Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-5374144-20161222055559/@comment-4964341-20161231085755

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: Keplers wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: Keplers wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: Keplers wrote:

'TRUST ME, PAL. THEY DO. WE GOT BANNED FOR THAT.' Actually, no. Slice got banned for making a statement that is true ("I like men"), and Ulrich got banned for calling Slice a racial slur even though Rom, Ulrich, and Slice were all giving each other racial slurs based on Romanian, Japanese, and Hispanic heritage. Trust me, no loopholes here.'

This is a very one-sided and facile account of what happened.

Slice's ban was of course absurd, and was quickly reversed. We don't ban people for being gay or bi — the two admins on at the time happened to be gay and bi ourselves, so that would be complete nonsense. :P This ban was a singular and clearly incorrect decision that is not representative of any larger problem.

And no one was banned for a single comment - it was just the tipping point. BNR said things in the logs (such as mocking autistic people) definitely worthy of a ban, and we elected to give him another chance — hence my blog. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that going directly against the administration's requests and violating policies will result in bans. So why did nothing happen to Rom or Gaz, who were equally involved? Even if they didn't have prior offenses, they still should have received a kick.

Edit: Given the circumstances, I would have demoted Rom immediately for indulging behavior that you knew was unacceptable. Well, to be completely honest, I don't know. I was not on chat (or I was not at my computer) when BNR was banned. There are a whole host of things I want to call you for first scolding me about not properly understanding the event in which I participated and then telling me that since you did not participate you do not have the proper knowledge to make a decision. That is really all I can say without ad hominem to the high heavens. You said BNR got banned for a single comment, I said that was facile — for reasons I supplied. I have not made any claims that rely on evidence I cannot provide/do not have access too. Notice I did not make any claims about Rom's involvement, you brought that up. My initial argument had nothing to do with Rom.

I wasn't "scolding" you for improperly understanding the event, but for presenting a single-sided account of why BNR was banned and for making Slice's ban look like something we all approved of. I think you understand perfectly well why you and others were banned, but are publicly simplifying matters to make those who banned you look worse.

(Edit: Also, if you really thought Rom should have been demoted, you could have said at the time. Or maybe you did? In which case I would agree there was an oversight.) Whether your initial claim involved Rom or not, I still find it terrible that you weave this discussion as if you were the presenter of the facts when in reality you blatantly admit you have no experience from which to speak regarding the event.

You're now telling me not to provide facile accounts? I will not claim that telling half-truths are right, but then again... I got banned for a month for "trolling" when nothing of the sort of taking place. If our administration is that bad (and it is), I do feel that I could be given a little lenience. Part of argument, especially in cases like this, is to do exactly what I did. You need only look at news media coverage of criminal trials to see to what I refer.

No, I'd never have brought it up at the time. Why? Nobody would listen to me. In fact, they still won't. I just bring it up now because it's relevant.