[reinaberg]

I would appreciate a response to the other part.

I’m not comparing their reputations. One major concern being voiced by some in this thread is the lack of opportunity for community members to voice their opinions, and I don’t think that has anything to do with Laced, personally. Citing that as a reason to demote him is unreasonable, in my opinion. 

I think it is pretty disingenuous to misconstrue Avi's argument to suit your narrative since, as I would hope you know, you are not talking about the same group she is. 

True, I shouldn’t have used Avi’s words facetiously to begin that post. Apologies, Avi. 

In fact, in this whole response you make a lot of big assumptions that do not really hold water

They’re not assumptions, they’re observations. We may perceive these observations differently, but that does not make either one of our opinions any less genuine. 

If consistently disagreeing with the promotion of someone that I think should not have even a modicum of power over the community is deemed harassment and targeting by you, then so be it.

A group posting the same responses on every post involving members of another group becoming staff, with a few of them mass -1ing people supporting the subject of the post, does come across as more than a person simply voicing their disagreement with a decision tin my opinion, yes. Especially when one of the people being targeted has been the subject of multiple posts made to stretch disagreements outside of their original threads in an unconstructive manner.

You are free to try and discredit opinions by slapping the label of toxicity on whoever opposes your point of view.  Just as I am free to disagree with Laced being in a position of power, you are free to take the easy way out by deeming disagreement as toxicity and harassment. 

I was not attempting to discredit anyone, nor am I slapping a label on a situation to take the easy way out. 

However, this labeling is extremely concerningly, especially from an admin, because seems like you are dog-whistling for a community ban

I wasn’t. Hoping that it’s resolved genuinely just means I hope that it will no longer be a source of stress for some people without any reference or thought as to how that will come to be. 

We have seen harassment in this community before and for you to lower the standard this far due to a differing point of view is, at best, worrying and calls into question your judgement and interpretation of the rules

It’s important to keep in mind that you and I have different perspectives. From my perspective, this has been harassment. Based on what I can tell, from your perspective, it hasn’t. That’s why I mentioned condemning behavior while also behaving in the way that they are condemning. Someone can behave in a certain way without realizing how their behavior is affecting others. 

and, at worst, a thinly-veiled threat to stop opposing the forward progress of someone or face the consequences from those, who hold a position of power, who support said person. 

It wasn’t. 

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, those accusations carry a serious weight, especially now that you have the power of an admin, and it was you, and only you, who picked those words knowing the context that they carry.

I don’t have the power to do anything that you’re worried I may be threatening to do, and I would never act as though that weren’t the case. 

So my question is, do you think that those who have consistently opposed Laced are now delving into the depths of harassment because they refuse to give in and support his march upward?

No.

Or was your claim of harassment and targeting a hyperbole/oversimplification?

Also no, but I agree it may have been inappropriate as an admin to voice those concerns in the way that I did and at the time that I did. My opinion is still the same, but I’ll be sure to be more mindful of my position when voicing my opinions in the future.