GooeyChewie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:50 pm
DISCO Rox No More wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:35 pm
Think of the ban as a "sentence." The trial is already over. At that point, if a sentence is being handed out, it has to be associated with a specific crime.
Sure, but that specific crime doesn't have to be announced to the whole world.
What? Absolutely it has to be public information (and generally is).
That's the only way that the public can feel secure that the justice system is fair and unbiased.
DISCO Rox No More wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:35 pm
I guess I disagree; if you're going to ask someone to ban someone, you need to explain why.
You need to explain why to the person who is being banned, and let them decide if the rest of the world gets to know why.
Was Ensign Q asked (before the announcement was made, and in a timely manner) whether or not he wanted the reasons to be made public?
I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I'd err on the side of "No," given both Clerasil's wildly inappropriate behavior and the fact that Ensign Q is talking about it quite a bit and seems to be of the impression that the ban is baseless.
DISCO Rox No More wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:35 pm
Clerasil was asking each and every TD, worldwide, to ban Ensign Q. If I were a TD, I would want to know why you want me to ban someone from my events before I go ahead and do it.
OP has asked every TD, worldwide, to ban Ensign Q from sanctioned events. Having Ensign Q involved doesn't mean you can't have your event; it means OP isn't sanctioning your event.
You're making a distinction without a difference.
"If you want your event to be sanctioned, you have to exclude this specific player, but we're not going to tell you why you have to exclude them" is not acceptable.
DISCO Rox No More wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:35 pm
By your own admission, it's an assumption that what Ensign Q did was public.
If what Ensign Q did was in public, then there's no "right to privacy," because the actions were knowingly made in public and were, by definition, never private. If what Ensign Q did wasn't in public, then I'm not sure that OP has any right to take actions.
OP's jurisdiction is their events, not what happens between players, in private, outside of events. I guess you could make the argument that OP should step in for certain private exceptions for the sake of protecting the community (i.e., players being harassed in private), but at that point the harassee would have stepped forward, so the events would no longer be private.
Even if the actions were taken publicly, that doesn't mean everybody who hears about the sanction will know about those actions. I certainly didn't know anything about them.
Public doesn't mean "everyone knows about them." Public means "There's a way for anyone to find out about them" or "The action was taken in the view of others, or in a situation where privacy was not a de facto expectation." If I go outside on the street and yell something nasty out loud, you won't know about it because you live in a different part of the world. But my action was still public, because I had no right to expect what I do in the street is to be kept private and not talked about by witnesses.
Incidentally, looking at all the other petty replies here, I would say there are at least 4 people here behaving toxically or like a troll, and Ensign Q is only one of them.