[tiefling lesbian]

J@ck and battons' bans were for patterns of inappropriate behaviors toward women based on multiple pieces of evidence. Both of them have spoken to an admin about it. The nature of the bans was decided after several discussions among the admins. Further details will not be disclosed at this time to respect the privacy of those affected.

[BillyBob]

J@ck and battons' bans were for patterns of inappropriate behaviors toward women based on multiple pieces of evidence. Both of them have spoken to an admin about it. The nature of the bans was decided after several discussions among the admins. Further details will not be disclosed at this time to respect the privacy of those affected.

this is a nothing burger and just repeating what you've said before. i'll refer to my first post stating that if these "patterns of inappropriate behavior" were legitimately inappropriate they would be community banned, in the same realm of previous members of this community.

i cant understand how it wasn't bad enough to only temporarily be banned, hence it makes me think these "patterns" were simply them making people uncomfortable even though they were not told directly to be left alone.

Also, how old is this evidence? Are we talking a year, two years, three years??? I think some time has context to this.

just a lot of buzz words being thrown around right now tbh

[moocow]

 Further details will not be disclosed at this time to respect the privacy of those affected.

snip

this is the only thing that matters in all of it, if the affected parties wanted the information to be public then they would've made the information public.

there's no reason to put pressure on anyone affected by their behavior to show and explain to the community exactly what was said and done to them that made them uncomfortable, if they wish to remain anonymous let them remain anonymous and get off of the admin's backs for daring to respect that anonymity

[BillyBob]

how is me asking the admins to provide better feedback to those banned putting pressure on those affected to explain to the community? to once again refer to my previous post, as i said, there is most certainly a way for the admins to provide more feedback without those involved being brought forward but maybe u were like tea and didnt bother reading anything

[RussEfarmer]

J@ck and battons' bans were for patterns of inappropriate behaviors toward women based on multiple pieces of evidence. Both of them have spoken to an admin about it. The nature of the bans was decided after several discussions among the admins. Further details will not be disclosed at this time to respect the privacy of those affected.

works for me, i wont pry

[moocow]

how is me asking the admins to provide better feedback to those banned putting pressure on those affected to explain to the community? to once again refer to my previous post, as i said, there is most certainly a way for the admins to provide more feedback without those involved being brought forward but maybe u were like tea and didnt bother reading anything

dont worry, i read the post in full, no need to make assumptions :)

they took the time to really consider the evidence and events with everyone involved, there are about 10 people who were banned and my assumption is that it would've taken a lot more effort to reach out to every individual person regarding their ban before putting up the post.

is it convenient? no not really, but in the grand scheme of things it was likely easier to make the post and answer questions following up, most people with questions regarding their ban have already reached out.

[bab]

-snip-

this is a nothing burger and just repeating what you've said before. i'll refer to my first post stating that if these "patterns of inappropriate behavior" were legitimately inappropriate they would be community banned, in the same realm of previous members of this community.

i cant understand how it wasn't bad enough to only temporarily be banned, hence it makes me think these "patterns" were simply them making people uncomfortable even though they were not told directly to be left alone.

Also, how old  is this evidence? Are we talking a year, two years, three years??? I think some time has context to this.

just a lot of buzz words being thrown around right now tbh

Hi friend, I've received multiple DMs since this announcement was posted asking me if I was involved in the bans because of this mentality. As stated by Tiefling, the admins have received evidence from several victims of this pattern of inappropriate behavior. The agreement on the punishments was made after they had several discussions about it.

Please stop pushing for more information on this sensitive topic that you aren't involved in when it's already been discussed with the needed parties. You aren't helping and there is no need for you to personally pry further into the matter. If the banned parties would like further clarification, they can contact the admins themselves.

Also side note, for anyone who was thinking of reaching out to me to ask more about this situation, please do not. Thank you. :)

[reina]

imagine being relieved that you're finally seeing the person who harassed and manipulated you get repercussions for his actions, only to have salt rubbed in your wounds by him revealing your identity to his friends and allowing them to publicly demand an explanation on his behalf.

and to have an admin publicly supporting posts demanding an explanation by +1ing them and attaching his name to them.... insane. i'm disappointed, chibill.

[BillyBob]

dont worry, i read the post in full, no need to make assumptions :)

they took the time to really consider the evidence and events with everyone involved, there are about 10 people who were banned and my assumption is that it would've taken a lot more effort to reach out to every individual person regarding their ban before putting up the post.

is it convenient? no not really, but in the grand scheme of things it was likely easier to make the post and answer questions following up, most people with questions regarding their ban have already reached out.

unfortunately with a situation as serious as this, specifically steering the conversation back towards the two who were banned for "creepy" behavior, to my knowledge, they were not provided any further information then what has already been posted in this thread. convenience goes out the window with these claims. 

this is not how the real world works. you cannot make a claim against someone, and then not provide the evidence against the person accused. where is the "danger" in providing Battons, Jack the evidence? Who is at risk? If any of the victims were at risk, or further harassed, then it is an easy community ban to all those involved. 

The bottom line is a person is owed the accusations brought against them whether you like that reality or not.

[RussEfarmer]

there's no reason to put pressure on anyone affected by their behavior to show and explain to the community exactly what was said and done to them that made them uncomfortable, if they wish to remain anonymous let them remain anonymous and get off of the admin's backs for daring to respect that anonymity

while I am a sucker dat drama yeah with stuff like this its better to leave the details in the back.

One condition of this though is that you have to trust the admins making the decision. The past couple of weeks have proved that sometimes the admins collectively have a power outage in their brain when making important decisions which is probably where people get a little antsy about the lack of details. just to offer a different perspective

I trust the current admin team on this, I don't have any significant reason not to at the moment, but if this whole thing comes out to be bull it aint gonna look good