<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p><i>TRUST ME, PAL. THEY DO. WE GOT BANNED FOR THAT.</i>
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.' </p> </div> <p>This is a very one-sided and facile account of what happened. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>Edit: Given the circumstances, I would have demoted Rom immediately for indulging behavior that you knew was unacceptable. </p> </div> <p>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. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p><i>TRUST ME, PAL. THEY DO. WE GOT BANNED FOR THAT.</i>
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.' </p> </div> <p>This is a very one-sided and facile account of what happened. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>Edit: Given the circumstances, I would have demoted Rom immediately for indulging behavior that you knew was unacceptable. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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 <i>ad hominem</i> to the high heavens. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>These users should take their cues from the vast majority of people on this wiki, who use chat without getting banned. </p> </div> <p>Further proof of targeting. The moderating suddenly gets lenient and certain language gets allowed as soon as the "problem users" are banned? </p><p>Maybe the problem is with the administration. </p> </div> <p>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 </p><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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p><i>TRUST ME, PAL. THEY DO. WE GOT BANNED FOR THAT.</i>
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.' </p> </div> <p>This is a very one-sided and facile account of what happened. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>Edit: Given the circumstances, I would have demoted Rom immediately for indulging behavior that you knew was unacceptable. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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 <i>ad hominem</i> to the high heavens. </p> </div> <p>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>I</i> did not make any claims about Rom's involvement, you brought that up. My initial argument had nothing to do with Rom. </p><p>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. </p><p>(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.) </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>These users should take their cues from the vast majority of people on this wiki, who use chat without getting banned. </p> </div> <p>Further proof of targeting. The moderating suddenly gets lenient and certain language gets allowed as soon as the "problem users" are banned? </p><p>Maybe the problem is with the administration. </p> </div> <p>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 </p><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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>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. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p><i>TRUST ME, PAL. THEY DO. WE GOT BANNED FOR THAT.</i>
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.' </p> </div> <p>This is a very one-sided and facile account of what happened. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>Edit: Given the circumstances, I would have demoted Rom immediately for indulging behavior that you knew was unacceptable. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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 <i>ad hominem</i> to the high heavens. </p> </div> <p>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>I</i> did not make any claims about Rom's involvement, you brought that up. My initial argument had nothing to do with Rom. </p><p>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. </p><p>(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.) </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>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 <i>lenience</i>. 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. </p><p>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. </p>

<div class="quote">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. <p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>These users should take their cues from the vast majority of people on this wiki, who use chat without getting banned. </p> </div> <p>I think we all know full well that the common sense or honor system we have been trying to promote for the last year just isn't working. One's common sense is completely different from another's, as seen between the conflict between me saying things that I believed were to be protected under the common sense rule, with support of others, and against what an admin (Rio at the time) believed to be protected under the same rule, with support of the other admins. It is clear that common sense isn't working. To keep promoting that system is detrimental.  </p><p>Now I agree that my actions and "ableist" comments were quite on the rude side, there's no denying that. The problem that I would like to fix is consitency. Perhaps this has changed, but other mods and admins would allow me to say those things without any turbulence. There is absolutely nothing right with different parts of our judicary system enforcing different rules at the same time, which is exactly why this list was proposed, and exactly why it should be implemented. If all of our cm/admin team had the same knowledge and interpretation, we wouldn't have to have this, but it is clear that they do not.  </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p><i>TRUST ME, PAL. THEY DO. WE GOT BANNED FOR THAT.</i>
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.' </p> </div> <p>This is a very one-sided and facile account of what happened. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>Edit: Given the circumstances, I would have demoted Rom immediately for indulging behavior that you knew was unacceptable. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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 <i>ad hominem</i> to the high heavens. </p> </div> <p>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>I</i> did not make any claims about Rom's involvement, you brought that up. My initial argument had nothing to do with Rom. </p><p>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. </p><p>(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.) </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>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 <i>lenience</i>. 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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>I am precise in my argumentation, and rarely allow my conclusions to go beyond what is justified by the evidence I have — even if that evidence is limited. From limited evidence I can still make a limited but completely true conclusion that is relevant to our discussion. </p><p>There were two bans you brought up. I was present for one — Slice's ban. I have full knowledge of that event and can speak authoritatively about it. Thus, when I see you using Slice's ban for your own gain (to make the admins look corrupt and blatantly unjust), I am clearly justified in calling you out. Slice's ban was unjust, and was reversed by Rio with the agreement of myself and Bubbles — it was not indicative of administrative corruption, which you have had to concede. </p><p>I fully understand what you are doing, and why you are doing it. I just think it's wrong and will continue to call you out for doing so. For someone who has been continuously banned for various offenses over the years, you are lucky we even allow you on this wiki at all. Many users have been permanently blocked from this wiki (Klintrin comes to mind) because of their repeated offenses and continuous habit of getting banned. One month is nothing. We know for a fact that you know better. </p><p>For the record, I would have listened to you. I never ignore people's messages if I am active and have always brought people's requests to the other admins when they ask. Contrary to what you seem to be arguing, I don't hold grudges or play favorites when it comes to administrating — and the record shows as much. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>BraveNewRoyalty wrote: </p> <div class="quote">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. <p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>These users should take their cues from the vast majority of people on this wiki, who use chat without getting banned. </p> </div> <p>I think we all know full well that the common sense or honor system we have been trying to promote for the last year just isn't working. One's common sense is completely different from another's, as seen between the conflict between me saying things that I believed were to be protected under the common sense rule, with support of others, and against what an admin (Rio at the time) believed to be protected under the same rule, with support of the other admins. It is clear that common sense isn't working. To keep promoting that system is detrimental.  </p><p>Now I agree that my actions and "ableist" comments were quite on the rude side, there's no denying that. The problem that I would like to fix is consitency. Perhaps this has changed, but other mods and admins would allow me to say those things without any turbulence. There is absolutely nothing right with different parts of our judicary system enforcing different rules at the same time, which is exactly why this list was proposed, and exactly why it should be implemented. If all of our cm/admin team had the same knowledge and interpretation, we wouldn't have to have this, but it is clear that they do not.  </p> </div> <p>I definitely see your point, but I think the problem of consistency was solved already. The admin team came to a consensus — all active admins agreed with the main point I made in my blog. I made that blog at their prompting after discussing the issue with them. So the admins all agree. </p><p>After we agreed, we told the moderators to comply with our consensus via my blog. Moderators who blatantly disregarded this were demoted or warned via private messages. </p><p>Thus, there has no longer been a disagreement. And as a result there haven't been any conflicts of the sort after you and Keplers were banned. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>These users should take their cues from the vast majority of people on this wiki, who use chat without getting banned. </p> </div> <p>Further proof of targeting. The moderating suddenly gets lenient and certain language gets allowed as soon as the "problem users" are banned? </p><p>Maybe the problem is with the administration. </p> </div> <p>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 </p><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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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 <i>for voicing his opinion</i>. 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 <i>us</i> might feel the same way. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p>