#1 ·
Perhaps this approach makes more sense than leaving the thread open indefinitely just so someone can respond to false accusations.
The point is precisely this: I DID back up my claims. Claiming I didn't is simply a lie. Whether anyone agrees with my conclusions is a different matter entirely, but stating that I failed to provide evidence is false. I provided four distinct examples. So, let me ask again: how many examples does the administration require to be satisfied? 200? 2,000?
I supported my stance with these specific instances and links:
(imagine a discussion about sexual orientation where someone remarks: "to some people, pedophilia seems normal")
("it's a little sick that you're gay, but hey, to each their own")
(throwing around insane personal "definitions" of severe disorders and criminal acts, which indirectly brands a large portion of the participants as pedophiles)
Furthermore, without even needing a link, I referenced the case regarding the Eiffel advertisement. That ad wasn't any more explicit or overt than countless others, yet it was sanctioned simply because it didn't involve a "standard" heterosexual or homosexual relationship.
So, there are four examples. Is that not sufficient? By what logic does that fail?
If it is no longer permissible to develop a debate on this platform—if users are no longer allowed to argue their positions, and if a moderator's word is final and everyone else is expected to shut up—then just say so plainly. It's your forum; ultimately, you have the right to run it that way.
But stop lying and claiming things aren't substantiated when they clearly are.
If Dorian had simply written, "The moderator answered you, end of story, locking the thread," I would personally find that quite pathetic and pointless. I probably wouldn't even bother appealing, as it would clearly signal your new policy. But here, as in the other thread, completely false claims were made that I hadn't supported my views with examples.
The point is precisely this: I DID back up my claims. Claiming I didn't is simply a lie. Whether anyone agrees with my conclusions is a different matter entirely, but stating that I failed to provide evidence is false. I provided four distinct examples. So, let me ask again: how many examples does the administration require to be satisfied? 200? 2,000?
I supported my stance with these specific instances and links:
(imagine a discussion about sexual orientation where someone remarks: "to some people, pedophilia seems normal")
("it's a little sick that you're gay, but hey, to each their own")
(throwing around insane personal "definitions" of severe disorders and criminal acts, which indirectly brands a large portion of the participants as pedophiles)
Furthermore, without even needing a link, I referenced the case regarding the Eiffel advertisement. That ad wasn't any more explicit or overt than countless others, yet it was sanctioned simply because it didn't involve a "standard" heterosexual or homosexual relationship.
So, there are four examples. Is that not sufficient? By what logic does that fail?
If it is no longer permissible to develop a debate on this platform—if users are no longer allowed to argue their positions, and if a moderator's word is final and everyone else is expected to shut up—then just say so plainly. It's your forum; ultimately, you have the right to run it that way.
But stop lying and claiming things aren't substantiated when they clearly are.
If Dorian had simply written, "The moderator answered you, end of story, locking the thread," I would personally find that quite pathetic and pointless. I probably wouldn't even bother appealing, as it would clearly signal your new policy. But here, as in the other thread, completely false claims were made that I hadn't supported my views with examples.