Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[DarkGrath]

The three main perspectives that have been offered as to actions moving forward are '1-3 month ban', 'permanent ban', and broadly, 'something more than 3 months but less than permanent'.

For the final perspective, I would like to consider a 6 month ban, and to advocate for this conclusion. If others wish to offer their final opinions in the light of the discussion, you may say so below and I will add your stance to the tally.

1-3 Months: Antvasima, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000

6 Months: DarkGrath, DarkDragonMedeus, ByAsura, Damage3245, CloverDragon03

Permanent: Crabwhale, Maverick_Zero_X, LordTracer, Emirp sumitpo

​

 

[Agnaa]

I still endorse 1-3 months, and I think a count could go off of previously-established perspectives.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Aye, I'm still in the 1-3 months camp.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The three main perspectives that have been offered as to actions moving forward are '1-3 month ban', 'permanent ban', and broadly, 'something more than 3 months but less than permanent'.

For the final perspective, I would like to consider a 6 month ban, and to advocate for this conclusion. If others wish to offer their final opinions in the light of the discussion, you may say so below and I will add your stance to the tally.

1-3 Months: Agnaa, Mr._Bambu

6 Months: DarkGrath

Permanent:

I'll go with 6 months as well.

 

[ByAsura]

I'd say permaban them, but in light of that not being an option, I'll go with 6 months (provided the evidence is genuine).

 

[DarkGrath]

I'd say permaban them, but in light of that not being an option, I'll go with 6 months (provided the evidence is genuine).

Permaban is an option. Would you prefer to be listed under permaban, or 6 months?

 

[ByAsura]

I think I'll stick with at least 6 months, if not more, based on precedent.

I've seen people receive 3-6 month bans for pretty childish insults, but DarthSpiderr was banned for a full year because he said something pretty offensive against recognising preferred pronouns and then proceeded to triple down. So ~>6 months seems right (though I think it should be perma).

 

[Damage3245]

I'll go with 6 months as well.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I'm going with 1-3 (I'd say 3 specifically).

 

[LordTracer]

The three main perspectives that have been offered as to actions moving forward are '1-3 month ban', 'permanent ban', and broadly, 'something more than 3 months but less than permanent'.

For the final perspective, I would like to consider a 6 month ban, and to advocate for this conclusion. If others wish to offer their final opinions in the light of the discussion, you may say so below and I will add your stance to the tally.

1-3 Months: Agnaa, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000

6 Months: DarkGrath, DarkDragonMedeus, ByAsura, Damage3245

Permanent:

I’m still in favor of a permanent ban.

 

[CloverDragon03]

6 months works for me

 

[Theglassman12]

@Agnaa just to add context to the Zachary stuff, he was banned for constantly harassing a staff member over and over and over again onsite despite numerous blatant warnings to back off. It’s one of the first reports we had on this very thread if you wanna check for yourself.

 

[Agnaa]

Actually, it's probably best to remove my vote.

Since I didn't support, it's hard for me to internalize, our new standards for off-site conduct, which are highly relevant to this case.

Plus, I promised Ant I'd participate in the RVR while he's on vacation on the condition that I give more deference to other staff members in terms of deciding punishment durations, since I typically suggest shorter ones than others.

@Agnaa just to add context to the Zachary stuff, he was banned for constantly harassing a staff member over and over and over again onsite despite numerous blatant warnings to back off. It’s one of the first reports we had on this very thread if you wanna check for yourself.

Since my earlier attempt of just using the correct name was apparently too subtle, that user's gone by the name "Angie" and she/her pronouns for a while now.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

The three main perspectives that have been offered as to actions moving forward are '1-3 month ban', 'permanent ban', and broadly, 'something more than 3 months but less than permanent'.

For the final perspective, I would like to consider a 6 month ban, and to advocate for this conclusion. If others wish to offer their final opinions in the light of the discussion, you may say so below and I will add your stance to the tally.

1-3 Months: Agnaa, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000

6 Months: DarkGrath, DarkDragonMedeus, ByAsura, Damage3245, CloverDragon03

Permanent: LordTracer

Well, removing Agnaa's vote it's 2 (1-3 months), 5 (6 months), 1 (Permanent Ban)

I guess 6 months it is then?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That seems to be the summary, although Clover is a Calc Group Member.

 

[noninho]

Truly sorry if this comment shouldn't exactly be here, but may I reach a mod/admin in private to ask for a quite extensive block list of people who were involved in the comment?

 

[CloverDragon03]

That seems to be the summary, although Clover is a Calc Group Member.

Yeah so realistically it’s more like 2-4-1. That being said, this is still probably enough to apply a 6 month ban

 

[Antvasima]

I acknowledge the behavior onsite, it's the sole reason I agree it's even a rule violation. I don't think we ought to bay for blood the instant we see any given user admit such a thing, though. People are imperfect. Shmooply doesn't just actively seek out transgender people to assault them all the time, because I've interacted with the man fairly consistently and never realized there were even allegations of the sort.

I don't think we need to be so zealous. The guy is harmless 99.99% of the time.

Yes, it is worth fearing, and let me explain why.

Our rules describe an offsite rule violation as potentially, reasonably causing extreme duress to an individual- this is the crux of this particular discussion. If we accept that any given off-color comment about a group is a fair violation of that rule, then we do not ban people for making transphobic jokes alone.

Use of the R-word, use of the B-word, use of any given slur, use of any disparaging language against any given group of people (no more "America Bad" or "Russia Bad" jokes, for the Americans may be distressed by it and you will be banned). There are innumerable people that perform all of this casually, not out of malice but out of an interest in being funny- most of them fail at this but the point is the same. Humors calls upon negatives for most people, if you don't know that then you need help from a greater power than I- try George Carlin.

The slippery slope exists, and I will reiterate that if this is truly the core intended purpose of these rules we've made then I have no interest in upholding them.

I agree with Bambu here. We cannot be too draconian against thought-crimes, if a member has not actually targetted other members based on their prejudices.

For example, if somebody would say that they categorically dislike autistic people, such as myself, I would also not remotely advocate for a permanent ban unless they had stated that they want them all dead and burning in hell or somesuch .

Also, there are cultural differences around this world, and it will take very much time and effort to gradually improve tolerance between different cultures, ethnicities, genders, sexualities, and so onwards. Excluding anybody who privately disapproves of some other group identification from any international community, such as our own, is not going to help with decreasing any of the prejudice and tribalism that plague this world. It is going to increase feelings of anger and hostility, turn prejudice into outright bigotry, and make things worse.

For example, according to the following extensive opinion poll survey from 2013 by PEW Research, most Muslims in this world disapprove of LGBTQIA+ people, due to their conservative cultural upbringing, and yet almost all Muslims that I have encountered both IRL and online have been very good and moral people. Should we still ban them all based on their assumed private thoughts, even though the Muslims who come to this community are likely considerably more openminded and interested in other cultures than average? Of course not! That would be to engage in prejudice and bigotry much more than fighting against it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...s-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

To make things better in this world different communities need to gradually get to know each other and see that ordinary people all over this world are generally not dangerous. It is the psychopathic or sociopathic politicians and oligarchs in political charge of this world that are the big problem, and they divide regular people with hate-propaganda as a divide and conquer distraction in order to stay in power.

So to summarise, a 3 months warning ban to force Shmooply to shape up seems like an acceptable compromise solution.

 

[Crabwhale]

I'll preface this by saying that I was actually made aware of Shmooply's transphobic comments a very, veeeeery long while back, by a user whom I shall not name.

I didn't think much of it at the time since I barely knew who Shmooply was and how or whether they were active on site. Looking back with the veil of time and bad memory lifted however, even then it was a pretty egregious set of messages, though unfortunately said messages are lost.

Regardless, Shmoop's messages off-site provide context for what he said on-site. And to me at least said context looks damn bad.

I'm not interested in having a genuine transphobe in here. Permaban, simple as.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Permanent: LordTracer

I’m in this camp as well.

To be blunt I’m not a fan of being overly bureaucratic about cases like this because at the end of the day I think we’d all agree our community would be better off without bigots.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Okay, now the vote's a lot more split (3-4-3)

In this case, we should call more staff to evaluate this case

 

[M3X_2.0]

Reporting @TheGunsFinalWrath for this comments here. For context, this thread deals with Buddhism and its application on Jujutsu Kaisen, in which we rejected. In the most recent replies, you can see TheGunsFinalWrath replying to the thread, and one of his comments was:

And, honestly with the way Udl has conducted themselves so far throughout this thread especially the warning Udl got from Deagon (comment got deleted too so probably something bad) honestly, makes me skeptical about Udl's claim of being a Buddhist themself.

In which pissed @Udlmaster off, and he's completely right. No one in this wiki has the right to just come and say "well you're not from X religion" just because you disagreed with the guy.

Udl's reply to him:

I’m shutting this down here and now, because this goes beyond just arguing over fiction but crossing into my real life beliefs.

I won’t be having discussions on my personal life be derived from some random on the internet who thinks they have any right to speculate what my religion is. You being skeptical is irrelevant, keep it to yourself.

I have every right to show my disgust and annoyance that my religion is being used as a petty tool to further some lame brained argument about powers a fictional story has.

And might I point out that you can be a Buddhist and not be a whatever idea of a monastic monk you have in your head. Buddhism isn’t just monks who meditate all day in caves and have the unerring patience to tolerate any kind of speech that comes to them.

People saying “A Buddhist disagrees” isn’t them saying someone declared themselves Buddhist and then disagreed. They’re saying someone showed up with receipts and demonstrably proved their understanding of their religion.

I’ve pointed out throughout this thread my understanding of Buddhism, sourcing various Pali canon suttas and multiple Mahayana sources, in particular, the Diamond Sutra, this isn’t just my claim of being Buddhist, this is fact, fact that I have proven over and over again in this thread.

This ain’t a request. Do not speculate about my personal life again.

I think a warning would be enough, the guy is very argumentative and overly confrontive. This is one of the examples.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

Reporting @TheGunsFinalWrath for this comments here. For context, this thread deals with Buddhism and its application on Jujutsu Kaisen, in which we rejected. In the most recent replies, you can see TheGunsFinalWrath replying to the thread, and one of his comments was:

In which pissed @Udlmaster off, and he's completely right. No one in this wiki has the right to just come and say "well you're not from X religion" just because you disagreed with the guy.

Udl's reply to him:

I think a warning would be enough, the guy is very argumentative and overly confrontive. This is one of the examples.

Huh? So are yall just gonna straight up ignore this? or did yall happen to not fully read what Udl has been saying in literally 99% of his comments in the thread.
if not, i can give you a quick list that you can find in the thread.

>> "You are doing heavily lifting by conflating these two things together and then misapprehending the teachings of the Buddha by deceptively cutting out sections of the Buddha's teachings which sound like they suit you, however, as a Buddhist, I bother to read Sutras and Buddhist literature."

"This was deceptive framing of the Buddha's word to sully the waters and I take particular offense that you're using it against myself, a Buddhist."

"If I show you the cross, and say "This is the Symbol of the Christ" I am not then saying Christ is a wooden cross, you buttered crumpet."

"You linked said blog in the Original Post. Don't make it out now that I rooted through your garbage and dug up dirt on you."

"Damn, did I LITERALLY say that? Hmm, let's see what said, shall we? Hmmm, here I'm not saying they don't intertwine as concepts, I'm saying they shouldn't be grouped together as if they are the same concept. Strange how I never said anything to the effect of what you're saying I LITERALLY said. How strange, that."

"Likewise, you never actually addressed the fact you were splicing, just that I was wrong to call you out for slimy behaviour, which is just tone policing, and I don't care for it."

"In fact, I know how, you did a bit of deceptive splicing there, using parts of Wikipedia's article on the Dharmachakra and then switch to the Dharma page without disclosing that fact to make it seem like one continuous narrative."

["It's something which should not happen. It goes against the laws of God."

"Nuuu, she doesn't actually mean what she's saying, she means this other thing that doesn't contradict my views."]

"Thank you for that. Since my interests in this thread lies entirely on the Buddhist aspects of it, I wouldn't have been able to notice this bit of slippery deception."
"This is just waffling and pre-empting."

"Incredible, so you failed to understand I was talking about and then went to wikipedia, CTRL+F "causal" and then copy and pasted that at me to then declare me totally debunked and pwnd without reading what I said."

"You've just regurgitated wikipedia at me for a page and then claimed I have no idea what I'm talking about. Meanwhile, I've presented many sources for my claims, while for you, you've misunderstood both what I'm talking about and what certain concepts are and then flagrantly conflate them and expect to come out with the correct conclusion."

This is justifiable right? Seems like it, given how many staff agreed with Udl, meaning they've read his comments, and ignored the insults, rudely sarcastic comments, negative remarks etc. but when I express my doubt about Udl being a Buddhist given how they've conducted themselves in this thread so far, it's a no no. Also, there was that one comment Deagon deleted for it being "warning worthy" and "insulting" in the thread. Could somebody look through history or whatever in that thread and add that in here alongside the quotes that ive copied. or at least say what Udl said.
so can you explain how any of this is justifiable but what I said is not? I want to see the reasoning for it.

 

[M3X_2.0]

The only real offense here is calling him a buttered crumped, and come on now. The rest is Udl being at most sarcastic and this doesn’t directly goes against our rules, it’s just not recommended to debate like that and usually we just ask you to be polite.

The comment Deagon deleted was some chinese thing that seemed rude and given how no one gave a singular **** we just moved on.

 

[GarrixianXD]

The comment Deagon deleted was some chinese thing that seemed rude and given how no one gave a singular **** we just moved on.

Who posted that?

 

[M3X_2.0]

I think someone else posted a comment and Udl replied. Both chinese. I think it’s best to ask a thread mod to take a look.

 

[Dereck03]

The comment Deagon deleted was some chinese thing that seemed rude and given how no one gave a singular **** we just moved on.

The deleted comment was something to the effect that Dr. White's arguments to Udl's pov were bad or stupid whichever is more similar depending on the translation.

 

[GarrixianXD]

The deleted comment was something to the effect that Dr. White's arguments to Udl's pov were bad or stupid whichever is more similar depending on the translation.

Send it on discord or some shit

 

[CloverDragon03]

Huh? So are yall just gonna straight up ignore this? or did yall happen to not fully read what Udl has been saying in literally 99% of his comments in the thread.
if not, i can give you a quick list that you can find in the thread.



"This was deceptive framing of the Buddha's word to sully the waters and I take particular offense that you're using it against myself, a Buddhist."

"If I show you the cross, and say "This is the Symbol of the Christ" I am not then saying Christ is a wooden cross, you buttered crumpet."

"You linked said blog in the Original Post. Don't make it out now that I rooted through your garbage and dug up dirt on you."

"Damn, did I LITERALLY say that? Hmm, let's see what said, shall we? Hmmm, here I'm not saying they don't intertwine as concepts, I'm saying they shouldn't be grouped together as if they are the same concept. Strange how I never said anything to the effect of what you're saying I LITERALLY said. How strange, that."

"Likewise, you never actually addressed the fact you were splicing, just that I was wrong to call you out for slimy behaviour, which is just tone policing, and I don't care for it."

"In fact, I know how, you did a bit of deceptive splicing there, using parts of Wikipedia's article on the Dharmachakra and then switch to the Dharma page without disclosing that fact to make it seem like one continuous narrative."

["It's something which should not happen. It goes against the laws of God."

"Nuuu, she doesn't actually mean what she's saying, she means this other thing that doesn't contradict my views."]

"Thank you for that. Since my interests in this thread lies entirely on the Buddhist aspects of it, I wouldn't have been able to notice this bit of slippery deception."
"This is just waffling and pre-empting."

"Incredible, so you failed to understand I was talking about and then went to wikipedia, CTRL+F "causal" and then copy and pasted that at me to then declare me totally debunked and pwnd without reading what I said."

"You've just regurgitated wikipedia at me for a page and then claimed I have no idea what I'm talking about. Meanwhile, I've presented many sources for my claims, while for you, you've misunderstood both what I'm talking about and what certain concepts are and then flagrantly conflate them and expect to come out with the correct conclusion."

This is justifiable right? Seems like it, given how many staff agreed with Udl, meaning they've read his comments, and ignored the insults, rudely sarcastic comments, negative remarks etc. but when I express my doubt about Udl being a Buddhist given how they've conducted themselves in this thread so far, it's a no no. Also, there was that one comment Deagon deleted for it being "warning worthy" and "insulting" in the thread. Could somebody look through history or whatever in that thread and add that in here alongside the quotes that ive copied. or at least say what Udl said.
so can you explain how any of this is justifiable but what I said is not? I want to see the reasoning for it.

Udl's literally already been warned for the thing that was worth warning them for. Deagon already took care of that, so digging this up again is pretty redundant. And real talk, I don't think any of that is any worse than trying to discredit the idea that Udl practices Buddhism over something like this.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

The only real offense here is calling him a buttered crumped, and come on now. The rest is Udl being at most sarcastic and this doesn’t directly goes against our rules, it’s just not recommended to debate like that and usually we just ask you to be polite.

The comment Deagon deleted was some chinese thing that seemed rude and given how no one gave a singular **** we just moved on.

??? Go over ever single one of them and explain how all of them are ok but only buttered crumpet. No way you're saying this shi is fine but what I said isnt. Yall blew it out of proportion already so why not this?

also post the Chinese thing. Better to know what is actually said.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

Udl's literally already been warned for the thing that was worth warning them for. Deagon already took care of that, so digging this up again is pretty redundant. And real talk, I don't think any of that is any worse than trying to discredit the idea that Udl practices Buddhism over something like this.

Deagon only warned for that comment. Nobody ever pointed out to Udl to stop being rude and aggressive af. That's what my point is.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Deagon only warned for that comment. Nobody ever pointed out to Udl to stop being rude and aggressive af. That's what my point is.

If Udl was never warned for that, that's the verdict. If you want to push against that, be my guest, but not as a means of drawing attention away from your own misconduct. And again, I feel what you did was worse by comparison.

 

[Dereck03]

Deagon only warned for that comment. Nobody ever pointed out to Udl to stop being rude and aggressive af. That's what my point is.

To begin with, the only thing that warranted a warning was Udl's comment and it was already handled. And also as M3X pointed out, the most that can be seen is a sarcastic tone and it can be understood from Udl's POV that someone misuses their religion and on top of that dares to pretend to understand it and contradict it.

So in perspective you are the only one who came up with a more direct offense in this case.

 

[Udlmaster]

but when I express my doubt about Udl being a Buddhist given how they've conducted themselves in this thread so far, it's a no no.

Yes, because all of my comments have been on the quality of the arguments, not speculating on the religious beliefs of someone you know nothing about.

It's baffling too, because what you're doing is tone policing, you're not mad at me for pointing out the deceptive behaviour, you're mad that I didn't coddle the person butchering my religion in front of me.

Deagon only warned for that comment. Nobody ever pointed out to Udl to stop being rude and aggressive af. That's what my point is.

Because what's the point of doing otherwise? People don't always have to voice their agreement, their silence is agreement.

All this is doing is distracting from the issue, it's literally "What aboutism". The report isn't about "the chinese thing" it's about your speculating on my private life.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

If Udl was never warned for that, that's the verdict. If you want to push against that, be my guest, but not as a means of drawing attention away from your own misconduct. And again, I feel what you did was worse by comparison.

Never did draw away attention. If u wanna give me a warning for something like this, (even if I disagree and feel it is blown out of proportion) then cool. Just don't ignore the big red flag next to me. which given how M3X thinks only buttered crumpet is the only real insult UNTIL i pointed it out, is kinda concerning. how did most of the staff read through Udl's comment but never go "huh this sounds like a insult? I should point it out". And it wasn't just one or two, given how many seemed to base off their disagreements from the thread based on what Udl has said, and some has liked what he has commented, it's safe to assume most staff read through it and saw it. that's what I find outrageous a lot with this when he has been doing ok, no callouts except for only one thing, but when I say this the alarms sound.

 

[CloverDragon03]

The problem is that you're conflating Udl's comments (which in particular, according to them, seem to come from a place of frustration at someone misusing their religion) to yourself claiming that Udl perhaps doesn't actually practice Buddhism.

The alarms only sounded for your case because yours was the only one of the two where the alarms needed to be sounded, so to speak.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

To begin with, the only thing that warranted a warning was Udl's comment and it was already handled. And also as M3X pointed out, the most that can be seen is a sarcastic tone and it can be understood from Udl's POV that someone misuses their religion and on top of that dares to pretend to understand it and contradict it.

So in perspective you are the only one who came up with a more direct offense in this case.

For one thing only, whilst ignoring buttered crumpet which M3X acknowledged only now.
And why is rudely sarcastic tone suddenly out of the rules now, especially with how mocking he was? Do yall staff sometimes not tell members to cool it down or warn em to stop with the tone they use?

Yes, because all of my comments have been on the quality of the arguments, not speculating on the religious beliefs of someone you know nothing about.

It's baffling too, because what you're doing is tone policing, you're not mad at me for pointing out the deceptive behaviour, you're mad that I didn't coddle the person butchering my religion in front of me.

You've also been adding in unnecessary remarks to somebody who hasn't ever done that to you. One is civil, the other isn't.

Tryna call it tone policing isn't excusing how you've behaved against your opponent in a debate when your opponent hasn't done the same thing to you to deserve it at all, nor been rude. You've been constantly rude almost every single comment. And mad? No, I'm baffled with how you get away scot free for all the shi you've said when the other hasn't behaved in any manner like yours. And again what butchering? ya two have different interpretations. I don't see it in the way you do. And neither has Dr white made any offensive remarks about your religion whatsoever except for having different interpretation on some stuff. You're again blowing it out of proportion.

Because what's the point of doing otherwise? People don't always have to voice their agreement, their silence is agreement.

All this is doing is distracting from the issue, it's literally "What aboutism". The report isn't about "the chinese thing" it's about your speculating on my private life.

Why not? Do we suddenly discard the qualities of a civil manner of discussion and logical debating and start being rude to the other who isn't?

A whataboutism can be true too. I don't disagree with the warning. Go ahead. Just don't try to ignore the other elephant in the room whilst at it. Which ive pointed out. And you don't disagree with it, either, given how you think it is right. So thanks for agreeing to being overly condescending and rude.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

The problem is that you're conflating Udl's comments (which in particular, according to them, seem to come from a place of frustration at someone misusing their religion) to yourself claiming that Udl perhaps doesn't actually practice Buddhism.

The alarms only sounded for your case because yours was the only one of the two where the alarms needed to be sounded, so to speak.

No? I'm pointing out that if this is wrong, then look at the other direction to who has also been wrong with how they've conducted themselves in a debate, to somebody who hasn't been acting rude to them the entire time, unlike themselves. Also what. The frustration comes from a different interpretation OF how they themselves perceive the religion, and they find offense in somebody thinking differently. Do we now suddenly allow this to give a pass to people to continue being rude as much as they want now? Or do we equally place the rules. I'd understand the frustration if dr white did actually insult or use any offensive or mocking remarks, but he didn't, at all. He literally just disagreed with how Udl interprets certain things in Buddhism.

ye and that doesn't make sense when the other person has used two insults already. one acknowledged which is fair. the other hasn't been pointed out. and then there are various other comments that, although less rude, is still rude.

 

[Dereck03]

For one thing only, whilst ignoring buttered crumpet which M3X acknowledged only now.
And why is rudely sarcastic tone suddenly out of the rules now, especially with how mocking he was? Do yall staff sometimes not tell members to cool it down or warn em to stop with the tone they use?

First of all, to me "buttered crumpet" doesn't sound like an insult to me, even if I google it the only thing that comes up is this, English is not my main language so I don't know what slang tends to be insulting and I was on vacation for more than a month and I happened to log on to the wiki that day to see what was new and I came back yesterday so I'm not up to date with anything.

And there is no sarcastic rude tone as such but a sarcastic one, I can understand that no one has said anything because they might have understood Udl's frustration that someone would missued their religion.

Literally in MY POV I don't see anything to reproach Uld for other than the unnecessary comment that made Deagon already handled it, just a friendly reminder not to argue in a sarcastic way again, although it's hard to avoid if someone messes with something important to you as for Udl is their religion.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I didn't really want to get involved with this but there's been a bunch of nonsense posts in here from people not being objective in the slightest.

First off, let's drop this narrative of "Uld being offended" about his religion being used. Religion is used in several versus throughout this site, and plenty enough evidence and corroboration from major translators and dwellers from the native country of Japan have corroborated the deep connection of the religion to the manga, including the author themselves. Even if you disagree with my conclusions, to state that "using the religion" to correlate with manga as offensive is downright gaslighting as the author is the one who chose to use said concepts and themes in their work. You would also be tactitly calling buddhist who downright agree with Buddhism being heavily involved with the manga wrong, and I don't really think that's a position mods should be taking officially as some have done in this thread already (double standards go crazy).

Furthermore, Uld and other mods such as Pheonks, downright poisoned the well throughout the whole thread and this activity was never once addressed despite its inappropriateness, especially coming from administration. People keep trying to downplay the Udl deleted comment but let's look at Deagon's response

I've deleted Udl's comment and those referencing it since the content was insulting. That's not an appropriate way to conduct a debate at all, and I'm adding a warning for Udl.

That post seems pretty stern and directly opposed to the narrative given earlier, verbatim

The comment Deagon deleted was some chinese thing that seemed rude and given how no one gave a singular **** we just moved on.

Also, shouldn't a reaction from a mod of this level warrant a report in the RVR? Should other mods have not gotten a say? I've seen much less reported to the thread and didn't know single mod quiet actions were a thing.