This does not change that is was unfair. Kitsu still manipulated the conversation, left out content that showed it was taken out of context with others doing the same thing. It still showed how no one got the joke until I explained it.
No.
Every time we message someone, or formally warn them, we omit part of the conversation and highlight the relevant bits. I've done it numerous times when giving warnings or infractions and havn't gotten a single complaint. Though I guess if Kitsu does it then it suddenly becomes about manipulation.
Matt said:
Yet I wasn't singled out, he was. Kitsu openly lied to us claiming there was a discusion specifically about this case the time it occured when there couldn't have possibly been one in the amount of time that passed between the incident to his infraction. Kitsu's grudge against DM is not a secret and the entire staff knows about it, they ought by now after Kitsu was caught red handed abusing the discourage user feature against him without telling anyone or asking if it was okay. There is absolutely no way the staff would have consented to him personally giving out any infraction, even zero point, he wished against DM under any circumstances given his extreme bias. So you are either lying about previously agreeing to let him do it, or you all made a terrible error in judgement that you should have seen coming.
You're literally arguing about a format we use when we give every warning and infraction. If you're using this against Kitsu, use it against me and all the staff every time we quote examples from the SB or threads.
Also constantly preaching Kitsu is biased in every single point you make does not really strengthen your argument, especially when the argument is completely redundant anyway.
Matt said:
I stand by what I said that far worse behavior is being ignored. Some happened today and not a thing was done. DM was singled out specifically. We shouldn't even be doing this to anyone at all because this is being way, way too strict. Most of the people ont he staff now were against this kind of over-policing in the past and trying it now is just very extreme hypocrisy and degrades them all. The restrictions should be relaxed immediately. This will help alleviate the problem of playing favorites too since everyone will have a longer leash.
Can you give examples of people acting creepy and spamming the SB over the course of the week and not getting banned? Like I said, this isn't
one decision, and it wasn't a spur in he moment type of thing. It has been talked about for a week now. I said, if he continues to act like this, "warn him", and I completely stand by that statement. Quite a few members recently have been banned for this kind of behaviour - though their's were probably on a higher level - why don't you stick up for them too? I'm sorry, but saying we're "too strict" only seems to apply when something happens to you or someone your close to. You have never voiced this concern before, which further proves that point.
Matt said:
Previous discussion doesn't make it any less wrong. This doesn't make the staff look better, it makes them look worse. It shows you've been hyper focusing on someone for a week that is not even a problem all while disregarding other people who have been doing far worse who never get any punishment whatsoever.
Ok many assumptions and things wrong with this. First off, "previous discussion" does not allude to in anyway "hyper focusing" on someone. It simply means there was a previous discussion that we had. There has been around 4 times when a specific quote, or conversation, has been brought up this week regarding DM's behaviour in the SB. The first two times we kind of let it slide while the 3rd time I said we should give him a warning if he continues and he was warned the 4th time. We were actually incredibly lenient to let the three cases previous slide.
Let me make it clear though, when someone brings up a quote or incident on the forums, even if it is multiple occasions, it does not mean we're "hyper focusing" on someone or that we have an agenda against said person. It merely means that they have been involved in multiple incidents during that time frame. What do you suggest? We ignore it? Wouldn't that mean that we're being biased towards that member then? Either way we don't win and someone is going to complain. Let me give an example for you though to try and explain my point: There's a new member who openly trolls the forum and let's say 8 incidents are brought up in the staff chat over the course of the week, are we "hyper focused" on him or are we simply doing our job?
Matt said:
You've conflated non-issues with him, taking issues that he's being too sexual, when other people make sexual references all the time, and no one thinks twice at that. You're not doing a convincing sell that this is not a vendetta, because this has been handled terribly.
First off, I didn't say he was being sexual, I said his comments are creepy and I believe they make people feel very uncomfortable, which is much worse than making a sexual innuendo. Though please enlighten me, when have we not punished someone for excessive creepy behaviour in the Shoutbox?
Matt said:
You allowed a person who is undeniably out for DM's blood take the charge in "cracking down" on behavior that isn't even a problem that you are completely making up. In no way does this look good and in no way is a justification.
Please stop with this complete nonsense. I have disagreed with Kitsu on multiple things, even on the topic of DM. Ask him or any of the staff. He isn't some kind of tyrannical Admin that you make him out to and we all obey everything he says. Hell even Kitsu and Repentance disagree on a lot of things. Please don't insinuate that I don't have my own mind, I have been incredibly fair and lenient with DM over the past few weeks and have often played devil's advocate in his favour. Though I guess the one time I don't I'm suddenly letting someone take charge.
Matt said:
Yet you still let him do this and are defending his actions even though he was already caught manipulating SB conversation and lying about there having been an active mod chat discussion about that specific incident at the time it happened giving the okay to do it, despite the fact that no other staff member was online at the time, if they were, they would have loaded up the site to actually check for themselves as they should realize, with Kitsu's grudge against DM, that his claims should not be taken at face value and you'd have to confirm before telling him okay. Given that no one checked to confirm before it was issued, there was only two things that could have happened. The more likely one that he lied about there having been a conversation at all, or the rest of you were horribly irresponsible at taking his claims at face value and not actually checking the SB archive yourselves. Either way is pretty damning and it doesn't look good for any of you.
"Manipulating the PM" has been addressed, so you can tick that one off. "Talking about someone in the chat excessively" has been addressed, so you can tick that one off too. I've also made it quite clear that his ban wasn't biased and that other people have been punished for similar things. So what exactly is your point? Is it just all about Kitsu? Because I was the one who originally said "warn him if he continues" a few days ago before Kitsu suggested any action. Not to mention Krash was one of the first people to agree with the warning in the staff chat. So I'm kind of lost now, what exactly is your point?