So, I have my own perspectives and biases on this issue. I'm operating with limited information. I believe my reasoning holds up based on the information available to me, but I like to believe I'm a rational person. I recognize that I'm speculating, so if there's any information that contradicts any of these points, please bring it up and I'll change my position.
That being said, based on what I do
know, there's a lot about this that doesn't smell right to me. I'm going to dig into it and hope either party can provide some answers. First off, there's this exchange:
You were banned due to credible accusations of being a holocaust denier. We do not tolerate that.
If it will unabashedly dispel these false claims about me, will go ahead and publicly state it here for the record - Yes, I believe the Holocaust happened. I believe Hitler actively engaged in a campaign of genocide against ethnic and religious Jews in Germany - Jews who just twenty years ago he had fought beside in the trenches of World War I - and allowed horrendous and egregious crimes against humanity to happen to them in an act of barbarism unparalleled. I pray that such an indication of the inherently evil nature of man never happens again, and actively disavow any suggestions that I support, praise, or otherwise hold a positive view of the Holocaust in any way, shape, or form.
Oh, so you were only jokingly making statements that are holocaust denial. Great. That clears that right up.
There's an issue here that has nothing to do with the ban, and Andreas was right to object to it. The E's first post all but calls Andreas a Holocaust denier, which is basically equivalent to calling him a card-carrying Neo-Nazi. It's a profoundly serious condemnation and should be treated as such. By Andreas' own admission, he made "insensitive jokes" for immature reasons. That isn't in dispute. But it is not
equivalent to denying the Holocaust, as E implied. And even if Andreas had held that position at the time, he doesn't now
. Either way, unless the situation is profoundly different than it seems, calling Andreas a "Holocaust denier" was inappropriate.
Secondly, there's E's claim to have blocked Andreas because they couldn't reply. On the surface, this doesn't really add up. Unless Andreas were spamming E, that isn't a particularly sensible reason to block him in the first place. But "friending" is mutual on Discord, and unless they were "friends" in the first place, Andreas shouldn't have been able to message E in the first place. Since both parties agree that Andreas messaged E after the ban, they must have been friends, so E should
have been able to respond to Andreas. (Discord also allows DMs between people who have a server in common, whether or not they're friends, but if that were the case, E should still have been able to reply to Andreas.)
None of that's directly related to the ban. What is definitely
related is how strangely this ban was handled. As far as I'm aware, no one was notified of the ban. I performed server-wide searches on Discord for "ban," "banned", "kick", "remove", "suspend", and even "hammer" and found no relevant results. Andreas was not notified of the ban - neither why he was banned nor even that he had been
. But, most tellingly, he DM'd one of the other Discord moderators to ask if he had been, and that moderator didn't know
Let that sink in a bit. A ban is the single strongest tool in a moderator's toolbox. They're compared to Mjolnir for a reason
. For this other moderator to be unaware that the ban had happened
implies that E invoked a moderator's strongest tool without seeking the consent of, nor even
notifying, the other moderators
. If E had even posted "I just banned Andreas" in some moderator-only server, then this other mod would have been aware. They would certainly
have been aware if there were any discussion about it. That implies that The E performed the ban unilaterally
and swept it under the rug.
Andreas has repeatedly stated that the comments he was banned for were made a year ago. So far, E hasn't denied that. That brings us to the heart of this case. If Andreas' behavior wasn't ban-worthy a year ago, and hasn't been ban-worthy in the mean time, where did this come from? So far, both parties have been content to leave unchallenged the narrative that Andreas' behavior has been fine since then. If that's the case, why ban him now
What motivated a immediate, unilateral ban a year after the fact?
E, like I said above, I know I only have one side of the story. So far, I've tried to make it clear why the information that's available to me
doesn't add up, but I know that's not all the information. If Andreas did or said something problematic recently
, for example, that totally changes the picture. So, please, if you know anything like that, please share it.