Yes, yes, meta posts are gay, I know.
I do think it's important to hold mods accountable, though, remain aware of what is going on, and also to remind people that mod logs are, in fact, public.
Fuckery #1, #2, and #3:
Dom banned u/btbw for 256 days for "conniving merchants and cultists that manipulate all sides behind the scenes" in the context of Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Without comment or explanation directly to the person he was banning. He banned him because someone else responded with "Cool it with antisemitic remarks" (which I've seen reported repeatedly, someone really doesn't like that meme), and said the parent comment did break the rules.
Now, that parent could have also been reported, but it is funny that Dom has said he can't hunt down parent comments before, here:
When I click on your comment from my feed, I only see your comment, not it's parent.
Now, here's where it gets really fucky. He unbanned btbw, admitting his mistake...then immediately bans him again for...no reason.
You know what, fair enough. I'll restore the comment...approved a comment by btbw...unbanned btbw...banned btbw - 128 days with reason: Previous ban rescinded. Ban reduced to 128 days.
Excuse me, but what the fuck? He was previously not banned, obviously, since he could comment. His only offending comment was found to not be rule-breaking. His ban was rescinded. Then he was banned again (also with no direct communication), with the reason apparently being that he was unbanned? What's this "ban reduced" nonsense?
This is like being arrested for resisting arrest.
Fuckeries #4-8:
Dom claims to always leave comments when he removes comments, with why it broke the rules. He removed the following four comments with no explanation:
https://unscored.arete.network/c/KotakuInAction2/p/199hNv1Ent/x/c/4ZGS2oYQNoe/
https://unscored.arete.network/c/KotakuInAction2/p/199OdDkqgy/x/c/4ZFCcbXztx3/
https://unscored.arete.network/c/KotakuInAction2/p/199Ohxq6ar/x/c/4ZGRjlEQg2S/
https://unscored.arete.network/c/KotakuInAction2/p/199OdKaan6/x/c/4ZGRjpqZAQy/
I don't even think any of that is explicitly rule-breaking, and it was removed without comment. Looks like Dom got up on the wrong side of the bed again.
You've got this a bit backwards. I banned him for 128 days for the initial conniving merchants comment. Then for 256 days for the "cry out as they strike you" post.
It was brought to my attention that the first ban was illegitimate, so I went searching for the parent comments to see if he was talking about a story. Meh, he kinda was, but I know what he was trying to do, but I decided to let it slide. Thus, I removed the ban he got for his "conniving merchants" comment.
That reduces his ban length from 256 days down to 128 days. These are two separate instances.
How about you stop banning people for making comments the community here doesn't give a shit about, faggot? You said to me yourself you do this to try and force a narrative, and it's clearly not working. So fuck off with it already.
Exactly, we left reddit behind for a reason. There is no reason to try to shape this place back into reddit other than malicious intent. Dom is a malicious actor.
No, you've got it backwards, dumbass.
"Cries out in pain," 4:53 AM.
"Conniving merchants," 5:05 AM
And the other guy's "Cool it" comment, 5:04 AM, then edited four hours later.
Those are your comment times, but you can see the removal times as well. Same as the comments, but one minute later each. "Cries out" was banned first. It's right there in the logs.
Not sure why you'd lie. Especially when it doesn't even matter. Neither ban was justified, and you're acting a fool again.
How had he "asserted that hooliganism is an inherent aspect of jews," because he pointed out additional context to some whiny Jews saying they were attacked for being Jews?
Where did he say anything was "inherent?"
Kienan. Stop. Look at the times of my actions before screaming that I'm a dumbass and that I'm lying.
You:
Now...also you:
Yeah. You're a dumbass.
You're now saying the opposite, while agreeing with what I said, while saying I'm wrong.
The actual fuck is wrong with you?
This is laughably ridiculous, even by your standards.
Look: apparently I misremembered it initially, and I didn't insult you about it. The timeline is there. Ban for 128, then a ban of 256, then a reduction to 128. Those are two separate rule violations.
That's all there is to this.
Well played, I got distracted by your absolute retardation.
Now answer the actual question:
How had btbw "asserted that hooliganism is an inherent aspect of jews?"
That wasn't your actual question. But here's your answer. The post is explicitly invoking the stereotype that it is the inherent trait of jews that they will always claim to be victims while attacking others. He insinuates that this incident is an extension of that with the Twitter post alleging that there is a jewish media campaign to protect jewish violence. That that hooliganism is the attack, where the jews will claim they are the victims.
Yes, I understand intent and context. Yes, you understand intent and context. You demand that I refuse understand intent and context while I enforce the rules. You assert my intent and invent context for me and everyone else whenever you read other people's comments or complain about my actions. Your issue is exclusively to moderation: under no circumstance should intent or context be considered relevant to any enforcement action, this includes all possible forms additional meaning including but not limited to: coded language, inuendo, abstraction, patterns of behavior, previously stated intentions, vague threats, etc.
We're not going to get passed this block. You will continue to berate and insult me because you do not believe that moderation should ever consider intent and context. I believe moderation should consider intent and context. I believe that evidence exists which allows moderators to determine intent and context. There is no middle-ground on this. There is no reason for further discussion on it, because this is the same conversation we've been having for several years. I do not accept your position because I see it as completely irrational and intentionally building holes into rules so that they effectively cease to exist. I do not believe that you, or anyone else, would ever hold to such a standard because it is utterly counter-productive to having a rule exist in the first place. I also recognize that your position will never change on this. Thus, there is no further point to this line of conversation.