hi ves, i have one question about the ambi doc. "recent events have lead the writers of the doc to believe that providing proper public access is necessary" is it public what "recent events" this is referring to? i'm probably out of the loop because i'm not regularly on social media aside from twitch chat :(
hi! the recent event is public, it's talking about this tweet where a streamer put out a "crossban list" to "make communities safer". i asked a writer of the doc to say it themself so here it is:
this tweet in particular is what motivated the public release of the doc. as mentioned in Ves' post, sometimes well-intentioned attempts to protect the community can cause unintentional harm. this is a major focus of the Ambi doc, as 'protecting the community' was a justification Ambi used frequently to harass and attack people he felt had personally wronged him. while attempts to protect the community do not always cause harm, the method of openly naming and shaming people that have done wrong has been proven—extensively, within the doc—to be ultimately harmful to the people it tries to "protect". the doc describes more mindful, less-reactive methods of preventing harm and protecting the community from people like Ambi, which is why we felt it was necessary to release it publicly now, in the face of a potential repeat of the situation.
i've seen questions wondering how the release of this doc connects to the linked crossban tweet.
we acknowledge that the document never says outright that "ban lists are bad", nor does it say "here is the perfect solution to community issues". we are not an authority; we are simply the people documenting what has happened, and providing the information necessary to hopefully discourage this from happening again. however, the connection is made specifically in the conclusion of the doc, in two places:
1) "While individuals blocking Charlie or banning him from their chats is an effective method of preventing immediate harm, the long-term effectiveness is not guaranteed….And as the community continues to grow, we cannot expect every single person to know about this and block/ban him."
this is the flaw in creating "ban lists" for communities. ban lists are not an effective means of protecting communities, because any individual(s) who create the ban list put forward the narrative that whomever is on it "deserves" to be banned, without question or appeal. they hold the power in this scenario, multiplied by magnitudes if they are well-known. this ties into the 2nd point.
2) "It is important to point out how Charlie used the trust and power he had gained to manipulate and 'poison the well' of communication, so to speak. He abused the genuine desire of others to prevent harm, to cause harm."
the doc is evidence of the harm charlie caused, yes. it's also proof that the harm he caused has resulted in long-lasting negative effects throughout the community. if someone who is well-respected and known in the community creates a banlist, how do we know that they are not utilizing their position of power to try and remove people from the community, as charlie did?
this is NOT to say that the person who made the linked crossban list is like charlie. this is not to say that a ban list cannot have people who legitimately need to be removed from a community on it, either. like mentioned in the post + document, it's entirely possible for anyone to make a well-intentioned attempt to protect the community, but inadvertently cause harm.
in multiple places throughout the doc, it's shown how people who did mean well were manipulated by charlie into causing harm - and it's shown exactly how he did that, to provide a frame of reference for others to recognize if someone might be trying to do the same to them.
so, the purpose is twofold: to provide evidence of charlie's behavior and actions, and to bring those actions to light so that future incidents can be recognized and stopped before reaching the point of legitimate harm.
what's described in the doc is an encouragement towards open communication, in order to deter people like charlie from isolating individual members of the community. people like charlie thrive when keeping their victims silenced, afraid of speaking up for fear of repercussions and their experiences not being taken seriously.
there is no better method for continued, ongoing positive growth in a community than healthy communication between "regular" members and those that run it. by nature, this also encourages the people running the community to remain accountable for each other, lessening the chance of someone like charlie taking hold of a position of authority.
this is not to say that banning people is wrong. obviously, charlie was banned for a reason. it's to say that banning is only half of the solution, and ban lists are NOT the other half. they are not an effective method of creating trust between a community and its moderation team(s).
at best, they are a temporary band-aid that will only encourage people like charlie to further isolate and manipulate their victims. at worst, they cause innocent people to be harassed for things that the creator(s) of a banlist find personally offensive or annoying. oftentimes, it's a blend of both. ban lists ultimately have no long-term gain, and cause far too much short-term harm.
