Question regarding the rules in chat channels

[Sweet]

I have been muted on the project's chat channels (Discord and IRC). Now I would like to ask what the rules are there, and which rule(s) I violated. I tried to defend myself against the accusations of a council member / project head, which have been going on for two years now.

For context, this is what happened immediately before I was muted:

[illwieckz]

First, I will answer about the rules, then I will answer why you have been muted.

Now that you ask where are the rule chats:

A summary is mentioned on the chat page:

• https://unvanquished.net/chat/

That summary is also listed in the Discord #rule channel:

• https://discord.com/channels/1936380314 ... 7774293002

That contains a link to the wiki with more details:

• https://wiki.unvanquished.net/wiki/Chat#Channel_rules

It is worth noting you actually threatened to act against one of the already written rules (“Do not post links to illegal material or pornography”) for which the sanction would not be a mute but a ban. You didn't got banned because you only threatened to, but a temporary mute for such threatening would have been fair anyway.

I remind you this already written rule:

• Do not flame each other. Keep it to private messages. If it gets out of hand, both sides of the conflict will take a short break.

You were already flaming. You can claim that Viech flamed too, it is true.

That's why I asked everyone to stop feeding the drama. You didn't want to stop the drama, meaning you were the one remaining doing the fuelling the flameware.

I could mute Viech as well if he had answered you at this point. I will if he responds to you and feed the flameware, or express the intention to do so.

What you did was enough to mute you, even if you didn't do any blackmail (even if you consider that nonsense), even if you didn't test the remaining head for his powers.

Just the fact that I asked you to stop the flameware and you expressed intention to not stop was enough to mute you. It was even in the written rules. If it wasn't yet in the written rule, I would have muted you as well because I had to in order to stop the flameware, and I would be adding this rule for the next times.

You had freedom to express your intention to not stop the flameware. But then you got the consequences you asked for.

It is right blackmail is not yet mentioned in the rules as something disallowed. This is because our chat had been is a very permissive place based on trust from the start. So most of the rules were only written when something very bad happened. For example the rule about not expressign the hope someone will die was only added in the recent years because of someone having done that in the recent years (he was kicked for ar least one month). So I will add a new rule related to blackmail, because of your acting.

It's worth noting you actually did two blackmails in the recent days, with actual harmful threats:

Code: Select all

2025-03-20 18:50:26 +0100 <Sweet> i request my account in ishq's server to be deleted
2025-03-20 19:09:24 +0100 <Sweet> come on
2025-03-20 19:09:27 +0100 <Sweet> do it alreary
2025-03-20 19:10:26 +0100 <Sweet> all you need to do is $ rm /home/sweet/.ssh/authorized_keys
2025-03-20 19:10:30 +0100 <Sweet> do it now
2025-03-20 19:16:36 +0100 <Sweet> in 168 hours, i will start to publish porn links in my ~/public_html
2025-03-20 19:16:37 +0100 <Sweet> be wise
2025-03-20 19:16:43 +0100 <Sweet> delete my access until then
2025-03-20 19:17:00 +0100 <Sweet> also: fuck you are and your hierachy
2025-03-20 20:14:35 +0100 <Sweet> why can i still post here?

Here is another blackmail you did earlier, it's more subtle because it is built on a lie (if the lie wasn't a lie, there would be no blackmail).

I have been informed by this repo's owners that this PR is not likely to be merged. Instead, we have to wait for a working version of #3064.
I do not agree with this decision. So I will stop contributing to this repo.
-- Sweet 2025-05-20 19:14 +0100

The blackmail here is built with the fact you mention that Ishq was the repository owner. This statement alone this is not enough.

You added that he informed you your PR would not be merged and that you would stop contributing because of that.

If Ishq opposed to the merge, and for example, actually reverted the merge you would have done or removed you your merge permission, then it would be a very different story. This would not be a blackmail: if you cannot, you don't. That's all. But this was not true, you could merge it.

Ishq didn't oppose to your PR being merged. Also, it wasn't true that Ishq would have necessarily the last word even if he opposed to the merge. You cannot assume any acting from someone of power is abuse. Otherwise that means giving a power to someone has the effect of him having less power than one not having the power, since every act would be considered as abuse and would have to be prevented.

So once that lie of you is removed from your sentence, all what is left in your sentence is that Ishq is a repository owner and then the consequence is that you'll stop doing contributing.

So, since Ishq did not opposed to your PR, the only obstacle to your contribution that is left is that Ishq is the repository owner.

The roadmap being to merge your contributions, this was blackmailing Ishq to step down.

Ishq wrote that the next day:

Code: Select all

2025-03-21 18:58:38 +0100 <Ishq> I've been a project head in name only for many years, but somehow this is thrown in my face?
 This is a personal attack all the way.
2025-03-21 18:58:59 +0100 <Ishq> I've never taken advantage of that
2025-03-21 18:59:13 +0100 <Ishq> I think the best thing for me to do is "officially" step down
2025-03-21 18:59:20 +0100 <Ishq> transfer unvanquished.net to illwieckz
2025-03-21 18:59:33 +0100 <Ishq> and go back to being a "pleb" if you will.
2025-03-21 18:59:45 +0100 <Ishq> idk what to do about the server
2025-03-21 18:59:53 +0100 <Ishq> but it's probably not good to leave that under my control

So, today, two things happened:

1. I asked to not feed the drama, you refused and acted against that.

You said things like that:

Code: Select all

2025-03-27 14:07:38 +0100 <sweet235> i encourage anyone considering to contribute to this project to read what the council members have said today

I don't mind if what Viech said was right or wrong. I asked everyone, including you and the one who you responded to, to no continue that conversation.

We all have wrong things to say about other people if we wants to, so this will never stop. This is an endless pit if we jump in.

You responding just adds more reasons for someone else to feed the drama again, giving you and others more reason to feed the drama again, this is an infinite loop of frustration harming everyone of us.

I asked you:

Code: Select all

2025-03-27 14:08:02 +0100 <illwieckz> Stop that.

So you responded:

Code: Select all

2025-03-27 14:08:19 +0100 <sweet235> am i still allowed to speek freely here?

You expressed the intention to not stop the flameware, that was enough to mute you. I could have done it because of that. But you did more, you defied me.

So it was clear I didn't want this topic discussed. But at no point you were muted at this point.

You feeding the drama despite me asking you to not is not what got you muted.

1. You immediately responded by testing blackmail on me.

Immediately after having written « am i still allowed to speek freely here? », you wrote:

Code: Select all

2025-03-27 14:08:26 +0100 <sweet235> if not, i will leave

Which is the exact construction of the blackmail you did with Ishq. Of course the threat is harmless (we can't retain you anyway), but this is the same kind of acting, and you did it with the next head in line.

Note that you were allowed to speak at this exact moment and I allowed that. I had not taken a single action against your ability to speak freely in that channel or other Unvanquished places on my own initiative yet, not a single action.

It is also worth noting that before that you removed yourself from the git organization and you requested to get your access to the server removed (which I did on your request, only on your request). So it is not honest to ask if you are still allowed to speak freely when you have not asked this right to be removed from you yet and I haven't announced any action against that yet.

The same way you cannot assume Ishq could abuse its power as repository owner, you cannot assume I would mute you in your back.

At no time before I muted you I had removed you any right without you asking for it first, but then you say publicly that you suppose others may have removed you rights, and you say that without you asking to lose those rights first. Also, now you know that when I actually muted you, I announced it to you first.

So you said “I will leave”. This is an harmless threat, we can't do nothing about it anyway, we may even be OK with that, it's only on you, and it can't do that harm neither to you or us. But this is the mechanism of blackmail: asking if something is allowed to be done unless some threat is done.

The threat being harmless doesn't remove the blackmail mechanism. The threat being towards yourself doesn't remove the blackmail mechanism either.
For example, someone threatening to kill oneself can be part of a blackmail. So yes doing blackmail as “Am I still allowed to speak freely or I will leave” is an harmless blackmail, but this is the construction of a blackmail and you tested that on me.

It's like testing a intercontinental missile with a dummy warhead, in the metaphor you tested the launch and the fly of the missile with a dummy warhead.
Putting a dummy warhead in an intercontinental missile and launching it doesn't mean the missile wasn't produced and launched. And if the missile with the dummy warhead is launched not only to test the missile itself but also to test the defence mechanism of some other power, this can brings real consequences back as bad as the test missile itself it had no dummy warhead.

You tested the blackmail with a dummy payload, you had to receive from me the answer the test required. You asked for it, you got it.
You wanted to know if you could get muted, then you got muted. You got the answer you were looking for.

I don't mind if you find the dummy blackmail test of today ridiculous or harmless:

• You blackmailed the team with explicit threat to harm the project by polluting the game infrastructure, tarnish the game reputation, and attacking the team's primary means of communication.
• You blackmailed a project head in a way the obvious solution for you to make your contribution possible was him to step down.
• You blackmailed me with a blackmail test.

This is when I decided to order the sentence you already deserved, so you got muted on the chat for a week. You didn't let me the choice, if I had not do that, I would have failed your test.

You being muted for one week after all this bad acting from you is a very weak sanction. The weakeness of your sanctions explains why others didn't receive any sanction yet, because no one reached yet that level of bad acting you finally ended to do.

In fact I only muted you because you acted in a way I had to do it or I would have failed at doing my admin job.

You dropped many of your rights in various ways:

• by removing some rights you had,
• by asking some other rights to be removed by an admin unless you do harm,
• by testing an admin for his powers on his ability to remove you a right when the rules ordered him to do so.

Now that you pushed a project head to step down, now that I have reorganized the head of the project as a single head with a council. Now that I am the only head, you defied me. You're just in a process to defy all the heads in a row. This will killl this project if I don't act against your misbehavior.

So, not only you explicitly threatened to harm the project by polluting the game infrastructure, tarnish the game reputation, and attacking the team's primary means of communication, but by encouraging a project head to step down you actually put at risk the funding of the infrastructure of the game.

Because of the way you threatened the project, the way you threatened the infrastructure, and the way you defied the heads one after them, I will not give you back the merge rights you dropped yourself even if you ask to. I also removed you from the team list. This is from my initiative. I withdraw my proposal of giving you direction of gameplay development or even just being the man having the last word on it. This is from my initiative as well.

You're currently listed within “Prior Members”, which is true. I can list you within “Contributors” which is true as well, tell me what you prefer.

If you want to contribute you can do merge requests, as long as your acting and wording are behaving correctly I don't mind. But I will not give you any right that will allow you to do any take over on the project.

You're welcome to contribute. I remind that my roadmap is still to get your changes merged. You can keep up the good work you are doing, and we can collaborate on merging it for the best of this project and make this game move forward and become successful.

I will myself move on and spend my time on the next release, instead of wasting it on that drama (a week already had been wasted because of this, it is too much). I encourage anyone to move on as well. If there are remaining conflicts to be processed and defused, some may be discussed in private, but we have to move on as a team.

[Sweet]

That's a lot of words.

I cannot quite follow the mental stretch from me complaining about repeated personal attacks to intercontinental missiles. But I do not have to understand everything.

You can claim that Viech flamed too, it is true.

I think they did. And not for a week, but for two years. Why did you never mute them? Or intervene in any other way?

Now that you pushed a project head to step down

I did not. Ishq had planned to step down for quite a while now. I am just your scapegoat.

Now that I am the only head, you defied me.

This is when I decided to order the sentence you already deserved

I suggest to revisit your attitude. Behaving as a dictator or judge will not encourage people to contribute.

In the end, the very problem is still left unsolved. That is: improving this game is frequently impeded by team members who do not seem to be active anymore. And once this leads to open conflict with newer contributors, the newer contributors are blamed.

[Sweet]

I could mute Viech as well if he had answered you at this point

He did. You did not.

This is clear admin abuse on your side. You simply muted me in a discussion about me, when it would be warranted to defend myself.

[illwieckz]

You can't request from me to be full time on this project. This a the slave master mindset.

I posted this at 17:00 on my end. Then I left because I have other things to do. I just came back, it is 19:30 on my end. I haven't read the backlog yet.

[Sweet]

You can't request from me to be full time on this project. This a the slave master mindset.

Says the person who took the time to write a novel here.

[Sweet]

I have tried to revive this game for some time now. But considering the double standards applied here, I see no way to continue doing so. Good bye.

[illwieckz]

You can't request from me to be full time on this project. This a the slave master mindset.

Says the person who took the time to write a novel here.

Proof I'm willing to spend some time for this project, but this doesn't remove my other duties.

I cannot quite follow the mental stretch from me complaining about repeated personal attacks to intercontinental missiles. But I do not have to understand everything.

Let's summarise the situation:

• you threatened to publish pornographic material on the server (with an ultimatum) and so (as effect):
  • you threatened to pollute the game infrastructure,
  • to tarnish the game reputation,
  • and to attack the team's primary means of communication.
• while the roadmap was to merge your change (classified as important and urgent) and there was a disagreement between Ishq and you on one of our work, you falsely claimed that he would block the merge, you stated he was a repository owner and said that as a consequence you will stop contributing,
  that left no other option for following the roadmap than to get Ishq step down, which he did by himself as a consequence, so:
  • you falsely accused a project head of abuse of power,
  • you leveraged that to blackmail a project head to get him step down.
• you pushed Ishq to step down while he is the one paying for the server, so (as effect):
  • you put the funding of the game infrastructure at risk.
• while I reorganized the head from a triumvirat to one head (me) and former other heads as a council to make the team less vulnerable to false accusations of abuse and to help contributors to better understand the roles,
  • you immediately started attacking the council.
• while I was the last project head remaining, while I asked you to not fuel the flamewar, while you refused to, while I was in right to kick you because of that, you tested me by asking if you still had right to talk, so:
  • you challenged the last remaining project head, me, on my ability to be an admin and to do admin actions.

So the admin actions were done, as your behavior requested.

You'll notice that in that enumeration, I don't talk at all about your complaints on personal attacks. This is now a very different topic that is not linked anymore, except from the fact that is what sparked all your misbehavior, no more. You haven't requested from me to help you on that personal attack problem, you directly went to threaten the project, blackmail, and go on a headhunt, project head after project head, and put the game infrastructure at risk in different ways.

I was there to help you, I supported you, I made your contributions the priority for the project, I offered you a position to help you solve the disagreement issues, etc. But instead of going to me to sort out the problems your were facing, you were full berserk, taking the risk to seriously harm the project and you went tracking down the heads one by one for a manhunt.

At this point the initial disagreement you had with Ishq on some lua API design is a different topic and is very minor. It is you who made this very minor. discussing it here is off-topic.

The analogy of missiles is just an analogy explaining that a test with a dummy weapon can get the same response than using a real weapon. Even last year someone got killed in my country after pointing a gun to cops and did not stopped when cops asked to lower down, but only after the death the cops could no the weapon was fake. You may have used dummy weapons, you may pretend for example that the threat to post pornographic was a joke, it should not be taken as a joke. I would remind that “it was a joke” if first excuse of harassers when they acted so badly someone is asking the harasser to to be accountable. But you are sufficiently edutacted to know what is an analogy, and I already gave this analogy in the chat, so you may be just mocking me.

I will just add something, and you know I'm right: you preferred doing all this than sorting out the issues you were facing and get your work merged. In some way, you loved that drama more than your contributions.

You know it's right, because that's an objective statement that you actually did that all that bad things instead of helping me sorting out the situation.

That's why I'm cannot give you a new chance at being a team member with the rights and permission that comes with it. You can contribute, I'm still amazed by what you do, I still believe what you contribute is good for the game and the players, but I cannot give you anymore any power that you can prefer using to harm people than to solve problems.

[illwieckz]

It is also important to mention that I proposed you Sweet more than once to drive the gameplay contributions so this would solve all conflict because you would have the last word, either there would have been no conflict, either you would have been the one saying how the conflict would have been sorted out. You never took that opportunity.

So the situation that sparked the drama was all evitable from the start but you did not chose that path. So you preferred to the road where you could get disagreement you could not sort out alone. You can't be blamed for refusing a responsibility, but you preferred that, so you can't blame others if you then face disagreement you cannot sort out alone.

In the end you tried to sort out the disagreement alone while you didn't have the powers to, so this went nowhere and you just added more harm to what was already there, and you went up to challenging project heads just because of that: you tried to sort out the disagreements without them, but you could not, so you left no other options than getting people stepping down, either project heads, either you. The outcome was all already written unless you decided to finally follow the resolution path proposed by the remaining head, me.

[Sweet]

Oh I see. This is about money. If you had asked nicely, I would have gladly paid my share for the infrastructure. But instead you choose to wrongly accuse me of being the reason for you losing the guy who paid for your toys. It has been well known that this would happen, since a year or so. Do you want me to provide proof?

You never took that opportunity.

What are you talking about lol. What decision was I ever being asked to make?