Hi @Samakeen !
Thank you for taking the time to explain how automation and review function within your moderation process. I appreciate the transparency and understand the limitations of automated systems when it comes to assessing context and intent.
That said, I want to clearly state the concern that prompted me to escalate this. My chat was between myself and my husband. This was my first offense after approximately six months of consistent, positive participation on the server. There was no public disruption, no harassment, and no victim. I am a Black woman, and this occurred in a one-on-one, private interaction. I understand the automated ban being triggered by the system; the issue arose once human review occurred.
After appealing, I received a standardized response that did not meaningfully account for context, intent, or player history. Even after human review confirmed there was no harm and no harassment, the full 72-hour ban still remained, and I was given a “second chance” stemming from a situation that caused no harm to any player. At that point, the outcome no longer appears tied to player safety or harm prevention, but rather to preserving consistency within the system itself.
While automation may be neutral in design, its effects are not always neutral in practice. Players of color are more likely to be flagged by word-based systems for reclaimed or culturally contextual language used privately, and even when bans are reviewed or lifted, the residual punishment and record can still create alienation and loss of trust.
This concern is reinforced by a prior appeal from October 30, 2025 involving another Black player, Thorkell. That case was handled by the same reviewer using nearly identical language, framing, and resources. It similarly involved intra-community language used among friends in a non-public context and resulted in a temporary ban labeled as a “second chance.” This suggests my experience is not isolated, but rather a repeatable outcome of how the policy is currently applied.
I want to be clear that I am not alleging bad faith or malicious intent by staff or leadership. My intent in sharing this is to highlight how consistency without proportionality can unintentionally undermine the welcoming environment the server aims to maintain. Even when rules are applied equally, their impact is not always equitable.
This is not about the length of the ban itself, and I am not seeking reinstatement. It is about ensuring leadership is aware of how the system currently teaches players that context, history, and relationship may not meaningfully matter, even when no harm occurs, and how that lesson disproportionately affects players of color who otherwise engage positively and in good faith.
I genuinely valued this community and considered it one of my best Rust experiences. I was an active, engaged player who chose to support the server because I believed in the environment being built here. Walking away is hard for me, but given how this policy has been applied, I no longer feel comfortable, welcomed, or supported continuing in a space where cultural context is not considered, even in private or team interactions.
I share this feedback in the spirit of education and improvement, with the hope that it helps reduce unintended harm and future player attrition. My intent in raising this is also to help ensure the community remains welcoming and equitable for players of color from all backgrounds moving forward, so that others do not experience the same sense of alienation or loss of trust I have felt as a result of context-free enforcement that fails to distinguish intent, relationship, and impact.
Thank you again for your time and for listening. I’ll legit miss you guys.
Best,
CupcakKe
