Vzearr has made another appeal. I requested him to leave it until now, and am comfortable posting it now, since it's been a month since the initial ban date.
Last appeal (and ensuing discussion) was
back here.
My thoughts on it will be after another break, at the bottom of this post.
Hello, in this appeal, I am arguing that the extent of my ban should not have been maintained on the basis that I appealed multiple times, particularly when those appeals contained substantive reasoning, accountability, and proposed safeguards. An appeal system is meant to function as a corrective mechanism, not as a one-time allowance that becomes invalid purely through repetition. When staff dismiss an appeal solely because it is not the first one, without addressing the content of what is being said, the process stops being about correction or fairness and becomes purely punitive.
I am also arguing against the reasoning to keep my ban extended.
First of all, I take full responsibility for my conduct. I got frustrated and allowed it to override my regular judgment, and I failed to actually properly disengage when discussions became annoying to me. That was my failure, and I accept the consequences that followed. However:
Since the ban, my circumstances have fundamentally changed.
I am now on life changing medication that has significantly improved my emotional regulation, impulses (which were so severe I was scared to go outside), and overall stability, hell, I EVEN GOT MY FULL LICENSE (congratulations shall be accepted).
Because of this, I am more capable of disengaging from heated discussions where I get angry, recognizing escalation early, and stepping away before things turn unproductive. I am not asking staff to take this on faith and my words alone, I am confident this will be reflected in my conduct on the wiki if given the opportunity to come back fully.
Now, I'll get the main important thing out of the way; I was already fine with Vzearr being unbanned now (after one month) due to his previous appeal, and this appeal doesn't change my thoughts on that.
However, I do feel the need to point at an inaccuracy I see in his appeal. He says:
That is flagrantly not what happened. It was rejected because the appeal was insufficient in its content, didn't present sufficient accountability or sound enough reasoning for those who responded. The multiple appeals were an
aggravating factor due to that lining up with times when Vzearr before had launched off multiple appeals for the same thing, days apart, without adding anything new of substance. Vzearr's framing of why the previous appeals were rejected is factually incorrect.
