Thread:TheShadowAssassin/@comment-26067066-20161030005240/@comment-26067066-20161030183639

k I’m just gonna write an essay here.

The accusations of me being biased on a personal level, or that I’m promoting some form of feminist double-standard are invalid for a multifold of reasons. I have heard these claims repeated on multiple other occasions, all by the same people, and find them to be a desperate attempt to cover up loopholes in arguments more than something based in fact.

The “intent vs. cause” statement earlier is indeed a part of LMBW policy, but not one that isn’t subject to the common sense policy, as are all rules. This is not to say that admins can pardon specific acts of aggression based on favoritism under the guise of common sense, but that it is not necessarily set in stone, primarily for mildly confusing circumstances such as this. Frankly, the two situations being evaluated here are remarkably incongruent, in fact you could almost argue that the issue over Bubbles’ intended professionalism is inapplicable.

Firstly, here was the issue with your situation (@TSA). The interpretation of your remarks as attacking and sexist was primarily based on the fact that you went out of your way to post them on her wall even after they were removed from the original thread. This implies that you were actually knowledgeable of your remarks being against the rules, as they were removed by a Discussions Moderator, and yet despite this made an effort to reiterate them on her message wall. If not for that incident, which made evident a disregard for this wiki’s policy, we likely would not be having this conversation. If you merely reposted them because you found their removal unfair, then the best way to deal with that would be by contacting another staff member, not through this seemingly aggressive attack on her message wall.

Now, on to the issue with Bubbles’ misconstrued remarks. Before I begin, I’d like to emphasize that this is in reference to this, this and this, not the derogatory comments towards Ben and NG, which I agree were out of line. Frankly, to the average person, her handling of these threads should appear completely professional, and I am unbeknownst as to how one is able to feel “offended” by these. This is where the common sense policy applies. I believe that those viewing these as snarky and condescending are, intentionally or unintentionally, over-analyzing the comments in an attempt to undermine her authority (one may view this as paranoid, but some of the people who considered these “self-righteous” have previously brought up completely insignificant occurrences and labeled them as unprofessional behavior, so I find it difficult to trust that this is not the product of some personal grudge, at least on the behalf of some of you). I do not like jumping to conclusions, so I will inquire with more neutral sources to ensure that this is not the result of me being a blind fool who is unable to see condescending behavior. If, it turns out, those whose opinions are sure to be unbiased interpret her comments on threads as “self-righteous,” I will heed your recommendations and personally apologize. However, I doubt that this will be the case, and inquiry will likely only prove my point that you are trying to see things that aren’t there, which is where UCS applies and nullifies the “intent vs. result” clause.

Here is a metaphor for why this clause should be subject to common sense. Let’s say, for example, a user is offended by Sky Pirate’s avatar because his father died while eating a banana. Although the clause alone would compel the admin team to give Sky a ban warning, the Common Sense Policy would nullify it in this case, as this situation is too absurd to take any action over.

As for my evident “bias,” this is an accusation that I originally did not feel the need to entertain, but it continues to grow weary on me. I have, in detail, described to you my thoughts on the discrepancies of the “intent vs. result” clause, and how the two situations should be handled differently. I will not deny that I am closer to Bubbles than I am with the majority of users on this wiki, but frankly nothing I have done actually indicates that there is any logical basis for me being “biased.” I will completely agree that she has made significant mistakes both before and to a lesser extent after obtaining rights, but I do not consider this to be one of them in the slightest. The reason I find myself defending Bubbles so often is not because I will blindly laud her actions in any given scenario, but because her reputation is constantly unfairly undermined by certain specific users (some of whom seem to possess some grudge against her) over comparatively trivial matters that have been continually brought up to me, and in the vast majority of which she has done nothing wrong.

The accusation of me being too weak-minded to make decisions without her manipulating me is not only mildly insulting, but also lacks any basis in fact. As stated previously, there is no hypocrisy involved in this situation, as they are entirely different situations altogether. To quote David Hume on causality: “Where several different objects produce the same effect, it must be by means of some quality, which we discover to be common amongst them.” For the reasons stated above, the two situations are far too contrasting in nature to be held up to the same standard, which is where the UCS policy comes in.

Anyways, thank you all for reading, I know this was quite lengthy lol. Hopefully I have cleared up any misunderstandings on the matter. Sorry this took so long, I had a lot of work to do this morning and only recently got to composing this.