As was made clear by JC, the ban and warning was a result of repeated comments; comments that DM himself recently noted he only made to prove a point (like, he literally just said that in this thread). We have logs of probably 10 comments made by DM that were crossing the line that I believe he did make to prove a point. Kitsu wasn't trying to manipulate shoutbox logs, he just posted the part he felt necessary probably as soon as he saw it. You are way over exaggerating here.
Since when was hypocrisy an argument against anything by the way? Let me humour you and pretend Kitsu is really as bad as you make him out to be; does that make DMs offenses better? No, it doesn't.
Did say they did. If you read what I posted, you'd have seen that I said that on their own, in context, they're not that bad. And you'd have also seen that I said other people have been making sexual comments that are on the same scale and nothing happened to them. Don't pretend you don't know who they are.
And I'm sure now you're gonna call JC biased too, right? This is almost painful to read.
Biased? No. He doesn't have a past history with DM like you four do. Kitsu hates him for telling him off when Kitsu said that
And finally, if anyone deserves an apology... it's the entire ****ing forum for putting up with your bull**** for all this time.
Immediately after which, Kitsu, AND YOU Rep, started targeting DM at every opportinuty, complaining about trivialities. Seth and Batman have held a grudge against DM, and constantly mock and ridicule him and his chats when they think no one is looking, over an incident identical to the one that DM is in. Batman called a girl a ****. In context it didn't stand out but taken out of context (as you all have been doing to DM) it of course looked bad. DM removed him for this. I violently disagreed with DM for that for the same reasons I disagree with how you are all treating DM now. After that Seth and Batman held a very strong grudge against him and, as I said, mocked him all the time whenever they could. Rep, you always target whoever Kitsu decides is his next person to screw with. You always claim everything done is justified. You always claim they deserved it. None of the four of you are capable of being neutral in this matter.
As for JC, I'd say he's being misled by the things you four have been saying and complaining about.
It's better that we don't do anything and let some members sexually harass other members than sb ban them/infract them, because we aren't preventing some sort of ridicule that you keep insinuating is just constantly happening, but seemingly no one but you sees it?? What the actual ****??
You're one of them. Do I have to remind you of your constant statements of "the white pride movement is the funniest thread ever" or how you've been repeatedly making fun of any and all threads I have been active in? As if missing the connection that there are actual people in those threads and that your ridicule kind of technically applies to them?
The day that saying you want to drink milk from perky man boobs after 3-4 consecutive verbal warnings from multiple staff including myself all within the course of about 3 minutes...the day that that doesn't get you SB banned is the day I quit my job here. Your point is really silly. You can't just pretend ****'s not happening because there's bigger **** happening within the ranks. There's police brutality not being addressed all over the world, should people stop policing? God no.
Your answer to there's police brutality is that the police need to be more brutal. If you recall, I rather adamantly disagreed with you on the nature of anarchy. That whole debate is neither her nor there. But the point is one issue I was concerned about was a lack of policing. I absolutely don't want no policing. Did you not just see me demanding that justice be done against people constantly mocking others?
I also feel I need to point out again, that none of the staff informed anyone that they were going to be more strict in enforcing the rules. You just did it. I think we need a reminder from an old friend that you can't just make up a new rule or policy and enforce it without actually telling the people who you're going to be enforcing it on:
New rule: When you decide to make something against the rules... actually tell people about it. Instead of expecting people to somehow just know because you "set a precedence" (which is a bad way to make a new rule to being with), actually update the rules so people know. And then start infracting people if they break the rule.
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.
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.
You seem to be ignoring the part about how including it in context completely changes how it appears. It shows, as I've repeatedly said, no one understood the joke until I explained it. Without which no one could have been creeped out by a "touch yourself" statement because there'd have been no way to know it was a sexual joke, yes that is what that is so stop denying that, because no one understood it. Yet only DM was singled out. That's not to say I should have gotten one too, but they fact that you didn't try shows that there was more of a concern about getting DM than actually protecting the forum or anyone in it. Taking it out of context to remove that confusion is misconstruing the situation making him look worse than he actually was being and removed the fact that he was not doing it alone. So that DOES make it manipulation and it does make the rest of you irresponsible for not checking it. Your shorthand might be excuseable for what to include in the notice but it's absolutely not enough to make a valid determination.
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.
I just did a few sections up in this post. Should be easy enough to find something in the archives with the good ol' browser Ctrl + F search function. Try to not pretend no one on staff noticed. They had to. Because some of the same sort of ridicule that was happening within the threads was dealt with. However the same on the SB was ignored.
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.
Being wrong three times doesn't magically make you right the fourth time. You were wrong at each occasion and having talked about it over a period of time won't make it any less wrong.
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?
People have lives you know, this isn't a full time job. There is only so much time to spend discussing issues. And instead of talking about the actual harassment going on, you wasted time on talking about a non-issue that is not worth even thinking about.
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?
The understanding that it was a sexual comment is a prerequisite for that kind of statement to be creepy, ergo, it was sexual. And as I've repeatedly said, no one understood it was sexual until I pointed out it was.
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.
Privately disagreeing with him is a very different thing than absolutely nothing being done about his constant verbal abuse.
"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?
You have four people who are incredibly biased against DM on staff and Rep claims that these are the most active four. Logic proceeds that these biased people had an incredible amount of influence on the descision. And given that the most biased person issued infractions or warnings against him on multiple occasions, you're going to have a hard time saying he's not involved. Under no circumstances should he of all people been allowed to make the infraction. Seriously. Are you blind? Of course Kitsu hates DM with a passion? You disagreeing so adamantly with him about the discourage thing is indication enough. Allowing him to be the one to issue the warning is ASKING for a huge ordeal like this? You think this would have been nearly as conflated if anyone else did it? You do not send the person who hates the person in question the most out to punish them. It's asking for trouble. You don't like this Kitsu stuff being brought up here? Then MAYBE the staff shouldn't have let him be the one to do this. Being the least biased of the mods/admins that replied here on this incident, it should have been you if anyone. DM may have just accepted it then. Though I still would have disapproved. I would have argued against the policy though Kitsu issue never would have been this much a part of the debate.
