I raised a concern about a planned halaqah on spirituality in Islam. I stated that spirituality framed as something outside the deen is haram and that Islam is already the deeper meaning. A normal discussion turned into mutes and bans without clear reasons. This post summarizes what the rules require, what actually happened, how MSA and Ahmad are breaking policy and acting unjustly, and what I am asking for.
What Carleton policy requires
Carleton guarantees students freedom of discussion and expression so long as we respect the dignity and rights of others. Students may think and speak and write and study and associate together for these purposes as part of academic freedom within the Human Rights Code framework.
Carleton also guarantees a right to fair process. I have the right to know the case against me and to be promptly informed in writing of the allegation and to see and respond to the evidence and to have an impartial process. Procedural fairness means notice of allegations and procedures and an opportunity to be heard and reasons for any decision and a right to appeal.
What actually happened
Ahmad said he could check the log and send screenshots and proofs. I asked for all logs and reasons with dates and times for any mute or ban. He then said that at the beginning I was having an argument with Zuhair and that they timed out both of us if he was not mistaken.
The records show inconsistent moderation. There was a ten minute timeout removed and switched to a seven day mute. There was another seven day mute. Then a ban was applied while I was already muted and could not speak. If I was silenced I could not have said anything new to justify a ban.
The pattern has been act first and figure out the details later. That is not acceptable for moderation in a university connected space.
The same conversation includes hostile lines directed at me such as bro be quiet and just stop man and guys how long before this guy gets banned. That violates the server standards about respectful dialogue and avoiding division.
Equal treatment and inclusion
If a no arguing rule is applied it must be applied to all participants in the same discussion. The uploads show I was sanctioned more severely while others remained active.
There is also an inclusion issue. The Discord was split strictly by boys and girls channels. As a non binary Muslim student that structure is exclusionary unless there is a clear accommodation. Carleton policy ties freedom of discussion to mutual respect for the dignity and rights of others. Channel design must account for all students including non binary students.
How MSA and Ahmad are breaking policy and acting unjustly
- Freedom of discussion was violated. I stated a position about the halaqah content and they muted and banned me. Carleton policy protects my right to think and speak and discuss as long as I respect the dignity and rights of others. That freedom applies to university spaces and to online spaces tied to the university.
- Right to fair process was violated. The policy says I must be told in writing what the allegation is and given the reasons and a chance to respond and to see the evidence. I asked for reasons many times and Ahmad dodged and said that is not the point. He listed letters and numbers with no proof and even said I blamed myself so he needs no proof. That is the opposite of fair notice and reasons.
- The moderation was inconsistent and targeted. The logs show a ten minute timeout removed and then changed to a seven day mute. They also banned me about forty minutes after a timeout while I was already muted and unable to speak. That is random and it proves targeting because you cannot say I said anything during a mute.
- Their own conduct rules about respect were broken by them. The chat shows comments toward me like argue with the wall and bro be quiet and just stop man and you are about to get blocked lil bro and how long before this guy gets banned and you should not speak with no knowledge. That is backhanded and hostile and it violates the rule about respectful dialogue and avoiding division and maintaining good manners.
- The no arguing rule was enforced one way. If they claim I broke a no arguing rule then the same rule must apply to the other side that argued and insulted. The other party was not treated the same way. That is uneven enforcement and unjust.
- Carleton policy puts the burden on the university side to establish a violation on a balance of probabilities and it requires procedures and reasons. Saying rules broken A1 and A2 without screenshots of the conduct and without linking each action to a rule is not enough. The policy spells out responsibilities and a clear process and an appeal path. They did not follow that spirit at all.
- The server is tied to the university community so the Student Rights and Responsibilities policy applies to online spaces with a clear university nexus. Moderation must align with university standards not personal feelings.
- Gender channel separation with no visible accommodation for a non binary Muslim student creates a human rights problem in a university connected space. If you structure the space by a binary you must show how non binary students are included or accommodated. Otherwise you create exclusion.
- Deletion and selective presentation are not acceptable. The record shows messages were deleted and the moderator could not recall key details and promised to check later while still acting first. That is not transparent. I repeatedly asked for logs and timestamps.
- The proper way forward is simple. Provide the full log of every action against my accounts with dates and reasons and durations. Provide the same for the other participant. Link each action to a specific written rule. Acknowledge the difference between what the rules say and what actually happened. The policy gives me the right to a fair process and to appeal when sanctions are unfair.
What I am asking for
- Provide the complete log of every action taken against my accounts including dates and reasons and durations and provide the same for the other participant in the conversation.
- Link each moderation action to a specific written rule and supply the evidence that supports it. Fair process requires notice and evidence and reasons and an impartial path to review.
- Explain the inconsistent escalation from short timeout to seven day mute to ban while I was muted. Either reverse the sanctions or show the rule basis and evidence for each step.
- Commit to equal enforcement for all participants in a dispute and address the hostile remarks directed at me that violated respectful conduct.
- Publish an inclusion plan for non binary students in channel structure and programming so that dignity and access are respected for everyone under Carleton standards.
Attached evidence
The thread links referenced contain the moderation timeline and my requests for logs and reasons and screenshots of mutes and bans. They show a ban applied while I was muted and the seven day mutes.
Halaqah Debate: egologos.com/q/8
Recent Interactions: egologos.com/q/5
I am open to a respectful and transparent resolution. Until there is a proper record with reasons and equal application of the rules I will continue to assert my rights and keep Student Affairs informed.