Your warning was throughly explained and referenced multiple times. You have this idea that Repentance is out to get you. You constantly accused him of "abusing" his powers and that he's "out to destroy the Knights". You were even told, by an Admin, that the decision to post the thread about the HK reworking was done by the entire staff chat. Thing is, the majority of the staff are HKs and yet most agreed with the idea to post the thread. So you're accusations were proved false, and after the unofficial warning, you didn't stop with the accusations, which is why the intervention happened.
You can believe whatever you want and create this idea that the staff are evil demons out to destroy you; it's simply not true. If you were doing this to someone who wasn't a mod or admin, we would have took the same action. If a member is accusing someone of something they didn't do repeatedly, over and over again, when that person and others have told them to stop, then something needs to be done. You think it's nice to constantly harass someone and accuse of them something that never happened? No it's not.
If anyone deems this action as censorship against Matt then please speak up. Otherwise stop these baseless accusations.
Well the condescending tone is absolutely strengthening your case. It is certainly going to convince people to take your side.
I am not sure what you're talking about about the decision to create the thread. My issue was how Repentance was handling it. The first thing he did was declare that HKs didn't have the right to discuss this:
I would like to make this part very clear: This is not an HK decision. The HKs not being fully okay with this decision will not be the only thing that influences this decision. However, we are informing the entire community of this decision and allowing everyone to have their say.
It was a very, very inappropriate what to use authority. More of the staff being with this decision makes it worse, not better. Numbers don't justify an abuse of power. My opening complaint in the thread was this delclaration of how HKs do not deserve the right to have a say in their fate. Whether this is one staff member insisting on this and all of them, it doesn't stop it from being inappropriate. After Kitsu complained about what I was saying, my activity afterwards was centered on pointing out how knights who did not agree with the plan to demote them in the first place, and that didn't want them removed, had no chance of making it. It is highly inappropriate to consider this an insult. Repentance made several statements that backed up what I said. He claimed that the current number of knights are too many to efficiently discuss this problem, and that few people who are in would make it back in. It stands to reason that any knights that were in this "replacement group" were going to be selected on a bias. Contrary to what you keep insisting, it being a near-uniform staff decision does NOT make that less likely, it makes it more likely. If what was claimed was true, and was not Repentence pushing for his way, then there is no other conclusion to make but that the staff wants the reboot to happen. Is that not exactly what was said that they made a group decision? Given that, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the people chosen to be the "new" knights would be selected on a bias because the people arbitrating the transition claim to be in agreement that the knights need to go. So my insistance that it was an attempt to censor dissenting ideas was not unreasonable. And as I was directing my complaints after Kitsu's statement to the idea itself, and not Repentence directly (he merely was the one that kept responding to my statements) it is not reasonable to assert I was directing personal attacks against him. The discussion was not going in favor of the staff's decision. Both Oni and myself were pointing out the flaws in the demotion idea and how it was not sensible. That cannot be construed as an attack. Meaning that warning I recieved was a very clear attempt to remove an opinion that was inconveniencing a staff decision. Little to nothing was done about the insults I was receiving in that thread (
for instance), in the shoutbox, and on my visitor messages during these events. So it seems incredibly unlikely that "upholding the rules" was the reasoning for this action, despite insistence to the contrary. Repentence was making excuses to not listen to my ideas about clans and every attempt I made to take the subject to that as a solution was met with an attempt to change the subject back into how amazing the demotion idea was and how the knights already deserved to be purged. No one would discuss the idea. So, as I've been saying, it was not unreasonable to assume that it was being suppressed. The moment I received this warning and I let people know about it, interest in the clan idea surged and people began actually discussing it instead of making excuses to not discuss it. I kept being painted as the villian when I never did anything wrong. Pointing out how a plan is illogical and was going to harm people is not a personal attack. Insisting that it is, is in itself an abuse of power because it can easily be seen as an attempt to utilize the rules in a way that stops me from discussing it. The rules are explicit in that they allow for disagreeing with staff decisions. And I disagree with the assertion that the way I did it was inappropriate. I completely disagreed with Kitsu's allegation that I was making personal attacks, but regardless I turned my attention to decision itself rather than any individual advocating it after he made that statement. It is completely untrue that I
kept accusing Rep even when it was made clear this was an entire staff decision. when that's the exact opposite of what I did.
A warning isn't the end of the world. It's simply a nudge in the right direction. This is reflected in the fact that it carries a value of zero infraction points. It should be taken as an opportunity for self-reflection by trying to avoid such behavior in the future.
Yes an infraction could have been worse. However, given how inappropriate it was in the first place to do it, and insisting it was the right thing to do when the rationale for doing it does not stand to scrutiny, I think it is still important to stress how wrong it is, to help prevent problems like this from happening to anyone else in the future.
