Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-5374144-20161222055559/@comment-4964341-20161231091624

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: Keplers wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: Keplers wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: A lot of the conversation in this thread seems a little off the mark. Chat has been fine recently. Moderation has been competent, people haven't been banned, nothing terrible has been reported.

Not only that, but chat has been leniently moderated. It's been quite chill lately, at least when I've been on. Plenty of stuff is allowed, no one's fun is being ruined by new oppressive crackdowns.

Such a comprehensive list is definitely not needed. What's needed is common sense and decency. It seems to me the only problem is that a few select users just don't know how to handle themselves on chat. We shouldn't have to make an extensive, tedious master-list for the benefit of a few people who don't know how to behave.

These users should take their cues from the vast majority of people on this wiki, who use chat without getting banned. Further proof of targeting. The moderating suddenly gets lenient and certain language gets allowed as soon as the "problem users" are banned?

Maybe the problem is with the administration. Proof of targeting? Care to elaborate what you mean by targeting? If you mean we sit around discussing how to get rid of you, then no, we don't. Don't flatter yourself. :P

Obviously, I hadn't been active for many months prior to December. But during my activity over Christmas break I and the moderators I have seen have been very lenient (before and after your bans). As long as nothing abusive or harmful is happening I honestly give no fricks about what people say. Over the few days where I logged chat for most of the day, nothing happened that fits your description. I have witnessed no targeting or favoritism.

So please, be specific if you want to make such accusations. Use some evidence; make some good arguments. Otherwise neither I nor anyone else can work with you on a solution. Given how you are lenient toward all other users who break the "don't mention hate groups" rule but you punish Ulrich, Sat, and myself for the same infraction, I have cause to believe you are targeting this group in a move that is either politically-motivated or otherwise solely designed to affect us. Your so-called "lenience" has indeed extended to everyone except for the aforementioned users, with Ulrich and myself being at the forefront. The scenario we are concurrently discussing as well as the Fort/Kira "Hitler" dialogue serve as my evidence. I regret to inform you that I have no further evidence, because I was banned for a disproportionate amount of time for entirely baseless accusations, and therefore have not had the ability to collect further evidence. Alright, so you are making the specific claim that I am treating you, BNR/Ulrich, Sat, and the rest of your group (??) than I am treating any other party. First, I'd like to clarify whether you are referring to me specifically or to admins in general, as I never banned you or anyone in your group in the last year. I also haven't seen Sat get kicked or banned for anything recently by any admins.

I haven't taken action against anyone for mentioning hate groups. This policy was passed when I was inactive and I've had nothing to do with it, tbqh. Also, and this is the most important part — you were not banned for mentioning hate groups. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Rio ban you for using the f-bomb on top of trolling/ignoring warnings? And BNR was also banned for a combination of problematic language (including his ableist rhetoric I already mentioned) and behavior, not for simply mentioning a hate group. Yeah, "group" (!!!). Ulrich, Brick, Sat, myself. To a limited degree, Rom and Slice. We're for the most part libertarian and pretty loose on how we behave, with certainly no ill-will toward anyone. I do believe that you and Rio treat members of this group much differently than you treat those outside, with varying degrees of difference relative to the individual's "closeness" in the group (you would treat Ulrich and me the most differently whereas Slice and Rom are not too differently treated than normal users). Though you have not taken specific disciplinary action against us, you have used quite stirring rhetoric to both turn the opinions of other users against us and cement in policy your opposition of us -- thereby forcing other admins and CMs to support this interpretation of policy and go forward with it. Your "Clarification of UCS" in particular overruled, somehow, Alemas and AP's previous stance that "as long as nobody voiced a complaint, it was permitted." You effectively changed policy without a vote, just by "interpreting" it differently and presenting your interpretation as the sole one. Specifically regarding Sat's lack of punishment, this is because he has intentionally silenced himself to avoid disciplinary action for voicing his opinion. Yeah, I guess it's not only "certain users" who are afraid that "people" [we know you mean our group, thanks] will bully them for complaining. I guess some of us might feel the same way.

Yeah, "trolling" and "ignoring warnings" (I didn't receive warnings and I didn't even speak regarding hate groups or ableism, so whatever). Had this new interpretation regarding UCS, and the ban on hate speech -- which I do regard as portions of the same policy, given how inherently related they are -- not been carried out, none of us could be targeted with policy justification. Yes, I used the f-bomb once. Yes, Ulrich used "ableist rhetoric" and ignored warnings (so did Slice and Rom, on the latter). My one redx during my show of disgust was not a "lot of trolling beforehand," nor was it "a lot of warnings," though Rio appears to disagree.

Also, for the future, for God's sake, never say "ableist rhetoric" to me again. I laugh and cringe at the same time. The day the word "cripple" becomes as powerful as a long-winded apology with a strong thesis and appeals to logos, pathos and ethos is the day I decide to go to the moon and take off my helmet.