Hub rules document is outdated?

[0x6273]

Hub rules scope

I think this part is misleading, since some servers have been banned from auth as well after being dehubbed. The most recent example being two EE servers:

Unwritten rule

As I understand it, a server called Arcadis was dehubbed due to harassment that was conducted not by Arcadis' staff, but by other people in the EE fork's discord server where an Arcadis staff members also happened to be present. They were rehubbed a few days later, after leaving said server.

I may be misunderstanding what happened with Arcadis, and if so, I apologize. The dehub anouncement isn't very clear so I'm basing this mostly from a google doc from Arcadis.

From my reading of the hub rules, there doesn't seem to be a rule that this would fall under. If being in the same discord server as harassers, without taking part in any of it, can be grounds for a dehub, I think that the rules should clearly state so.

[PJB3005]

From my reading of the hub rules, there doesn't seem to be a rule that this would fall under. If being in the same discord server as harassers, without taking part in any of it, can be grounds for a dehub, I think that the rules should clearly state so.

Knowingly interacting with a community of harassers is a form of harassment in and of itself.

[0x6273]

From my reading of the hub rules, there doesn't seem to be a rule that this would fall under. If being in the same discord server as harassers, without taking part in any of it, can be grounds for a dehub, I think that the rules should clearly state so.

Knowingly interacting with a community of harassers is a form of harassment in and of itself.

This is the definition that you yourself linked in a post on the forum: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/harassment

If you have a different definition, I think it would be a good idea to spell it out clearly in the rules document.

[metalgearsloth]

without taking part in any of it

Wasn't the arcadis rep the one that prepared the document from EE's side? Seems like arcadis being on the council was pretty cut and dry.

[PJB3005]

This is the definition that you yourself linked in a post on the forum: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/harassment

If you have a different definition, I think it would be a good idea to spell it out clearly in the rules document.

These are not different definitions, my blog post is merely elaborating to explain how harassment spreads in the wider SS14 community, and why we need to take action against communities like EE.

I suppose cross-referencing it wouldn't hurt, but I also do not believe it to be strictly necessary.

[0x6273]

These are not different definitions, my blog post is merely elaborating to explain how harassment spreads in the wider SS14 community, and why we need to take action against communities like EE.

To me they seem like different definitions. The one on vocabulary.com doesn't seem like it would include "knowingly interacting with a community of harassers."

I suppose cross-referencing it wouldn't hurt, but I also do not believe it to be strictly necessary.

I think it would be a good change, even if it seems obvious to you.

[0x6273]

Wasn't the arcadis rep the one that prepared the document from EE's side?

I'm basing my information on this document titled "Arcadis Station's response to being dehubbed."

I think the document you're refering to is a different one?

Seems like arcadis being on the council was pretty cut and dry.

The doc shows a screenshot of an Arcadis staff having joined the EE server, but never participating. They also denied Arcadis being part of the council. From the document:

2 - We're not part of EE's so-called 'harassment council.' Everyone working on Arcadis Station genuinely opposes harassment.

(Sorry if this has been debunked somewhere. Also, this issue is more about making the hub rules more clear.)

[a-person5660]

considering Arcadis was rehubbed after the one admin that was in EE left the EE discord i think these concerns should be addressed legitimately.