IMPORTANT: Harassment Investigation Findings

First and foremost, to the victims of this abuse, I just want to say how sorry I am that you had to go through this. Nobody ever deserves to have to face that, and the overwhelming feelings of loneliness and shame that can accompany are heartbreaking. But I also want you to know that I am incredibly proud of you for stepping forward. That takes bravey.

As a new, female member of this community, I also want to thank the admin team for handling this. This sort of behavior happens far too often, and unfortunately today is chronically mishandled. To see your team act swiftly in defense of the community at large is refreshing.

I am inclined to agree with Jone, having dealt with issues like this both personally and while serving on my University's Judicial Council. But while I am hesitant that a year will be long enough, the manner in which the admin team has handled this situatioj gives me faith in their judgement to do what is right for the region and the community in a year's time, whatever that action may be.


With as much love as I can muster to each and every one of the victims, I say again how proud I am of you.
 
I think it is important to understand the distinction between a year ban, and an indefinite ban with a year's minimum.

A year ban means that a ban is put into place for 365 days, and on day 366 the ban automatically expires. Without intervention, the member will be allowed back into the community.

An indefinite ban is a ban that lasts until it is formally overturned. And instituting a year minimum is saying that a year must go by before the ban is reviewed. After the year, Anumia must request to rejoin the board, and some kind of review process would take place to ensure there would be no repeat of behavior. We have not discussed what such a review process would look like, or what criteria would be necessary for it to be concluded with a ban removal, but I would assure everyone that it would be an extremely high bar — if it could be a bar overcome at all.
 
A year for a decade of harassment of thirty female individuals, which makes up a large population of the active meta ns female population?
A bit of a slap on the wrist in comparison no? There are other known harassers that Euro would surely have issued a permanent ban for in such

In addition to HEM's comments, Ialso want to note a few things. First, thank you for expressing your concerns. I hope we have alleviated them, but please feel free to reach out to me or one of the other admins if you would like to discuss further.

1) The feelings of victims will be of primary concern in any future discussion about lifting the ban. We will not allow Anumia to return unless we are convinced that doing so will not harm the community.

2) Just to clarify, because I've seen this misinterpreted afew times, the reference to thirty people in our announcement is an approximation of the number of people we spoke to, not the number of victims. Several of those people had nothing substantive to report, or repeated information we'd received from other sources.

3) Anumia's position in the region was not a factor in determining the nature of the sanction. Five of us discussed this at great length and reached agreement that it was appropriate in view of the evidence. It wasn't an arbitrary or quickly made decision. For obvious reasons, we're not disclosing details, but we are confident that the sanction is appropriate in view of the evidence as a whole.

4) As the statement notes, this is not a closed investigation. If more evidence comes to light, we can and will adjust the terms appropriately. We felt that after 9 days, it was important to take action now, rather than wait until we'd exhausted every possible line of investigation. That's not to say we are necessarily expecting to find more, I think we got to the heart of matter with what we did uncover, but we are still pursuing a few lines of investigation. If anyone has further information, I encourage you to reach out to one of the admins. We hope that now we have taken action, others will feel able to come forward.
 
One thing to consider, based on the evidence you've received, is if any potential real-life criminal violations occurred. I know that we have some young female forum members under the age of 18 (or at least have in the past). If the investigation uncovered any evidence of criminal activity, the Admin team must report that to some kind of law enforcement agency, both because it is the right thing to do and to protect the forum from a legal standpoint.
 
Deepest House said:
One thing to consider, based on the evidence you've received, is if any potential real-life criminal violations occurred. I know that we have some young female forum members under the age of 18 (or at least have in the past). If the investigation uncovered any evidence of criminal activity, the Admin team must report that to some kind of law enforcement agency, both because it is the right thing to do and to protect the forum from a legal standpoint.
I can assure you (and everyone else) that we are aware of this.
 
I'll make the assumption thirty is a smaller number than those who could have came forward, as you can assume those driven away by this behavior wouldn't or can't come forward. I do in fact understand what a year minimum is, I just think it's light given the criminal behavior described here. If some reports are correct this individual exploited underage individuals as well. If that is true in what sense can a years time change that? I understand this is a difficult matter, and I appreciate that the European old guard has done its best given the situation. But this marks as an example of what to do in the future. If someone is malicious such as this I personally am not convinced there is a point where that behavior could be safely contained. In the beginning of this announcement the admin team spoke about a legal obligation and how the role play government was not sufficient in this decision because you each have the responsibility, both morally and legally to pursue the proper legal channels to report the criminal activity that took place here. I expect the admin team to do that, however painful that may be. And again I reiterate if this was Joe Smoe he wouldn't have this review period in a year, it would be forever no questions asked. Maybe even how it should be in this instance.
 
And again I reiterate if this was Joe Smoe he wouldn't have this review period in a year, it would be forever no questions asked.

Let me be clear: any insinuations that role, or status, or politics, played a part in this investigation's findings and/or punishment are patently false. As for everything else, you are entitled to your opinion, and I look forward to Nationstates as a whole uniting to make this game a fun and safe experience for all players.
 
With all due respect Jone, as someone who was principally involved in all of this and considered Anumia a close friend for many years, there were no punches pulled. A predator is a predator is a predator. I don't care if you're my brother or my best friend; our community's safety is tantamount in this sort of situation.

Your concerns have been heard, however. If you want to talk privately over Discord, you know where to find me.
 
Jone Winter said:
I just think it's light given the criminal behavior described here. If some reports are correct this individual exploited underage individuals as well.
We have no evidence of criminally illegal behavior, which would include the exploitation of minors that you allude to here. If you or anyone else has evidence of that sort, we ask you to please forward it to the admin team. Our pm boxes and discord accounts are available.

We can only act on what we're made aware of. I'm on my phone between shifts today, but I believe our statement explicitly says that if new information is brought to us, we may adjust the punishment accordingly.

If you know something we don't, _tell us_.

Wholly unproductive posts where you accuse the investigation team of playing favorites doesn't do anyone any favors.
 
While I don't think you guys have played favorites with this, it has raised the question to me in terms of what would merit a permanent ban, no questions asked. It is hard for me to imagine more invasive, inappropriate behavior than sexual harassment of our own members. Anecdotally, it seems we have given non-citizens/members permabans for much less (didn't some of the Osiris coup leaders get permabans?)

I also balance this against my general philosophy of giving people a chance to atone for mistakes, earn forgiveness, and move on after appropriate contrition has been demonstrated. That said, I'm also generally a very forgiving person and understand that for some people these kinds of allegations are not forgivable.

I guess that's a long way for me to say that I think a year is a good starting point, and everyone deserves a chance at redemption at some point.
 
Bans relating to the Osiris coup were through the Persona no Grata status, which is governed by the RP government (and is also removable at any time, so it is more like an indefinite ban with no minimum rather than a permaban). That is a totally separate system from an admin ban, which is managed by the admins and we reserve for ToS violations and preemptive protection from likely future ToS violations.
 
Sure, I do understand the difference between gameplay and TOS bans. It really wasn't a good example...but it's all I could come up with on the fly given I'm more of a detached observer than actual player.
 
Mousebumples said:
Jone Winter said:
I just think it's light given the criminal behavior described here. If some reports are correct this individual exploited underage individuals as well.
We have no evidence of criminally illegal behavior, which would include the exploitation of minors that you allude to here. If you or anyone else has evidence of that sort, we ask you to please forward it to the admin team. Our pm boxes and discord accounts are available.

We can only act on what we're made aware of. I'm on my phone between shifts today, but I believe our statement explicitly says that if new information is brought to us, we may adjust the punishment accordingly.

If you know something we don't, _tell us_.

Wholly unproductive posts where you accuse the investigation team of playing favorites doesn't do anyone any favors.
I understand this sentiment Mouse, and like I said I give you guys props for dealing with this situation. It is a sensitive issue but I would hardly say my posts have been wholly unproductive, as I am not challenging the admin team, merely discussing the implications of what you all have decided. I'm presenting questions to be asked, not looking for a fight.
If I find any information I will definitely forward that to the team. Favoritism isn't my point here, i don't think the team would play around with this issue, and as Lethen pointed out he would treat anyone similar. I do hope the victims I've heard about come forward and I feel for the pain you've had to endorse.

~Jone

Also "On December 13, 2016, Attorney General Trinnien announced an open investigation into allegations of harassment. The Administrative Team quickly moved to take over that investigation, due to the nature of harassment as a violation of the forum Terms of Service. With the initial investigation now concluded, and as a result of our findings, we have decided to issue forum member Anumia with an indefinite administrative ban, lasting until at least January 2018, with the possibility of review following that.

It is important, first, to address why it was necessary that this investigation be carried out by the Administrative Team. It is commendable that the Roleplay Government of the region took the initiative to draw attention to these harassment allegations. However, harassment is a violation of the Terms of Service, which the Administrative Team has both a legal obligation and a legal authority to enforce. Addressing issues with serious real world implications should not be subject to the trivialities of our roleplay politics and to the limitations of our roleplay court system. Additionally, an investigation such as this requires handling evidence coming from witnesses and victims who are unwilling to or may be further traumatized by being required to testify in public. Therefore, the investigation is best performed within a forum administrative framework, which provides the most flexibility for observing such privacy considerations."

If this is true the admin team acknowledges harassment is going on, which is prosecutable in many municipalities as a criminal act.
 
The administration team said there is no current evidence anything illegal occurred. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, your posts are indeed wholly unproductive.

As for the OP, wow. I am shocked, and my heart is filled with sympathy for the victims.
 
This is the last we will comment on the matter. Harassment is a potentially confusing term because it covers a wide range of behavior. There's criminal harassment such as stalking, making threats, and various types of physical assault. There is also workplace harassment, which covers a range of behaviors in employment that subject the culprits and their employers to civil liability, but are not criminal. The term also applies to a broader category of behavior that is subject to neither criminal nor civil liability, but that we would consider a violation of our community standards.

Over the course of the last two weeks, we have collected a lot of evidence and reviewed the Criminal laws of multiple potentially pertinent jurisdictions, including Australia (Anumia's location), the US (the zetaboards server location), and the location of several victims and potential victims. Having reviewed the evidence and those laws, we determined that we had nothing that supported criminal sanctions, but that Anumia's behavior was an unacceptable violation of our community standards.

In hindsight, we might not have used the term harassment at all due to the wide range of meanings it conveys. However, that is the term that was used by the initial reporters, and I personally feel it better conveys the seriousness of the situation than "a violation of community standards."

In summary, we take seriously our responsibility to address criminal behavior that relates to this forum. In this case, we spent substantial time considering the evidence and determined it was not even a close call. As we have said already, if anyone has further evidence of criminality, please provide it to an admin and we will act accordingly.
 
Back
Top