whole nasty experience, I did reflect on theses issues myself and consulted with friends and my therapist, who I gave a honest account of everything that happened, because this thing has wore me down and made me doubt myself. Something like this never happened to me before and I'm also generally used to talking to adult people, so I don't tend to consider nor do I know everyone or his/her age in the fandom. You don't know who you're talking to if you get invited to a group with 30 or so chatters by a person you think is an adult yourself. I have done nothing that i consider inappropriate, and that's also to opinion of everyone irl i explained the situation too. Everybody I speak to finds this gigantically overblown and kind of ridiculous.


I'm not quite sure why you ask all those questions, they strike me as a pretty aggressive line of questioning and focused on getting some kind of "yes" or "no" answer that can be pulled out of context and twisted to attribute all kinds of attitudes and beliefs to me.
Appropriate is also a vague word. What do you mean with it? Appropriate in the eyes of whom? You might get different responses on what is appropriate from country to country. For example, the way sex education is taught and what is considered appropriate to say and teach in such lessons will be different in the US compared to the Netherlands or Belgium and so will be the age at which it is taught (and so are the resulting teen pregnancies as a related matter...) Appropriate in what sense? As in something that might offend your good taste or personal beliefs, or appropriate in the sense that's it's for example not appropriate to steal someone's car and constitutes more than one person's opinion?

In short, I think context and intent matter, and there's varying shades of "appropriateness" depending on the concrete situation and people. As with all things human.

The first question isn't what happened here, as I had no idea what kind of group I was joining. I retweeted a tweet by someone I thought to be and adult, looking for a group and she invited me. I did disclose my age multiple times in the chat, that just a lie in the tweet just like the insinuation that i was "hiding behind my icon" for some sinister reason.

The second question i'll answer with a question: Do you think it's ok for any adult to make any sort of sexual remark or joke, not about a specific minor itself to be clear, but just as a general comment? If people watch tv and an adult comments something like "She's got hot boobs" (to use a mild example of things that actually get said in our society) while a teen is present in the room, how are you judging that? How about a facebook post with a sexually suggestive joke while that person has minors following them? or what about the often sexual imagery and jokes that kids see everyday in music clips, movies and advertising?
The fact is that sexually suggestive jokes are not foreign to people under the age of 18, are everywhere in our culture, and are even one of the things that get celebrated about Dan and Phil by a lot of teens themselves. One may find some jokes distasteful or personally inappropriate, but that doesn't mean that a person making them is guilty of some grave offense.
Just today on the train, on my way back to work, a class full of teens joined the train and I heard some things that I could only describe as absolute filth. Yes, there's a difference between what teens tell among themselves and what adults ought to say to teens, but I don't think sex should be the terrible taboo to the point that any sexual joke made by an adult should be considered inappropriate. That's not how we organize the rest of society. We do accept that teens have some exposure to sexual themes. It's in our movies, it's in our music, and it's the video's we watch of Dan and Phil.

I answered your questions, though a simple "yes" or "no" doesn't inform you about what I actually think. I hope they were asked in good faith. Let me ask you two questions in return.

Do you think interacting as an adult fandom (in a forum, chat, or otherwise) with people that are younger than you (minors) or older than you is something that should be frowned upon and should our experiences be segregated by age?

Do you think the many mature fan content that gets produced and talked about by adults in this fandom, and that also reaches a lot of minors, is inappropriate and that the people who make it should take all kinds of special precautions that it doesn't?
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
fancybum
senpai
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:06 am
Location: bork

Dude, I asked 3 yes or no questions (the first one being 'can I ask you simple yes or no questions' to which you could have just said NO because that would have been better than you going off on some tangent about teen pregnancy). You can't understand at all what might be seen as even slightly inappropriate about what went on on twitter? (and you can't conceptualize what inappropriate could possibly mean? really?) You refuse to accept any responsibility, as an adult in a fandom that you constantly go on and on about having such an overwhelmingly young and immature audience to begin with, about not having properly vetted how young the members of a private group chat that you join may be before joining? It is constantly astounding how you seem to be completely incapable and unwilling to put yourself in anybody else's shoes, ever, to even attempt to understand what other people are saying. Not everything is about you and your intentions. Maybe just do more research in the future before joining another group chat #protip. Good luck with your life.
Thanks and have a great day! Oil me
User avatar
Stakhanov
haru pillow
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:27 pm
Pronouns: he / him

Not everything is about your view of appropriateness and why did you ask those questions anyway? You don't start an earnest attempt at communicating by trying to ask "yes or no" questions in order to lay down some some kind of judgment you made beforehand. I don't need your self-righteous moral condemnation, thank you very much. I think it's you who is incapable of showing empathy for any other point of view that doesn't fit your preconceptions.
Think what you want. I hope you don't get confronted with this kind of bullshit yourself, because then it's going to be a bit of a different story I bet.
Finding my own inarticulate prose
Weirding out strangers and laughing at those
Jaundiced and jaded, postured and posed
Not that we’re special it’s just that we’re
Closing in on a place where we might get to be
Living real people regularly
User avatar
lefthandedism
simply stressed bisexual
simply stressed bisexual
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:16 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: New England

Moderator Note

Please refer to this Moderator Note posted yesterday:
missemma wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:17 pm Moderator Note

Stakhanov: Other people are capable of disagreeing without the conversation regularly devolving into frustration against them. The condescending language with which you often respond to users and the repetition of the same opinion several times is antagonizing. At this point, it is borderline trolling and trolling is a punishable offense. Please consider making new points instead of continuously reiterating the same ones to people who have expressed that they are finished having a conversation with you.

You have also demonstrated an inability to discern what is appropriate and inappropriate. This is something you've expressly argued this on this forum and in conversation with moderators in the past. If you are unable to make that call, please understand that we will make it for you. Safety of forum users is not something we are taking lightly. It is not up for debate.
Stakhanov, by the terms set forth in that Note, we are issuing you an official warning for this post. We give specific reasons below.
Do you think interacting as an adult fandom (in a forum, chat, or otherwise) with people that are younger than you (minors) or older than you is something that should be frowned upon and should our experiences be segregated by age?
Adults purposefully interacting with minors when the discussion topic is sexual in nature is inappropriate. Most adults in a fandom space are capable of having conversations that are not sexual in nature.
Do you think the many mature fan content that gets produced and talked about by adults in this fandom, and that also reaches a lot of minors, is inappropriate and that the people who make it should take all kinds of special precautions that it doesn't?
Mature content produced by adults and posted on a public platform that minors can access, but that is clearly directed at other adults, is markedly different than sexually explicit remarks made by an adult to a minor in a closed conversation setting.
Yes, there's a difference between what teens tell among themselves and what adults ought to say to teens, but I don't think sex should be the terrible taboo to the point that any sexual joke made by an adult should be considered inappropriate.
This sentence makes very clear why your remarks are found inappropriate. Sexual behavior between an adult and a child is always inappropriate (in fact, illegal) not because of any societal "taboo" about sex, but because of the inherent power imbalance between them. An adult discussing sex with a child may not be illegal per se, but it is still inappropriate behavior because the power imbalance between them still exists. An off-hand remark or joke of a sexual nature is on a slippery slope which has at the bottom unequivocally inappropriate (and illegal) behavior. This is what makes people, including many on this forum, not only uncomfortable but upset.

You may not agree. You may not ever understand (though we hope you eventually do). But we as moderators cannot and will not tolerate your defense of this behavior, or shield you from other users' concern. In fact, your continuing to talk about it and attempting to defend yourself only makes the situation worse and has earned you an official warning.
"If you're left-handed, ask a friend."
"Why am I left-handed?"
"Everybody makes mistakes."
User avatar
Ablissa
pastel persona
Posts: 1379
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:49 pm
Pronouns: she/her

+1 fancybum and lefthandedism.

I'm shocked that you're able to even argue in favor of it being appropriate, Stakhanov. I'm an adult myself, and I would never 1) willingly join and/or stay in a group chat with minors, 2) defend any kind of misconduct towards minors.
Do you know why? Because as adults, our job is to protect children, and anyone under the age of 18 (in most countries) is, by law, a child.
It doesn't matter if they talk about sexual things in your presence. All it means is that it is high time for you to get out, because it is literally illegal for you, the adult, to engage in inappropriate conversations with human beings under the age of 18. (Not to mention that for the majority of society, it is also immoral.)

This is not a question of appropriateness, it is a question of legality, and thus, it's not open to interpretation. It is always the adult who is held accountable, keep that in mind.
You mentioned Belgium, so here's a quote from Belgian law:
Article 379 of the Penal Code defines the incitement of minors to debauchery or prostitution as: “Whoever shall have violated public decency by provoking, favouring or inciting sexual immorality, corruption or the prostitution of a minor of either sex, (...) shall be punished by severe imprisonment (…)and a fine (…)
Of course this includes online interaction. I am quite sure that The Netherlands or the US would have laws like that too, as would most civilized countries. The 2010 amendment of the Dutch Penal Code has a similar law. Also, according to the Lanzarote Convention, discussing sexual matters with children is considered abuse.

It is not your duty to educate minors in sexual matters. It is the duty of their schools and their parents. You, as a stranger on the internet, should do your best to stay away and not engage with younger people.
If I were you, I would have left that group chat the very second someone said they were ELEVEN, simply out of not wanting to talk to children, even if we share an interest in youtubers. This may come as a surprise to you, but most people in their young teens don't want to have adult friends. They want to have friends of their age, and you talking to them makes them uncomfortable - this doesn't make you the victim, it makes them the victim, even if you had good intentions.

Lastly, my earlier post to you was not meant to be a personal attack. Everything I said was based on your conduct on this forum. I was hoping it would help you open your eyes and realize that it isn't us teaming up on you - that perhaps you need to take a look at your own attitude and act accordingly. However, I see that it was all in vain.

I do wish you well, honestly. I just think that you need an unbiased opinion on how others see you, because it might help you improve yourself as a person. Your opinion is not always the right one. It will never be.

As a final note... you shouldn't call for empathy in a situation like this. This is not a matter of point of view but a matter of generally applicable law, also in your country.
User avatar
knq
lava lamp
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:42 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

I appreciate this topic being moved here for now and kept public. While it doesn't belong in main thread, I personally don't find any pleasure in lighthearted discussion of Dan's twitter activity when a member of our forum is actively defending sexual comments he made to minors.

@Stakhanov, in the year and a half I've been on this forum, I've never seen you listen to or empathize with anyone but yourself. As that's the case, I'd like for you to read the statement you made, and really think about it.
Stakhanov wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:45 pm Yes, there's a difference between what teens tell among themselves and what adults ought to say to teens
You are an adult.
Stakhanov wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:45 pm Yes, there's a difference between what teens tell among themselves and what adults ought to say to teens
Many members of this fandom, including those in the groupchat you joined, are not adults.
Stakhanov wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:45 pm Yes, there's a difference between what teens tell among themselves and what adults ought to say to teens
That way you, an adult, talked to those minors was wrong.
Stakhanov wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:45 pm Yes, there's a difference between what teens tell among themselves and what adults ought to say to teens
Pointing out that minors have sexualities is profoundly irrelevant to the point that your behavior was wrong.
Stakhanov wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:45 pm Yes, there's a difference between what teens tell among themselves and what adults ought to say to teens
If you won't listen to any of the eloquent and intelligent people who continue to engage with you and try to explain to you concepts that are truly rudimentary to human decency, perhaps you can read your own comments and find some common ground with yourself.
Stakhanov wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:45 pm Yes, there's a difference between what teens tell among themselves and what adults ought to say to teens
User avatar
jestbee
crusty sponge
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:33 pm
Pronouns: She/her

I don't post here often, and I'm not entirely up on the mechanics of the forum so I apologise if I've responded to the thread incorrectly, but I just wanted to focus in around a part of the situation covered in the mods' post, because I think that's where, for me watching this, the discussion is getting stuck, and is a point that isn't being addressed.

In your defense of this situation you have, on multiple occasions, equated your actions with those of fic writers, or artists, other content creators, and even dnp themselves by pointing out that there is sexually explicit material to be found in works posted by them that may be accessed by minors.

The difference, that many people have tried to point out amongst other things, is that when providing that content (and in the case of fic and nsfw fanart - tagging that content as such) neither fanwork creators nor dnp are responsible for minors viewing it. That is down to the individual user. In the same way that there is no one policing movies with an 18 rating once they are in your home. Minors can't purchase a ticket to the cinema for a movie rated above their age, or buy the DVD, but once it's out in the world it's up to the end user (or their parents/guardians) to prevent the viewing of content not designed for/directed at/meant for them.

I'm not going to get into a discussion, nor do I think it's relevant, around how/why parents or guardians control that viewing or online viewing. That is about content, this is about private messages.

There is a difference between making content available on a platform, and directly sending that content to minors.

Whatever may or may not have been cut from those screenshots, the people in that group chat clearly told you they were as young as eleven and you clearly continued to send sexually explicit jokes directly to them.

Whether you knew their ages going into the chat is irrelevant, you knew once they told you and you continued to say those things after they told you to stop.

If you continue to defend that, you are defending sending sexually explicit material directly to a minor. It's just that simple.

You can also continue to argue about morals (the legality of the issue is the same whether you agree or not) but I think it's safe to say that no reasonable person, inside or outside of this forum, would consider that appropriate.

As a final point, I hope you will realise that your argument where you equate content creators or dnp's actions with yours isn't really a valid one, and clearly an attempt to skew the conversation, because they are entirely different things. I hope you can look at your actions a little more objectively, and question whether you still want to defend your position in this way.

There really is no excuse for sending sexually explicit jokes directly to minors when you know how old they are. And you did know how old they were.
cocolero
squish
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:59 pm

Hidey hidey ho.

I have watched this keenly as the entirety of the discussion is centered around a particular poster I both agree and disagree with often. I further am interested because, as someone who has been around since the single numbers on GG, I care for this odd community, and as someone who has been in the moderation position before, I'm curious how the mods here react. There's always room to learn as to how to better manage my guilds & such, and to help people avoid the same mistakes.

I must first strongly commend the moderating team. They have kept this process open, and have fostered a dialogue on this matter which most places avoid. Avoiding it is the worst possible thing to do, because then rumors start and, before long, everything is on fire.

Good job mods, keep it up.

On the actual issue, I am deeply worried. The Twitter post which "exposed" all of this doesn't start with "look at this ahole" or "what a creep" - it starts with noting that a 33-year-old is hanging around the Phandom and that such is a problem.

I'm slightly past 33, and on reading the twitter conversation the thing that stood out to me is that people over some indeterminate age, but definitely in their 30's aren't welcome here. This is despite the fact that we're far closer to the age of the subjects of this board, and as such it's actually far less "creepy" for us to be here than it is for a 16-year-old (if we adopt the idea that age matters, which again I disagree with). Now of course, that's just the general impression, so perhaps reading on would assist me in overcoming that impression.

It didn't.

I hate the fact that Stakhanov is the one involved in this, because I generally find them to be an obstinate troll. If the moderators had decided to sanction them solely on that fact - I've no problem at all. If they don't like it, they can leave. If that (as in the moderator's note) is where things end, we're all good.

However, it would be unfair not to note that part of the reason members are seeking to sanction and are bullying (and yes it has been that) Stakhanov has centered around stuff that didn't even happen on this site. That right then and there should be a reason for moderation decisions the other way - if Stakhanov is being inappropriate on Twitter that's Twitter's problem, and similarly if people are being inappropriate here, that's not Twitter's problem.

I get that this is different because Stakhanov joined a group chat involving people from this site. Who invited him (assuming it was closed, as griping about somebody joining a group chat anyone can join is pretty funny) is the person responsible for that error.

Stakhanov then went on to say mildly inappropriate things to people in the group chat. Of course, it's his right to do so within Twitter's rules and the rules of that jurisdiction. This is where people try to use what happened on another site, coupled with a completely incorrect reading of the law, to threaten and bully a member on this site.
fancybum wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:33 pm 1. Do you think it’s appropriate to, as a grown adult, join a group chat full of minors (a fairly private space in the context of the internet) and make sexual jokes? Yes or no.

2. Do you think minors making sexual jokes among themselves in a private space makes it okay for you, as an adult, to do the same with them? Yes or no.
Here's the first problem. It's not a private space... being an open group chat. More importantly, Stakhanov is justified in assuming everybody in the chat is over 18. Twitter's Terms of Service, and this site's as well, both require everyone to be over 18 or have parental permission to be here. So either 1) people were lying about their age, and did that to bully or harass a member here, or 2) people are using their own violation of the rules on this site and on Twitter in order to attack someone else.

So having said all that, what is my problem?

To be clear, I personally wouldn't mind if Stakhanov was gone tomorrow, butIt is clear that the moderator team accidentally and without meaning to decided to punish someone for their off-site behavior while supporting members who are breaching the Terms of Service. What the moderator team did in their post of Tuesday April 30th is, respectfully, wrong. But why?

"Our site and Services are available only to users who can form legally binding contracts under applicable law. By using this site and/or the Services, You represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years of age and not a person barred from purchasing or receiving the Services found under the laws of the United States"... (it's in every ToS, but specifically I chose namecheap.com's ToS, since they host this site).

That's right, everyone. If you're under 18 or not following US law, you're as guilty as Stakhanov. So let's apply this to the facts.
lefthandedism wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:57 pm Adults purposefully interacting with minors when the discussion topic is sexual in nature is inappropriate.
This isn't Twitter, I haven't seen Stakhanov do that on this site, and if there are unregistered minors on this site, we have much bigger problems than this.
lefthandedism wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:57 pm is markedly different than sexually explicit remarks made by an adult to a minor in a closed conversation setting.
This isn't an open-to-anyone group chat on Twitter, there are no minors on this site, and I haven't seen Stakhanov do anything here.
lefthandedism wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:57 pm In fact, your continuing to talk about it and attempting to defend yourself only makes the situation worse and has earned you an official warning.
So... we have a member who has done nothing on this site aside from being an asshat, and that gets him a warning? If it's Twitter whose rules we are enforcing, then why are we talking about minors when there were none there? And why are we worried about activity which is not very explicit and is absolutely legal?

There's a much simpler solution to all of this which doesn't put the site at risk.

I'd humbly suggest either 1) banning or suspending Stakhanov for trolling, which is activity they've done on this site and is expressly prohibited; 2) informing Twitter about the group chat and what happened (note, it's possible anyone under 18 and certain anyone under 13 would be banned on Twitter if that is done); 3) make any open group chats private; 4) using Twitter's block and report function; and 5) using this site's similar functions.

One way or another - basing any action off of someone being a minor is very dangerous for the entire site if Stakhanov reports that, and I love all of you way too much for anything to happen here.
cocolero
squish
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:59 pm

And just to clarify where I am on the whole sending-minors-naughties stuff: 1) I assume everyone is honest and above 18, 2) if not, I make sure to have a closed group chat, and 3) if they still somehow manage to do that I kick them out of the chat. In no event do I drive to Waterstones and demand that they ban someone from the premises.
User avatar
Birdie
stress mushroom
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:22 pm
Pronouns: they/she
Location: Northern Europe

This was never about Stakhanov's age. Many phandom members are over 30 and interacting with all sorts of people, minors too, in a respectful, appropriate manner. This is not the issue. The issue is the fact that a 33-year-old man joined a group chat with minors and knowingly made sexual jokes at those minors. (I'd also like to point out that he keeps criticising people on this forum for "sexualising" Dan and Phil and then it turns out he's doing the very same thing on another website... not illegal, lmao, but wow.) You might think this is only "mildy inappropriate" but I prefer to take those minors' discomfort with the situation seriously.

I'd also like to to point out that your whole post reads very victim blamey. I won't assume that's how you meant it but defending Stakhanov on the basis that minors shouldn't be on Twitter anyway and that it's basically the person's fault who invited him to the group chat is ... problematic at best. And I don't even want to start with "They might lose their Twitter accounts if this goes any further" because if you want to talk threats, that reads like one right there. I'm not saying you intended it to sound this way, I'm just pointing this out because I'm really not comfortable letting it go uncommented.

Another thing: Why does it matter so much that it happened on Twitter and not here? Why are we supposed to look the other way and keep talking to him knowing full well he's done this kind of thing? I think it's important we discuss this here instead of waiting until it does happen to someone here (no matter who does it). There might not be minors on here but everyone can be uncomfortable with sexual jokes and when you keep doing it after people have said they weren't comfortable with it, as has happened in that group chat, that's not "mildly inappropriate", it's harrassment, intentional or not. And it needs to be discussed.

This post is messy because I literally can't express how I feel about any of this properly right now, but I'm basically with Ablissa, fancybum and the others. They made some very well written posts and I agree with them.
User avatar
knq
lava lamp
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:42 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

cocolero wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 7:45 pm I'm slightly past 33, and on reading the twitter conversation the thing that stood out to me is that people over some indeterminate age, but definitely in their 30's aren't welcome here.
People, and especially children, are not required to be entirely eloquent, polite, or unproblematic when they express that an adult is making them uncomfortable. Expressing it at all is good enough.

Ageism does exist in fandoms. I’ve seen that discussed before and I’m sure it will continue to be discussed. I don’t see why you would focus on it here though. To me the key point is definitely “talking about mature sexual topics with minors” and “please beware.”

‘Beware’ in particular should tell you that this is not about othering or bullying but about wariness and safety.
if Stakhanov is being inappropriate on Twitter that's Twitter's problem
Oh no, it’s definitely our problem. As long as Stakhanov is a member of this forum he’s one of our peers. Even if he were to leave or be banned, he’d still be a peer in the fandom. If we let his behavior and his continued justification of his behavior go unchecked we are complicit. We’re bystanders, and we’re responsible for reacting to harm that we see, whether it’s in our home or out at Waterstones.

Stakhanov making sexual jokes to children who have asked him to stop is everyone’s problem. Stakhanov continuing to argue that his behavior is appropriate is everyone’s problem.
So either 1) people were lying about their age, and did that to bully or harass a member here, or 2) people are using their own violation of the rules on this site and on Twitter in order to attack someone else.
Or, you know, maybe they’re kids on the internet with their parents permission. Or kids who scroll right on through the TOS? Do you truly think children are laying traps for grown men to stumble into? Multiple people in that chat said how old they were and asked him to stop. He responded dismissively. “Are we pretending to be Disney :P” and if you’ve seen his post here, you know he’s still being dismissive of the ages of the people he spoke with and instead focusing on his own opinion and reputation, much like you are.

You’ve chosen to frame the problem being discussed as one of ‘minors existing anywhere on the internet’ instead of responding to someone’s gross behavior towards minors. There’s no need to absolve grown ass people of their inappropriate behavior that way and doing so doesn’t help address the problem.
User avatar
bluewho
truth bomb
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:44 pm
Pronouns: she/her

I would like to start by saying I have been very reluctant to say anything on this topic, as it seems to me to be kicking the hornet's nest, which I'd rather not do. I have made a lot of friends through idb and I fear losing them, and I have already lost followers on Twitter simply by continuing to follow Stak. However, I've been talking to Stak privately in various groupchats for literally years, and at this point I would say I know him on a personal basis and I know a lot of the context of this.

With incredible trepidation then: The context is Stak was already hated by a lot of IDBers prior to this incident. He was already being shut out of the group so to speak. He felt he didn't have many phandom friends, so he attempted to make new friends. He was basically just really friendly on twitter to everyone. Something I do all the time, but my actions are not stigmatised as 'creepy' because I am not a 31 year old white man. If I like someone's tweet, or comment on a post, or follow someone, my actions are not interpreted as 'predatory' because I am female and in my 20s. When these girls found out Stak was an older man, they felt nervous. This is all understandable considering that a lot of older men on the internet probably are scary, but let's look at the facts here. All Stak is actually guilty of is being friendly with people imo, if a female had made those same jokes in that same group chat imo we would not be having any discussion. If the twitter users were uncomfortable they did the right thing by blocking him and letting their friends know he made them uncomfortable. But Stak hasn't broken any laws by making a sex joke about Dan just because some people who he didn't know were underage read it I think anymore than Dan and Phil are guilty of making sex jokes when they know they have underage viewers. I would like to also highlight that the jokes that were made were pretty tame jokes about Dan and Phil. Without naming names, there have been IDBers who have posted on the forum and been active in the IDB gc who were under 18.

I feel as if you've all decided a long time ago that Stak is a racist (would like to add I am black and I have never found him anything but a left-wing albeit stubborn arsehole) so you've already decided he's a bad person, of course you are ready to believe the worst, even when he hasn't imo done anything that bad.

Anyway I am preparing for the inevitable attacks on my character that will follow not-siding-with-the-group but unlike Stak I will be hitting the delete button if that happens. It's a shame that years of semi-friendships are being eroded because of a bad joke about having angry sex with dan imo lol.
jesp
why bother
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:35 pm

I'm making no comment on the larger situation at this point, but I would like to clarify that Namecheap's {our domain registrar} Terms of Service apply only to the person{s} listed as the domain registrant, which in our case is one of the moderators.
Image
User avatar
manged
lady door
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:01 am
Location: from bowel ;)

bluewho wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 10:52 pm I feel as if you've all decided a long time ago that Stak is a racist (would like to add I am black and I have never found him anything but a left-wing albeit stubborn arsehole) so you've already decided he's a bad person, of course you are ready to believe the worst, even when he hasn't imo done anything that bad.
+1 Black person here.
There are literal receipts of him defending his usage of "n-gger". We didn't "decide" he was racist- he decided that when he willingly shared that opinion with others.

I've refrained from commenting since I really don't have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion (I'm just sipping my tea from the sidelines), but I needed to jump in on that before anyone felt bold enough to use the "Well, this black person said it was okay" excuse to defend him.
Image
User avatar
bluewho
truth bomb
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:44 pm
Pronouns: she/her

manged wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 1:31 am
bluewho wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 10:52 pm I feel as if you've all decided a long time ago that Stak is a racist (would like to add I am black and I have never found him anything but a left-wing albeit stubborn arsehole) so you've already decided he's a bad person, of course you are ready to believe the worst, even when he hasn't imo done anything that bad.
+1 Black person here.
There are literal receipts of him defending his usage of "n-gger". We didn't "decide" he was racist- he decided that when he willingly shared that opinion with others.

I've refrained from commenting since I really don't have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion (I'm just sipping my tea from the sidelines), but I needed to jump in on that before anyone felt bold enough to use the "Well, this black person said it was okay" excuse to defend him.
I didn't say that his arguments about the n word were okay, or that I agree with him, in fact we have had many heated debates about it because we disagree. I do think however that his argument that 'in contexts where it is not found offensive by anyone present it can be used without an issue by white people e.g. within a friendship group as an inside joke' is problematic but it's hardly extreme racism. Unless he has made other arguments/statements I am not aware of I wouldn't classify Stak as a racist.
User avatar
manged
lady door
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:01 am
Location: from bowel ;)

bluewho wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 1:59 am
manged wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 1:31 am
bluewho wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 10:52 pm I feel as if you've all decided a long time ago that Stak is a racist (would like to add I am black and I have never found him anything but a left-wing albeit stubborn arsehole) so you've already decided he's a bad person, of course you are ready to believe the worst, even when he hasn't imo done anything that bad.
+1 Black person here.
There are literal receipts of him defending his usage of "n-gger". We didn't "decide" he was racist- he decided that when he willingly shared that opinion with others.

I've refrained from commenting since I really don't have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion (I'm just sipping my tea from the sidelines), but I needed to jump in on that before anyone felt bold enough to use the "Well, this black person said it was okay" excuse to defend him.
I didn't say that his arguments about the n word were okay, or that I agree with him, in fact we have had many heated debates about it because we disagree. I do think however that his argument that 'in contexts where it is not found offensive by anyone present it can be used without an issue by white people e.g. within a friendship group as an inside joke' is problematic but it's hardly extreme racism. Unless he has made other arguments/statements I am not aware of I wouldn't classify Stak as a racist.
Racism doesn't have to be ~exXxtreme \m/ ~*insert guitar riff* to still be racism. To willfully ignore the violence that word holds so he can have a giggle with his pals is a form of racism. You can choose whether or not that bothers you. For me, it's one of the main reasons he got that ass blocked.
But again, unless he's been calling people n-ggers on this forum, then it probably isn't relevant to whatever this thread is supposed to be.
Image
cocolero
squish
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:59 pm

knq wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 10:32 pm People, and especially children, are not required to be entirely eloquent, polite, or unproblematic when they express that an adult is making them uncomfortable. Expressing it at all is good enough.
And we absolutely agree. The minute he made the chat uncomfortable in the least, he should have been kicked and reported to Twitter if appropriate, and the chat should be made invite only. It doesn't follow that he has to be banned from every Walmart in Grand Rapids, MI as well.
Oh no, it’s definitely our problem. As long as Stakhanov is a member of this forum he’s one of our peers. Even if he were to leave or be banned, he’d still be a peer in the fandom. If we let his behavior and his continued justification of his behavior go unchecked we are complicit. We’re bystanders, and we’re responsible for reacting to harm that we see, whether it’s in our home or out at Waterstones.
If we're responsible for the behavior of others in our little group wherever they are, how do you feel about me running the yellow light earlier?

If your answer is "well, we weren't bystanders to that," I'd point out that almost all of us weren't bystanders to whatever happened on Twitter either.

There's a point when punishing someone for an unclear not-violation that happened elsewhere isn't some noble quest, it's bullying across websites. That's where we are.
Or, you know, maybe they’re kids on the internet with their parents permission. Or kids who scroll right on through the TOS? Do you truly think children are laying traps for grown men to stumble into? Multiple people in that chat said how old they were and asked him to stop. He responded dismissively. “Are we pretending to be Disney :P” and if you’ve seen his post here, you know he’s still being dismissive of the ages of the people he spoke with and instead focusing on his own opinion and reputation, much like you are.

You’ve chosen to frame the problem being discussed as one of ‘minors existing anywhere on the internet’ instead of responding to someone’s gross behavior towards minors. There’s no need to absolve grown ass people of their inappropriate behavior that way and doing so doesn’t help address the problem.
This ignores the implication of what I said. Were children there being monitored by their parents? Maybe. Had children lied about following the ToS? Of course. Is it's Stak's job to affirmatively ascertain the age of everyone he talks to online? No.

Twitter is a site for adults and the ToS exists to protect children. If children decide to ignore that join in anyway, how is that someone else's fault?

In any event, it's not the people who broke Twitter's rules who are being hounded here, it's one particular member. If we want to address the problems this has brought to light, where is the similar condemnation of those who lied?
Katka wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 8:47 pm This was never about Stakhanov's age.
The very first line of the tweet in question makes it clear that a 33 year old in the Phandom is a problem. Of course, an excuse is made over some inappropriate-ish language to make it seem just, but the problem here is that it's becoming clear that adults are not welcome here, which is ironic given who we're all talking about.
Katka wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 8:47 pmI prefer to take those minors' discomfort with the situation seriously.
So do I. When a child puts his hand on a hot stove, of course it's a serious issue. It's not the stove's fault, however. Minors chose to enter a place which was reserved for adults, hosted an open group chat, and now seem shocked - shocked - that there are adults present. If I leave the top down on my convertible, it's not the cloud's fault if my leather gets ruined.
Katka wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 8:47 pmI'd also like to to point out that your whole post reads very victim blamey.
It's not. Twitter did nothing wrong here.
Katka wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 8:47 pmAnd I don't even want to start with "They might lose their Twitter accounts if this goes any further" because if you want to talk threats, that reads like one right there. I'm not saying you intended it to sound this way, I'm just pointing this out because I'm really not comfortable letting it go uncommented.
Oh, of course it sounds bad. It would be going after people who may have broken some minor, small rule but one that could nevertheless get them banned. Kinda like people are trying to do to Stak.
Katka wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 8:47 pmAnd it needs to be discussed.
Now see, here we agree fully. Instead of having that discussion, though, people are insinuating that Stak is a perverted lecher who needs to be banned. When you start with insisting that the other person is absolutely wrong, then there's no discussion, it just makes everyone hate everyone else more.

There's a need for everyone to take personal responsibility here. Stak was an ass well after the joke was over. Admitting that would be noble. Similarly, lying about your age is bad, and not taking proper precautions (like securing a group chat) is fundamentally what led to this problem.

I don't think that people set up Stak to try to get him banned. The problem is what I think doesn't matter, and there's just as much evidence that that's the case as there is that Stak is evil (we don't know the motivations of each side).

Ultimately, all I'm saying is that this isn't a cut and dried situation, and like everything in life, there's more than one right and more than one wrong side. The mods have generally handled this difficult situation extremely well. Let's just all keep in mind that we're all phans here, and sometimes even we disagree. But that doesn't mean one or the other is "problematic."
User avatar
knq
lava lamp
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:42 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

cocolero wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 5:13 am In any event, it's not the people who broke Twitter's rules who are being hounded here, it's one particular member. If we want to address the problems this has brought to light, where is the similar condemnation of those who lied?
Yes, why aren’t we blaming the victims more? That’s a question I often ask myself, right after I ask ‘but what was she wearing?’
User avatar
liola
rankussy
Posts: 1675
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Italy

bluewho wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 10:52 pm I would like to start by saying I have been very reluctant to say anything on this topic, as it seems to me to be kicking the hornet's nest, which I'd rather not do. I have made a lot of friends through idb and I fear losing them, and I have already lost followers on Twitter simply by continuing to follow Stak. However, I've been talking to Stak privately in various groupchats for literally years, and at this point I would say I know him on a personal basis and I know a lot of the context of this.

With incredible trepidation then: The context is Stak was already hated by a lot of IDBers prior to this incident. He was already being shut out of the group so to speak. He felt he didn't have many phandom friends, so he attempted to make new friends. He was basically just really friendly on twitter to everyone. Something I do all the time, but my actions are not stigmatised as 'creepy' because I am not a 31 year old white man. If I like someone's tweet, or comment on a post, or follow someone, my actions are not interpreted as 'predatory' because I am female and in my 20s. When these girls found out Stak was an older man, they felt nervous. This is all understandable considering that a lot of older men on the internet probably are scary, but let's look at the facts here. All Stak is actually guilty of is being friendly with people imo, if a female had made those same jokes in that same group chat imo we would not be having any discussion. If the twitter users were uncomfortable they did the right thing by blocking him and letting their friends know he made them uncomfortable. But Stak hasn't broken any laws by making a sex joke about Dan just because some people who he didn't know were underage read it I think anymore than Dan and Phil are guilty of making sex jokes when they know they have underage viewers. I would like to also highlight that the jokes that were made were pretty tame jokes about Dan and Phil. Without naming names, there have been IDBers who have posted on the forum and been active in the IDB gc who were under 18.

I feel as if you've all decided a long time ago that Stak is a racist (would like to add I am black and I have never found him anything but a left-wing albeit stubborn arsehole) so you've already decided he's a bad person, of course you are ready to believe the worst, even when he hasn't imo done anything that bad.

Anyway I am preparing for the inevitable attacks on my character that will follow not-siding-with-the-group but unlike Stak I will be hitting the delete button if that happens. It's a shame that years of semi-friendships are being eroded because of a bad joke about having angry sex with dan imo lol.
No, look, let's talk about this. I will come right out and say that yes, I don't like the Stakhanov on this forum. I find him insufferable to talk to, and believe me, I've tried. I've gotten into arguments with him a LOT over the year and a half that I've been on this forum, and never because he's a white man (which I didn't know before a few months ago), His behaviour on the forum is always toying with the trolling line, and I've literally found myself replying to his posts with multiple tabs open on my laptop just to reference everything so that he wouldn't have to go against a professional opinion (when, for example, talking about business and marketing strategies). It never helped. He doesn't listen to anything but his own opinion, and almost all the times mansplains things. That makes him less likeable, but I understand it's a personal subject.

He's said before he isn't liked because he doesn't ship Dan and Phil, and multiple users have pointed out that it's not even that. I think Katka was one of the people telling him that they're not a shipper either, but they never got into arguments with users MULTIPLE times.

He defended stances on racism and called our argument over 2012 Dan using language with mild homophobic tones. That didn't help him make more likeable, but did he try and listen to what people were trying to explain, why people felt offended? Not once.

And now this is happening, outside of the forum for sure, but and he ignores multiple people trying to explain why his behaviour makes other uncomfortable, minors uncomfortable, turning the conversation about context. This isn't about being ageist, it's not about age IN GENERAL. Its about an adult interacting with minors in ways that make minors, the fragile part of the conversation, uncomfortable. Social media platforms are tricky situations in which you can interact with people without really knowing their age. It happens. But once you know that you're interacting with people much younger than you, and you realize that you made sexual jokes in their presence, and even more so they point out that it makes them kind of uncomfortable, the proper reaction isn't to say "are we pretending we're Disney :P". The proper reaction is to say "'kay, maybe this isn't the right space."

His defense to the accusations and the explanations about why this behaviour was not okay wasn't to consider why this situation might be wrong. His first reaction, at least on this very forum, was to turn the conversation around and make it look like interacting this way with minors is comparable to fic writers and fan artists making nsfw content about Dan and Phil, ignoring the very detail that a. Dan and Phil have said they're okay with it and b. both authors and artists tag their content properly, especially fanfiction writers, rating the content as Mature and Explicit and doing everything they can to prevent underage people to interact with it, to the limit of the possibilities offered by the internet.

And let's not even touch about the defense that if Dan and Phil make sexual jokes and innuendos about themselves, then it's okay to make sexual jokes to other people. There's multiple people in the phandom, even not underage, who are uncomfortable with that, and the proper thing to do when they express discomfort is to avoid the behaviour when interacting with them. It's really that simple.

The average age of this forum isn't that different from Stakhanov's. I myself I'm not that younger than him. There's people here even older than him. No one is saying that he doesn't belong in the phandom because of his age, like cocolero is trying to put it. What we're saying is that it's not okay for him OR for any of us, to be in a space with underage people and make them uncomfortable.

On a final note, considering he's called this forum, oh how was it, made up of a bunch of self-righteous stalkers, I don't exactly like him that much, I have no problem saying that. But I think we're all mature enough to realize that this isn't about liking a person or not, this is about an issue with internet relationships that is very real and very serious, and ignoring it would make this platform unsafe. While the behaviour happened outside the forum, it makes people HERE uncomfortable that it could be replicated. Concern was expressed and he belittled it. His opinions have been taken as the opinions of the entire forum one too many times, and I would hate to think people feel like no one cares about this issue, so I welcome the discussion.
Will probably never be over the BONCAS and the beauty of Phil Lester.

Official Moving Hill Mayor
User avatar
Birdie
stress mushroom
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:22 pm
Pronouns: they/she
Location: Northern Europe

bluewho wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 10:52 pm The context is Stak was already hated by a lot of IDBers prior to this incident. He was already being shut out of the group so to speak.
I get that it might be hard for you because he's your friend but please consider that he wasn't "hated" just because. His behaviour on this forum has always been quite aggressive and condescending so that over time more and more people felt fed up with it. That's how it went for me anyways. I used to agree with him on quite a few things but his reaction to people who didn't agree with him made me not want to engage with him anymore. Maybe he is different in private but in the context of this forum no one "hates" him just for the sake of it.
All Stak is actually guilty of is being friendly with people imo, if a female had made those same jokes in that same group chat imo we would not be having any discussion.
I don't think that's true. Back in the day there were many discussions about predatory older female phandom members on Twitter and Tumblr. It wasn't his age that made these girls uncomfortable, it was his behaviour. Don't deflect please.
But Stak hasn't broken any laws by making a sex joke about Dan just because some people who he didn't know were underage read it I think anymore than Dan and Phil are guilty of making sex jokes when they know they have underage viewers.
It's been established that he did know though. It's right in the screenshots. They told him how old they were and that they were uncomfortable and his reply was something along the lines of "this is not Disney". There are no two ways about this. Also: Dan and Phil don't make sexual jokes directly to their underage viewers in closed group chats. If they did, we'd have a hell of a problem on our hands. But that's not what's happening. It's a different situation.
cocolero wrote:The minute he made the chat uncomfortable in the least, he should have been kicked and reported to Twitter if appropriate, and the chat should be made invite only. It doesn't follow that he has to be banned from every Walmart in Grand Rapids, MI as well.
This comparison you keep bringing up makes no sense because Waterstones and Walmart are not phandom spaces. This forum is. Think of it this way: If someone behaved inappropriately at a phandom gathering and made people uncomfortable, would you be okay with them coming to the next one? It didn't happen at that gathering after alll.
The very first line of the tweet in question makes it clear that a 33 year old in the Phandom is a problem. Of course, an excuse is made over some inappropriate-ish language to make it seem just, but the problem here is that it's becoming clear that adults are not welcome here, which is ironic given who we're all talking about.
Context matters? She starts by saying he is a 33-year-old man and then goes on to say that he has been discussing "sexual topics with minors without disclosing his age". That part is also in the very first sentence of the tweet. Both of these things together are the problem. Please stop deflecting, the girl made it very clear in her tweet what the problem was and it wasn't merely the fact he was over 30.
When a child puts his hand on a hot stove, of course it's a serious issue. It's not the stove's fault, however.
The moment a stove becomes a sentient being, this argument might make sense. You're acting like Sthakanov had no choice but to make sexual jokes towards those kids. When in reality he could have just... not done that? And there might not have been a problem then, but sure. It's those kids' fault for letting him into the group chat.
Oh, of course it sounds bad. It would be going after people who may have broken some minor, small rule but one that could nevertheless get them banned. Kinda like people are trying to do to Stak.
You are likening not reading or ignoring the TOS of Twitter to literally harrassing minors. If your solution to predatory behaviour towards children is "Children should not be on the internet" and not "Adults should not show inappropriate behaviour towards children" we have a major problem here and I hope you'll come to see that.

+1 to liola's whole post as well.
black_rat
squish
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:02 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Since I see people on my twitter timeline being confused as to why people are defending him, I want to explain my personal reasoning. Not saying I agree with the arguments that have been used to defend him, because I feel like some arguments miss the point.

I want to address something the moderators explicitly addressed, namely that they cannot take actions against off-forum behaviour. While some users might disagree, this is the situation. Off-forum behaviour should not lead to punishment on this platform:
missemma wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:17 pm Moderator Note

While it's human nature to have your interactions with someone colored by things that you read off-forum, we cannot take action against those things. We also have no reasonable expectation of anyone to set aside their ethical or moral values in favor of feeling forced to interact with someone, we just ask that you keep in mind that In Depth Bants, the main thread in particular, is for the discussion of Dan and Phil and related topics.
Still, the whole discussion is about something that happened not on this platform. If users do not agree with this sentiment, that's a problem. If there happens (or has happened) something on this platform, then moderators are obligated to do something about it. Be it trolling, or be it users de-railing the main thread about an issue that is not dnp related. I am concerned that the moderators do not treat this situation fairly and ignore their own rules and favour one side over the other. And I feel unsafe on a platform where moderators use their power in any way they see fit without considering what is fair or unfair or considering their own rules.

People are allowed to have their personal opinion on the Stakhanov/twitter stuff, but it should not have anything to do with whether or not Stakhanov is allowed to be on this platform or not, and I frankly do not understand why this topic is discussed on this forum at all. If this makes you feel uncomfortable, I am sorry, but that is the framework in which the moderators decide to operate and I really do hope they stick to that. I feel strongly about this issue, because I value the fairness of this forum. I also hope that in the future the moderator team is more strict about keeping the main thread clean of stuff that doesn't belong there.
User avatar
glitterintheair
phillluminati
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:56 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: Italy
Contact:

Yes, I am uncomfortable.

Knowing that someone on this forum - who claims that the Phandom is mostly a young and immature fanbase that fetishize Dan and Phil - engaged with minors by making sexual comments about Dan even after they disclosed their age and, on top of that, he doesn't even think that he did something wrong... yeah, it makes me uncomfortable.
Knowing that people might think that this forum would welcome people who act like that and that everyone might agree with that behavior makes me uncomfortable.
Knowing that there's people who defend such behavior and are victim blaming makes me uncomfortable. And it concerns me.
I'm a winter flower underground, always thirsty for summer rain.
Locked