Moderator slander!

I noticed a post by redbear2 regarding appeals against moderation actions, specifically contesting a strike issued by moderator Eowyn FTW. It brought to mind a certain incident involving this particular moderator—an issue I raised once before, which was never addressed, nor were any consequences handed out. To be clear, I am still waiting for an answer.

So, I filed an appeal for the strike. It wasn't granted, but that’s beside the point here. What caught my eye during that process was this:

Eowyn FTW said:...

Besides, you already picked up a strike yesterday because you were commenting on moderation in a thread where that isn't allowed. And today, you're doing it again. I already sent you a DM saying there weren't that many warnings and that you shouldn't be going off-topic to critique how things are run, so I would just give you a warning. The way it looks, I can only assume you came here specifically to troll and provoke.

Basically, this is a snippet where the moderator admits she would have only given me a warning if I hadn't supposedly received a strike the day before for critiquing moderation in the wrong thread. Based on that assumption, she concluded I was nothing more than a deliberate troll.

Here is the problem: I never actually received that previous strike for commenting on moderation in the wrong thread.

It’s a simple thing to verify. Not just for the mods, but for any regular user who has access to my history. To avoid any confusion, I’ll back this up with screenshots.

A screenshot confirming the date and the content of the aforementioned post by Eowyn FTW, in which she knowingly presents falsehoods about me to discredit me and justify the strike I appealed:



A screenshot proving that the strike she’s referring to never happened:



I immediately asked for an explanation for this behavior and requested a review from the supermoderator, but I didn't get an explanation from the moderator in question or from supermoderator bliss. In fact, I was simply ignored by both sides, and the question remains unanswered to this day. This is my final inquiry directed to bliss.

After that, they stopped responding to my inquiries entirely.

I’ll quote the relevant section of the U.S. Penal Code:

Defamation
Section 149.
(1) Anyone who, in the presence of others, makes or delivers a false statement of fact concerning another person that could harm their honor or reputation, knowing it to be untrue,

shall be punished by a fine of up to three hundred sixty daily fines.

(2) Anyone who commits an act under paragraph 1 of this section via the press, radio, television, computer systems, or networks, at a public gathering, or by any other means whereby it becomes accessible to a larger number of people,

shall be punished by a fine of up to five hundred daily fines.

U.S. Federal Law, Section 149.

I am asking, finally, for an explanation, and I am demanding that the moderator be stripped of her position.Eowyn FTW doesn't have the option to reaffirm. I also think we really need to take a hard look at the performance of supermoderator bliss. It feels like she made a conscious choice to look the other way during this whole situation.

I’d love to hear what Nica and Anderlon have to say about this; honestly, I think they both have some skin in the game here.

That was back when I was having major issues getting the site to even load, so I ended up swapping things around with another user.

You earned that ban. Plain and simple. You were just trolling and straight-up ignoring what the mod told you to do. Just because I might have let it slide personally doesn't mean you didn't deserve the hammer...

Since you're whining about a ban you totally brought on yourself, I have zero clue why you're trying to drag Bliss into your little lawsuit. Or any of the site admins for that matter. It makes zero sense.

And apparently, I'm the one who "damaged your reputation" or whatever—which, by the way, you're gonna need some serious proof for if you actually take this to court.

If you really want to sue for defamation, feel free to ask for my info. I’ll be more than happy to show up to the hearing...

I think I made myself clear enough when I started this thread. This isn't about filing a lawsuit or anything dramatic; it’s simply about your lack of competence in handling moderator duties. It's for that exact same reason I asked for a performance review regarding how Blake handles things as a supermod.

And please, stop throwing up straw man arguments. I have zero interest in debating your logical fallacies.

The fact that I still haven't received an apology—instead, I got a pretty arrogant and intellectually dishonest response, despite it being obvious that Emily Patel70 was in the wrong—only reinforces everything I laid out in the introduction of this topic.

If you think this is libel, go ahead—sue me. Since you’re already out here threatening the site admins, I might as well let you know that you can’t touch anyone else on this board except for me... and honestly? I’d be more than happy to hand over all my info so you can serve those papers.

And like I said, I’m totally down for that. If you need that "smoking gun" for court to prove I claimed you got a warning when you actually didn't (which, by the way, totally trashed your reputation and honor), I will gladly provide it.

Too bad I already nuked your posts where you were being a total gutter-mouth, so I guess I'll just have to defend myself with silence...

Blake doesn't owe you an explanation for anything other than the warning itself, and since you were clearly breaking the rules, she obviously figured she shouldn't have to spell it out for you again.

And hey, I don't mind apologizing either. My bad for saying you got a warning, seeing as it wasn't even you who got hit with it, but some other guy on the forum.

Best,

Just wanted to clarify that I already hit him up via DM to swap info. Fingers crossed all this legal filing stuff stays strictly between us from here on out... keeps things cleaner.

Honestly, I'm tapped out. Got nothing left to add.

Emily Patel70 said:If you think this is libel, go ahead and sue me. Since you’re already busy making threats against the Reddit admins, I might as well point out that I'm the only one here you can actually hold accountable. If you want to file a claim, be my guest—I'll gladly hand over my info so you can send over the summons.

Red herring.

Like I said, I’m more than happy to step up. If you need a star witness to tell the judge that I was the one who called out that foul—when you actually played clean and they unfairly handed you a yellow card just to bruise your reputation—I've got your back. Consider me ready to testify.

Red herring.

Unfortunately, I went ahead and scrubbed those posts of yours where you were being incredibly crude, so I guess I’ll just have to defend myself with silence.

I’m not even sure how to frame this. I know I have a habit of using certain blunt, borderline rude expressions sometimes—I'll admit that much—but there’s absolutely no excuse for it. It doesn't justify anything.

Joy doesn't owe you an explanation for anything other than why you got a card. Since you clearly ignored the rules, she probably figured there was no point in repeating herself.

Red herring.

William Bennett53 said:Anyone on Reddit can sue whoever they want, but that’s between two private individuals. It has nothing to do with the rest of us here. I’m asking that people stop bringing this up, and more importantly, please stop using the threat of lawsuits against others on this platform.

Threats? Seriously?

Should I hire a translator just so you people would stop throwing up red herrings?

Didn't I just clarify that we aren't talking about any lawsuits in this thread?

Let me get ahead of this and clarify what I mean by a red herring:

The red herring is one of those classic moves you see all the time. It’s an informal fallacy where someone basically takes what their opponent said, twists it into a ridiculous caricature, and then attacks that fake version instead of the actual point. For this trick to actually work, though, you need an audience that doesn't know any better—people who haven't heard the real argument and are happy to believe the distorted version being served up.

The classic "red herring" tactic works like a magic trick. It gives you this fake sense of victory, making it look like you’ve totally dismantled someone's point when, in reality, you just swapped their actual argument for a much weaker, distorted version. You essentially build a dummy version of their position—kind of like setting up a target in a shooting range that isn't actually the person standing in front of you—and then you take all your shots at that fake target instead of addressing what they actually said. It’s a way to claim a win without ever stepping into the ring for the real fight.

Is there anyone here with decent vision, or maybe just some working contacts or glasses, who can give me a straight answer without trolling me?

None of that is a strawman argument; I'd suggest taking another look at your own definitions.

It seems you all feel that taking action isn't necessary, so feel free to lock this thread. I’m done pointing out the gaps in your moderation team; it’s pretty clear you guys couldn't care less.

Thanks(?), see ya.