Sweet has been banned from Unvanquished chat for repeated violations of the channel rules

[illwieckz]

The purpose of the Unvanquished chat channels is to provide a nice and welcoming place for players to discuss the Unvanquished game, their own playing experiences, meet with developers, discuss contributions, build-up the game community, coordinate game events, etc.
Some permissiveness on a bit of off-topic is kept to match the nature and fit the needs of human social interactions.

The purpose of those channel is not to provide to given individuals a place to say anything they wants on any topic they want the way they want.
To exercise their right to speak on anything they wants the way they want in ways or topic that don't belong to this channel, individuals have the ability to create their own channel.
The legal responsibility of what would be said on such channel would be entirely upon such individuals.
The audience of such other channel would have to be be built by such individuals.

The target audience of these Unvanquished channels includes teenagers (https://github.com/Unvanquished/Unvanquished/issues/1111), so we have the duty to keep this channel a welcoming place for all people, including young people.

I quote the official Unvanquished channel rules (https://wiki.unvanquished.net/wiki/Chat#Channel_rules):

[…] insults are not allowed.
NO personal attacks are allowed […]. We have NO TOLERANCE for this and you WILL be banned!

I indeed been very tolerant and I am guilty of this, it is right to blame me for that and I will accept such criticism.

Sweet broke those rules more than once in the past weeks, and is in situation of obvious recidivism.
Sweet broke those rules today again, after a warning was given.
I have the duty to put this to an end.

If I don't prevent Sweet's actions, I would have the duty to step back from my responsibilities because I would have failed to do my duty and I would have shown myself incapable of the function that has been given to me.

This is not an abuse of authority, it is me obeying to the orders I have received and doing the duty I'm expected to do.

Trust cannot be placed in me if I don't sanction Sweet for his actions and if I fail to protect the Unvanquished channel from Sweet bad behaviour.

I was uncomfortable in using such power against Sweet behaviour when I was the target of Sweet's personal attacks. It would have been fair that others do it.

Since Sweet just insulted and attacked other peoples than me today. Because I'm not defending myself there I'm in a situation where I cannot be accused of using my power to defend myself (even if it would not be an abuse, as such action is to protect all others).

Sweet has been banned from the Unvanquished chat channels.

Evading the sanction will call for a stronger sanction.

To get unbanned Sweet has to negotiate his unban and provide guarantees of good behaviour.

Negotiation for Sweet getting unbanned on Unvanquished chat channels will open to Sweet on November 1st, 2025 (6 months from today).
Negotiation is not open for Sweet until that day.

This is done to give Sweet time to cool down and to give Sweet time to build guarantees of good behaviour for his negotiation.

This doesn't remove any right for Sweet to contribute, doing so is not planned.
This doesn't remove any right for anyone to merge contributions by Sweet, doing so is not planned.
This doesn't remove from the roadmap the task to merge contributions by Sweet. Merging contributions by Sweet is still on the roadmap.

Sweet has been banned from the Unvanquished chat channels.
Negotiations for getting that chat ban removed from Sweet will open to Sweet on November 1st, 2025.

[Sweet]

Sweet broke those rules today again, after a warning was given.

Really? What rule did I break?

This is not an abuse of authority, it is me obeying to the orders I have received

Who ordered this?

[cu-kai]

This post reads like a public flogging, was it really necessary?

[Grise]

I drop that here :

Viech's message (Max is Viech):

Sweet's answer

I also post that :

For contest, freem discovered today that Gireen is an administrator on the Matrix side.
He left the Unvanquished channels, and, Viech banned him.

Ho, and I also post that :

English translation:

@err404: That bastard gireen constantly harassed and humiliated me on #-dev when I was at the worst point of my depression, and they all knew it.
I put up with it up to a certain point, but after a while, it was no longer possible.
According to illwieckz and perturbed (killing time on the forum), it was just for laughs.
And they want me to be polite and respectful, those assholes.
I never got an apology, and that other bastard was never punished.
You can screenshot and share this; I can say it to their face whenever they want.
I already have, after all.

I do not need to comment that I think...

You're putting the final nail in the Unvanquished's coffin.

[Sweet]

He left the Unvanquished channels, and, Viech banned him.

I see, thanks for the context information. There seems to be a lot of admin abuse of late.

[Gireen]

Its sad that bans are necessary. But Sweet was now unmuted for a month and used it mostly for insults, false accusations and attacks.
There is no room for sugarcoating, this behavior is unacceptable and Sweet has so far shown no will to change anything on it.
Quiet the opposite, good will is only met with more attacks.

[Sweet]

But Sweet was now unmuted for a month and used it mostly for insults, false accusations and attacks.

On the contrary. I have not uttered a single false accusation. And the reason for me saying "fuck you" a few times is simply that I am the one who has been attacked; but when I tried to defend myself against said accusation, I was muted. I'll say it again: fuck any admin who mutes people that are defending themselves against harassment. But of course, the problem is that I have been harassed by another admin.

There is no room for sugarcoating, this behavior is unacceptable and Sweet has so far shown no will to change anything on it.
Quiet the opposite, good will is only met with more attacks.

Apart from me saying "fuck you" to the person who muted me without just cause, what are you talking about?

[Gireen]

People don't become free punching bags just because you don't agree with them.

After your "interaction" a few days after being unmuted, which reading it now again as a whole is already bad enough.
illwieckz said the following.

--- Day changed Mi Apr 09 2025
22:06 <+ dretch> <illwieckz> This is you Sweet who who started this conversation two weeks later.
22:06 <+ dretch> <illwieckz> I will not engage in this conversation today, I'm being trolled.

Since then illwieckz didn't talk to or about you there.

despite that:

--- Day changed Do Apr 17 2025
05:55 <+ dretch> <sweet235> jesus christ illwieckz
05:56 <+ dretch> <sweet235> are you now randomly locking threads on github
05:56 <+ dretch> <sweet235> this is getting out of control
06:04 <+ dretch> <sweet235> "I temporary lock the thread to prevent @VReaperV's time to be wasted.
06:04 <+ dretch> <sweet235> I will unlock the thread when I will be available to respond to @VReaperV."
06:04 <+ dretch> <sweet235> from https://github.com/DaemonEngine/Daemon/issues/1650
06:04 <+ dretch> <sweet235> not everything in this world is about you
07:03 <+ dretch> <sweet235> just to remind you: it is not up to you to decide what other people do with their time
....
--- Day changed Fr Apr 18 2025
21:41 <+ dretch> <sweet235> jesus fucking christ @illwieckz, you censor people randomly, and do not care to even reply?
21:47 <+ dretch> <sweet235> fuck you
21:47 <+ dretch> <sweet235> and all your admin abuses
21:48 <+ dretch> <sweet235> i believe this project would benefit greatly from an administration that does not abuse its powers

You cant try to justify this behavior with defense when you say this things out of the blue.

And the same before you where banned

--- Day changed Mi Apr 30 2025
23:15 <+ dretch> <sweet235> > that's the last personal attack voiced in this channel, if this continues I'll hand out timeouts
23:15 <+ dretch> <sweet235> are you retarded

No one was talking directly to or about you here

[enneract]

Gireen, you make it sound like Sweet gets angry for no apparent reason and just starts insulting people "out of the blue'.

Locking Reaper's thread was absolutely ridiculous and I think Sweet was justified in calling it out. Maybe not in the way he did, but I can see why he'd be pissed.

[Gireen]

out of the blue in respect to his claim that he was only defending himself

the way he did it, is quiet literally the problem. no one would complain if he would voice his criticism in an calm and objective manner instead of personal attacks.

criticism and different opinions are always welcome, but it crosses a line when they are only used as means to harass others