When having to admit their fault the moderator started looking for arbitrary reasons to ban me. Such as not using the exact terminology of the Amnesty report. Which does not call it genocide.
The moderator is also watching user votes, and calling out people not voting with him.
No? You didn’t? You said you couldn’t personally locate it, that’s the closest thing (in this thread) to what you claim to have said (in this thread).
You seem to be struggling bcos Goat is clearly either confused themself or a bad faith actor, and what they are saying/evidence they are providing is confusing you because it is nonsensical. The claim Goat made was that they used a disengage rule in their own community and then the evidence they provided of this was the “snark thread” about them which seems entirely irrelevant to the claim. But at no point did you argue against their claim, you argued against their evidence, which should have been dismissed in the first place.
Our disengage rule doesn’t go against YPTB posting. So either we don’t have the same rule, so goat can’t complain that we’re hypocrites. Or we do have the same rule, in which case we’re not violating it. And honestly, I think you’re trying way too hard to keep arguing.
Also, I want to clarify that if you are trying to accuse me of being some bad faith actor aligned with Goat and/or PugJesus, know that I am probably much closer to your instance’s general opinion on the Palestinian genocide than I am to theirs, but also much closer in opinion to them about the Ughyur genocide than I am to your instance’s general opinion.
I just think it’s annoying when people can’t properly grasp what the other side is saying, and you still don’t seem to grasp what is being communicated to you.
Goat is clearly trying to say “I have a disengage rule in my community. I used this rule against a user, and then enforced it by banning them. They called me a power tripping bastard for enforcing a rule that the power tripping bastard community has. This is hypocrisy”
Which, it would be, assuming everything else Goat alleged in that thread is true.
If, say, flatworm had banned me from this community and then I came back later and accused flatworm of being a power tripping bastard for banning me over the disengage rule.
And trying way too hard to keep arguing? What are you, the argument police? Yeah, I like arguing on the internet. It’s a good way to let off steam. But I also like correcting people, being pedantic, etc.
I’m not even arguing with you so much as trying to get to the bottom of why you’re misinterpreting the argument Goat posed, and then contradicting you when you say something that isn’t true. I don’t think of pointing out objectively incorrect recollections as being arguing.
It. is. not. hypocrisy! We are perfectly within the context of this community to criticize both the rules and the applications of those rules!
Yes, you can do that. People would tell YDI, but that’s about it.
How about this lmao
If they’re the same exact rule being applied fairly in both instances, then it would be hypocrisy to criticize something that happens in one community which is routine in the community criticizing. Is this fair?
I’m not saying that is true of this situation. I am saying that is the argument being made that you aren’t refuting very effectively from my perspective. Lmao.
If the rule was the same, and the bans goat was criticised were due to an identical disengage rule application as we have here, then it would not be hypocritical to open a thread in YPTB, but it would be hypocritical for people who uphold the disengage rule here to criticise goat for using it. But nobody did that.
This is just a discussion without a purpose. You don’t even know if it’s the same rule, you’re just making hypotheticals and it’s honestly a waste of both our times.
But aren’t we having fun? :3c