Not directed to an abuser case in particular, but just a general topic.
In answer to:
I think that when you see an abusive activity, it’s not someone else to fix that when the abuser is in the team. If he doesn’t fix, he doesn’t care. If he doesn’t care, then he shouldn’t volunteer on this drama.
If no one stops that, then he knows he’s free to do it again.
Hearing some volunteers on these discussions made me realize that it each time, it is the same specific reasons that are invoked and difficult to prove (hacker, family or friends or rarer viki quality inspection), but what surprises me is there's some info that is provided by another part that is not the abuser, nor the victim.
Will we believe or not the information that is provided without further arguments?
If it’s nssa or CM or moderator, will you believe it?
Before, I would have said without blinking “Yes,” because I trusted an institution like nssa or some moderators or some CMs.
But now, after taking a step back on these years on Viki, I have to say that I have changed my mind.
It wasn’t direct, but it was little by little that I less and less believe blindly what people told me on the web or from volunteers on Viki, no matter what they did on Viki or who they are or their positions or how they say it.
Because of a lot of events and meeting a lot of different people on Viki.
And we can say everything we want.
I don’t know how to explain this feeling, I don’t know if the appropriate term for it is “covering”, “complicity” or “hindering” or simply an instinct to protect someone that they don’t really know and without digging more in the reasons provided and also giving the same reasons as the owner of the account.
I don’t know how to call it, but there is something that I have not understood.
I have reported a few times in the past to nssa.
I don’t remember every report or every answer, but there is this one where I had this answer before hearing the explanation from the owner’s account who did abusive contributions: “If she doesn’t write back (as she has been inactive for a long time), I think you should let Viki staff know that her account may have been hacked or invaded by an intruder.”
In this case, when you see abusive activity on an account who is CM or moderator, the reasons are already provided even before contacting the owner’s account by nssa: may be a hack or intruder on the account and give this reason to a Viki staff directly.
The last case, the reason was similar.
It’s my feeling, like reasons already prepared in advance to make us turn directly in this direction, without looking in other directions or dig more in the direction that is provided.
It’s like a volunteer with a certain profile is unable to do an abusive activity. It can’t be. But why?
We don’t know them personally and we’re different people in real life or the net.
And some similar things about the CM/moderators account I’ve seen this abusive activity is:
- it’s “inactive account” or volunteers who are not active anymore
- the reasons provided are always hard to prove and the same
- the owner of the account always recovers her account and manages to give the same answer nssa would give me.
If the hacker knows your password, the probability of recovering a hacked account is normally really low in real life.
And the profit from hacking a volunteer on Viki instead of a non-volunteer is… The profile of a volunteer is not really what a hacker would want.
Earning a Viki pass whose value is at max $120 with these abusive contributions, whereas he could be spotted by Viki/the victim? There are illegal websites everywhere, the hacker could know other ways to have these videos HD, full subbed…
If he’s a hacker, it would be best to hack first an account to have payment info and with the hacked money buy a vikipass for himself easily for these $120 without needing to contribute? He has to search for a show where he can make this abusive contributions and waste time to do these abusive contributions?
But he will lose the payment info (an account that may have more than $120) to have a Viki pass worth of $120?
Do you believe an intruder (i.e. friend, family) would take your account and would be interested in Viki segmenting? When he doesn't even know what it is, what the counter is and the benefit from doing so? I'm not sure if he even knows the Viki pass thing and the connexion with segments and possibly do > 500 abusive contributions (why more than 500? I would get bored before reaching 500 from doing something I don't even understand I'm doing).
angel: It’s the only thing that makes sense here: GREED.
Just until what extent they have to go to get what they want?
It’s not normal that for a Viki pass they’re ready to stomp and destroy another contributor’s labor.
I think it’s really dehumanizing some volunteers.
That’s why I think to avoid that (because it happens again), there should be severe sanctions. Not something light.
Like when you drive, you will avoid doing some things, because you know that you will pay a lot.
So I think, here, to avoid this, they should make a sanction that would invite volunteers (old or new, active or no), to either pay for a Viki pass (the Viki pass standard is cheap), either to contribute (real contributions) and not make abusive contributions.
In that way, they won’t even have the idea of making abusive contributions, they would keep their account away from anyone, they won’t share it to anyone and they would scan their computer.