[Mongoose]

In addition to what karajorma has said, there are a few other points floating around that I'd like to address. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't make some sort of giant multi-quote monstrosity, because no one wants to read that and quite frankly I don't have the mental energy to write it.

First off, to clear up a misconception I saw earlier, the Discord server is an official part of the HLP community, and the same community guidelines posted here apply to the Discord as well. As the guidelines note, the only functional difference between the two is that there may be instances on Discord when a single moderator may have to take immediate action, due to the real-time nature of a chat room. However, any longer-lasting consequences are still discussed amongst the moderators before being implemented, as they were in this case.

I'm not sure why Fusion finds it hard to believe that the moderators didn't know about the existence of his alternate account before now. It's no exaggeration that there are over 3000 members on the Discord server. We're not going to notice any particular one of them unless they're online and actively posting. I can't speak for any of the other moderators, but I for one am not in the habit of looking through that list of 3000 names for a user I might recognize. And personally I can't think of a reason why I'd have two separate active Discord accounts that are members of the same server.

When I made the comment about not taking modding activity into account when making moderation decisions, it was in the context of applying the rules equally to all members, regardless of their status in the community. I've been around HLP for over 20 years now, and for a long time there was a disturbing tendency of bending over backwards to excuse some truly heinous personal behavior by certain individuals, all because they were skilled at writing code or making pretty fictional spaceships. The existence of the HLP Monkeys usergroup on the forums is a legacy of those times, a statement that the person in question couldn't be trusted to post civilly on any public-facing part of the forums...yet they were still allowed to remain part of the community because again, pretty spaceships. As a moderator I vehemently reject that approach. Whether the poster is a day-old newbie or a long-term established veteran, what concerns me when making moderation decisions is if that user is adhering to the guidelines that this community has established for proper behavior. Remember that being an active member here is a privilege, not a right.

I'm surprised that the concept of  taking a user's past actions into account when making moderation decisions is controversial in any way. Like...that's exactly how moderation works. If a user shows a pattern of behavior over time, then they're obviously going to be scrutinized more closely for any repeats of that behavior. It's like the real-life principle of a repeat offender getting harsher punishments for crimes. (And no I'm not suggesting that we're operating based on any sort of legal framework, it's just a simile.) I want to reiterate that this was not a case of someone posting "something stupid," or an opinion that other people might disagree with. This was a user making blatantly antisemitic statements on multiple occasions, which is an egregious violation of the community guidelines no matter how you slice it.

Likewise, I'm confused about why instituting a server policy regarding Discord-banned users and alternate accounts would be controversial. I don't think it's a big stretch to decide that if someone managed to land an entire platform ban, then we don't want them being able to post on our server. This isn't something that we've currently implemented, but we have discussed it. And just to reiterate, the Discord policy had absolutely no bearing on the discussion over Fusion. I wasn't even aware of it until Grizzly linked the community guidelines in here, which was after Fusion had been banned.

To Fusion, I still don't understand why you felt the need to make a public thread about this when you'd also reached out to chief about it in private. You had the option to send a forum PM to any of the moderators. Contrary to what you may think, we do regularly check the forums, and we'd receive an email notification for any new PMs. If you hadn't heard back from any of us in a day or two, then by all means reaching out in another way was understandable, but you didn't even attempt that first. Taking what should have been a private conversation over personal moderation decisions and turning it into public dirty laundry doesn't do anyone any favors.

And finally, I take issue with the suggestion that any of us made this decision for the sake of pursuing a "vendetta" against Fusion, or some sort of power trip, or any other such nonsense. The moderation team are all human beings, and we try to do the best we can with what we have to make this community a safe and welcoming place for everyone. (And as karajorma noted, we're very much stretched thin right now and could definitely use some new members that the community trusts.) We don't always get things completely right, and we welcome constructive feedback when that's the case. In this instance I definitely agree that our communication of the moderation action left a lot to be desired. But we discussed the matter and made our decision in good faith. I'll defer to karajorma's earlier posts for the rest.

[shiv]

Firstly, I'd like to thank the staff members for maintaining a measured and respectful tone in your replies, especially considering how emotional this discussion has become on all sides. I think many people here need to cool down, particularly after the last few comments, where the tone of some posts left much to be desired.

When I made the comment about not taking modding activity into account when making moderation decisions, it was in the context of applying the rules equally to all members, regardless of their status in the community. I've been around HLP for over 20 years now, and for a long time there was a disturbing tendency of bending over backwards to excuse some truly heinous personal behavior by certain individuals, all because they were skilled at writing code or making pretty fictional spaceships.

I'm not sure whether I, or others raising this point, explained it clearly enough. Many of us have pointed out that since Fusion's general discussion ban, he has demonstrated appropriate behavior. This has also been reflected in his conduct on internal mod development servers, which I can personally confirm.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that involvement in mod development should be treated as a mitigating factor or earn anyone special consideration. My point is simply that his statements and interactions in those spaces have met the expected standards of appropriate behavior.

I'm surprised that the concept of taking a user's past actions into account when making moderation decisions is controversial in any way. Like...that's exactly how moderation works. If a user shows a pattern of behavior over time, then they're obviously going to be scrutinized more closely for any repeats of that behavior. It's like the real-life principle of a repeat offender getting harsher punishments for crimes.

I can only speak for myself, but I find nothing controversial in that approach. Closely monitoring members who have previously caused issues is absolutely normal and expected. On that point, you have my full agreement.

That said, some may argue that I am repeating myself, but many people here believe that Fusion's most recent 'offense' was a mistake, one that cost him dearly, and I share that view. In my opinion, it was not a deliberate act, and the severity of the punishment does not reflect the nature of the mistake.

I understand the arguments presented by both sides, and I would genuinely like to see this discussion reach a conclusion sooner rather than later, before someone says something they might regret. As a community member who is not part of the moderation team, I am not in a position to decide the final outcome. However, if I were to suggest a balanced solution that could satisfy all parties, it would look something like this:

1. Fusion's past antisemitic actions were rightly punished. There is no debate about that.
2. Fusion made a careless mistake that had nothing to do with his previous offenses. However, given that Karajorma made a genuine effort to allow him to continue participating in FreeSpace-related discussions, Fusion should have exercised greater caution. He failed to properly inform the staff about the situation. That said, he did respect the imposed conditions and did not attempt to bypass restrictions by following the restrictions himself, which I consider a mitigating factor. Therefore, I believe an appropriate response would be a temporary ban - for example, one month.
3. If Fusion shows no remorse for his past actions, attempts to reopen arguments about previously settled offenses, or actually attempts to evade the ban, then the ban should remain permanent.
4. If Fusion ever again loses access to his account, forgets his password, then creates a new account, and joins the HLP Discord without informing the staff to restore his restrictions, he should be permanently banned.
5. The HLP rules should be updated to clearly address similar situations in the future, so the community does not have to go through another situation like this.

[JCDNWarrior]

I don't envy the work and role of moderators and admins and appreciate the effort and respectful approach, but I hope this discussion helps to improve the effort. I'd like to add my own two cents on the general topic.

I'm a huge fan of total, open and unlimited free speech both online and in real life, a Wild West like the early days of the Web, where ideas and opinions clash openly instead of reduced and retreated into safe spaces and echo chambers.
I understand that if I were thrust in such a role of moderation that the current zeitgeist of modern sensibilities puts a lot of pressure to sanitize discussions and scrutinize users, especially since nowadays, turning forums and boards or public places into a totally open free speech platform is like opening a bottle of soda after shaking it violently. But it may be preferable than the alternative in the long run.

I think one of the key issues about (internet) moderation that I haven't seen discussed openly or solved involves the cost of banning (or shaming, excluding, expulsing, excommunicating) people for saying things that you may disagree with or find repulsive is that these people won't just vanish from existence or reform and come crawling back obediently, but instead that they may become radical, resentful and bitter. They may no longer be 'your' problem, but it sweeps things under the rug to return later.
Ideally, moderation would refer and default to a common moral and ethical framework, for example 'do not steal', but due to polarization and radicalization, even 'do not steal' has become 'it's okay to steal from group X'. Anyone disagreeing with that would be shamed, excluded or banned for advocating a 'morally indefensible' or politically or ideologically incorrect stance, called a -ist or -phobe, enforcing an echo chamber.

It reminds me of the finger-pointing whenever a bullied and abandoned child goes on a rampage, or a man who sees no future and is hopeless goes postal. Nobody willing to take responsibility or even adequately identifying what led up to such tragic events. Most commit suicide and so are nobody's problem or responsibility, which seems preferable to them.

These days, a lot of the conditions that we live under are similar to that of Weimar Germany. The same polarization, the same social problems, political violence, decadence and moral decay and so much more. Trust in our society and system is at an all-time low, especially with recent revelations. And what followed the Weimar?

[mjn.mixael]

If indefinite length of negative past actions are always considered with no respect given to current behavior trends with respect to moderation decisions then don't be surprised that street goes both ways.

You keep saying the team is stretched and needs new mods the community trust... Given how often moderation decisions are taken issue with around here perhaps the current mods don't have as much trust as they think. Hell most of you don't really even participate in the community outside of popping off in the political thread or general areas on discord. I stopped participating in those areas because it seemed like Ryan got special treatment able to be super aggressive saying things with tones the rest would get warned for. Anecdotal but whatever. Perhaps the unspoken Internet rule of legacy leadership makes kings should no longer apply. Like why is Mage anywhere near moderating? His only credential is being first to Discord and Well Acktually-ing things once every couple months in SCP.

Maybe it's time for out with the old and in with the new. A moderation team that's actually active in the community AND has everyone's respect because of it.

Lafiel, Nyctaeus, Oddgrim, Admiral Nelson, Grizzly, Colt, Renegade Paladin, WookieJedie, DefCynodont, ShivanSPS, Darius, Kestrelius. I could probably list more.

EDIT: Serious question to the entire moderation team... If you weren't a moderator anymore, would you even still be active in the HLP server anymore?

[The E]

I'm a huge fan of total, open and unlimited free speech both online and in real life, a Wild West like the early days of the Web, where ideas and opinions clash openly instead of reduced and retreated into safe spaces and echo chambers.

This is, broadly speaking, ahistorical.
The "open clash of ideas" never happened. Even in the earliest days of online discussions through mailing lists, bbses and usenet, people were ostracized for their speech, communities formed and fractured along ideological lines, and everything you think of as "modern" happened back then too.
Echo chambers existed. Safe spaces existed. Inclusionary and exclusionary communities existed, just as they do today.

I think one of the key issues about (internet) moderation that I haven't seen discussed openly or solved involves the cost of banning (or shaming, excluding, expulsing, excommunicating) people for saying things that you may disagree with or find repulsive is that these people won't just vanish from existence or reform and come crawling back obediently, but instead that they may become radical and bitter. They may no longer be 'your' problem, but it sweeps things under the rug to return later.

The counterpoint to that is that ostracization and shaming is how humans have formed and defined communities since time immemorial. If you come into a community that does not tolerate antisemitism and are antisemitic in it (even just in an oblique "testing the waters" kind of way) and you get ostracized from that community, you have a choice: Do you change your behaviour to become acceptable to the community, or do you abandon your attempts to join it?                                                 
That some may choose to "become radical and bitter" is a hypothetical without value. If we do not tolerate antisemitism, but allow antisemites to join and spread antisemitic messaging, are we truly against antisemitism? If we choose to accept people into our community that espouse values counter to what we think our community should be about, what are those values worth?
Is the discomfort someone might feel at being excluded a greater harm than the harm done to the community by letting that person join or remain part of that community?

As to your assertion that these issues haven't been discussed openly: I would like to refer you to a post from 23 years ago that is relevant to this discussion.

Ideally, moderation would refer and default to a common moral and ethical framework, for example 'do not steal', but due to polarization and radicalization, even 'do not steal' has become 'it's okay to steal from group X'. Anyone disagreeing with that would be shamed, excluded or banned for advocating a 'morally indefensible' stance, called a -ist or -phobe, enforcing an echo chamber.

Is "Do not engage in holocaust denial or antisemitism" not common, moral or ethical enough? Do you seriously believe that there should be an allowed amount of that bull****?
Now, I'm guessing you'd want to talk about "the marketplace of ideas" or how you'd want to engage even those with views abhorrent to you in rational debate rather than excluding them, but... why? You cannot argue people out of nonsense like antisemitism or holocaust denial over the internet. Nothing is gained by giving these ideas the time of day. What you can do, and I believe what you should do, is stand up and say "Not in this house".

It reminds me of the finger-pointing whenever a bullied and abandoned child goes on a rampage, or a man who sees no future and is hopeless goes postal. Nobody willing to take responsibility or even adequately identifying what led up to such tragic events. Most commit suicide and so are nobody's problem or responsibility, which seems preferable to them.

So if our hypothetical holocaust denier, upon being excluded from the space combat game place, decides to go on a rampage - that is now our responsibility? Is the hypothetical notion of "if I moderate this bad poster, I might be hurting the feelings of a real human who may cause real harm" a reasonable standard in your mind?
The moderators of this forum and this discord server are not trained psychologists, ethicists, sociologists or law enforcement specialists. They're just nerds like you and me. To put the weight of this entire string of hypotheticals on them is nonsense; to use an analogy, does a barman who cuts someone off for the night become responsible for that person assaulting someone on the way home? No, of course not.

[Grizzly]

Mixael, As much as I'm flattered to be a trusted community member in your eyes, please don't put my name on a list like that. Especially not if that's list is being used as an argument in a fight against people that I do actually personally trust. I know you have your grievances here but c'mon.

I think at this point I should just point to The_E's earlier thread.

Also I hate that this is being done in the name of Fusion, based on his and Karajorma's posts in this thread, doesn't believe he did anything wrong for posting obvious racism like c'mon.

[Mito [PL]]

I'm reminding *once again* to especially you Grizzly that in fact, Fusion did nothing to warrant this ban, other than randomly lose his account. Past infractions of his were responded to properly, but now he's being punished for... I guess being noticed. And for past issues he's already been punished for. Like c'mon.

[Grizzly]

I'm aware of all that Mito, I just don't want my name put to a list in an argument in a heated moderation discussion.

[JCDNWarrior]

I'm a huge fan of total, open and unlimited free speech both online and in real life, a Wild West like the early days of the Web, where ideas and opinions clash openly instead of reduced and retreated into safe spaces and echo chambers.

This is, broadly speaking, ahistorical.
The "open clash of ideas" never happened. Even in the earliest days of online discussions through mailing lists, bbses and usenet, people were ostracized for their speech, communities formed and fractured along ideological lines, and everything you think of as "modern" happened back then too.
Echo chambers existed. Safe spaces existed. Inclusionary and exclusionary communities existed, just as they do today.

[Snipped for readability]

Hello The E, thanks for the informative response. Always good to have more sources.
It seems you are very focused on antisemitism and holocaust denial. Did you have family that suffered in it?
A great-uncle of mine was sent to one of the camps and was a rabid anti-German when he came back from the war and would become violently aggressive if he heard anyone speak German in his vicinity, but he did not live a happier or better life despite his ethnic and visceral hatred. It's one of many reasons why I seek to be neutral and level-headed, as hatred for others hardens the heart and clouds judgment.

All wars and tragedies lead to such sentiments, but in cases where it can be overcome, such as the US and Vietnam, Japan and the USA, the European Union in general, both achieve prosperity and mutually beneficial bonds. I think it's time to set aside this hatred and forgive those who did wrongs to us and our forefathers, like the Bible tells us to. Not doing so will only lead to alienating people from you who eventually may become your enemy.

I've grown up being taught and told to be tolerant and accepting of other peoples, beliefs, opinions and ethnicities. I've also been raised on the principle that people are people first and foremost, not the extent of their opinion. You call someone an 'antisemite' as though this is the extent of their identity, when they are human beings just like you and me that simply have a different opinion and worldview, based on and informed by information that they deemed to be correct, or perhaps personal experience. Perhaps a hypothetical user lost family in Gaza, for example. Whenever I've been confronted with people who have had fundamentally different opinions from mine, we were able to amicably 'agree to disagree', compromise, or look into the information we exchanged with eachother. I've never had situations where I would become enemies.

I'm also worried that if you can do this to a holocaust denier, that this would then also be done about any other opinions and lead to purity spirals. It's a classic 'When they came for group X, I didn't speak up, because I'm not a group X' to me. I like to think that I would do that for other difficult topics. Perhaps one day the tables turn and being antifascist is treated the same way - how would you respond to that?

I do think you bring up something else of interest. Moderators are people like you and me, but everyone is susceptible to being swayed one way or another to a ideology or worldview, which can affect or even skew their judgment. Normally it shouldn't be a problem if they maintain moral integrity, but because there are now two factions that have fundamentally different opinions about important social topics, this risks it becoming a conflict rather than neutral moderation. I suppose this is why there is a moderation team, but how does one avoid an entire team having the exact same alignment and ideology?

[EDIT: Quick edit at the end here: I don't mean to suggest that this is the case for the moderator team here, it's a general question.]

[Grizzly]

I'm also worried that if you can do this to a holocaust denier, that this would then also be done about any other opinions and lead to purity spirals. It's a classic 'When they came for group X, I didn't speak up, because I'm not a group X' to me. I like to think that I would do that for other difficult topics. Perhaps one day the tables turn and being antifascist is treated the same way - how would you respond to that?

You do know that the "First they came for" poem is about the holocaust right?

[JCDNWarrior]

I'm also worried that if you can do this to a holocaust denier, that this would then also be done about any other opinions and lead to purity spirals. It's a classic 'When they came for group X, I didn't speak up, because I'm not a group X' to me. I like to think that I would do that for other difficult topics. Perhaps one day the tables turn and being antifascist is treated the same way - how would you respond to that?

You do know that the "First they came for" poem is about the holocaust right?

Yep, I'm aware, I picked it because of the irony I feel that is present, or the circular issue. Victims often become abusers, their victims then become abusers themselves, the cycle continues.

[Grizzly]

... And you don't see why some people would want to speak out against anti-semitism when that very poem talks about what happens if you don't, written by someone who didn't speak out until it was too late?

[JCDNWarrior]

... And you don't see why some people would want to speak out against anti-semitism when that very poem talks about what happens if you don't, written by someone who didn't speak out until it was too late?

The poem is not only about anti-semitism but about how governments and authoritarians can suppress everyone by first going after the least defensible targets first. They may also gain popularity from doing so from their most ardent supporters. They also tend to go after their greatest threat first to break resistance, if they can. What I'm trying to do for this conversation is to bring up that if we support the removal of one group, then the next may follow. Fascists first, then Trump supporters maybe, Christians, but after that, why wouldn't they go after you? Power corrupts, and once in power, you have to hold onto it so that nobody deposes you or threatens your authority. What happened to the brownshirts, or many of the bolsheviks after taking power?

And who decides who is a fascist? What if you wake up tomorrow and are declared as one? Many Soviets were declared Enemies of the State, for example.

Anyway, I do feel like we're veering ever further away from the main topic, but I hope this clarifies things for you. If not, we can go into PM instead.

[Grizzly]

The poem is not only about anti-semitism but about how governments and authoritarians can suppress everyone by first going after the least defensible targets first. They may also gain popularity from doing so from their most ardent supporters. They also tend to go after their greatest threat first to break resistance, if they can. What I'm trying to do for this conversation is to bring up that if we support the removal of one group, then the next may follow.

That is, in fact, the anti-fascist position, yes. That's why combating anti-semitism is important - aside from the also extremely important moral stance of genocide being bad.

[The E]

Hello The E, thanks for the informative response. Always good to have more sources.
It seems you are very focused on antisemitism and holocaust denial. Did you have family that suffered in it?

I used antisemitism and holocaust denial for a couple of reasons.
1, those things are why Fusion was under the restrictions this whole drama stems from.
2, they are topics that are prime examples for opinions that cannot be tolerated in any form in a civilized community.
3, to the extent that my family was involved in the Holocaust, it was on the side of the ****ing Nazis. I take that legacy very seriously; My father instilled in me a firm moral foundation of "Never again", and I see no reason to change my absolutist stance on this subject.

A great-uncle of mine was sent to one of the camps and was a rabid anti-German when he came back from the war and would become violently aggressive if he heard anyone speak German in his vicinity, but he did not live a happier or better life despite his ethnic and visceral hatred. It's one of many reasons why I seek to be neutral and level-headed, as hatred for others hardens the heart and clouds judgment.

Does that extend to tolerating Fascists in your community? Do you think that "live and let live" is appropriate when it comes to dealing with those that would harm people for the color of their skin, their language, their culture, or their nation of origin?
I hate nazis and fascists. I do not need my heart softened for their plight and my judgment of them is clear: they either repent, or they can die in darkness for all I care. This hate is born out of love: If you harm my community, as all such people do, then you harm me, and I do not appreciate being harmed.

All wars and tragedies lead to such sentiments, but in cases where it can be overcome, such as the US and Vietnam, Japan and the USA, the European Union in general, both achieve prosperity and mutually beneficial bonds. I think it's time to set aside this hatred and forgive those who did wrongs to us and our forefathers, like the Bible tells us to. Not doing so will only lead to alienating people from you who eventually may become your enemy.

No, none of that. Forgiveness can be extended to those that are genuinely remorseful and who work to better themselves and their communities, but action must precede words. It is time for the fascists and racists to step back from their idiocy, not for us to pretend that they can be reintegrated as they are.

I've grown up being taught and told to be tolerant and accepting of other peoples, beliefs, opinions and ethnicities. I've also been raised on the principle that people are people first and foremost, not the extent of their opinion. You call someone an 'antisemite' as though this is the extent of their identity, when they are human beings just like you and me that simply have a different opinion and worldview, based on and informed by information that they deemed to be correct, or perhaps personal experience. Perhaps a hypothetical user lost family in Gaza, for example. Whenever I've been confronted with people who have had fundamentally different opinions from mine, we were able to amicably 'agree to disagree', compromise, or look into the information we exchanged with eachother. I've never had situations where I would become enemies.

In your hypothetical, that user is expressing a hatred of the israeli state - an arguably fascist, arguably genocidal colonial construct - as hatred of jews as a group. While that is an understandable transposition, I would still (if I were in a relevant position) come down on them like a ton of bricks because there's a difference between the state of israel and the people in it. Hatred of a state, of its policies and institutions, is one thing. Hatred of a people a very different one.
This is regardless of why they came to that position - while some paths to it are more sympathetic than others, and while I believe that some paths offer an easier way towards reconciliation and reacceptance than others, the fact of the matter is that I do not believe a society (or, for that matter, a discord server) can tolerate the presence of someone with those opinions.

I'm also worried that if you can do this to a holocaust denier, that this would then also be done about any other opinions and lead to purity spirals. It's a classic 'When they came for group X, I didn't speak up, because I'm not a group X' to me. I like to think that I would do that for other difficult topics. Perhaps one day the tables turn and being antifascist is treated the same way - how would you respond to that?

I know who and what I am. I am antifascist. I am antiracist. I am anticapitalist. If it is wrong to be any one of these things, then by god I will be proud to be wrong, because to abandon and betray our common humanity and surrender to those that would divide and murder in the name of purity is anathema.
Put another way, if any of these qualities mean I cannot be part of a community, then that's alright by me. They can die in darkness.

I do think you bring up something else of interest. Moderators are people like you and me, but everyone is susceptible to being swayed one way or another to a ideology or worldview, which can affect or even skew their judgment. Normally it shouldn't be a problem if they maintain moral integrity, but because there are now two factions that have fundamentally different opinions about important social topics, this risks it becoming a conflict rather than neutral moderation. I suppose this is why there is a moderation team, but how does one avoid an entire team having the exact same alignment and ideology?

There are topics where one can have reasonable disagreements about, and there are topics where one can't. Do trans people have a right to exist, to transition both socially and medically? That's one of those, and it's not a yes or no answer (it's yes). Why would you want a moderation team that's divided on that issue trying to decide whether someone posting anti-trans content is in violation of community standards? What do you think the ideal outcome would be?

Fascists first, then Trump supporters maybe, Christians, but after that, why wouldn't they go after you?

Leaving aside the question of whether there is a meaningful distinction between fascists and trump supporters, the answer is simple: Does membership in the group require the adoption of ideologies that are counter to the ideologies that our community wants to stand for?
For christianity, that answer is almost certainly "no" - but it would depend on the particulars. Being catholic or being protestant, for example, doesn't imply anything harmful by itself, but being a member of the Westboro Baptists definitely does.
This slippery slope stuff doesn't work that way - there's a clear argument why fascists, antisemites, or anti-trans activists threaten a community and why they should be excluded from it. If those arguments can apply to a new group - like, for example, followers of Nick Fuentes - why would you think that applying those arguments is wrong?

And who decides who is a fascist? What if you wake up tomorrow and are declared as one? Many Soviets were declared Enemies of the State, for example.

It is remarkably easy to not be fascist, or to recognize them.

[Belisarius]

Guys, you're getting further and further away from the actual topic. I don't have a problem reading your reasons, but it's really not necessary here because it distracts from Fusion and his ban.

Back to the topic:

1. It was not my intention to attack anyone personally with my accusation of a vendetta. If anyone feels personally offended by my statement, which I assume to be the case based on Mongoose's last post, I would like to apologize.

@Mongoose: If you are interested, I would be happy to explain myself personally in a private message or a separate thread, but in my opinion, this thread is not suitable for that, as it only further distracts from the actual topic.

2. shiv has already made a very good suggestion, and I would ask the moderator team to at least consider it. This is not about pillorying the mod team because we, who are speaking out in favor of Fusion here, disagree with your decision. It is simply a matter of reconsidering decisions that have been made and, if necessary, finding a mutually acceptable solution.

(I'm keeping it short here, because I don't feel like repeating what we already posted)

3. If anyone ever got the impression that I did not take the accusation of anti-Semitism seriously, then I would like to clarify this as well. Every faith has its right to exist, and no one has the right to mock it, express contempt for it, or dehumanize a particular faith or all faiths.

For my part, I am non-denominational. I was born, raised, and educated that way. However, that does not mean that I do not recognize other people's religions, do not accept their beliefs, or even have the right to despise them for it.

[Mito [PL]]

I'm aware of all that Mito, I just don't want my name put to a list in an argument in a heated moderation discussion.

Then why are you participating in said discussion (and pouring gasoline on the fire while at it)?


@JCDNWarrior:
Yes, this is a clearly intentional derailment of this discussion. No, you shouldn't participate in it. The matter at hand is still clear as day: Fusion made mistakes in the past, was punished for those accordingly. Now he just lost his account, which he had no influence over, and is being punished again for something he was punished for before. You could argue he made a mistake of not reporting his alt account to mods, but on the other hand I would argue that this was a believeable, correctible minor mistake made out of forgetfulness that should have been addressed with the smallest possible response first.

Interestingly enough, the side of discussion against unbanning Fusion is not making any logical arguments for their behaviour. Not only that, they're clearly using rhetoric tricks to avoid engaging with the other side's logical arguments being made, instead relying on appealing to emotions (and I'd say a bit of collective guilt too) to make sure the core principles of moderation are being bent against him in this exact case. Because he's disliked.

Also, I'd like to mention that I'm pretty sure that you, me and many of the people siding with Fusion could alone get enough "oppression points" to outrule the rest, let alone us together, but I wouldn't recommend participating in oppression olympics as it tends to ruin your own and the community's moral principles... And inescapably leads to a lot of drama.

3, to the extent that my family was involved in the Holocaust, it was on the side of the ****ing Nazis. I take that legacy very seriously; My father instilled in me a firm moral foundation of "Never again", and I see no reason to change my absolutist stance on this subject.

I'd like to suggest that instead of ruining your communities by making them a political war front, you should perhaps consult a specialist to get it addressed? Group guilt in such cases can severely harm you mentally and lead you to experience anxiety or even neurosis.