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.
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.