I wasn't targeting a user on him being Imp, and Imp apparently came in and shut me down on that, so clearly I was wrong.
All that being said, I absolutely don't think my actions are the biggest source of drama. I think that the efforts to intentionally balkanize the userbase are the biggest source of drama. The most legitimate complaints against me are that I don't moderate enough, not that I'm over moderating.
I see stuff like this as no different than a group of Feminists coming in, saying that men should kill themselves, then claiming I'm being overly subjective and divisive if I ban her. Literally, the white nationalists complain all the time that Imp is given unlimited ability to hate on white women, even though he's one of the single most banned users here. I'm accused of running special apologetics and defense of troons and jews because I don't allow people to call for either of them to be mass executed. Meanwhile, these same people are absolutely furious that I would dare to allow someone to call them a stormfag, and claim that it's an anti-white racial slur.
These are utterly bad faith arguments that are solely designed to pressure me to stop moderating (which I already do very little of), so that they can use unlimited amounts of social pressure on the rest of the user base.
and indeed your only direct one for why you act the way you do was predicated on the idea that A) this user is not who he claims to be (which you have just admitted you are wrong about), and B) his complaints are a carefully orchestrated falsehood as an attack on and provocation of you specifically.
No, I told you the grounding of my moderation philosophy. The specific case here is that he did violate Rule 2 by insinuating that killing FBI agents was necessary. Therefore, he got banned.
The rest of what he's doing is intentionally trying to cause drama to drive me out.
The problem I have with this is that your definition of a subversion campaign includes, apparently, complaints about your actions.
Well, duh. I'm in a position of (minimal) authority. Wherefore every subversive action needs to target me in order to undermine that authority and seize power for itself.
I'm not saying that any complaint is inherently subversive. It's that subversion requires me to be attacked in one way or another.
I wasn't targeting a user on him being Imp, and Imp apparently came in and shut me down on that, so clearly I was wrong.
All that being said, I absolutely don't think my actions are the biggest source of drama. I think that the efforts to intentionally balkanize the userbase are the biggest source of drama. The most legitimate complaints against me are that I don't moderate enough, not that I'm over moderating.
I see stuff like this as no different than a group of Feminists coming in, saying that men should kill themselves, then claiming I'm being overly subjective and divisive if I ban her. Literally, the white nationalists complain all the time that Imp is given unlimited ability to hate on white women, even though he's one of the single most banned users here. I'm accused of running special apologetics and defense of troons and jews because I don't allow people to call for either of them to be mass executed. Meanwhile, these same people are absolutely furious that I would dare to allow someone to call them a stormfag, and claim that it's an anti-white racial slur.
These are utterly bad faith arguments that are solely designed to pressure me to stop moderating (which I already do very little of), so that they can use unlimited amounts of social pressure on the rest of the user base.
No, I told you the grounding of my moderation philosophy. The specific case here is that he did violate Rule 2 by insinuating that killing FBI agents was necessary. Therefore, he got banned.
The rest of what he's doing is intentionally trying to cause drama to drive me out.
Well, duh. I'm in a position of (minimal) authority. Wherefore every subversive action needs to target me in order to undermine that authority and seize power for itself.
I'm not saying that any complaint is inherently subversive. It's that subversion requires me to be attacked in one way or another.