I appreciate the passion behind this post. You guys wouldn't hold us to the standard that you do if you didn't care about Loka. That said we have to pick apart several things going on in this thread separately.
I really care about Loka since this is by far the best server I've played on ever since I started playing on Minecraft, and I would hate to see it become dull due to some poor moderation choices.
berd is not staff, this is meaningless.
The reason I decided to include Berd in here is that he's very active with the community and is also a slicer. His quote also brings up basically how everyone perceives their conversations with mods when talking about their punishment(if they get punished).
I will admit it was an unnecessary post by me in that thread but I didn't reply for no reason. While we don't generally share reports, as most of them are benign, players will always try to control the narrative in a ban appeal (simply see the very end of this post). That report was not a harassment complaint, and so I felt was important to provide some additional context in that thread to show that it was not a one-sided situation.
I appreciate your acknowledging that the report probably didn't need to be posted. I understand your concern about players controlling the narrative in ban appeals, and I can see why you wanted to provide additional context.
My concern wasn't necessarily that you responded, but how the report was used. Even if it wasn't a harassment report, publicly sharing a player's report can discourage people from reporting issues in the future if they believe their reports might later be used in a public thread.
Regarding the reply itself, I also think the wording could have been handled differently. Asking, "Does that ideology extend to other countries?" came across as politically one-sided, even if that wasn't your intent. I understand what you were trying to convey, but I think there were better ways to make that point.
This confusion almost exclusively happens when a player who is prone to common harassment finally gets punished. Because their behavior is so commonplace, they can't think of a specific example of why they might have gotten punished which is usually a bad sign as it is. The reason we cannot (not just simple arbitrarily choose not to) always share with players why they were punished is to protect the victim. This has been our stance for the entirety of Loka's existence.
I put it to you. How can we protect a victim or even be trusted with reports of harassment if we turn right around and narc on them when the harasser asks who the victim is?
I understand the need to protect victims, but protecting them and providing meaningful context for a punishment aren't mutually exclusive.
Assuming a player "can't think of a specific example" because harassment is commonplace isn't always fair. Without enough context, players can't meaningfully understand or appeal a decision.
I'm not arguing that victims should be identified. My concern is that protecting a victim's identity doesn't require withholding all context. Players should receive enough information about the behavior that led to their punishment to make the moderation process more transparent and trustworthy.
