#1 ·
I noticed that I’ve been hit with a partial ban from the "Messages, Complaints, and Comments" subforum—and honestly, without any prior notice or even a shred of explanation to back it up.
Under the new rule of the organization, the minimum duration for a partial ban has been set at six months. Beyond that, the procedure for lifting a partial ban is clearly laid out:If you find yourself under a partial ban from the organization's moderators, you actually have the right to reach out via private message once that period is up. Whether your restriction was set for six months or twelve, or if you were looking at a year-long stint following a permanent partial ban, you can submit a request to have it lifted once the term expires. I guess it’s just the standard procedure—once the clock runs out, the door is open to ask for a clean slate.".
In my case, both of these rules were violated—neither have the minimum six months passed, nor have I actually reached out to anyone with a request or appeal regarding the lifting of my partial ban.
So, I’m left wondering if this is just some massive administrative blunder—or perhaps some sort of sudden "act of mercy"—where they decide to bypass every single standard operating procedure just to scrap my partial ban out of thin air.
I still maintain that my partial ban was nothing more than a direct result of a few individuals within various levels of the forum administration losing their cool—it was purely personal. In my view—and I suspect I’m not alone in thinking this—this ban was handed down in total defiance of both the established forum guidelines and the organization's rules. There wasn't a single warning issued beforehand; I didn't insult anyone (not even when responding to insults directed at me) on the forum or anywhere else, I stayed strictly on topic, and I certainly wasn't trolling. To put it bluntly, I believe this partial ban was simply a way to silence me because they lacked the ability to actually shut me down with logic or sound arguments.
Look, if that unfortunate partial ban was handed down in total violation of the rules that were actually in place at the time, I’d ask that it eventually be overturned once we start applying today's standards—specifically, once the minimum six-month period has passed and I formally submit a request for its removal. Until then, I’d ask that it be reinstated, and honestly, I’ll leave that entirely up to the discretion of whoever issued it.
I’m going to use this post just to add a few brief sentences to that "Messages, Complaints, COMMENTS" PDF—it’s honestly just... I don't know, I feel compelled to say it. Like many others, I am truly, deeply sorry for everything that has transpired—for everything that has happened, and for everyone who was caught up in those events. It provides me absolutely zero comfort to say that I predicted many of these developments before they actually unfolded; if anything, it's quite a heavy burden to carry. Trust me, I would much rather use my little "prophetic" insights for something significantly more pleasant than this. 😍Unfortunately, it was just an attempt. I guess I’ll just stay quiet then. "Peace, peace, nobody is to blame"—the lifting of my partial ban is just one more facet of the underlying issues here. The core problem remains that mistakes—unfounded points, insults, punishable sentences, blatant hate speech, mockery, partial bans, or suggesting that dissatisfied users simply find some other forum better suited to them—are never acknowledged, even under the most extreme circumstances. Instead, they are met with total silence, showing zero willingness to engage in actual dialogue. They just use these convenient little excuses like "unconstructiveness," "excessive persistence," or "advocating" as unquestionable tools to shut down any discussion. It’s all done under the guise of showing "goodwill" (yeah, right!), while in reality, they just delete posts to wipe away the evidence.
It honestly pains me to see how so many sincerely well-intentioned comments have been misread as being driven by someone's narrow, personal agendas—though I find myself wondering exactly whose interests we’re even talking about here. People have gone so far as to invent these imaginary "clans" or factions—groups that, ironically, consist of people who can barely stand one another, to begin with—and then assign them all sorts of shady motives (again, I have to ask: what motives, really?). If there had been even a slight willingness to actually listen, a great deal of what has happened—and what continues to happen—could have been avoided entirely.
I’m fully aware that this post might land me right in the crosshairs of the moderators—you know, the usual cycle of bans, being blacklisted, or just getting hit with endless sarcasm and insults—all because of what seems like an unquestionable, yet in reality, completely murky objective within the "where to go forum."There is actually a very specific sub-forum designed for this—it isn't meant for those vague, rambling, general discussions that seem to go nowhere, but rather serves as a dedicated space specifically so that... I’m open to any good ideas or constructive criticism you might have—though, honestly, I’d prefer if we kept things productive. Honestly, I think this forum has truly evolved—it’s become better, more engaging, and just overall higher quality than it used to be. It’s essentially just a subjective call on who is actually being constructive and who isn't—which is inherently vague and undefined to begin with. And honestly, whose bright idea was it to allow these kinds of generalized discussions in the first place? No. Can I offer some constructive criticism here? It seems to me—though I might be overstepping—that the responsibility for addressing these issues lies squarely with the very people who are being called out for them.
Furthermore, there is this perfectly embedded catch in the rules—Rule 22, if you will: discussions aren't allowed to be general or vague; they have to be specific. And, because of that, no one from the "outside" is permitted to participate, since that would count as advocacy. Essentially, the only permissible format is "individual versus administration."
That said, for my part, it’s enough just knowing that I am—and I truly believe this—well-intentioned and constructive. I'm not part of any snobbish little "clique," I don't have any ulterior motives, and—last but not least—I know quite clearly that I could have been incredibly useful, if only certain egos hadn't gotten in the way, or if people had actually bothered to read what I was really saying.
So, no, thank you.
Under the new rule of the organization, the minimum duration for a partial ban has been set at six months. Beyond that, the procedure for lifting a partial ban is clearly laid out:If you find yourself under a partial ban from the organization's moderators, you actually have the right to reach out via private message once that period is up. Whether your restriction was set for six months or twelve, or if you were looking at a year-long stint following a permanent partial ban, you can submit a request to have it lifted once the term expires. I guess it’s just the standard procedure—once the clock runs out, the door is open to ask for a clean slate.".
In my case, both of these rules were violated—neither have the minimum six months passed, nor have I actually reached out to anyone with a request or appeal regarding the lifting of my partial ban.
So, I’m left wondering if this is just some massive administrative blunder—or perhaps some sort of sudden "act of mercy"—where they decide to bypass every single standard operating procedure just to scrap my partial ban out of thin air.
I still maintain that my partial ban was nothing more than a direct result of a few individuals within various levels of the forum administration losing their cool—it was purely personal. In my view—and I suspect I’m not alone in thinking this—this ban was handed down in total defiance of both the established forum guidelines and the organization's rules. There wasn't a single warning issued beforehand; I didn't insult anyone (not even when responding to insults directed at me) on the forum or anywhere else, I stayed strictly on topic, and I certainly wasn't trolling. To put it bluntly, I believe this partial ban was simply a way to silence me because they lacked the ability to actually shut me down with logic or sound arguments.
Look, if that unfortunate partial ban was handed down in total violation of the rules that were actually in place at the time, I’d ask that it eventually be overturned once we start applying today's standards—specifically, once the minimum six-month period has passed and I formally submit a request for its removal. Until then, I’d ask that it be reinstated, and honestly, I’ll leave that entirely up to the discretion of whoever issued it.
I’m going to use this post just to add a few brief sentences to that "Messages, Complaints, COMMENTS" PDF—it’s honestly just... I don't know, I feel compelled to say it. Like many others, I am truly, deeply sorry for everything that has transpired—for everything that has happened, and for everyone who was caught up in those events. It provides me absolutely zero comfort to say that I predicted many of these developments before they actually unfolded; if anything, it's quite a heavy burden to carry. Trust me, I would much rather use my little "prophetic" insights for something significantly more pleasant than this. 😍Unfortunately, it was just an attempt. I guess I’ll just stay quiet then. "Peace, peace, nobody is to blame"—the lifting of my partial ban is just one more facet of the underlying issues here. The core problem remains that mistakes—unfounded points, insults, punishable sentences, blatant hate speech, mockery, partial bans, or suggesting that dissatisfied users simply find some other forum better suited to them—are never acknowledged, even under the most extreme circumstances. Instead, they are met with total silence, showing zero willingness to engage in actual dialogue. They just use these convenient little excuses like "unconstructiveness," "excessive persistence," or "advocating" as unquestionable tools to shut down any discussion. It’s all done under the guise of showing "goodwill" (yeah, right!), while in reality, they just delete posts to wipe away the evidence.
It honestly pains me to see how so many sincerely well-intentioned comments have been misread as being driven by someone's narrow, personal agendas—though I find myself wondering exactly whose interests we’re even talking about here. People have gone so far as to invent these imaginary "clans" or factions—groups that, ironically, consist of people who can barely stand one another, to begin with—and then assign them all sorts of shady motives (again, I have to ask: what motives, really?). If there had been even a slight willingness to actually listen, a great deal of what has happened—and what continues to happen—could have been avoided entirely.
I’m fully aware that this post might land me right in the crosshairs of the moderators—you know, the usual cycle of bans, being blacklisted, or just getting hit with endless sarcasm and insults—all because of what seems like an unquestionable, yet in reality, completely murky objective within the "where to go forum."There is actually a very specific sub-forum designed for this—it isn't meant for those vague, rambling, general discussions that seem to go nowhere, but rather serves as a dedicated space specifically so that... I’m open to any good ideas or constructive criticism you might have—though, honestly, I’d prefer if we kept things productive. Honestly, I think this forum has truly evolved—it’s become better, more engaging, and just overall higher quality than it used to be. It’s essentially just a subjective call on who is actually being constructive and who isn't—which is inherently vague and undefined to begin with. And honestly, whose bright idea was it to allow these kinds of generalized discussions in the first place? No. Can I offer some constructive criticism here? It seems to me—though I might be overstepping—that the responsibility for addressing these issues lies squarely with the very people who are being called out for them.
Furthermore, there is this perfectly embedded catch in the rules—Rule 22, if you will: discussions aren't allowed to be general or vague; they have to be specific. And, because of that, no one from the "outside" is permitted to participate, since that would count as advocacy. Essentially, the only permissible format is "individual versus administration."
That said, for my part, it’s enough just knowing that I am—and I truly believe this—well-intentioned and constructive. I'm not part of any snobbish little "clique," I don't have any ulterior motives, and—last but not least—I know quite clearly that I could have been incredibly useful, if only certain egos hadn't gotten in the way, or if people had actually bothered to read what I was really saying.
So, no, thank you.