[tiefling lesbian]

Is Foxka obligated to answer your question? This is a legitimate question, I'm not defending Foxka. He was not staff at the time of the incident so he, in my opinion, did not need to tell you, or any other admin, what was going on. Would it have been helpful? Yes. Would that be the right thing to do? Sure. But was he obligated to do so? I don't believe so.

Foxka could have stopped responding at any time. They have no "obligation" to respond or tell the truth. Likewise, I have no obligation to ignore them lying and concealing information, and I have no obligation to support them getting staff in spite of it.

Not at all what I am saying. Foxka happened to be a traitor in this specific scenario, but the principle of the matter still stands. If Player A says that they killed an RDMer (and was actually RDMed by the RDMer), and player B doesn't believe Player A and kills Player A, Player B is getting slain for RDM. It doesn't matter if Player A is a traitor or not. No one is enabling traitors to immunize themselves. No one is stopping someone from mowing down a person they don't believe. If anything, everyone is receiving the same amount of immunization. If Player B didn't see Player A kill the RDMer, and can't verify that Player A was being RDMed, they have to either believe Player A or put suspicion on Player A. This is no different than having the same weapon that was used to kill someone. You have circumstantial evidence that has yet to be proven. So you either take the situation at face value and believe what Player A has said, be skeptical and put suspicion on Player A, or shoot Player A and RDM them. Those are the only options. And if you RDM Player A, the logs should be able to very clearly tell if Player A was RDMed or not.

But that is what you're saying indirectly. If simply saying you were RDMed is enough to nullify DNA, then you can say you were RDMed even if you weren't and reporting someone for killing you will still be valid, as they had no way of knowing whether or not you were lying and, according to you, were not allowed to kill you for it.

If we can only treat everyone so fairly when only one perspective is represented in staff, then you would agree that we need more diverse staff, which includes black people, Hispanic people, Asian people, etc. Regardless, we don't need to have a representative from every possible permutation of a human being on staff if the goal of the staff is for every player to be treated fairly and respectfully. Does it help to have representatives of these different races and creeds on the admin team? Of course. I am not arguing against that. But I don't believe that I am misrepresenting what has been said on the matter when someone of their own volition said, "[tiefling] is the only ttt admin that truly can [create a safe space for feminine presenting or lgbtq/queer people] since she's the only one with the proper insight and experience to do so." Can white people not create a safe space for minorities because they aren't a minority? I'd disagree with that statement. Look at abolitionists during the Civil War. All I am saying (because I failed to explicitly say this last night) is that it shouldn't matter what gender you are, what race you are, whatever. All that should matter is that the staff members of the server are doing their best to make everyone feel safe, welcomed, and entertained. The mark of a good admin shouldn't be who the admin is speaking for. The mark of a good admin should be if they are administrating fairly, justly, and equally.

I agree, more diversity in staff would be great. Of course it's not realistic to have every single demographic represented in a gmod server staff team, but that's not what anyone is saying. The point is that being part of a marginalized group gives you a better perspective to identify issues that affect that group. There have been numerous times where I've had to explain dog whistles and bigoted attacks to other admins who did not have the personal experiences to recognize them themselves.

Regardless, this is once again besides the point. This has only ever been a supporting factor in me being admin, not the sole or main reason.

We don't need safe spaces that consist of people of only one group.

Literally no one has said that.

---

Its not that we think it should be this way. Its that it is how the rules are written. I've had this conversation with you before, but you are an admin and if you disagree with a rule there is literally nobody in a better position to make a change to the rule.

Please. I hate the rule just as much as you, but that doesnt mean that we can just choose not to follow it without changing the scripture.

Believe me, I would love to be able to spend my time and energy actually improving things rather than having to shut down 18 pages of half baked accusations.

You have spoken before about respecting the spirit of a rule. To me, the "unless they were RDMing" clause only makes sense if you saw the RDM take place or otherwise have reasonable ability to confirm that it happened. It doesn't make sense to me for it to be a blanket clause that applies even if you have no way of knowing an RDM took place or making you beholden to a traitor's lie.

In regards to the foxka situation specifically, this is exactly what I said. I gave my opinion, and I trust staff to make decisions. If Foxka had that much of an issue with someone not getting slain, it would have been more appropriate to reach out to an admin themself instead of continuing to argue with staff about it even after the map had changed.