Guilty Until Proven Innocent on deviantART
The feeling around deviantART these days is rather ominous. Certain actions by average deviants have taken place and been met with an odd array of administrative action while similar action by the staff is summarily ignored.
Take, for example, my friend deviot. He wrote a journal entry, which still stands though faintly modified, and was banned because of it.
Why was he banned? Because he quoted what an administrator said in his very own comment.
Deviant: $Josh (#170506120)
Date: Sep 13, 2005, 1:01:11 PMLike my lust for hot boys. I understand. :nod:
You’re gay for deviantART!
All deviot did was quote a portion of that comment in an attempt to question an administrator’s actions. Not to point out anything regarding sexual orientation, or possible pedophilia (as he was accused of by the administration), but to simply state that maybe this particular administrator was allowing his feelings to get in the way of good judgment.
Surprised by the ban, deviot submitted an inquiry to the Help Desk. He received a response from realitysquared. This is an excerpt from a lengthy conversation that took place in a Help Desk thread between the two.
… I’d like to speak to you about your most recent
journal entryYou need to remove the line “$josh, i think maybe your “LUST FOR HOT BOYS” is getting in the way of good logic… ”
It’s considered a violation of the etiquette policy and if it’s still there after your current ban you will be at a very real risk of being banned immediately again until you do remove it. I sincerely hope you’ll be cooperative on this.
–
Daniel (realitysquared)
Director of Policy Enforcement,
Community Development Division,
deviantART Inc.Deviant: !deviot (#173357831)
Date: Sep 23, 2005, 12:26:34 AMYes, I see the kid is banned and I mentioned that in my note to your Help Desk assuming and hoping it would factor in your decision to weigh heavier on him than me… but, whatever. Regardless, thanks for lightening up and thanks for shortening the ban.
As for my ‘attitude’ lately - I think you can agree that my attitude has been ‘in check’ (with the exception of this incident). I’m capable of worse commentary, - I think we all are - but I refrain so that I can continue here on the website (in the community) without being ‘indefinitely’ banned. You should also keep in mind that the ‘undesirable track’ and ‘very poor history’ you refer to is directly
related to a close friend (we both know) of mine and his untimely dismissal from something he deeply cherished and was very very proud of. My record until this has been quite spotless and upstanding. Take a look for yourself - I haven’t been the most active deviant, but I have been here awhile and I have maintained a positive presence until of late.In response to your request of me to edit my journal - let me ask you a question, would you consider it an etiquette violation if I took out the “FOR HOT BOYS” portion of the line you want entirely deleted? In other words, if I refer to someone’s lust blinding them to good logic… well, does that fail to fall within your parameters called an etiquette policy? It is not someone’s sexuality I’ve made mention of, but is an emotion. People make mention of each other and their motions all the time on deviantart. Personally, I truly don’t feel it fails and I bet you don’t either, but as staff, I suspect you’re trying to push past a level of tolerance and acceptance to make a point. Remember, that somewhat infringes on my freedom as a member here and you can’t tell me there’s not worse going on in other areas of the website that could be made an example of…
To wrap this up a bit -
You’ve been around awhile, I’m aware of that fact. I see that you are very well spoken (in your writing from what I can tell) and that leads me to believe that you’re also well thought out. I think you know who I am and what the motivation is behind my negativity. That said, I sincerely implore of you not to begin censoring things like what you see in my current journal. I do think it would set a bad precedent for the site.
…
Regards,
Rich C. (deviot)
–
Deviant: $realitysquared (#173383454)
Date: Sep 23, 2005, 2:12:27 AMI would prefer to see the entire “Lust For Hot Boys” commentary be
removed- to even leave the “Lust” in the sentence could be viewed as a
clandestine jab at $joshIt is overall a better situation to leave it out entirely- you can
still clearly make your point without attempting to twist a joking
statement into a personal jab and at it’s most basic level that’s what
it is.I deal with journals every week in which the writer has very
specifically attacked, insulted, demeaned, or accused another user by
name. In order to keep the peace we issue a standard ban until the
journal is removed or editted appropriately.The last thing I want to do is force people to change or remove their
journals but some things cross the line and a standard of behavior
needs to be kept.–
Daniel (realitysquared)
Director of Policy Enforcement,
Community Development Division,
deviantART Inc.Deviant: !deviot (#173536466)
Date: Sep 23, 2005, 11:39:58 AMThing is here, I haven’t ‘attacked, insulted, demeaned, or accused
anyone.’ It wasn’t my intent. My intent was to use his own jest in an
example of his common tendency to just fly off the handle with his
comments. He’s a very emotionally charged guy - I’m sure you know
that.My determination was/is in trying to dismiss, what I think, is his
flawed logic in most of his comments. So, by using his own words, I
flipped the emotional aspect of lust - to try and dismiss his
journaling and his commentary tactics where he often attempts to
dismiss others. Me including the ‘hot boys’ portion was just an
attention getter - not an attack. The fact that he is a
self-proclaimed gay is NOT in my agenda[period]DeviantART is and has been a very practical community and most
certainly not a utopia. People around here (including a lot of staff)
twist and turn things to suit what fits them best at the time of their
commentary. I’m following that suit.So, imho, you would have to ban a whole lot of people on deviantART to
make your ban on me a consistent one. No?BTW, I do appreciate the dialog we have going here. It serves to
clarify things and I’m a staunch supporter of clarification. Thank
you.Regards,
Rich C. (deviot)
–
Deviant: $realitysquared (#173615869)
Date: Sep 23, 2005, 8:03:58 PM
Regardless of the way you might have intended it the line needs to go.–
Daniel (realitysquared)
Director of Policy Enforcement,
Community Development Division,
deviantART Inc.
An administrator of deviantART has interpreted a quoted commented to mean something entirely different than it was intended and based on that decided to indefinitely ban a member of the site.
Banned because of a hunch.
Let us not kid ourselves. We know the real reason behind the ban. It was the fact that my friend has been rather outspoken about this issues surrounding my involuntary termination. Not that the administration would ever admit to that though.
It appears that clandestine attacks by members of the site against the administration are disallowed. All the while, the administration is allowed to openly attack its very own members.
Take, for instance, this journal by josh. It is a blatant, not clandestine, attack against me yet josh was not banned.
He faced no administrative action whatsoever. In fact, nothing was done about that journal entry at all. Not a soul on staff spoke to him about that until I mentioned it to lolly. Fact is that his journal, which is nothing but a full-frontal assault on another deviant, is allowed to remain while another journal can not contain a quote from an administrator.
Why the double-standard? Does this even make any sense whatsoever?
It does not end there. A member of the site, in a response to a comment made by bookdiva, told her that she should slash her own wrists. When she queried the administration about that comment being a violation they summarily dismissed it. No action was taken; the deviant was allowed to continue his interactivity without any warnings whatsoever.
deviot, the ever strong fighter, determined not to let this end, continued his conversation with realitysquared in the Help Desk thread.
Deviant: $realitysquared (#174108496)
Date: Sep 25, 2005, 9:43:47 AMI’ll just end this conversation by reminding you that you can end your
ban immediately by simply eliminating the line in question.If your intention truely is to simply point out your belief that $josh
is ‘an emotionally charged guy’ who ‘flys off the handle with his
comments’ then simply take out the disputed line and replace it with
those far clearer quotes- there will be no chance of confusing them as
an insult.Once you’ve done that your current ban will come to an end.
Daniel (realitysquared)
Director of Policy Enforcement,
Community Development Division,
deviantART Inc.Deviant: !deviot (#174260162)
Date: Sep 25, 2005, 11:30:24 PMYou’re telling me that I can’t quote someone, but I *can* use my own
words to twist someone’s commentary? I truly don’t understand. You
accuse me of something ‘clandestine’ that doesn’t even vaguely exist
and deem it a policy violation. In the same breath you then tell me
that ‘an emotionally charged guy’ who ‘flys off the handle with his
comments’ is an ‘allowable expression which avoids taking it to a
personal level with insults.’ Do these words sound familiar? I’m
having a difficult time following your logic Daniel.I implore you to reconsider. Please, keep things fair.
Does this make sense to anyone? It did not end there. There was more.
Deviant: $realitysquared (#174417172)
Date: Sep 26, 2005, 10:02:57 AMIt is not about an isolated quote- it is about how the quote is being used.
The fact that you are fighting so hard to keep that particular quote
leads me to believe that you are using it exactly as I thought you
were using it.I can see that this conversation has pretty much run it’s course. If
you decide to cooperate please let me know at that time so you can be
unbanned.–
Daniel (realitysquared)
Director of Policy Enforcement,
Community Development Division,
deviantART Inc.Deviant: !deviot (#174462340)
Date: Sep 26, 2005, 1:05:46 PMDaniel, you owe me an explanation of what it means when you say,
“leads me to believe that you are using it exactly as I thought you
were using it.” What are you implying?This boils down to *your* interpretation of josh’s comment to mean
pedophilia and homosexuality. Not mine. Don’t confuse the two and
don’t make accusations like this against me. This is unfair and untrue
In fact, this is turning more into an attack against me.Again, I implore you to make the right choice. Allow the quote and
remove the ban.
No matter what good logic, or reasoning, is passed along to realitysquared, he always says that the journal entry must be edited. That his hunch is stronger than reality. Ironic, no?
The odd thing about this entire case is that there has, or maybe had, been a longstanding internal policy that journals are off-limits with regards to moderation. The administration took many steps to allow deviants to express themselves in their journals without fear of reprisal.
It would seem that we have seen the end of that era.
I queried realitysquared via email about this whole debacle and received the following response:
I would hope very much that you would realize the difference between offering a personal interpretation of a situation and someone else who takes a ill-advised but playful comment and uses it in such a manner to suggest pedophilia with a homosexual twist.
There is nothing wrong with Josh’s journal just as there will be nothing wrong with deviot’s journal once the phrase in question is removed.
You and I have seen a large enough share of people trying to jab, insult and provoke other users in a manner to avoid punishment to know deviot’s comment for what it is- or have you forgotten the case involving starlitsuicide already?
The requirement I gave him still stands-
He readily admits to the double-standard. Furthermore, it is disconcerting of him to mention starlitsuicide as that whole issue was completely different. Her actions were, without a doubt, shameful and attacking. Daniel conveniently decides to compare the two situations as if they are remotely similar when they could not be farther apart.
So here we are. deviot remains banned. Many people on the site are confused about the double-standards; why is it okay for the administration to violate policy without repercussions similar to that of the average deviant?
Something has to change otherwise deviantART will continue down the slippery slope that it has been riding for the past few months …
An administrator of deviantART has interpreted a quoted commented to mean something entirely different than it was intended and based on that decided to indefinitely ban a member of the site.
Banned because of a hunch.
-
Sounds familiar…. hmmm… oh yeah that’s right, the ban you placed upon me based on something I never said, rather a hunch that another administrator ‘claimed’.
On the otherside, I guess I was wrong about the bias that was on the site belonging to yourself, and only yourself. Looks like you’ve had some followers.
Also on the otherside, now you’re seeing we us ‘banned’ members, and members who have left dA in disguist have watched in the past years.
This has been going on for as long as dA admins have been allowed to ban Deviants. It’s just more in your face now, and lacks that cloak of invisibility now that higher profile Deviants are being treated this way. To this day, I don’t agree with a lot of the decissions made from a policy violation and policy standpoint by admins of dA.
I don’t know how one can claim to be fair when Administrators and ordinary Deviants clearly have a different “line in the sand” so to speak when it comes to inappropriate behavior. I’ve spoken out on this numerous times in the forums, and guess what, it got little response from anyone in a position to address the issue officially. On the same token, a post about PuzzlePirates gets 30 replies that day from a single admin who could address the issue of Staff Accountability and fairness/common sense in handling policy violations.
:shrug:
o.O thats… really killing my faith that dA can servive
The entire deviot situation is very saddening and upsetting to me, as the accusations regarding statements (he did not even say), have been blown out of proportion.
There is a double standard on deviantart, one that I dislike. Some staff members are openly and blatantly negative, defaming, insulting, discriminating against people in comments, insulting others for speaking bad English, when English is not their native language (deviantart is a diverse and worldwide community), and insulting others with reading and writing disabilites. These staff members have also implied that the character of certain deviants is less than desirable. Who are they to make such statements!! They really need to be more discerning in what they say.
This does not apply to all staff, as there are some wonderful staff members, who never hesitate to act in an appropriate and professional manner.
This is a company, and an internet community, where all comments are visible to the public-at-large. The staff members really need to be aware of what they say, how they say it, and how it could be received. The negativity could end up coming back to haunt those unprofessionable and discriminating staff members, and, also come back to haunt deviantart, as a business entitiy. Customer service should be a top priority, not customer disservice.
I often feel as if I am in a grade school classroom, with the dynamics and antics that those unprofessional staff members exhibit.
Scott,
As the former front-man for Customize.org, I’d like to take a minute here to point out how ridiculous this whole situation is. You’re absolutely right about the slippery slope; it sounds like Angelo and his gang have got the witch hunt going in full force.
I’m sorry to see it all go down like this; in many ways the site is a victim of its own success. There’s no choice but to put “corporate” money behind something so large, but involving that money undeniably leads to the downfall of the community spirit and leads to people like $spyed in “power.”
For me, this blatant witch hunt is the last straw. I hope that others come here and read this so they realize.
Brian
*nods* CLEARLY a double-standard.
Deviot was banned for speaking out against your involuntary dismissal.He was banned for having a *voice* that didn’t parrot the current administrations agenda to keep the collateral damage to a minimum concerning the dA community’s outrage in the face of your dismissal.
The fact that is was wrong makes no difference 5o the administration; the *message* inherit in that banning has been sent. FEAR.
…Sometimes they don’t even need that…I wasn’t banned because of a *hunch*; I was banned for “full frontal nudity” in my avatar that neither existed before nor *AFTER*, I complied with the administrations trumped up sideways logic.
I had my avatar *OVER* censored so as not to give them *any* possible leverage to ban me.
I’ve ben an outspoken advocate concerning the injustice of your involuntary dismissal as well.
I knew they had gone gunning for me.
& they *still* banned me…For the dutifully censored avatar in question.
Problem is~ I made *so sure* that my avatar was in complete compliance with even the sketchiest interpretation of policy; when brought to their attention it became obvious they *didn’t even bother to LOOK at it* before they banned me.
dA is terrifically hostile place right now.
In many respects & in my opinion the on-line equivalent of a Police State.
Your leadership is greatly, greatly missed $Jark.
As I read this post and all attendant links, I am becoming more and more saddend. I myself haven’t been banned, but I still see the rampant unproffessionalism among the admins at dA. The staff need to start acting like rational people. The double standard must be eliminated, or it will just lead to the self destruction of dA.
That’s definitely too bad. I hate to see DA do that….
I think I agree with Vince - this isn’t new. It’s just really, really obvious this time. heh.
It’s hypocrisy like this that made a lot of us think twice about deviantART, and ultimately has been a reason a lot have left. I mean - it’s not like even being on staff could always have an effect on things like this - so if even someone up top can’t do anything to change the way things work, then what’s the point of even being a deviant?
It’s just nuts.
it’s all ego.
been like that the last 2.5 years ive been around there.
Deviantart has always been strong and will remain strong, I have faith. By the way, I love the new layout Scott!
This is akin to the “employment at will” doctrine in the business world. They own the site and they can ban for any reason or no reason at all. Like it or leave it.
Interesting that the starrlitsuicide situation gets mentioned. That situation, like that of calmius, demonstrated a gaping loophole in policy that was never closed. I even doubt it was recognized because similar situations continue to occur - some even perpetrated by members of Daniel’s staff.
The loophole is this - it is easy to cause trouble on DA without violating policy. You can be disagreable, argumentative, unpleasant, and cause fights and turmoil on a daily basis. You can bait people into fighting with you, report them to the helpdesk, and get them banned. As long as you don’t specifically name anyone, or say anthing pointedly rude, ie., don’t technically violate policy, Daniel won’t act on it. He did nothing about starrlitsuicide/waffleslayer other than say, “The situation is being monitored.” Those two got at least a dozen people banned while he “monitored” the situation. I imagined him with a bucket of popcorn in his lap, munching and taking in the show. How long did it take you to act on that situation? Ten minutes? There’s the difference between effectiveness and impotence.
sonofblackcompactedplantmatter: that is actually a very valid point.
Please pardon my ignorance, but what was/is the starlitsuicide incident?
Jark, r2 has always been like this—even under your reign did these types of conversations take place on the regular. dA is pretty much dead to me–i stay with a toehold just for the sake of friends too stubborn to leave. Something else should come along and reinforce the meaning of a GREAT digital art site, not bearing the name deviantart. Scary that “deviant” in this case has come through in every sense of the word, channeled through all that possess power on that site.
Josh is simply an idiot. He has no sense of humility and I find it hard to believe how an idiot like him got to be part of the devart team.
While I do agree with Vince and Phae that stuff like this has been going on for years, I think this situation makes it especially important to realize how inept the deviantART administration is to effecting actual change. Since Angelo has been calling the shots almost nothing of urgency has been addressed, be it the submission agreement, real wants and desires of the community, the worries of many that the site is too corporate (telling us to “trust him” is not good enough, let alone reasonable or logical). Administrators now in power are some of the biggest examples of cronyism that I’ve seen since I registered. As far as I can tell, people like $spot have titles, but little else. Why was $Josh put on staff and them promoted to a core administrator when he essential performs secretarial work with a fancy title?
More and more it’s become clear that deviantART under Angelo Sotira means “Sit down, shut up and enjoy the art, or else.” Community has died, for whatever it was worth. What exists now is a perversion of the community that your vision brought to life in the years after the founding, and I would be hard pressed to believe deviantART can survive, staying true to its mission statement, for more than a year or two before either becoming even more of a shell of what it once was or being sold off for profit like the many other endevours in Angelo’s proud and unhumble past.
While there are still some who believe in deviantART, like Richard, who was given your position, I fear that Angelo’s habit for lacking compassion, humanity or good sense will one day come to Rich’s doorstep as well.
I would love nothing more than to see 85-90% of the deviantART staff and administration removed not only from deviantART, but from the internet as a whole. So much disgustingly vile stuff has come out of their mouths in response to the community’s reaction to your removal. deviantART was never a democracy, but it didn’t used to be a croynistic, dictatorial regime either.
I continue to lay my hope in you winning, not just settling, in your lawsuit against deviantART, Inc.
*Applause* to Tom Shakely/Yokum for his articulation.
~~Lorri
i do find this appaulling and i find the admin rarely of anyuse, they have deleted several peices of my artwork, which everyone agrees was unjustified, when there is much worse stuff on they site but upon quering why all i gget is a link to the faq and no assitance what so ever, i doub they even read what i said. my faith in that place has really gone down hill lately, it is not the place it once was and it makes me sick to think that i pay for the privalige o fbeing there just to make my life easier when i check it.. im paying to have my work deemed unnecessary now, doesnt that seem wrong ?
please excuse my spelling,
it appears since i joined up deviant art is rapidly losing its heart and soul , and is becomeing morelike goeroe orwells 1984 novel. which is probably a harsh comparison,
but it seems that artists good enough to be noticed art good enough to be shot down for petty reasons, when people with much worse work go undetected under the radar,
maybe the place has vendetas agaisnt the members taht make them who they are who can say ?
It’s ironic to me that when I was following some of the links in that story I found myself confronted with adverts for a porn site (suicidegirls). OK, you can argue that it’s art, but it’s a fine line.
Paedophilia and homosexuality, even from the misinterpretation of a comment, isn’t allowed, but encouraging site users to view porn sites is fine. Aha.
============================
I miss the old dA.
I agree with Owain Hunt.
Pisses me off that now you can’t view artisitic nudes on dA unless you’re 18, but they can advertise that disgusting excuse for art.
I got so attached to dA and it has just started going mega downhill. Makes me sad.
I was very upset by Josh’s comments. I wrote a paragraph or two, and then stopped myself.
[previous entry included such words as lap dog, sycophant, and stabbed-in-the-face]
this saddens me greatly :(
DeviantART has gone down the toilet since you left. Everything is out of whack and there is all sort of crazy nonsense as advertisment banners, one which is almost always there as Owain Hunt has said, SuicideGirls. It is a VERY fine line between art and porn. If it were up to me, this would definately not be aired on DeviantART.
What also pains me is that it seems a greater part of the community has no clue what’s going on. All of my friends say that I should post my art, yet whenever I say “Not until Jark gets his job back.” They continue on saying that you should just go re-apply. I told them that it was not as simple as that, and went into a very lengthy discussion on how it wasn’t your fault.
They keep posting their art, and I can’t blame them, because it’s amazing. But we (You Jark, and the rest of your supporters) need to come up with a better way to make this known to the public.
There was once a time where your name was everywhere. Everybody had favorites supporting you and now life on DeviantART has continued on as nothing has happened, as if you were never a part of that. I for one, miss you, and as I stated before, DeviantART has gone down the toilet. I’m sure it misses you too.
I’d feel more sympathetic and not think your were a hypocrite if you didn’t abuse your own authority in the same manner while you were at deviantArt. You banned me for poking fun at the Cyberathlete Professional League and it’s not even a person, it’s a ridiculous organization. People here in these comments are throwing fits about SuicideGirls – I’ve witnessed administrators actively participate in forcing nude photographers of the site and allowing the most horrendous abuse to said photographers by other deviants. And at the same time defend and protect Nazi’s under the umbrella of “free speech.†DeviantArt’s double standards have been in effect for a long time.
If dA is so bad, why not remake it. I mean, you made the site in the first place. If ya can make it once, you can make it again
I got banned for having a similar name as someone on my watch list that got banned. We both had Twilight in our name. Now there is a story. They can put a ban on an IP but could not trace one. It’s so fucking ridiculous!
kill all the da staff then we wont have any problems anymore ^^