The data could be given to a mod for,the prosecution.
This has been attempted before. It doesn't work- even posts about how it doesn't work get deleted (
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/570995-message-considered-toxic?Offset=4). Absent transparency and public awareness, the moderation system faces no incentives to carry out the best interests of the community; rather, it tends to enforce the personal whims of an unaccountable moderator class with personal axes to grind against specific players. Rick got a 3-day suspension (extended to 6 days) for "Nazi symbolism"; he posted a single photo of swastika-shaped Dharmic temple, on a site where "Adolf Hitler" is an explicitly protected username. Prior to that, he got a permanent ban because he was "actually asking" to be banned (because Fizzer had misread "If Fizzer doesn't ban
you"), which would never have been fixed had the details not been made public. Fizzer of course rationalizes these by saying he's got a "long criminal record" (like Boston?) but that's the rub: this criminal record is not auditable
anywhere (due to policies against transparency around "discipline"), not even by Rick, and so the userbase just takes his lies at face value.
Neither of these went through the 2-day slow process JK describes. It's abundantly clear what the moderation system actually does on this site, and it's not actually serving the community or benefiting the player base. I get a DM telling me to "quit Warzone" for supporting cheating (another apparent failure of reading comprehension); meanwhile, actual cheating rarely, if ever, gets actioned against. The priorities are clear, and they're not the priorities of the community. Absent transparency, Fizzer has two easy options: just ignore stuff like this, or come to this thread, respond once with a smattering of lies about what's in the non-public record, and lock it if he feels like it. Or redirect the conversation to unrelated "crimes" (maybe his habitual search for someone saying the n-word will have results this time). Or delete the thread. Absent transparency, he gets away with lie after lie, hiding behind his "authority" and facing no accountability due to a strong benefit of the doubt.
There's a reason the real-world criminal justice system has transparency and audtability- and it's the same reason Warzone doesn't (and actively refuses to introduce these concepts).
Only user-driven transparency can fix what we have. In this case, rather than driving nonolet to suicide (like in Parsifal's very active imagination), it's added to the public record and spurred discussion.
You are a victim of l4av.r0v's manipulation of the situation.
If you're going to preach about not making public accusations of bad behavior, at least stop maligning me with wildly speculative unsubstantiated claims of ill intent.
a formed strong opinion overshadows the facts
This is beyond ironic. We have an absurdly large body of facts and instead you've decided to ignore them and speak out against the messenger due to a strong opinion that I suspect was formed by poorly-substantiated and secondhand conversations about me behind my back (e.g., TSFH Clan Chat).
a part of the European culture and not the American one
There's a reason American society is far more prosperous than European, and it goes directly to our liberal democratic values, including our near-absolute protections for free speech. But your point about laws isn't pertinent: European laws generally create more stringent requirements on those hosting online public spaces, so, between the two, if Fizzer
does shut down public discussion of cheating, it's more likely you'd find a legal basis to challenge it in EU law than in American law (although neither is likely), because American law is very laissez-faire around how companies like Warzone.com, LLC, operate on the market, trusting the competitive free market to solve consumers' problems better than most regulatory approaches.
Neither European nor American laws, however, prevent people from public discussions of wrongdoing. If you're looking for legal frameworks that might agree with your stance on what people can speak publicly about, you should look at India's, where truth is not an absolute defense against claims of defamation (because Indian political philosophy includes protections against social death under its framing of the right to life).
Of course, as you seem to understand, in general the ordering of these places (India, Europe, the US) by quality of life for a reasonably economically productive individual is inversely correlated with the degree to which their legal frameworks align with your personal philosophy. In a way, your attitudes around societal design have been tested repeatedly in the real world and they don't actually work. This is unsurprising, of course, since decentralized and open societies have vast structural advantages, especially in the realm of economic production but also in their ability to provide fairness, justice, and quality of life in the the long term for maximally large populations of humans. In the real world, transparency provides value while appeals to authority lead to failed societies. In the United States, for example, public criticism of government officials, law enforcers, and even judges of the law has led to vast, concrete, long-term improvements in the ability of our society to pursue its ambitious goals; in societies where people respect the absolute "authority" of law enforcement to the point of refraining from criticism or even public discussion of active or resolved cases, you get societies like the former East Germany, where erosion of checks and balances led to an incentive structure which lost track of the responsibilities of government and not only failed its citizens but actually dehumanized them.
If you want to get philosophical about how society should
work and how people should behave in them, there's millennia of discussion and centuries of experimental results you should stop ignoring. The societies that build themselves around your view of the world tend to fail. Even here, we see your proposed approach fail miserably and the one you criticize far outperform it. The theoretical risks you conjure don't occur: nonolet is just fine and free to insult others like me (you don't seem to have any concern about who takes responsibility for yours and nonolet's random accusations). The actual harms you ignore have: a quarter of the raffles in the month of September had a participant who'd nearly doubled his odds (on average, 1.73x).
nonolet gets zero consequences for cheating, and you're concerned about whether those who brought this matter to light are going to be held responsible. You'd fit right in, in an Indian panchayat.
Ceterum censeo: Anti-Fizzer is pro-Warlight. Pro-Warlight is anti-Fizzer.
Edited 10/14/2021 19:58:30
