User blog comment:Keplers/I'm so Sick of This I'll Make a Blog/@comment-4845243-20130802135255

One final response. Then I'm going to crack down on the continuing violations of my request.

Obi's Official Response

 * 1) Propaganda

Keplers has repeatedly misrepresented the facts to arouse sympathy. Factual errors or misleading statements below:


 * Misleading Statement: "Meiko was Unbanned"

Keplers has repeatedly claimed that User:ToaMeiko was unbanned. While it is true that he was unbanned, it is also true that he was rebanned almost instantly. This fact is conveniently left out of Keplers' defenses when he demands equal treatment.


 * Factual Error: Keplers was banned for the same reason as Meiko

Original ban only was for largely similar reasons. Additional bans/blocks were for different reasons, although related.


 * Factual error: Saying the words "d**n and he**" violate no rules.

Repeating cuss words without censoring even for purposes such as those claimed by Keplers has never been acceptable. Saying them, for whatever reason, has the same general effect — the community has to read those two words in chat. We have never allowed discussions of cuss words without censoring them, and aren't going to start now. Clearly, Keplers was trolling. Attempts to mitigate this will not be taken well
 * Factual error: Meiko has received less punishment than Keplers.

As a matter of fact, the reverse is true. Keplers puts far too much emphasis on the fact that Meiko happened to have been unbanned. However, unbanning and rebanning is not what Keplers seems to desire. The fact is, Meiko has had more of a punishment. He has had several, very long blocks go on his record. This has had long-reaching ramifications that I cannot discuss for privacy reasons. He is also currently blocked for eternity. Yes, it was a request. But it is ironic that while Meiko willingly elected to have an infinite block, Keplers continues to debate over a three month chat ban.


 * Misleading implication: The two were banned only for their respective use of the two words aforementioned.

Although not explicitly stated, the amount of emphasis Keplers places on the two words suggests that that is the sole reason they were banned. They were both banned for trolling, in the original ban, and not necessarily for those two words.


 * Propaganda recap:

In conclusion, Keplers has used propaganda techniques to paint the picture that he was simply a little accomplice to Meiko, who was nastier and fouler than he. Then Keplers claims to have had a worse punishment than Meiko and claims that his ban should be reduced to be "equal". He fails to recognize that there are many errors and misleading statements in his posts.


 * 1) Syllogism

The following is an analysis of Kepler's arguments in syllogistic form:


 * Main argument:

1. Someone who is punished for the same or lesser offense as another should have an equal or lesser punishment.

2. Keplers was punished for the same or lesser offense as Meiko.

3. Therefore, Keplers should have an equal or lesser punishment.

Premise 2 has already been shown as false. Kepler's ban took more than the original offense into account. Premise 1 is, actually, also false. Enter the 3-strike concept. Repeated offenders receive more severe punishment than first time offenders. If the two premises are false, then the conclusion is a non-sequiter.


 * Sub-argument:

1. It is unfair to punish someone more than someone else if they have done less injustice.

2. Keplers was punished more than Meiko.

3. Therefore, it was unfair.

Keplers seems to be appealing to a standard of justice throughout this blog. However, he has never once elucidated just what this standard of justice is. That aside, Keplers was not punished more than Meiko, so the conclusion is a non-sequiter. Keplers fails to factor in the actual ramifications as opposed to simple quantity of time.

Well, I would include more, but I'm running short on time.


 * 1) Continued aggravation

Keplers has continuously violated administrative requests after his ban. Mainly, he is ignoring a requirement for this blog to stay up. He has also levied mild implicit insults at the administrators, and has attempted to sway the majority by propaganda to support his unban by misleading and misrepresenting. He has not shown himself to be ready to be unbanned. Due to his failure to comply with requests, this blog will be closed for commenting on Saturday. Until then is given for any responses, although I will not be online again until Saturday.