@Seraphim73 said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:
If there's a place where you can't shame actual crypto-fascists for being crypto-fascists, I don't want to be a member of that community.
You can here, so long as you provide some kind of evidence for the accusation and aren't just engaging in the current generation's equivalent of a Commie Hunt.
And your continued use of "some of these personalities" and "they" is complete bullshit.
I disagree, personally, but I want to point out that this is an acceptable statement for reviews and debates, because it's about a behavior or an idea. Not about a person.
you were one of those most vitriolic members of the Hog Pit, you just couched things in terms you thought were nice (sometimes). @Kestrel previously called you out with receipts for some of the many times you've done this. You were/are part of the problem, and you were/are part of normalizing it.
This is less acceptable. What is the point of this? You aren't trying to say here, "some of the things you did contributed to the problems that we're currently facing, and you should consider how you're going to handle that going forward." This is just meant to browbeat and shame a person based on personal dislike for no other reason than to vent your spleen in an argument. And frankly, you're intelligent enough to already know this. I know you are, I've seen it firsthand when we've talked.
Don't do this. You're better than that.
For everyone, at large: We really, truly aren't fucking around when we tell people to lay off the personal attacks. STOP IT. Debate ideas all you want to. You can even call out behaviors that you find problematic with evidence, but just trying to browbeat someone to win some kind of internet points is not gonna fly.
and now you're trying to shove that all on people who have been split (some by their own choice, some not) from this community and are in no position to correct your gaslighting.
Alright. I want to make a few things clear here, since this keeps coming up.
-
The people who aren't here are all not here of their own choice. They were explicitly warned multiple times to stop engaging in the behavior that they were engaging in, and then continued to do so even after they were made aware of what the consequences would be, so can we please stop repeating this line like it's somehow going to become truer based on volume of appearances? It's not. They all knew precisely what they were doing, and there is documented evidence in visible parts of the thread for this already. They weren't innocent bystanders. They made a choice, each and every one of them, and while I might not agree with the overall outcome in all cases, pretending that they were somehow swept up in a flood of bannings like some kind of tidal wave they had no way to get clear of is about as revisionist as you can get when there is actual, verifiable evidence to the contrary.
-
There were some mentions made awhile back that some of the bannings were due to inappropriate PMs. To be clear, there was one due to DMs, Farfalla, as was announced on the forum at the time, and one banning based on reported predatory behavior. Those were not reconsidered at all, and anything attributed to those should not be lumped in with the rest of the bans.The rest of them were about continuing to engage in a behavior they were repeatedly told to stop engaging in. I want to get that out there, for the record.
ETA: I am mistaken, we did in fact reverse Farfalla. My brain is an imperfect meat sponge.