Guidelines: Clarification Regarding the Block System & Protocol

[luffy]

Please note that this thread pertains only to the forum, and that the main site is not affected by this.

There has been some confusion about our block system's functionality, our protocol when it comes to handling these issues, and how the rules are laid out for the forum. This thread's purpose is to clarify these points and establish a public guideline for the purposes of transparency and understanding.

Before I distinguish the difference in the forum and main site block systems, I want to remind everyone that there is no tolerance for those who are blocked contacting those who are blocking them and vice versa. A block is a definitive way to establish that you want no contact, and either party breaching this will be acted upon.

"Block evasion", as we call it, is encompassed into Code of Conduct, Section 2.4 - Do not harass anyone.

In this context, harassment includes creating an account with an offensive name, impersonation of another user, and remarks which discuss personal grievances, quarrels, malicious rumors, or negative statements about other individuals. This does not include civil discussions about topics of public interest such as celebrities or government officials, but does include 'bewares' and similar content.

Any attempt to address a user who has blocked you or whom you have blocked is considered a form of deliberate harassment. This also includes soliciting other users to pass on messages or otherwise make contact on your behalf.

If a particular type of content does not appeal to you, then do not seek it out to make disparaging comments. Users with a pattern of this behavior may be cited for harassment.

When you block a user on the forum, neither they or you are able to view the other's content. We are aware of some loopholes but will not be publishing them here so that they are not abused. Unfortunately, these loopholes are not something that we have any control over as the block system that XenForo (our forum software) uses was not made with our specific needs in mind.

There has been some (understandable) upset that users are able to access threads created by people who have them blocked. Here is the protocol that we are going to enforce from now on:

If a user is caught accessing a thread created by someone that is blocking them or that they have blocked, they will face necessary action and be locked from the thread. This also goes for any personal contact made, mirroring the main site's protocol.

The only exception here is on topics of general interest. Due to the forum's nature of communication, it's not fair to bar certain individuals from topics, seeing that we only typically allow one to focus on major events. For example, if user A created a topic about a world event, and they have user B blocked, user B would miss out on that participation. In these situations, we will not punish user B for participation in the thread unless they make any attempt to respond to the person that has them/they have blocked. This includes implications, allusions, or otherwise hinting at the user as well.

Personal topics will, of course, be treated with zero tolerance as journals are on the main site.

TL;DR - The block system will be enforced as usual unless it is in a topic of general interest, such as one discussing a world event, as long as the blocked user does not attempt to contact or reply to the person blocking them, vice versa.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this protocol. You may PM a staff member or reply here.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

[Fallowfox]

I'd like to point out that the way the current block function works can change the meaning of posts which include quotations.

For example, this post by LeChatNécro includes an invisible quote.
If I didn't know that of course, I might think that she was being very nasty to me because we have different views on the Grinch!

 

[Yakamaru]

How will one separate a thread meant for general interests and a personal one, out of curiosity?

If lets say, a new thread is up and OP have been blocked or done the blocking, and a person that have been blocked or done the blocking posts first in the new thread, is it considered a breach of the CoC? Are there any exceptions to this?

 

[TrishaCat]

Why?
If you've blocked a user, you can't see their posts, right? So why does it matter if a user replies to a thread a user who blocked them created? They're (generally) not going to see the blocked user's posts.
The way the forums are its not like these threads are hidden. The only way to know you're blocked by the OP is to click on a thread and the first post reads like a non-sequitor (which sometimes its still hard to tell you're blocked and there's an OP above).

 

[Toby_Morpheus]

Yeah, I'm not sure what the purpose of blocking an offending user from a thread.
I always thought alts were in a sort of gray area because having an alt means you bypass other user blocklists, right?
If you don't make it obvious, then you're always going to have access to content blocked from you.

Shouldn't block evasion come with a stiffer penalty than locking them out of a thread? It's legitimately playing the system against itself.

 

[Attaman]

@luffy Something I've noticed: If a user has you blocked, you become incapable of Reporting their posts directly. Instead you are forced to interact with the Report feature via proxy, such as either Reporting posts that have quoted the dubious content or the thread wherein the post has been shared. This... could cause some complications.

Especially since, specifically in this case, this is a one-way issue: When you're blocking somebody, you can freely report them by simply un-blocking them temporarily, hitting that Report button, then slapping the block back down and going on your merry way. However, if it's the other person who has you blocked, it is currently impossible to report said content without using aforementioned methods (report other posts in the thread and try to point Moderation their way), and that can cause... issues.

Other forums using Xenforo have got around this by making blocked users a sort of opt-in thing, wherein if you have somebody on Block there is a little button on the bottom right of a thread (slash subforum) saying something along the lines of "Show Invisible Content". This makes it so that upon casual perusal you still don't see the content of the person you've blocked, but if you need to interact in some fashion (report a post, for example, or as Fallow mentioned there's an odd invisible quote-chain) you can temporarily display as much before just hitting refresh and wiping the page blank again.

 

[Attaman]

Sorry to double post,

Yeah, I'm not sure what the purpose of blocking an offending user from a thread.
I always thought alts were in a sort of gray area because having an alt means you bypass other user blocklists, right?
If you don't make it obvious, then you're always going to have access to content blocked from you.

Shouldn't block evasion come with a stiffer penalty than locking them out of a thread? It's legitimately playing the system against itself.

The reason blocking threads is iffy compared to direct attempts to contact or refer is because... well, let's make a sort of hypothetical scenario.

Let's say you have Person A and Person B. Person A believes that apples are great. The best of fruit: 10/10, would recommend them to everyone who can eat them. They also think Bananas are just filthy and degenerate, 0/10, super-sad and you're a joke if you eat them. Person B is the direct opposite: They think Apples are worse than mud and people who eat them should be ashamed of themselves. Likewise that Bananas are God's, god's, or the gods' gifts to mortals.

Person A could block Person B, then make a thread about how bananas give you cancer and apples make you shit gold. Person B, meanwhile - as a result of being blocked by Person A - is incapable of pointing out that neither of these are true, because to post in Person A's thread would count as evading a Block and therefore be punishable by Moderator action. Sounds a bit daft to worry about, right?

Now consider the things up for debate aren't favorite fruit, but things like "Fandom Drama", or "Politics", or a major global event (such as a declaration of war).

This is one reason why there's some... complications, in the matter. To stick to the first of those examples, imagine some sort of scandal wherein an Artist on the mainsite is accused of stealing people's money. Now assume they join the forum, block all the profiles they can find of users who they are accused of having stolen the money from, then make a thread going "This is totally not true and slander". Not only are the people accusing them prohibited from jumping in the thread going "Counter-argument" and presenting their own side of the argument, but if they make an alt to get around that they're then hit by a different rule. Likewise if they make their own thread, it's very liable that one of the two threads would get rolled up into the other, or that for civility's sake both are locked (at which point now people need to look into both - inactive - threads to try and compare / contrast arguments).

 

[Toby_Morpheus]

Sorry to double post,

The reason blocking threads is iffy compared to direct attempts to contact or refer is because... well, let's make a sort of hypothetical scenario.

Let's say you have Person A and Person B. Person A believes that apples are great. The best of fruit: 10/10, would recommend them to everyone who can eat them. They also think Bananas are just filthy and degenerate, 0/10, super-sad and you're a joke if you eat them. Person B is the direct opposite: They think Apples are worse than mud and people who eat them should be ashamed of themselves. Likewise that Bananas are God's, god's, or the gods' gifts to mortals.

Person A could block Person B, then make a thread about how bananas give you cancer and apples make you shit gold. Person B, meanwhile - as a result of being blocked by Person A - is incapable of pointing out that neither of these are true, because to post in Person A's thread would count as evading a Block and therefore be punishable by Moderator action. Sounds a bit daft to worry about, right?

Now consider the things up for debate aren't favorite fruit, but things like "Fandom Drama", or "Politics", or a major global event (such as a declaration of war).

This is one reason why there's some... complications, in the matter. To stick to the first of those examples, imagine some sort of scandal wherein an Artist on the mainsite is accused of stealing people's money. Now assume they join the forum, block all the profiles they can find of users who they are accused of having stolen the money from, then make a thread going "This is totally not true and slander". Not only are the people accusing them prohibited from jumping in the thread going "Counter-argument" and presenting their own side of the argument, but if they make an alt to get around that they're then hit by a different rule. Likewise if they make their own thread, it's very liable that one of the two threads would get rolled up into the other, or that for civility's sake both are locked (at which point now people need to look into both - inactive - threads to try and compare / contrast arguments).

Making threads airing out personal grievances with another user is also against the rules iirc.

 

[Attaman]

Making threads airing out personal grievances with another user is also against the rules iirc.

One can skirt around this, however, by not specifically dropping names. For example, returning to the Artist Scandal, they might defend themselves merely by sharing excuses, or claims that they've worked through their queue, or so-on.

Alternatively, if you want a particularly strong case of a disaster waiting to happen, imagine the mainsite has an update on what is or isn't acceptable content again. We had one last year that took months to simmer down, and - off the top of my head - I can also think of at least one more major instance which lead to a FA:IB schism. Now, further imagine if one of the two "major" sides in either of those arguments was allowed to post the thread (in a sort of "First past the post" system wherein whoever posted the thread first would be the OP of its megathread) and block people who they knew would disagree with them. You could have either supporters or critics of the subject prevented from... well, discussing the project, giving an impression that there was nigh-unanimous support one way or the other and preventing any real discourse versus a sort of "Three pages of users patting their backs".

 

[Toby_Morpheus]

One can skirt around this, however, by not specifically dropping names. For example, returning to the Artist Scandal, they might defend themselves merely by sharing excuses, or claims that they've worked through their queue, or so-on.

Alternatively, if you want a particularly strong case of a disaster waiting to happen, imagine the mainsite has an update on what is or isn't acceptable content again. We had one last year that took months to simmer down, and - off the top of my head - I can also think of at least one more major instance which lead to a FA:IB schism. Now, further imagine if one of the two "major" sides in either of those arguments was allowed to post the thread (in a sort of "First past the post" system wherein whoever posted the thread first would be the OP of its megathread) and block people who they knew would disagree with them. You could have either supporters or critics of the subject prevented from... well, discussing the project, giving an impression that there was nigh-unanimous support one way or the other and preventing any real discourse versus a sort of "Three pages of users patting their backs".

I see your point.
I wasn't here for that forum event, though.

What's the best course of action in your opinion?

 

[CrookedCroc]

If a user is caught accessing a thread created by someone that is blocking them or that they have blocked, they will face necessary action and be locked from the thread. This also goes for any personal contact made, mirroring the main site's protocol.

So wait, do I get punished for replying to a thread created by someone that blocked me or does it happen if I use a proxy account to post in that thread?

And if the former is true how am I supposed to know if I should or shouldn't post? I can't see the OP after all.

 

[Toby_Morpheus]

So wait, do I get punished for replying to a thread created by someone that blocked me or does it happen if I use a proxy account to post in that thread?

And if the former is true how am I supposed to know if I should or shouldn't post? I can't see the OP after all.

I assume the moderation team has a way of seeing alt accounts, possibly by keeping track of IP addresses.

 

[Attaman]

I see your point.
I wasn't here for that forum event, though.

What's the best course of action in your opinion?

Generally? Something along the line of what was mentioned by Luffy, specifically the General Interest exception.

It helps that you can open a Conversation with Moderators at roughly any given time, and simply... ask, if there's any dubiousness as to whether the subject counts as General Interest or not. "Hello Luffy, SSJ3, company, would this thread be considered a general enough subject to post within, or would you prefer I refrain from interaction?" The response might not be immediate, and obviously one shouldn't abuse any such system, but it does at least cover one's bases (as well as make them aware of your involvement so that if you do go in the thread clearly looking to stir up drama, they can go "Yeah, no" more readily). Again, I'd suggest against abusing this sort of system, but generally so long as you show good faith I can't imagine the moderation would be upset if you... approach them asking if something you're about to do might go against the Code of Conduct and save them from future headache.

So wait, do I get punished for replying to a thread created by someone that blocked me or does it happen if I use a proxy account to post in that thread?

And if the former is true how am I supposed to know if I should or shouldn't post? I can't see the OP after all.

Proxy accounts are technically taboo in general, IIRC, but I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is "Yes". Or, at least, was before this clarification. Now there's at least some room for exceptions.

 

[Toby_Morpheus]

Generally? Something along the line of what was mentioned by Luffy, specifically the General Interest exception.

It helps that you can open a Conversation with Moderators at roughly any given time, and simply... ask, if there's any dubiousness as to whether the subject counts as General Interest or not. "Hello Luffy, SSJ3, company, would this thread be considered a general enough subject to post within, or would you prefer I refrain from interaction?" The response might not be immediate, and obviously one shouldn't abuse any such system, but it does at least cover one's bases (as well as make them aware of your involvement so that if you do go in the thread clearly looking to stir up drama, they can go "Yeah, no" more readily). Again, I'd suggest against abusing this sort of system, but generally so long as you show good faith I can't imagine the moderation would be upset if you... approach them asking if something you're about to do might go against the Code of Conduct and save them from future headache.

Hmm... thorny.
Well, at least I'm curious to see how the admin team responds to our queries.

 

[Fallowfox]

So wait, do I get punished for replying to a thread created by someone that blocked me or does it happen if I use a proxy account to post in that thread?

And if the former is true how am I supposed to know if I should or shouldn't post? I can't see the OP after all.

You can technically see who created the thread; it's in faint grey text that appears above the first post that you are able to see in a thread.

So if you went to my 'furthest north' thread, and I had blocked you for some reason (maybe I don't like Crocodiles) you'd be able to tell.

Of course, you'd have to check the first post of the thread each time you post in order to be sure, since the thread's creator might block you at any point in time.

 

[CrookedCroc]

You can technically see who created the thread; it's in faint grey text that appears above the first post that you are able to see in a thread.

So if you went to my 'furthest north' thread, and I had blocked you for some reason (maybe I don't like Crocodiles) you'd be able to tell.

Of course, you'd have to check the first post of the thread each time you post in order to be sure, since the thread's creator might block you at any point in time.

Oh I see now, thanks for the explanation

 

[luffy]

I'll preface my replies by saying that obviously this is not the ideal situation, but it's the one we found most fair when trying to work around the limitations here.

How will one separate a thread meant for general interests and a personal one, out of curiosity?

If lets say, a new thread is up and OP have been blocked or done the blocking, and a person that have been blocked or done the blocking posts first in the new thread, is it considered a breach of the CoC? Are there any exceptions to this?

Any thread that is not obviously a thread of "general interest", or contains enough of a personal context in the OP to be argued as a personal thread, is one that we would take action on. Obviously, the blocked person wouldn't be able to see the OP (unless they used a loophole), but it's on them in the first place if they slip up. Play sneaky games, win sneaky prizes! We're not going to minimod it to a point where we're looking at who posts first; however, if a blocked/blocker posts first, then it's likely gonna be enough in itself to remove it anyway, since it'll then be a direct reply to the OP. I can't see a situation right now where this wouldn't be a COC violation, but I don't want to say "always" in case we do find something down the road.

Why?
If you've blocked a user, you can't see their posts, right? So why does it matter if a user replies to a thread a user who blocked them created? They're (generally) not going to see the blocked user's posts.
The way the forums are its not like these threads are hidden. The only way to know you're blocked by the OP is to click on a thread and the first post reads like a non-sequitor (which sometimes its still hard to tell you're blocked and there's an OP above).

Think of topics as journals. If there is a personal topic created on the forum, where the main focus is the individual who posted it, then replies will most likely always be pertinent to that person. That would mean that if a blocked user replies to it, they're directly evading the block by communicating with OP, who has blocked them. These threads are hidden from basic means of retrieval unless you use a loophole.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the purpose of blocking an offending user from a thread.
I always thought alts were in a sort of gray area because having an alt means you bypass other user blocklists, right?
If you don't make it obvious, then you're always going to have access to content blocked from you.

Shouldn't block evasion come with a stiffer penalty than locking them out of a thread? It's legitimately playing the system against itself.

They are in a grey area, but the individual should know as much. They will be handled case by case. The only thing that we guarantee will happen is that we lock them out of the thread, but there is a very high chance it will result in a 2.4 violation, as most block evasion violations do. There are certain scenarios when we can't simply say, "Ah yeah, ding 'em with a 2.4," such as when we can't verify when a user was blocked (main site example). There are always stipulations.

@luffy Something I've noticed: If a user has you blocked, you become incapable of Reporting their posts directly. Instead you are forced to interact with the Report feature via proxy, such as either Reporting posts that have quoted the dubious content or the thread wherein the post has been shared. This... could cause some complications.

Especially since, specifically in this case, this is a one-way issue: When you're blocking somebody, you can freely report them by simply un-blocking them temporarily, hitting that Report button, then slapping the block back down and going on your merry way. However, if it's the other person who has you blocked, it is currently impossible to report said content without using aforementioned methods (report other posts in the thread and try to point Moderation their way), and that can cause... issues.

Other forums using Xenforo have got around this by making blocked users a sort of opt-in thing, wherein if you have somebody on Block there is a little button on the bottom right of a thread (slash subforum) saying something along the lines of "Show Invisible Content". This makes it so that upon casual perusal you still don't see the content of the person you've blocked, but if you need to interact in some fashion (report a post, for example, or as Fallow mentioned there's an odd invisible quote-chain) you can temporarily display as much before just hitting refresh and wiping the page blank again.

If you need to report a user that you have blocked, then you can PM a staff member. We're aware of some mods for the block system, but IMVU pays for them and we're not sure if they'd want to. They're typically annual licenses as well. If you can give me an example of this I would appreciate it.

One can skirt around this, however, by not specifically dropping names. For example, returning to the Artist Scandal, they might defend themselves merely by sharing excuses, or claims that they've worked through their queue, or so-on.

This is true, but there's more than just name dropping that makes it actionable. It's any identifying factor.

So wait, do I get punished for replying to a thread created by someone that blocked me or does it happen if I use a proxy account to post in that thread?

And if the former is true how am I supposed to know if I should or shouldn't post? I can't see the OP after all.

Both. If you can't see OP you shouldn't post if there's not enough further context in replies to indicate whether the thread is personal or general.

It helps that you can open a Conversation with Moderators at roughly any given time, and simply... ask, if there's any dubiousness as to whether the subject counts as General Interest or not. "Hello Luffy, SSJ3, company, would this thread be considered a general enough subject to post within, or would you prefer I refrain from interaction?"

I'm okay with receiving messages like this, but in general (not to be harsh) if you can't pick out the context yourself, you probably shouldn't post.

Like I said... This protocol isn't ideal, but it's the most fair middle-ground we could think of.

 

[TrishaCat]

These threads are hidden from basic means of retrieval unless you use a loophole.

This is not really true
I mean it KINDA is, but the "loophole" is super visible, enough to where its extremely easy to utilize it without the intention of utilizing it.
I say this from first-hand experience. The only reason I knew I was blocked by an OP is because the first post in the thread didn't make any sense to me in relation to the topic title and I realized that I was in fact missing something. I otherwise ran into the thread through normal forum use, as certain parts of the forum don't hide things even if you ARE blocked by the creator. Should I PM you what I mean exactly so that way how isn't out in the open?

Think of topics as journals. If there is a personal topic created on the forum, where the main focus is the individual who posted it, then replies will most likely always be pertinent to that person. That would mean that if a blocked user replies to it, they're directly evading the block by communicating with OP, who has blocked them.

But fair enough on the personal thread thing. If someone's making a thread about something personal, then yeah its definitely not something a blocked user has any business interacting with.
Its just, there are threads in between this area. Like instead of being a personal thread, or instead of being a thread on some major current event, what if someone just makes some silly question thread or something? Or tries to discuss some particular TV show or something?

 

[luffy]

No, I understand what you mean by your first quote reply.

what if someone just makes some silly question thread or something? Or tries to discuss some particular TV show or something?

Sorry for the confusion. It's going to be slightly thread by thread and case by case, but if it's a general topic where there doesn't need to be more than one, it's okay to post. We're not gonna have two threads for CatDog, for example, and we aren't going to exclude game topics.

 

[Toby_Morpheus]

No, I understand what you mean by your first quote reply.


Sorry for the confusion. It's going to be slightly thread by thread and case by case, but if it's a general topic where there doesn't need to be more than one, it's okay to post. We're not gonna have two threads for CatDog, for example, and we aren't going to exclude game topics.

What if one thread is specifically for Cat and the other Dog? ;D
jk
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions

 

[quoting_mungo]

In the context of this post and what has been mentioned about reporting users whose posts are hidden behind a block, I'd like to lift this suggestion thread again: forums.furaffinity.net: Forum - Moderation appeals (as well as expanding the suggested usage somewhat.)

I know I feel seriously uncomfortable PMing staff about site matters, given that it's against rules on mainsite, and it would also allow first available staff member to respond without someone having to PM all the staff members.

 

[Nonamenoname]

Please note that this thread pertains only to the forum, and that the main site is not affected by this.

There has been some confusion about our block system's functionality, our protocol when it comes to handling these issues, and how the rules are laid out for the forum. This thread's purpose is to clarify these points and establish a public guideline for the purposes of transparency and understanding.

Before I distinguish the difference in the forum and main site block systems, I want to remind everyone that there is no tolerance for those who are blocked contacting those who are blocking them and vice versa. A block is a definitive way to establish that you want no contact, and either party breaching this will be acted upon.

"Block evasion", as we call it, is encompassed into Code of Conduct, Section 2.4 - Do not harass anyone.


When you block a user on the forum, neither they or you are able to view the other's content. We are aware of some loopholes but will not be publishing them here so that they are not abused. Unfortunately, these loopholes are not something that we have any control over as the block system that XenForo (our forum software) uses was not made with our specific needs in mind.

There has been some (understandable) upset that users are able to access threads created by people who have them blocked. Here is the protocol that we are going to enforce from now on:

If a user is caught accessing a thread created by someone that is blocking them or that they have blocked, they will face necessary action and be locked from the thread. This also goes for any personal contact made, mirroring the main site's protocol.

The only exception here is on topics of general interest. Due to the forum's nature of communication, it's not fair to bar certain individuals from topics, seeing that we only typically allow one to focus on major events. For example, if user A created a topic about a world event, and they have user B blocked, user B would miss out on that participation. In these situations, we will not punish user B for participation in the thread unless they make any attempt to respond to the person that has them/they have blocked. This includes implications, allusions, or otherwise hinting at the user as well.

Personal topics will, of course, be treated with zero tolerance as journals are on the main site.

TL;DR - The block system will be enforced as usual unless it is in a topic of general interest, such as one discussing a world event, as long as the blocked user does not attempt to contact or reply to the person blocking them, vice versa.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this protocol. You may PM a staff member or reply here.

Thank you for your understanding.

This is dumb. Because it means that if someone blocks you, then you can't see if the person that blocked you insults you in public. In my case, someone blocked me and insulted me in two successive posts, and up to this moment, that person has not received a punishment of any kind because I cannot report a post from someone who has blocked me.

Way to protect trolls! If no action is taken towards that person then I will understand that anyone is free to block people and then post insults towards the blocked person since the blocked person is forbidden from seeing what the blocker posted!

 

[luffy]

This is dumb. Because it means that if someone blocks you, then you can't see if the person that blocked you insults you in public. In my case, someone blocked me and insulted me in two successive posts, and up to this moment, that person has not received a punishment of any kind because I cannot report a post from someone who has blocked me.

Way to protect trolls! If no action is taken towards that person then I will understand that anyone is free to block people and then post insults towards the blocked person since the blocked person is forbidden from seeing what the blocker posted!

We did take action on your report, as you know from the resolution message. If you have another report to make, follow the instructions in this thread, please. We'll happily take care of it.

 

[Fallowfox]

I had a thought and just tested it.

I discovered you can't add somebody who's blocking you to your own block list.

Given the creation of new sections which can only be read by logged-in users, this asymmetry could be exploited to allow people to sneakily read the posts of users they block, by temporarily unblocking them while they snoop.

 

[Connor J. Coyote]

I had a thought and just tested it.

I discovered you can't add somebody who's blocking you to your own block list.

Given the creation of new sections which can only be read by logged-in users, this asymmetry could be exploited to allow people to sneakily read the posts of users they block, by temporarily unblocking them while they snoop.

@Fallowfox Eh... so what... that's been an issue on here, since day 1... anyone can remove a block temporarily, if they choose.... and re-add it on later.... Frankly, I think the flexibility of that feature is needed sometimes... as I may need to temporarily "unblock" someone to report their postings, (for example).

And in any case - one can simply log off, and still read the public postings of someone, anyway... so, pfft... it doesn't really matter, (to remove someone's block temporarily)....right? I dunno, correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Because if one engages in harassment (by unblocking someone temporarily) then... the person being bothered can just block and report them, right?

I mean, I don't see a conspiracy here.