My personal thinking for the matter of trying to have me banned was 3-6 months. I can accept it being on the shorter side of that, but 1 month for a group effort to have me banned for exposing this didn't sit right with me so I would be grateful for something firmer.
Vote manipulation aside, as I only want to focus on the “misleading premises” and bad faith arguing point.
Well, I am personally fine with 3 months.
You're sort of missing the point here. The reason I stopped engaging in the actual arguments was due to the bad-faith stonewalling we are referring to. That's why a description of the discussion is being provided for the other admins to make their own assessments.
This is fine with me yes.
And now again it’s only “bad faith stonewalling” because of you thinking your interpretation of the text was more reasonable/valid than theirs. I was actively watching the thread and I don’t agree with the idea they were somehow acting in bad faith, the most bad faith behaviour on the thread in my eyes actually came from you, whether you should be punished or not I don’t think so, but I also don’t think they should. No one on that thread as far as I can tell actually broke any rules that would warrant a ban, and if we’re gonna call “bad faith debating” bannable, you’re no better then they are, you were just doing other things that can constitute “arguing in bad faith”.
Okay. Nonetheless, I think they certainly were. That's why I gave my assessment of the matter when I was asked, and Ant has asked the mods to draw their own conclusions on the matter.
Perhaps it has been dragged on due to the unsolicited participation of users who are not involved in it in any way? Just a thought.
Okay. Feel free to lift the ban in question then.
I addressed this already on the last page and on the beginning of this one. And as I showcased, the last time you tried to do this stuff you were told by multiple users and staff to knock it off. As you were trying to get me topic banned because you believe that I wank DC. As evident from your own comments.
Even if we put aside the issue of arguing in bad faith during content revision threads, they were blatantly lying in order to try to get Deagonx banned, and refusing to admit it even after they were presented with evidence. I think that warrants a longer ban than just 1 month.
The main issue for me was when I was told that you repeatedly severely misrepresented what your linked scans actually said, and then refused to ever let go of the issue.
Which, to be clear, he certainly did and continues to do. And I fully endorse the assessment that he and the other members of the group stonewall and argue in bad faith, and I do not believe his involvement in the aforementioned scheme is coincidental despite what he may claim.
I just think we should be consistent with how we apply these rules and that no one should be left out of punishment.
I won’t sit here and defend those who manipulated votes, however I will say that Deagon presented us with a bunch of cropped screenshots from discord that had no context whatsoever. Whilst a Judgement on that matter has already been reached, I wouldn’t act like the most compelling evidence was brought. Given no one here has the full context as to what happened offsite, I’d personally be hesitant to give a harsher punishment.
You could ban half the wiki user base for this…
I have done so.
“Bolded text”, I have no clue how is this relevant right now, and somehow it is unfair to most of the members.
What context, precisely, is needed to understand the meaning of something like "When we make CRTs, we need to work together as a team to progress them" and "Don't argue against [Transcending's] CRTs please" or "make an account on VSBW to agree with my CRT and I'll do it?"
"unconventional" seems like an incredibly generous way to say "in a way that directly adds words that weren't present in the scan so that it would be interpreted as supporting his conclusion."
Being neutral does not mean you can't come to a conclusion about something.
The staff members he pinged had over a week to respond to the thread and none did. The arguments were responded to thoroughly and the likelihood of them coming to a different conclusion was not high enough to warrant pinging them constantly for a single thread.
Ok, and you’ve also been told the exact opposite of this by other users. However you completely ignored those other people and instead let an opinion from one person who doesn’t like me, dictate your entire view on me.
I don't know what this supposes to mean, being neutral means being independent of both parties regardless of their favoritism and Ant explicitly stated the opposite of his duty as a staff member.
Wrong, I was there and watching the thread, many threads take weeks, months and there are even years. How does it excuse to close a thread where only two verse supporters argue with reasonable points and get closed because Ant believes in you more?
That's not really an accurate assessment of what happened. From my perspective it seemed that the users who were "defending you" only had a surface awareness of the situation and were simply reflexively lashing out at Ant due to their pre-existing reservations with his approach to DC. It wasn't as though these people actually addressed any of the specific pieces of evidence and said "he seems to be describing this correctly."
I think this is sort of begging the question. You're assuming that his assessment is favoritism instead of neutral.
If his assessment was that the arguments are bad, and the discussion essentially only drew the attention of myself and the OP (and his friends he recruited to agree with him), and the other staff were not willing to participate, is the preferred alternative to have him "bump" it months and months until another staff member decides to take interest? That doesn't seem like a realistic or practical way to run things.
Thank you for helping out.
What if the issue emerges again, and what they said could be relevant again?
I think he's primarily focused on the redundant back and forth that clogged up the thread. The initial clarifications of people's positions are probably fine to stay, but at various points it very quickly devolved into "no u" bickering that served no purpose, since they were largely just repeats/reassertions of the originals.
I get the feeling that this is a young and rather poorly-spoken user from his message. While he is entitled to his beliefs, and did at least go on record to say he doesn't have anything against LGBT people and only dislikes "wokeness" (which could mean literally anything, tbh). That being said, what he said was clearly out of line and inflammatory even then.
The currently applied ban is 1 month.
I think that's fine. The comment was inflammatory but not outright anti-lgbt, just anti-lgbtgettingtheirownmonth. Still rude and against the rules, but not as bad as previous offenses. Not to mention, the comment was on his own wall and was deleted soon after posting, so I'd like to say he realized he ****** up, which helps.
It wasn't deleted soon after.
