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restore the comment...approved a comment by btbw...unbanned btbw...banned btbw - 128 days with reason: Previous ban rescinded.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 His ban was rescinded.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.
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.
Some rules are just utterly retarded.
Yeah, because that's exactly what happened here; Jews did attack others, then claim to be victims.
Again, that's what seemed to be happening.
And you're the one saying 'inherent.'
See, I just stated all those things openly, that some Jews did exactly that. That's not against the rules. I'm not saying all Jews. Neither was btbw; you chose to read it that way.
Not exactly, but rules/laws do need clear and equal enforcement. If you're always trying to glean intent, that's naturally going to bias you. There are people you don't like; they'll get banned, while people saying the exact same things won't. Exact thing happened in this instance. btbw's comment was essentially a mirror of the one right before that, on which no action was taken. You go out of your way to ban btbw and others.
Up until rather recently, I've been nothing but polite to you; I just disagreed with you. I've disagreed with you from the very, very start, because our rules are retarded and no one wants them. I've always been polite. And I started this post off polite as well.
You've said I'm your enemy, and that I essentially want you dead. You've said others here want you did in much more explicit terms.
You just always want to turn it into you being the victim, when the vast majority of people disagree with you, and tell you as such.
Whereas you do the exact opposite; your haphazard enforcement of the rules is barely distinguishable from just banning whoever you want. People you don't like have worse "intent" and thus get ridiculous year long bans for posting basic comments or posts.
My "letter of the law" approach would work infinitely better than your "feels" approach.