Literally explained how the two things I said make sense together and he banned me for “not manning up to lying”
…Ironically in doing so, he did not man up about his falsehood, which is that I said contradictory things.
Literally explained how the two things I said make sense together and he banned me for “not manning up to lying”
…Ironically in doing so, he did not man up about his falsehood, which is that I said contradictory things.
He explicitly stated that being a communist is not against the rules, and I at no point endorsed or recommended even one authoritarian thing, even going so far as to clarify that I am not a marxist communist and disavowing tankiesm in clear words.
i do not think there is any argument to be made that there was any apologia at all. If I was to explain the beliefs of nazis that would not be apologia.
furthermore he didn’t ban me for apologia, he banned me for “lying”
Well, I see that the way I rephrased doesn’t match with how I intended it to read.
I’m not sure how to say it in a way that both points out that during the discussion goat was saying that you were using apologia, even though goat didn’t use that word directly that I recall; and still explains why goat was still out of line.
My goal was to point out the details of the situation that were probably the basis of the mod decision. This was to establish a framework where the mod decision could be evaluated as objectively as possible. That’s why I edited in the extra section.
I’m not sure what else you want from me. There is an upper limit to how many attempts I’ll make to rephrase things to match your preferred wording on the matter. Tbh, this is that limit.
I explained why I felt the mod action was PTB. Part of that was the possibility that they took your words as apologia. Some of those comments are written in a way that could be interpreted as such, if a mod is using very vague standards.
If that doesn’t make my intent clear, I’m sorry, but you’ll have to just accept that we don’t have the same goal, and that I already agreed that the mod action was out of line, PTB.
I don’t think there’s any chance apologia was the basis of the decision, he explicitly stated it was because of the lie he pointed out meaning I was arguing in bad faith, when I pointed out that he misinterpreted it and explained what I meant he banned me again for replying to his false allegations.
I don’t think there’s room for interpretation, he just didn’t like losing an argument and wanted to silence me. He did check me for apologia sentiment and I did as he wanted, when he couldn’t ban me for apologia he decided my arguments were in bad faith and gave me a terrible reason, I think in creating this framework to make an “objective” statement you have given him far far too much credit.
the only thing I want is the acknowledgement that I did not in fact technically break the rules. I don’t think there’s even a way to interpret what I said as apologia honestly. Even if there was, that would at best account for one of the two bans.