- 7,780
- 11,571
This strikes me as dated drama from over a year ago that doesn't really change much.
It strikes me as odd that one would downplay the significance of a ban so much yet likewise act as if it is a big deal if we revoke it on some condition. You are right, these are not real incarcerations, and likewise nobody will die if we take a chance on letting someone prove themselves. Worst-case scenario we just ban them again after some mild annoyance.
All these screenshots really show me is that everyone involved at the time took this all really seriously, and a lot of emotions were circulating at the time.
In addition, I would argue it does not necessarily make our lives more convenient when some of the few passionate people who regularly give us free work that we desperately need go off the deep-end and force us to ban them. We need all the help we can get, and from that perspective, there is at least an inherent value proposition in potentially letting people back if they can control themselves.
Bluntly, many of these hard-lines being taken recently against appeals have a tone which may suggest personal bias.
Some acknowledge this bias but others may be unfairly accusing the rest of staff of having poor judgement for not sharing their feelings.
If nothing else, I think it would be at least a little cruel to backtrack now after already telling him he would be unbanned, as well as actually doing it.
If people are skeptical this will go well, they are welcome to keep a close eye on Charmander.
It strikes me as odd that one would downplay the significance of a ban so much yet likewise act as if it is a big deal if we revoke it on some condition. You are right, these are not real incarcerations, and likewise nobody will die if we take a chance on letting someone prove themselves. Worst-case scenario we just ban them again after some mild annoyance.
All these screenshots really show me is that everyone involved at the time took this all really seriously, and a lot of emotions were circulating at the time.
In addition, I would argue it does not necessarily make our lives more convenient when some of the few passionate people who regularly give us free work that we desperately need go off the deep-end and force us to ban them. We need all the help we can get, and from that perspective, there is at least an inherent value proposition in potentially letting people back if they can control themselves.
Bluntly, many of these hard-lines being taken recently against appeals have a tone which may suggest personal bias.
Some acknowledge this bias but others may be unfairly accusing the rest of staff of having poor judgement for not sharing their feelings.
If nothing else, I think it would be at least a little cruel to backtrack now after already telling him he would be unbanned, as well as actually doing it.
If people are skeptical this will go well, they are welcome to keep a close eye on Charmander.
Last edited: