/canterlot/ - Canterlot

At this moment I have a few more hours at work, but I will lock the thread pending review.

Best I can do at this exact moment.

I don't see the issue.

>>7235
The issue is that it got heated, and now I'm going to try to sort through it.

>>7233
Rule 2a refers to deliberate provocation of an uncivil action, which is not what occurred here.
Nobody is obligated to agree with you, as you evidently so think.
People can disagree with you without trying to provoke you. If you do not have the capacity to argue with others who disagree with you without being provoked, that is a personal issue. It is not a violation of the rules.

>2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

Rule 2c refers to the use of strawman to misrepresent someone's argument into something it is not deliberately.
Again that is not what has occurred here.
What has been argued against is specifically what you had stated in that thread, as you made the claim that Uncle Ben was an example of a happy slave.
This is the claim that is being refuted by Swan. You had said, to quote, "Cause things like aunt jemima and uncle ben are the happy slaves.".
Swan rightfully pointed out that the claim you made was objectively false.
This is not a strawman, as it clearly refers to an argument you, as matter of objective fact, made, and at no point is there anything to suggest Swan intentionally misrepresented any of the arguments you made therein.
Someone pointing out the flaws in your argument is not a dishonest slight against you.
At best, it's a misunderstanding you caused, which is specifically within the bounds of the rules.

>2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

>>7237
Apparently it wasn't clear why I'm  leaving the thread locked for the duration of the ban.

The reasons are twofold.

1: I want Andrea to step away from it for a while and cool off, but I also don't want people to essentially continue the argument at her without her being able to respond there.

2: That everyone else would take the hint and not try to continue this outside of that thread either.


I made my decision, and the matter is to be dropped now. You aren't a mod. If you were, you'd have had a chance to veto anything I said in that final post. I already gave her the harshest punishment of those involved. You can leave it well enough alone.

>>7236
On the partly related note come on it is my stance that you used your political beliefs as the primary reasoning to warn others in regards to strawmanning.
 You provided reason from your own position for the claim of Uncle Ben being a happy slave to be reasonable, but did not use the arguments made in that thread up to that point.   You created your own position as you believe Griffon meant, better presented and formatted, but ultimately created.
This is what is called a steel steelman argument.  Reasonable perhaps to do to an opponent that you disagree with, in order to attack the argument from a greater angle than simply the mistakes of a maid. But not reasonable to determine whether or not somebody is strawmanning, as it's explicitly not the argument that they made.

Even if we were to take forgranted that what you were doing was purely giving griffon's position and not your own, that position was not what was stated and it was not responded to.
The rules explicitly allow for misunderstanding, and require the strawmanning to be intentional,  not accidental.
At best,  your arguments give clarity to misunderstanding, but they do not prove nor suggest it wasn't merely that; a misunderstanding.

This issue of the rules aside though, my greater issue is that you stated your beliefs, made your case for why they are correct,  used them as a basis to warn those who'd disagree with you,  and then immediately locked the thread not allowing any of us who would wish to refute the arguments made unable to,  because somebody else was banned.
Why do you get to have the final say on the threads subject?
If you had taken the position of neutral arbitrator come on I wouldn't have issue, but you specifically gave your reasons why we were wrong, and then locked the thread. You did not give us an opportunity to say that we disagree with your rational. You didn't give us the chance to argue against the points that you raised. You declared it the final word on the matter, we were wrong, they were right, and there's no argument to be had apparently.
What gives you that right?
Is there no obligation for staff to be neutral, or at least when stating their beliefs, refrain from preventing those who would disagree from giving their reasons?
I presume we would not be allowed to recreate a thread specifically to respond and refute your points, right?
If so why is it acceptable to have us sit around and wait an entire week until the thread is likely dead and forgotten, in order to argue against what was said?
Why is it you can go an entire week unchallenged on the subject?

>>7238
>1: I want Andrea to step away from it for a while and cool off, but I also don't want people to essentially continue the argument at her without her being able to respond there.

And so in doing, you continued the argument without giving the rest of us opportunity to respond there
Why did Andrea get that consideration, while we did not?
Why not neutrally engage the subject, and not give your position on the matter?

>I made my decision, and the matter is to be dropped now. You aren't a mod. If you were, you'd have had a chance to veto anything I said in that final post. I already gave her the harshest punishment of those involved. You can leave it well enough alone.
If that's your position, by all means, lock the thread.
But, if it's open to the public, I don't think it unreasonable for me to respond with my beliefs on the matter.

>>7239
>On the partly related note come on it is my stance that you used your political beliefs as the primary reasoning to warn others in regards to strawmanning.
Nope. The company can do what it wants. If it were my choice I'd have leaned into portraying a successful African American businessman rather than cutting the whole character. If they cut the character because they think it will make more money because it'll appeal to the "woke masses," then fine. Make money.

>This is what is called a steel steelman argument.
You can claim that's what I did, but I was giving my interpretation of what she was trying, and failing, to adequately communicate, as well as the stated reasons the company gave for why they made the choice they did and attempted to follow their reason.

> You provided reason from your own position for the claim of Uncle Ben being a happy slave to be reasonable, but did not use the arguments made in that thread up to that point.   You created your own position as you believe Griffon meant, better presented and formatted, but ultimately created.
Griffon explicitly switched to discussing the idea of the archetype. Just because she was incorrect on the literal fit didn't necessarily completely invalidate the point she was trying to make on why some people would consider the character to be problematic. Archetypes can be very broad, using symbols from past iterations. I can absolutely understand why someone would think he's an evolution of the Happy Slave.

>Even if we were to take forgranted that what you were doing was purely giving griffon's position and not your own, that position was not what was stated and it was not responded to.
From what I saw, it very much seemed that no one was engaging with her refined argument and instead were focusing in on the one thing that she previously was incorrect on. My guess for why being because she was being hostile.
>The rules explicitly allow for misunderstanding, and require the strawmanning to be intentional, not accidental.

Considering the misunderstanding continued to be harped on despite her attempts at clarification are where I interpret it as being deliberate. Swan did try to deescalate and I do appreciate that, though it failed. They could have been a bit more delicate with how they phrased their point.

>At best,  your arguments give clarity to misunderstanding, but they do not prove nor suggest it wasn't merely that; a misunderstanding.
That things continued as such, especially trying to rules lawyer after Moony had already stepped in is when I decide that this has become deliberate. I need to reiterate, leave modding to mods. You can make your grievances clear in your reports.

>This issue of the rules aside though, my greater issue is that you stated your beliefs, made your case for why they are correct,  used them as a basis to warn those who'd disagree with you,  and then immediately locked the thread not allowing any of us who would wish to refute the arguments made unable to,  because somebody else was banned.
Again. Wrong. These are not my beliefs. I'm not the one who warned Swan, I just agreed with Moony. I warned Raven because I think harping on that point rather than engaging with the broader point that Andrea made as a followup is a strawman. Because after being given more context instead of something like "Ah, I see, well let me argue that point then," Raven escalated and just focused on the fact that she was mad. And I locked the thread, because I'm not interested in coming back and dealing with yet another argument or report from it.

>Why do you get to have the final say on the threads subject?
Because I, or another mod, will have to come in and deal with it. It took all of five posts after Moony for it to continue spiraling. So I don't want to deal with it. Because, amazing, it was made into a problem that the mods were asked to step into. If it had stayed civil I wouldn't have even bothered.

>If you had taken the position of neutral arbitrator come on I wouldn't have issue, but you specifically gave your reasons why we were wrong, and then locked the thread. You did not give us an opportunity to say that we disagree with your rational. You didn't give us the chance to argue against the points that you raised. You declared it the final word on the matter, we were wrong, they were right, and there's no argument to be had apparently.
Which is what I did.

>What gives you that right?
Bluntly, Moony.

>Is there no obligation for staff to be neutral, or at least when stating their beliefs, refrain from preventing those who would disagree from giving their reasons?
Not my beliefs, my interpretation of Andrea's beliefs due to her's being the point of contention. In no small part because of her belligerence, mind.

>I presume we would not be allowed to recreate a thread specifically to respond and refute your points, right?
Are you going to do it to just rules lawyer because you're mad a mod decided to be tough, or are you actually going to try to engage with the points I tried to make? If it's the latter, I guess that's fine. I don't care. Not a conversation I'm interested in. You'll have to have it with someone else.

>If so why is it acceptable to have us sit around and wait an entire week until the thread is likely dead and forgotten, in order to argue against what was said?
>Why is it you can go an entire week unchallenged on the subject?
You mean the thread that went dormant for almost a month twice in a row? I dunno, seems people are passionate enough about it to let it go for a week, formulate their arguments and come back.

And, again, I don't actually have a horse in this race. I'm going to unlock it in a week and if it goes into a civil discussion I'll gladly never go back.

>>7240
>And so in doing, you continued the argument without giving the rest of us opportunity to respond there
Not really, I gave my interpretation of the discussion. You will have your time to respond to the topic in a week.

>Why did Andrea get that consideration, while we did not?
Because Andrea got the longest ban. And for the record, I was going to leave it at a warning for Andrea and unlock the thread, but I was advised to make it a week when I consulted the other mods and so I then decided since one of you was gone, I'd just keep the thread locked until you could all try again, hopefully more civilly.

>Why not neutrally engage the subject, and not give your position on the matter?
I did. I actually didn't know that "Uncle" and "Aunt" for African-Americans was used by white racists in the past to avoid using "Mr.", "Ms." and "Mrs." with black people until this morning when I went reading to try and figure out the issue. Now I didn't know that, but I do understand that coding is a thing. So I can understand why some would feel "Uncle Ben" carries that coding and feel strongly about that. But he's not literally the Happy Slave archetype, which seemed to be the point of contention.

>If that's your position, by all means, lock the thread.
I want to be really, really clear on something, alright?

Swan's right. I poke my head in when a report comes in, and now as a mod it's suddenly become my problem. I don't particularly like having to come in and start being a hardass, especially on topics I don't care about.






And since you seem so interested, here's my actual belief on the matter.

It doesn't matter. It's a private company with a mascot made in a different age that may have had some unfortunate coding as a result of the time it was made. America was a segregated country at the time and so there are some problematic elements to the character that are a relic of the time. I think it would have been better if rather than throwing the character out all together if they had perhaps made a few tweaks, maybe use "Mr. Ben" rather than "Uncle Ben," and use that to rehabilitate the image of the character into an independent and successful businessman in his own right, which I think was the general sentiment of many. I think that this entire argument is pointless culture war nonsense with people making a mountain out of a molehill, especially as an amoral, and I do use amoral very specifically here, corporation does what it does that those who run it think will make it more money by appealing to a potential wider market. I think it would have been cool if they'd tried to rehabilitate the character instead of just axing him. Ultimately however I'm more frustrated people are spending time on a debate like this that is really none of their business rather than getting involved in their local politics, things that actually affect their lives and where real, actually meaningful change is possible for people in their day to day lives.



Now. If I didn't word things perfectly in my mod post to make it clear that I'm trying to understand where people other than me might be coming from and why they would feel the way they do, my bad. My decision still stands. I'm unlocking the thread in a week. I have taken the actions I have with the consent, input, and alterations of the rest of the mod staff.

>>7241
>Nope. The company can do what it wants. If it were my choice I'd have leaned into portraying a successful African American businessman rather than cutting the whole character
I agree, as I said in the thread at the time. It's their business, but people are free to critique them for it as well.  And yeah, having a successful black businessman should make for a positive roll model.  There I agree too.
Doesn't have anything to do with my complaint here, however.
Unless you're trying to say it wasn't your position, in which case I would say I never suggested it was.
What I think your position is, from your own words, that you "think that it's fair to consider Uncle Ben to be coded to invoke the idea of the Happy Slave, even if he doesn't meet the criteria of the archetype perfectly."
This is the source of my disagreement personally with Griffon, and likewise my disagreement with your final post in that thread.
I, too, didn't really care about them removing it, beyond thinking it's dumb to do so.
This isn't a position I disagree with, and you even said it in your post besides.

>but I was giving my interpretation of what she was trying, and failing, to adequately communicate,
Yes.  That's steelmanning.
Are you familiar with the term?
If not, it comes up in the "strawman" thread,  and I'd be happy to discuss the concept there. Otherwise, the Wikipedia article goes into a bit of detail.

>Just because she was incorrect on the literal fit didn't necessarily completely invalidate the point she was trying to make on why some people would consider the character to be problematic
As far as I can tell, nobody suggested it did.
There may well be other reasons to find him problematic. But he is not a "happy slave".
I did not see anyone in the thread go further than that, that I recall.
>Archetypes can be very broad, using symbols from past iterations. I can absolutely understand why someone would think he's an evolution of the Happy Slave.
I, too, can see why.  But I think they would be mistaken.
This is why I am annoyed you locked the thread with your final say.
This is a concept I disagree with you on, and want to explore.

>From what I saw, it very much seemed that no one was engaging with her refined argument and instead were focusing in on the one thing that she previously was incorrect on.
Because the refined point was not provided, and the incorrect item was the one we had issue with.

This is how conversation works.
Most the time you talk with someone, you won't disagree with them on the whole, but have parts which you do.
For example,  I might agree with someone that corporations are bad, but disagree with them about some specific thing that they think one has done.
This is normal. I'd call it healthy, even.
>My guess for why being because she was being hostile.
I agree.  However, this is their mistake.  It's a common one, and I wouldn't hold it against them if they didn't keep to an escalated position throughout. Though, even there, I certainly have no qualms with forgiving.
I wouldn't have been personally involved much at all with that aspect, anyway, were it not for Moony's reply.
Rewarding bad behavior helps nobody, and just encourages that behavior to persist.
Staff are supposed to look in to things,  and so they shouldn't have gone without issue despite calling their opposition "cunt".

>Considering the misunderstanding continued to be harped on despite her attempts at clarification are where I interpret it as being deliberate.
I disagree clarification occurred. At the initial statement, it was met with snark. Further on, it was sidestepped, not clarified, also with some anger,  by pointing to other characters that weren't what Swan referred to as mistaken in his original post.
It's only at the point where they say "Fuck you you disengenuous hypocritical cunt" that you get anything close to clarification.
And this only pulls the defense of perception by others, which is irrelevant, as perception can be mistaken.
It was at one point common perception that the black man was inferior, for instance. Perception doesn't equate to truth, and so Swans claim that the character wasn't a "happy slave" is still perfectly legitimate, as that is what was claimed.

If someone says "sharks kill people", it isn't unreasonable to argue against this, even if the person who said it claims that's what people think.
They can be mistaken.

>That things continued as such, especially trying to rules lawyer after Moony had already stepped in is when I decide that this has become deliberate.
Moony's "stepping in" was to say it's fine to call people cunts, just don't you dare ever suggest an argument is made from emotion.

In any case; critique is not instantly " rules lawyering", nor is it unreasonable to point to inconsistencies wherein one party is evidently allowed to insult and belittle the other harshly, but suggesting an argument is from emotion is wrong.
It is not invalid to point out issues.  

The immediate dismissal of anyone pointing out these inconsistencies as "rules lawyering" rather does well to show the regard you have towards them,  and their application.  

>Again. Wrong. These are not my beliefs.
Here is your quote back to you;
"So, Uncle Ben isn't literally a Happy Slave, but I think it's fair to say that he's adjacent, which is the contention that Brainy Griffon has with pointing it out in the way Swan has done here. I think that it's fair to consider Uncle Ben to be coded to invoke the idea of the Happy Slave, even if he doesn't meet the criteria of the archetype perfectly."
Were you lying then?

>I'm not the one who warned Swan, I just agreed with Moony.
Didn't mean Swan.

>I warned Raven because I think harping on that point rather than engaging with the broader point that Andrea made as a followup is a strawman.
Nobody is obligated to discuss a larger topic they don't care about, instead of a part that they do.

If you tell me "the world needs economic reform,  cows are dying, gas is going up, and ships are sinking", it's not a strawman for me to ignore the matter of economic reform, and talk about what I know of shipping that would suggest that part is not true.
That's 100% legitimate, and doesn't fit into the definition of straw man at all.
Again, feel free to discuss it in the thread on that if you'd like.

>Because after being given more context instead of something like "Ah, I see, well let me argue that point then," Raven escalated and just focused on the fact that she was mad.
So ban for the insults. That would have been legitimate.
The strawman angle doesn't hold true given the definition of the term

It isn't a strawman simply to disagree with someone on a part of their point.
Nor does anger at staff rewarding someone who insults those they agree with make a strawman.

>And I locked the thread, because I'm not interested in coming back and dealing with yet another argument or report from it.
This runs contrary to your prior narrative,  but I'll assume this is the true one of the pair:

If so, given you got rid of the person throwing insults for people having the audacity to point out flaws in their argument, why?
Shouldn't the thread be safe,  now that the troublemaker was gone?

>If it had stayed civil I wouldn't have even bothered.
You banned the party responsible.
This logic does not hold up.
Your prior claim for reasoning was better.

>[]
This post is getting long, so I'm going to split it here.  Bear with me, as I read these things as I go;

>>7241
>Which is what I did.
Except that you stated your beliefs on the topic, gave cause for those involved to wish to voice their disagreement on the subject, and then made it so that they could not.

So, no,  you did the opposite.

>Bluntly, Moony.
That gives you the power, but rights are more to do with morality.
I grant this might be a deeper subject than can reasonably be done on /site/, however.

>Not my beliefs, my interpretation of Andrea's beliefs due to her's being the point of contention.
Again, your post there suggests otherwise.
If it's not your intent to give that impression, do not use "I" and other self referential terminology.

>If it's the latter, I guess that's fine.
Glad to hear it! I'll make a thread for a point-by-point breakdown later, then.
You had stated in the thread when it was initially locked not to, so that's why I figured you wouldn't let it occur.

Though I don't appreciate the derisive snark,  I do appreciate the clarification and allowance for opportunity there to respond.

>You mean the thread that went dormant for almost a month twice in a row?
With new discussion essentially resetting from the last post each time, as far as I saw.
Yes.

>I'm going to unlock it in a week and if it goes into a civil discussion I'll gladly never go back.
It isn't necessarily to you I want to speak, as the topic.
The points raised.
Who largely doesn't matter to me.

>Not really, I gave my interpretation of the discussion. You will have your time to respond to the topic in a week.
A prevention for a week is still a prevention.

>Because Andrea got the longest ban
Why did that matter?

>And for the record, I was going to leave it at a warning for Andrea and unlock the thread, but I was advised to make it a week when I consulted the other mods and so I then decided since one of you was gone, I'd just keep the thread locked until you could all try again, hopefully more civilly.
I personally don't care much either way on the duration, as much the concept in general.
In any case,  why?
With the incivil person removed, why would it need to be delayed for a restart?
Why not allow the moving on with people who don't call others "cunts"?

>I did.
I think you misunderstood, given the rest of this post;
I don't mean simply be neutral when looking in to it, though you should as well.
I mean be neutral throughout all of it.

>But he's not literally the Happy Slave archetype, which seemed to be the point of contention.
Yes, which is still the contention,  as I at least do not believe perception is enough to call something what it is not.
Which is what I want to discuss further.

>And since you seem so interested, here's my actual belief on the matter.
As I said prior, I don't disagree with you, and that's not where my contention lies.

Unfortunately, you evidently didn't take the time to examine my own position on the subject, or what I had said already, it seems.
If so, you would realize my problem is not the removal, as I don't care to say more than it is dumb, but rather with calling a cat a fish, a bird a deer, ect.

The position I am accussing you of holding is the one you claimed to think in the thread, in your post locking said thread.
I do not care about your position on the greater subject, as it literally doesn't matter in the slightest to me.

My contention is more to do with calling a cat a fish, because of public perception,  and then declaring this to be true before locking the thread down, leaving us unable to refute it.

Does this clear things up a bit?

>I have taken the actions I have with the consent, input, and alterations of the rest of the mod staff.
This, likewise, isn't something I care all that much about.
I'm sure Moony did as well.
It's not a matter of relevancy for me.

>>7237
>Rule 2a refers to deliberate provocation of an uncivil action, which is not what occurred here.
>Nobody is obligated to agree with you, as you evidently so think.
People can disagree with you without trying to provoke you. If you do not have the capacity to argue with others who disagree with you without being provoked, that is a personal issue. It is not a violation of the rules.

I mean, I was literally accused of being too emotional when trying to make a point about character archetypes. I was being civil in my first post in that thread. I reacted in kind to being so rudely dismissed and patronized. That kind of shit is pretty much a bad faith tactic designed to provoke, so you know what? Fuck it, you provoked me so I dismissed you with sarcasm in turn. And the fact you're still doing it here and dictating what I was thinking or what my reasons for going ahead and reacting with incivility here isn't doing you any favors

>>7237
>This is the claim that is being refuted by Swan. You had said, to quote, "Cause things like aunt jemima and uncle ben are the happy slaves.".
>Swan rightfully pointed out that the claim you made was objectively false

The claim I made was about character archetypes not about Uncle Ben specifically. It's disengenuous as fuck to pretend like I was arguing about Uncle Ben specifically while so deliberately ignoring the rest of tge pist I was arguing. It's fucking cowardly too.

>>7241
>My guess for why being because she was being hostile

I wasn't being hostile in the post where I mentioned the happy slave archetype, trying to focus in on that one point about whether or not Uncle Ben was an example of one, while ignoring the broader point in order to claim the entire argument is invalid is just petulance. I would have thought that given the topic of the thread (i.e. why people find characters like Uncle Ben offensive) that my point wasn't about Uncle Ben specifically, but about the perception of the character given the history of the character archetype of black characters happy in servitude to whites and what propoganda purposes that served in the Jim Crow era. Hence my references to Uncle Remus. (and on a side note it's the character archetype satirized via the Uncle Ruckus character on The Boondocks). Since my comments were about the perception of the character rather then the reality, and that contrary to the OPs implications, it doesn't matter what the reality is when the reality isn't common knowledge, and thus doesn't have any bearing on the perception of the character. In fact, being wrong about the character just kinda proves my point, it's not common knowledge when the popular perception of the character is what archetype he would appear to fit.

If I came off as hostile in my first post, it would be in frustration over the fact this wasn't even acknowledged anywhere in the thread, and too me, it all looked like a giant circlejerk exho chamber centered around an yet another OP post with a leading question, with an unquestioned assumption. Seriously, I am generally sick of a lot of bad faith arguments in OPs on townhall, especially the concern trolling where leading questions are accepted because those asking them are being civil and polite in their bad faith.

And to clarify as to why I had a problem with >>>/townhall/9313

was specifically
>Saying that he's a "Happy slave" is purely emotional on your part, and shows that you'll go through great lengths to see something negative which doesn't exist.

>is purely emotional on your part, and shows that you'll go through great lengths to see something negative which doesn't exist.

>you'll go through great lengths to see something negative which doesn't exist

The fact that the staff apparently doesn't seem to recognize this as the violation of rule 2a that it is and that it's literally strawmanning my mindset in a hostile and patronizing way and only giving a warning to it is why I expressed a lack of faith in the staff. After that, I didn't give to shits if I got banned from here. The disingenuousness has been happening all over /townhall/ for way too long with wY too much benefit of the doubt given all around.

Alright, well I'm not going to just let this thread be a proxy for the old one. That it was a mistake on my part to continue engaging.

To Anon: The thread's staying locked for the week. And forewarning, if you flood /canterlot/ with complaint posts you can be banned for that. We've done so before. There comes a point you need to accept the mod ruling whether you like it or not, that time is now.

Andrea: I understand you're frustrated. I can understand why you're frustrated. As you said, however, you no longer cared if you got banned, and for this week you have been. Take the time to disengage and try to cool off.


If either of you continue in this thread, I will lock it.

>>7246

I've said my piece.

I'm not going to engage with the two anons here anymore. This thread was directed at the site staff anyway.

>>7247
That's fine.



Anon(s), since that was Andrea disengaging, if you want to give a last word and likewise disengage, I'll let you, and then I'm locking this thread.

>>7241
>Considering the misunderstanding continued to be harped on despite her attempts at clarification are where I interpret it as being deliberate.
I'm just going to make a very limited point without commenting on any of the other issues: Communication is often difficult between people coming from different background knowledge or worldviews [1, 2, 3].  Misunderstandings are still quite possible even after attempts at clarification, especially when emotions are running high.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/inferential-distance
[2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5LASfhhArZ7w/expecting-short-inferential-distances
[3] https://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

If I had known it would've lead to this much wasted time on everyone's behalf I would've held my tongue on the matter.

Guess I'll lay off Townhall for a bit as well.

I do apologize, I was a bit heavy handed in my approach initially.

>>7248
I think I've said enough. Each aspect you've presented was easily enough countered, and your only major defense was indifference and an appeal to your own authority.

I don't care one way or another what actually happens, as I am in agreement with Andrea, the staff here are not particularly good at their job.
The inconsistent enforcement that appears to care more for appeasement of the person escalating things than fair standards in accordance to the rules as writ is something I'm inclined to complain about when it comes up.

I expect nothing from you, as you've made your position clear. You do not care what I, or for that matter Andrea, thinks. You're the mod, you'll do whatever you want to do, and anyone who has any disagreements or complaints is a "rules lawyer", as you put it.

As to your petty threats for 'flooding canterlot', I am not the one who created this thread.
I merely voiced my opinion in it.
As you have stated, you have the moral right to do as you will with your mod purely because you were given the power to do so. If that is sufficient for you, my ability to post ought be likewise sufficient for you as reason enough to comment.
Threats are not going to change either item.

>>7251
>the staff here are not particularly good at their job.
Eh, I think that's too harsh.  I have some quibbles about some things that the site staff do (including this recent episode on /townhall/), but overall I think they do a great job.  The site staff here are much better than the Reddit admins and a lot of subreddit mods.  On some subreddits, the mods ban people simply for disagreeing with them.

>>7249
>>7250
>>7251
Noted.

>>7251
Some people really like to RP that they are being oppressed by the sanctimonious, power tripping mods instead of accepting that sometimes they are just biased heavily towards themselves and only have a fraction of the total picture. The fact you are allowed to freely spit in the face of a mod and have no action taken against you would tell a wise person where the bulk of the power actually lies here.