Thoughts on #HallofFameGate

Since I have now read Bsh1’s public statement and the Wylted Report, I think I am informed enough to post my thoughts.

Thoughts on TheHammer: Hammer was banned over a joke. Yes, he did falsify evidence, and that was wrong of him to do. However, I don’t think the offense was worthy of a perma-ban. Bsh1 should consider motivation. Hammer made the thread as a joke. He likely only falsified evidence to save himself from being banned over a joke. I think Hammer’s ban should’ve only been temporary.

Thoughts on Bsh1: My only problem is his perma-ban of Hammer. Whether the offense is excessive trolling or a personal attack, Hammer, to my knowledge, is a first time offender who even confessed and apologized for his actions.

Thoughts on Wylted: A temp ban was given to Wylted. I am fine with that. He committed an offense by campaigning for Supa against site rules.

Thoughts on Virtuoso: Virtuoso actively participated in a campaigning effort against site rules, since he is a mod, he has no grounds for an ignorance plea. He claims it would have not changed his votes, but contrary evidence has emerged. In the Wylted Report, which was confirmed by Bsh1, Virtuoso replied to Wylted’s campaign with, “I’ll think about it.”, indicating that it did affect his decision. Furthermore, he did not report it to Bsh1 when he should have. Considering this, especially the latter, it think it is fair for. Virtuoso to be removed from his position as a mod.

Thoughts on everyone else: No evidence to show anyone else knew about the “No campaigning” rule and willfully campaigned for Supa, and some didn’t even know about the campaign in the first place. I think Bsh1 is correct in not banning anyone else.

It's temporary but it's a whole 30 days so still over-severe.

If your are referring to Hammer’s ban, I agree. Two weeks at most, one or two days at the least.

What is this business about Virtuoso?

He violated site rules by going along with and then not reporting an effort to tilt the Hall of Fame Vote in Supa’s favor. Many were not aware of the site rules, but Virtuoso was.

And you believe this offense is serious enough to have him removed from mod?

Yes. I encourage you the read Bsh1’s official statement and The Wylted Report.

I have political reasons that I cannot support the demodding of Virtuoso. It's about an anti-elite elite. Virtuoso is incorruptible. He is one of a kind (other than me) and is truly someone we need in power, even if he did something like this. This is not corruption for him, he was considering overturning to Supadudz anyway; I'm extremely sure of it.

Remember that Virt turned him in to bsh1 and me too after voting it

I am not going to ask Virt to step down. Virt apologized to me for his oversight. We have since discussed the issue and agreed a way forward. Virt is a valuable part of my team and I don’t think it would benefit the site to defrock him over this. And ultimately, that’s what it comes down to: does Virt still have a lot to offer the site as deputy mod. I think he does. We are all human; we all err. I certainly do. My handling of the HOF situation has obviously been less than perfect. But despite whatever mistakes are made, I trust Virt’s commitment to this site and his ability to mod fairly, maturely, and regularly, and so I think he should continue in his post.

He also did not just vote aimlessly too. He did report the violation to me too and did not keep it hidden from the public about it. He also gave reasoning too... it isn't an oversight, but a doing of wylted's convincing. Imo, Virt is not in wrong. You don't have to listen to Wylted, but he changed his vote bc he did have a viable reason to do so

Do you really want to lose Virt as deputy over this? I get where you're coming from, but I still think he's a good guy and a good mod, and it would really be a shame to lose him over one slip-up. I'd rather be removed as mod than see Virt removed. He's much more valuable -- he brings a positive and supportive undercurrent to the primary mod team, he's likable and fair, he puts people at ease, and despite this last small error, I have always found his character to be trustworthy.

I have a few major announcements over impeachments. I didn't want to make any snap judgements or turn this into a witch hunt so that is why I am taking my time with it, but I will issue a press release tomorrow at around noon Eastern time

Perhaps, but that joke threatened to undermine the validity of the HOF results and RM's inclusion in the HOF. In that sense, I also saw it as a personal attack. If it were a joke, then Hammer should have just acknowledged he was joking. Yet, as recently as the 24th, he was continuing to maintain the fiction that he had launched such a campaign. What he is doing is trolling, but that trolling is excessive and extremely inappropriate in this context. I understand that people disagree with the length of ban, but that's ultimately going to be a subjective call by whomever is making it based on how serious they see the offenses as being. That isn't to say that the length of any ban is unimportant (it is important), but just that I think it is less important than whether someone should have been banned in the first place. I think we both agree that Hammer should have been banned.

No one was perma-banned as a result of any of this HOF controversy. I really want to emphasize that. I banned Spacetime for multi-accounting (repeat offense), making personal attacks (repeat offense), and double-voting in the HOF. Wylted was banned by Castin for launching a campaign to get Supa elected to the HOF and to block Ram and Virt from being elected. And Hammer was banned for the reasons I have mentioned here and elsewhere. All of those bans were temporary, and only three people ended up being punished. No one who was only tangentially involved was punished.

Press release was pushed back due to some unforseen developments. Big news coming