[StrenuousSpider]

No more shitposting please, and reminder to keep things civil so that the thread won't have to be prematurely locked

ok I'm gonna leave my serious response no more shitpost 

At this point, the discussion has gone far beyond just addressing a specific incident and has turned into an attempt to frame Levi in the worst possible light, regardless of what he has already acknowledged, corrected, or proposed moving forward. A lot of what’s being said relies heavily on selective interpretation, assumptions about intent, and revisiting past situations without properly contextualizing them.

To start with the most important point: Levi has already taken responsibility where it was appropriate. He admitted that he acted too quickly when issuing bans, acknowledged that he misinterpreted parts of the evidence, and then reversed those punishments accordingly. That is not something someone does if they are trying to abuse power or act in bad faith. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. It shows a willingness to self-correct, which is one of the most important qualities in any staff member. Calling that “saving face” ignores the reality that he could have just as easily doubled down, justified his actions, or ignored the situation entirely. Instead, he chose to publicly explain his reasoning and undo decisions he felt were incorrect.
Beyond that, he didn’t just stop at admitting fault—he outlined multiple concrete steps to improve the server moving forward. Updating rules that haven’t been touched in years, making punishments more clear and consistent, resetting strikes so everyone starts fresh, and even proposing mechanical changes like removing popcorn damage to reduce future incidents are all tangible, actionable improvements. These are not empty words; they are specific plans. Dismissing all of that as “damage control” avoids engaging with the actual substance of what he’s proposing. Even if you question the timing, the changes themselves are objectively beneficial for the community as a whole.
The repeated focus on “ARDM is not a thing” is another example of shifting the discussion away from the actual issue. Whether or not the exact term applies does not change the behavior being addressed. Repeatedly targeting, pushing, or disrupting players—especially those outside of your group—has long been considered problematic in practice, regardless of what label is used. Reducing the argument to terminology instead of behavior feels more like an attempt to invalidate the point without actually addressing it. The intent behind the rule and the impact of the behavior matter far more than the specific acronym being used.

When it comes to Phantom, the claim that Levi is “twisting things” by bringing up past behavior doesn’t align with how moderation typically works. Prior incidents are almost always considered when evaluating situations. That is standard across virtually every moderated community. It’s not about targeting someone unfairly—it’s about recognizing patterns of behavior. At the same time, Levi still acknowledged where he made mistakes in reviewing the current evidence, which again shows that he is not blindly sticking to a narrative. He adjusted his stance when presented with a clearer understanding of the situation.
The harassment claims are being presented in a way that removes important context. Levi explained that certain interactions, like the “mutt” nickname, stopped once it was clearly communicated that they were not appreciated. You’re pointing out that it had to be said multiple times, which is a fair criticism in terms of how quickly it should have stopped—but that is not the same as ongoing harassment after a clear boundary was firmly established. There is a distinction between something that started as mutual or perceived banter and later became an issue, versus something that was always one-sided and intentionally harmful. Even Levi acknowledged that he should have stopped sooner in some cases, which again shows partial accountability rather than denial.

The same applies to the “crab” situation. The argument being made focuses on the idea that he didn’t stop immediately, but doesn’t fully address the broader context of group behavior. Levi stated that he did not initiate it and that he stopped when others did. If there is clear, direct evidence that he continued after being explicitly told to stop by staff in that moment, then that should be presented clearly and discussed specifically. Generalizing it into “you never stopped” without laying out a clear timeline or context weakens the claim rather than strengthening it.
The use of screenshots, reaction emojis, and meme images as evidence of harassment also feels overstated. Those elements show that there was an argument and that emotions were involved, but they do not inherently prove targeted, sustained harassment. That kind of behavior is extremely common in heated discussions on any platform and is rarely one-sided. Interpreting those actions as deliberate attempts to provoke or harass requires assuming intent, which hasn’t been definitively established.
The claim that Levi does not punish friends is another point that is being asserted without being properly demonstrated in this discussion. Referencing an older thread without clearly outlining the relevant details here does not effectively support the argument. Levi has stated that he has punished friends and regular players before. If that is being challenged, then it should be backed up with specific, clearly explained examples that directly contradict that claim. Otherwise, it comes across as relying on prior narratives instead of presenting verifiable information in the current context.

The supposed contradiction regarding recording versus clips is also not particularly compelling. There is a clear and reasonable distinction between actively recording an entire session and having short clips captured. Many systems automatically save short clips without full recordings. Treating that as a contradiction feels more like an attempt to find inconsistencies rather than addressing substantive issues.
Another important factor here is how intent is being interpreted throughout this entire situation. Levi has consistently stated that he perceived many of these interactions as jokes or mutual behavior at the time. You are now framing those same interactions as entirely hostile. The reality likely lies somewhere in between, as is often the case in these types of environments. Without clear communication in the moment, it is very easy for different people to interpret the same interaction in completely different ways. That doesn’t mean no one was in the wrong, but it does mean that framing everything as intentional harassment oversimplifies what was likely a more nuanced situation.
It’s also worth noting that you mentioned playing together in other sessions without issues. That detail directly contradicts the idea that Levi has been consistently targeting or harassing anyone involved. If interactions were normal or even positive in other contexts, then it suggests that this situation is more likely the result of a specific escalation or misunderstanding rather than an ongoing pattern of hostility.

At a broader level, the way this discussion is being approached is also part of the problem. Levi has put forward explanations, acknowledged mistakes, and suggested improvements. In response, much of what’s being presented is focused on discrediting him personally, reinterpreting past events in the most negative way possible, and dismissing any attempts at resolution as insincere. That approach doesn’t move the situation forward—it just prolongs it.
If the goal is genuinely to improve the server environment, then the focus should be on what happens next: clearer rules, fair enforcement, and better communication. Levi has already indicated a willingness to work toward those goals. Continuing to frame everything he does as malicious or self-serving makes it difficult to reach any kind of resolution.
At the end of the day, the difference in approach is clear. On one side, there is an acknowledgment of mistakes, corrective action, and proposals for improvement. On the other, there is a continued focus on assigning negative intent, revisiting past issues without full context, and dismissing any effort to move forward.
If this discussion is going to be productive, it needs to shift away from trying to “win” the argument and toward actually addressing how to prevent similar situations in the future. Otherwise, it’s just going to remain a cycle of accusations and rebuttals with no real outcome.

Yeah thats nice and all, however... You are confusing things ive said about Big Sad and Levi together.. We played fine with Big Sad in other sevrers not Levi.. A BIG THING YOU AND OTHERS are not mentioning is the timing of all of this.. After 2 years away and after a year and a half for him.. suddenly he hops on and its a instant perma bans.. Something that happened once before which is a pattern for him.. had i not made a fuss about it then and now nothing would be done..

The Rats thread is clear proof of the claim he does not punish the same. Again i had to fight to get you and sad punished, had i not said anything and just rolled over you two would have got away scott free while me and the others would still be falsely banned.

He has only taken responsibility because we are here and now, he did original double down thats all there in the discord of the WHO CARE AND I GOT NOTHING TO LOSE comments come from.. The emojis... Nah thats a clear way to try and rile someone up, that does not show a simple frustrated mind.. if he was in a clear enough mind to post all that he had a clear enough mind to deny calling us retards then and there.. but he didnt..

Again the server improvements only come during a time he is under id say "investigation", quite the timing you dont say.. a year and a half absence and suddenly the server needs changing.. Thats not a coincidence norm.. And no im not trying to twist a thing, ive posted the links to those threads for everyone to read and look at, its all spelled out there for the world to see.. The past things levi wants to mention are again not rules broken. The so called inappropriate things said.. this was already cleared up in that thread..

"The specific acronym used" Rules are rules and the terms are there for a reason, twisting them to your benefits is just disingeunous.. Both times you and levi tried to do it, it failed.. because the rules clearly state one thing while he tries to claim another..

Talking about ARDM is not shifting away, your freinds brought that term up, levi tried to claim it as a rule break, it is very clearly not a rule by the stated rules.. so no i will not let these things slide and i will call them out..

Its already been stated that the mutt and crab situations needed multiple tellings to stop for it to actually stop. Once again a pattern by levi..

So im ignoring things, im simply pointing out how strange it is, how incorrect at times it is. you may have forgotten everything that was said in the Rats thread. But many things you said here have been proven there and the such.. So again im not framing the past in bad light, the rats and ban appeal threads are there.. you could argue a bit about the Mutt and Crab thing being Banter, but again he was told on multiple occasions to stop, it kept happening, until phantom actually originally left the server..

[Norm Minder]

No more shitposting please, and reminder to keep things civil so that the thread won't have to be prematurely locked

ok I'm gonna leave my serious response no more shitpost 

At this point, the discussion has gone far beyond just addressing a specific incident and has turned into an attempt to frame Levi in the worst possible light, regardless of what he has already acknowledged, corrected, or proposed moving forward. A lot of what’s being said relies heavily on selective interpretation, assumptions about intent, and revisiting past situations without properly contextualizing them.

To start with the most important point: Levi has already taken responsibility where it was appropriate. He admitted that he acted too quickly when issuing bans, acknowledged that he misinterpreted parts of the evidence, and then reversed those punishments accordingly. That is not something someone does if they are trying to abuse power or act in bad faith. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. It shows a willingness to self-correct, which is one of the most important qualities in any staff member. Calling that “saving face” ignores the reality that he could have just as easily doubled down, justified his actions, or ignored the situation entirely. Instead, he chose to publicly explain his reasoning and undo decisions he felt were incorrect.
Beyond that, he didn’t just stop at admitting fault—he outlined multiple concrete steps to improve the server moving forward. Updating rules that haven’t been touched in years, making punishments more clear and consistent, resetting strikes so everyone starts fresh, and even proposing mechanical changes like removing popcorn damage to reduce future incidents are all tangible, actionable improvements. These are not empty words; they are specific plans. Dismissing all of that as “damage control” avoids engaging with the actual substance of what he’s proposing. Even if you question the timing, the changes themselves are objectively beneficial for the community as a whole.
The repeated focus on “ARDM is not a thing” is another example of shifting the discussion away from the actual issue. Whether or not the exact term applies does not change the behavior being addressed. Repeatedly targeting, pushing, or disrupting players—especially those outside of your group—has long been considered problematic in practice, regardless of what label is used. Reducing the argument to terminology instead of behavior feels more like an attempt to invalidate the point without actually addressing it. The intent behind the rule and the impact of the behavior matter far more than the specific acronym being used.

When it comes to Phantom, the claim that Levi is “twisting things” by bringing up past behavior doesn’t align with how moderation typically works. Prior incidents are almost always considered when evaluating situations. That is standard across virtually every moderated community. It’s not about targeting someone unfairly—it’s about recognizing patterns of behavior. At the same time, Levi still acknowledged where he made mistakes in reviewing the current evidence, which again shows that he is not blindly sticking to a narrative. He adjusted his stance when presented with a clearer understanding of the situation.
The harassment claims are being presented in a way that removes important context. Levi explained that certain interactions, like the “mutt” nickname, stopped once it was clearly communicated that they were not appreciated. You’re pointing out that it had to be said multiple times, which is a fair criticism in terms of how quickly it should have stopped—but that is not the same as ongoing harassment after a clear boundary was firmly established. There is a distinction between something that started as mutual or perceived banter and later became an issue, versus something that was always one-sided and intentionally harmful. Even Levi acknowledged that he should have stopped sooner in some cases, which again shows partial accountability rather than denial.

The same applies to the “crab” situation. The argument being made focuses on the idea that he didn’t stop immediately, but doesn’t fully address the broader context of group behavior. Levi stated that he did not initiate it and that he stopped when others did. If there is clear, direct evidence that he continued after being explicitly told to stop by staff in that moment, then that should be presented clearly and discussed specifically. Generalizing it into “you never stopped” without laying out a clear timeline or context weakens the claim rather than strengthening it.
The use of screenshots, reaction emojis, and meme images as evidence of harassment also feels overstated. Those elements show that there was an argument and that emotions were involved, but they do not inherently prove targeted, sustained harassment. That kind of behavior is extremely common in heated discussions on any platform and is rarely one-sided. Interpreting those actions as deliberate attempts to provoke or harass requires assuming intent, which hasn’t been definitively established.
The claim that Levi does not punish friends is another point that is being asserted without being properly demonstrated in this discussion. Referencing an older thread without clearly outlining the relevant details here does not effectively support the argument. Levi has stated that he has punished friends and regular players before. If that is being challenged, then it should be backed up with specific, clearly explained examples that directly contradict that claim. Otherwise, it comes across as relying on prior narratives instead of presenting verifiable information in the current context.

The supposed contradiction regarding recording versus clips is also not particularly compelling. There is a clear and reasonable distinction between actively recording an entire session and having short clips captured. Many systems automatically save short clips without full recordings. Treating that as a contradiction feels more like an attempt to find inconsistencies rather than addressing substantive issues.
Another important factor here is how intent is being interpreted throughout this entire situation. Levi has consistently stated that he perceived many of these interactions as jokes or mutual behavior at the time. You are now framing those same interactions as entirely hostile. The reality likely lies somewhere in between, as is often the case in these types of environments. Without clear communication in the moment, it is very easy for different people to interpret the same interaction in completely different ways. That doesn’t mean no one was in the wrong, but it does mean that framing everything as intentional harassment oversimplifies what was likely a more nuanced situation.
It’s also worth noting that you mentioned playing together in other sessions without issues. That detail directly contradicts the idea that Levi has been consistently targeting or harassing anyone involved. If interactions were normal or even positive in other contexts, then it suggests that this situation is more likely the result of a specific escalation or misunderstanding rather than an ongoing pattern of hostility.

At a broader level, the way this discussion is being approached is also part of the problem. Levi has put forward explanations, acknowledged mistakes, and suggested improvements. In response, much of what’s being presented is focused on discrediting him personally, reinterpreting past events in the most negative way possible, and dismissing any attempts at resolution as insincere. That approach doesn’t move the situation forward—it just prolongs it.
If the goal is genuinely to improve the server environment, then the focus should be on what happens next: clearer rules, fair enforcement, and better communication. Levi has already indicated a willingness to work toward those goals. Continuing to frame everything he does as malicious or self-serving makes it difficult to reach any kind of resolution.
At the end of the day, the difference in approach is clear. On one side, there is an acknowledgment of mistakes, corrective action, and proposals for improvement. On the other, there is a continued focus on assigning negative intent, revisiting past issues without full context, and dismissing any effort to move forward.
If this discussion is going to be productive, it needs to shift away from trying to “win” the argument and toward actually addressing how to prevent similar situations in the future. Otherwise, it’s just going to remain a cycle of accusations and rebuttals with no real outcome.

Yeah thats nice and all, however... You are confusing things ive said about Big Sad and Levi together.. We played fine with Big Sad in other sevrers not Levi.. A BIG THING YOU AND OTHERS are not mentioning is the timing of all of this.. After 2 years away and after a year and a half for him.. suddenly he hops on and its a instant perma bans.. Something that happened once before which is a pattern for him.. had i not made a fuss about it then and now nothing would be done..

The Rats thread is clear proof of the claim he does not punish the same. Again i had to fight to get you and sad punished, had i not said anything and just rolled over you two would have got away scott free while me and the others would still be falsely banned.

He has only taken responsibility because we are here and now, he did original double down thats all there in the discord of the WHO CARE AND I GOT NOTHING TO LOSE comments come from.. The emojis... Nah thats a clear way to try and rile someone up, that does not show a simple frustrated mind.. if he was in a clear enough mind to post all that he had a clear enough mind to deny calling us retards then and there.. but he didnt..

Again the server improvements only come during a time he is under id say "investigation", quite the timing you dont say.. a year and a half absence and suddenly the server needs changing.. Thats not a coincidence norm.. And no im not trying to twist a thing, ive posted the links to those threads for everyone to read and look at, its all spelled out there for the world to see.. The past things levi wants to mention are again not rules broken. The so called inappropriate things said.. this was already cleared up in that thread..

"The specific acronym used" Rules are rules and the terms are there for a reason, twisting them to your benefits is just disingeunous.. Both times you and levi tried to do it, it failed.. because the rules clearly state one thing while he tries to claim another..

Talking about ARDM is not shifting away, your freinds brought that term up, levi tried to claim it as a rule break, it is very clearly not a rule by the stated rules.. so no i will not let these things slide and i will call them out..

Its already been stated that the mutt and crab situations needed multiple tellings to stop for it to actually stop. Once again a pattern by levi..

So im ignoring things, im simply pointing out how strange it is, how incorrect at times it is. you may have forgotten everything that was said in the Rats thread. But many things you said here have been proven there and the such.. So again im not framing the past in bad light, the rats and ban appeal threads are there.. you could argue a bit about the Mutt and Crab thing being Banter, but again he was told on multiple occasions to stop, it kept happening, until phantom actually originally left the server..

The biggest thing you keep coming back to is timing and calling it a “pattern,” so let’s actually break that down properly instead of just repeating it.
Yes—Levi came back after a long period away and acted quickly. That part is not being denied by anyone, including Levi himself. He already admitted he was too hasty with the bans and that he misinterpreted parts of the situation. The key issue here is what happened after that. He didn’t double down, he didn’t ignore it, and he didn’t try to justify keeping the bans in place—he reversed them and explained why.
That matters a lot more than you’re giving it credit for.
For something to be a “pattern” in the way you’re describing, it needs to show consistent behavior with the same intent and no meaningful correction. What you’re pointing to is:

• one situation in the past
  
• one situation now
  

And in the current situation, the actions were undone after review. That breaks the idea of a consistent pattern of abuse, because the outcome is different. If anything, it shows the opposite—that when mistakes are recognized, they’re corrected.
Saying “this happened before” doesn’t automatically prove intent, especially when the present situation doesn’t follow through in the same way.

---

On the point of “nothing would have happened if I didn’t make a fuss”:
That’s not evidence of bias or wrongdoing—that’s literally how moderation systems function in any community. Decisions get challenged, people provide more context, and things get reviewed again. The important part isn’t that you spoke up—it’s that the situation was re-evaluated and changed.
If Levi was actually acting in bad faith or trying to protect certain people, the easiest thing for him to do would’ve been to stick to the original decision and justify it. That happens all the time in communities where staff actually abuse power.
But that’s not what happened here.
Instead:

• bans were reversed
  
• reasoning was explained
  
• and changes were proposed
  

You’re framing the existence of pushback as proof something was wrong, when in reality it just shows the system allowed for correction.

---

About the Rats thread:
You keep referencing it as “clear proof,” but you’re not actually presenting anything specific from it here—you’re telling people to go read it and arrive at the same conclusion you did.
That’s not how you establish a point in a discussion like this.
If that thread truly proves consistent bias or favoritism, then the relevant parts should be clearly explained and connected to what’s happening now. Otherwise, it ends up functioning more as a supporting narrative than concrete evidence.
Right now, what you’re doing is:

• pointing to past conflict
  
• applying your interpretation of it
  
• and using that interpretation as a foundation for everything else
  

But interpretation isn’t the same as proof—especially when the same events can be viewed differently depending on perspective.

---

On the claim that Levi “only took responsibility because he had to”:
This is one of the biggest assumptions in your entire argument.
You are assigning intent—very specifically, negative intent—without actually being able to prove it. You’re taking actions that are objectively corrective (reversing bans, acknowledging mistakes, proposing improvements) and reframing them as manipulative.
But that logic is unfalsifiable.
Because under that reasoning:

• if he doesn’t correct himself → he’s abusive
  
• if he does correct himself → he’s “saving face”
  

There’s no version of events where he can act in good faith in your view, because every outcome is interpreted negatively.
That’s not a balanced evaluation—that’s starting with a conclusion and fitting everything into it.

---

On the Discord messages, emojis, and “WHO CARES / I GOT NOTHING TO LOSE”:
No one is seriously arguing that those were a good look. They weren’t. They were immature and clearly written out of frustration.
But again, you’re jumping from:

• “this was immature / hostile behavior in the moment”
  

to:

• “this proves intentional harassment and bad character overall”
  

Those are not the same thing.
People say stupid things when they’re frustrated—especially in heated arguments. That doesn’t automatically mean everything they’ve done before or after is part of some coordinated effort to harass people.
Also, the claim that “he would’ve denied saying X if he was thinking clearly” is speculation. You’re assuming what someone would have done in a specific emotional state and using that as evidence. That’s not solid ground to build an argument on.

---

On rules and ARDM:
You’re focusing very heavily on the exact wording and the fact that “ARDM is not a rule,” but that doesn’t really address the underlying issue.
Rules are written to guide behavior, but they don’t always list every possible variation of disruptive actions in exact terminology. Staff are still expected to act on behavior that is clearly disruptive or negatively impacting other players.
So even if the term itself isn’t formally listed, that doesn’t automatically make the behavior acceptable.
Reducing the entire argument to “that exact term isn’t in the rules” sidesteps the broader point about what was actually happening in-game.

---

On the mutt and crab situations:
This is one of the few areas where you have a fair criticism—but it’s being overstated.
Yes, you’re right that it should’ve stopped sooner. Yes, you’re right that being told multiple times isn’t ideal.
But again, context matters:

• it was originally perceived as mutual banter
  
• it eventually stopped
  
• and Levi himself acknowledged he should’ve handled it better
  

That aligns much more with misreading boundaries and reacting too slowly, not with deliberate, targeted harassment over time.
If it were ongoing, intentional harassment, it wouldn’t have stopped when it became clearly unwelcome.

---

On the “convenient timing” of server improvements:
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the timing is influenced by the current situation—that still doesn’t invalidate the changes themselves.
You’re dismissing:

• clearer rules
  
• reset punishments
  
• mechanical fixes to reduce incidents
  

purely because of when they’re being proposed, instead of evaluating whether they actually benefit the server.
That doesn’t really move the discussion forward—it just rejects solutions based on motive rather than outcome.

---

At a broader level, the main issue with your argument is this:
Everything is being filtered through the assumption that Levi is acting in bad faith.
Because of that:

• mistakes become intentional
  
• corrections become manipulation
  
• frustration becomes harassment
  
• and improvements become damage control
  

When you apply that lens consistently, you can make any situation look malicious.
But that doesn’t mean it actually is.

---

If we step back and look at what’s objectively happened in this situation:

• Bans were issued too quickly
  
• That mistake was acknowledged
  
• The bans were reversed
  
• Explanations were given
  
• Improvements were proposed
  

You can absolutely criticize how the situation was handled initially—that’s fair.
But turning that into a claim of consistent abuse, bias, or harassment requires a level of proof that just hasn’t been clearly demonstrated here—especially when the current situation ended with correction, not escalation.

---

At some point, the discussion has to move away from trying to prove intent and start focusing on outcomes.
Because if every action—past, present, and future—is going to be interpreted in the worst possible way no matter what, then there’s no actual path forward.
And that’s where this conversation is starting to get stuck.

[StrenuousSpider]

No more shitposting please, and reminder to keep things civil so that the thread won't have to be prematurely locked

ok I'm gonna leave my serious response no more shitpost 

At this point, the discussion has gone far beyond just addressing a specific incident and has turned into an attempt to frame Levi in the worst possible light, regardless of what he has already acknowledged, corrected, or proposed moving forward. A lot of what’s being said relies heavily on selective interpretation, assumptions about intent, and revisiting past situations without properly contextualizing them.

To start with the most important point: Levi has already taken responsibility where it was appropriate. He admitted that he acted too quickly when issuing bans, acknowledged that he misinterpreted parts of the evidence, and then reversed those punishments accordingly. That is not something someone does if they are trying to abuse power or act in bad faith. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. It shows a willingness to self-correct, which is one of the most important qualities in any staff member. Calling that “saving face” ignores the reality that he could have just as easily doubled down, justified his actions, or ignored the situation entirely. Instead, he chose to publicly explain his reasoning and undo decisions he felt were incorrect.
Beyond that, he didn’t just stop at admitting fault—he outlined multiple concrete steps to improve the server moving forward. Updating rules that haven’t been touched in years, making punishments more clear and consistent, resetting strikes so everyone starts fresh, and even proposing mechanical changes like removing popcorn damage to reduce future incidents are all tangible, actionable improvements. These are not empty words; they are specific plans. Dismissing all of that as “damage control” avoids engaging with the actual substance of what he’s proposing. Even if you question the timing, the changes themselves are objectively beneficial for the community as a whole.
The repeated focus on “ARDM is not a thing” is another example of shifting the discussion away from the actual issue. Whether or not the exact term applies does not change the behavior being addressed. Repeatedly targeting, pushing, or disrupting players—especially those outside of your group—has long been considered problematic in practice, regardless of what label is used. Reducing the argument to terminology instead of behavior feels more like an attempt to invalidate the point without actually addressing it. The intent behind the rule and the impact of the behavior matter far more than the specific acronym being used.

When it comes to Phantom, the claim that Levi is “twisting things” by bringing up past behavior doesn’t align with how moderation typically works. Prior incidents are almost always considered when evaluating situations. That is standard across virtually every moderated community. It’s not about targeting someone unfairly—it’s about recognizing patterns of behavior. At the same time, Levi still acknowledged where he made mistakes in reviewing the current evidence, which again shows that he is not blindly sticking to a narrative. He adjusted his stance when presented with a clearer understanding of the situation.
The harassment claims are being presented in a way that removes important context. Levi explained that certain interactions, like the “mutt” nickname, stopped once it was clearly communicated that they were not appreciated. You’re pointing out that it had to be said multiple times, which is a fair criticism in terms of how quickly it should have stopped—but that is not the same as ongoing harassment after a clear boundary was firmly established. There is a distinction between something that started as mutual or perceived banter and later became an issue, versus something that was always one-sided and intentionally harmful. Even Levi acknowledged that he should have stopped sooner in some cases, which again shows partial accountability rather than denial.

The same applies to the “crab” situation. The argument being made focuses on the idea that he didn’t stop immediately, but doesn’t fully address the broader context of group behavior. Levi stated that he did not initiate it and that he stopped when others did. If there is clear, direct evidence that he continued after being explicitly told to stop by staff in that moment, then that should be presented clearly and discussed specifically. Generalizing it into “you never stopped” without laying out a clear timeline or context weakens the claim rather than strengthening it.
The use of screenshots, reaction emojis, and meme images as evidence of harassment also feels overstated. Those elements show that there was an argument and that emotions were involved, but they do not inherently prove targeted, sustained harassment. That kind of behavior is extremely common in heated discussions on any platform and is rarely one-sided. Interpreting those actions as deliberate attempts to provoke or harass requires assuming intent, which hasn’t been definitively established.
The claim that Levi does not punish friends is another point that is being asserted without being properly demonstrated in this discussion. Referencing an older thread without clearly outlining the relevant details here does not effectively support the argument. Levi has stated that he has punished friends and regular players before. If that is being challenged, then it should be backed up with specific, clearly explained examples that directly contradict that claim. Otherwise, it comes across as relying on prior narratives instead of presenting verifiable information in the current context.

The supposed contradiction regarding recording versus clips is also not particularly compelling. There is a clear and reasonable distinction between actively recording an entire session and having short clips captured. Many systems automatically save short clips without full recordings. Treating that as a contradiction feels more like an attempt to find inconsistencies rather than addressing substantive issues.
Another important factor here is how intent is being interpreted throughout this entire situation. Levi has consistently stated that he perceived many of these interactions as jokes or mutual behavior at the time. You are now framing those same interactions as entirely hostile. The reality likely lies somewhere in between, as is often the case in these types of environments. Without clear communication in the moment, it is very easy for different people to interpret the same interaction in completely different ways. That doesn’t mean no one was in the wrong, but it does mean that framing everything as intentional harassment oversimplifies what was likely a more nuanced situation.
It’s also worth noting that you mentioned playing together in other sessions without issues. That detail directly contradicts the idea that Levi has been consistently targeting or harassing anyone involved. If interactions were normal or even positive in other contexts, then it suggests that this situation is more likely the result of a specific escalation or misunderstanding rather than an ongoing pattern of hostility.

At a broader level, the way this discussion is being approached is also part of the problem. Levi has put forward explanations, acknowledged mistakes, and suggested improvements. In response, much of what’s being presented is focused on discrediting him personally, reinterpreting past events in the most negative way possible, and dismissing any attempts at resolution as insincere. That approach doesn’t move the situation forward—it just prolongs it.
If the goal is genuinely to improve the server environment, then the focus should be on what happens next: clearer rules, fair enforcement, and better communication. Levi has already indicated a willingness to work toward those goals. Continuing to frame everything he does as malicious or self-serving makes it difficult to reach any kind of resolution.
At the end of the day, the difference in approach is clear. On one side, there is an acknowledgment of mistakes, corrective action, and proposals for improvement. On the other, there is a continued focus on assigning negative intent, revisiting past issues without full context, and dismissing any effort to move forward.
If this discussion is going to be productive, it needs to shift away from trying to “win” the argument and toward actually addressing how to prevent similar situations in the future. Otherwise, it’s just going to remain a cycle of accusations and rebuttals with no real outcome.

Yeah thats nice and all, however... You are confusing things ive said about Big Sad and Levi together.. We played fine with Big Sad in other sevrers not Levi.. A BIG THING YOU AND OTHERS are not mentioning is the timing of all of this.. After 2 years away and after a year and a half for him.. suddenly he hops on and its a instant perma bans.. Something that happened once before which is a pattern for him.. had i not made a fuss about it then and now nothing would be done..

The Rats thread is clear proof of the claim he does not punish the same. Again i had to fight to get you and sad punished, had i not said anything and just rolled over you two would have got away scott free while me and the others would still be falsely banned.

He has only taken responsibility because we are here and now, he did original double down thats all there in the discord of the WHO CARE AND I GOT NOTHING TO LOSE comments come from.. The emojis... Nah thats a clear way to try and rile someone up, that does not show a simple frustrated mind.. if he was in a clear enough mind to post all that he had a clear enough mind to deny calling us retards then and there.. but he didnt..

Again the server improvements only come during a time he is under id say "investigation", quite the timing you dont say.. a year and a half absence and suddenly the server needs changing.. Thats not a coincidence norm.. And no im not trying to twist a thing, ive posted the links to those threads for everyone to read and look at, its all spelled out there for the world to see.. The past things levi wants to mention are again not rules broken. The so called inappropriate things said.. this was already cleared up in that thread..

"The specific acronym used" Rules are rules and the terms are there for a reason, twisting them to your benefits is just disingeunous.. Both times you and levi tried to do it, it failed.. because the rules clearly state one thing while he tries to claim another..

Talking about ARDM is not shifting away, your freinds brought that term up, levi tried to claim it as a rule break, it is very clearly not a rule by the stated rules.. so no i will not let these things slide and i will call them out..

Its already been stated that the mutt and crab situations needed multiple tellings to stop for it to actually stop. Once again a pattern by levi..

So im ignoring things, im simply pointing out how strange it is, how incorrect at times it is. you may have forgotten everything that was said in the Rats thread. But many things you said here have been proven there and the such.. So again im not framing the past in bad light, the rats and ban appeal threads are there.. you could argue a bit about the Mutt and Crab thing being Banter, but again he was told on multiple occasions to stop, it kept happening, until phantom actually originally left the server..

The biggest thing you keep coming back to is timing and calling it a “pattern,” so let’s actually break that down properly instead of just repeating it.
Yes—Levi came back after a long period away and acted quickly. That part is not being denied by anyone, including Levi himself. He already admitted he was too hasty with the bans and that he misinterpreted parts of the situation. The key issue here is what happened after that. He didn’t double down, he didn’t ignore it, and he didn’t try to justify keeping the bans in place—he reversed them and explained why.
That matters a lot more than you’re giving it credit for.
For something to be a “pattern” in the way you’re describing, it needs to show consistent behavior with the same intent and no meaningful correction. What you’re pointing to is:

• one situation in the past
  
• one situation now
  

And in the current situation, the actions were undone after review. That breaks the idea of a consistent pattern of abuse, because the outcome is different. If anything, it shows the opposite—that when mistakes are recognized, they’re corrected.
Saying “this happened before” doesn’t automatically prove intent, especially when the present situation doesn’t follow through in the same way.

---

On the point of “nothing would have happened if I didn’t make a fuss”:
That’s not evidence of bias or wrongdoing—that’s literally how moderation systems function in any community. Decisions get challenged, people provide more context, and things get reviewed again. The important part isn’t that you spoke up—it’s that the situation was re-evaluated and changed.
If Levi was actually acting in bad faith or trying to protect certain people, the easiest thing for him to do would’ve been to stick to the original decision and justify it. That happens all the time in communities where staff actually abuse power.
But that’s not what happened here.
Instead:

• bans were reversed
  
• reasoning was explained
  
• and changes were proposed
  

You’re framing the existence of pushback as proof something was wrong, when in reality it just shows the system allowed for correction.

---

About the Rats thread:
You keep referencing it as “clear proof,” but you’re not actually presenting anything specific from it here—you’re telling people to go read it and arrive at the same conclusion you did.
That’s not how you establish a point in a discussion like this.
If that thread truly proves consistent bias or favoritism, then the relevant parts should be clearly explained and connected to what’s happening now. Otherwise, it ends up functioning more as a supporting narrative than concrete evidence.
Right now, what you’re doing is:

• pointing to past conflict
  
• applying your interpretation of it
  
• and using that interpretation as a foundation for everything else
  

But interpretation isn’t the same as proof—especially when the same events can be viewed differently depending on perspective.

---

On the claim that Levi “only took responsibility because he had to”:
This is one of the biggest assumptions in your entire argument.
You are assigning intent—very specifically, negative intent—without actually being able to prove it. You’re taking actions that are objectively corrective (reversing bans, acknowledging mistakes, proposing improvements) and reframing them as manipulative.
But that logic is unfalsifiable.
Because under that reasoning:

• if he doesn’t correct himself → he’s abusive
  
• if he does correct himself → he’s “saving face”
  

There’s no version of events where he can act in good faith in your view, because every outcome is interpreted negatively.
That’s not a balanced evaluation—that’s starting with a conclusion and fitting everything into it.

---

On the Discord messages, emojis, and “WHO CARES / I GOT NOTHING TO LOSE”:
No one is seriously arguing that those were a good look. They weren’t. They were immature and clearly written out of frustration.
But again, you’re jumping from:

• “this was immature / hostile behavior in the moment”
  

to:

• “this proves intentional harassment and bad character overall”
  

Those are not the same thing.
People say stupid things when they’re frustrated—especially in heated arguments. That doesn’t automatically mean everything they’ve done before or after is part of some coordinated effort to harass people.
Also, the claim that “he would’ve denied saying X if he was thinking clearly” is speculation. You’re assuming what someone would have done in a specific emotional state and using that as evidence. That’s not solid ground to build an argument on.

---

On rules and ARDM:
You’re focusing very heavily on the exact wording and the fact that “ARDM is not a rule,” but that doesn’t really address the underlying issue.
Rules are written to guide behavior, but they don’t always list every possible variation of disruptive actions in exact terminology. Staff are still expected to act on behavior that is clearly disruptive or negatively impacting other players.
So even if the term itself isn’t formally listed, that doesn’t automatically make the behavior acceptable.
Reducing the entire argument to “that exact term isn’t in the rules” sidesteps the broader point about what was actually happening in-game.

---

On the mutt and crab situations:
This is one of the few areas where you have a fair criticism—but it’s being overstated.
Yes, you’re right that it should’ve stopped sooner. Yes, you’re right that being told multiple times isn’t ideal.
But again, context matters:

• it was originally perceived as mutual banter
  
• it eventually stopped
  
• and Levi himself acknowledged he should’ve handled it better
  

That aligns much more with misreading boundaries and reacting too slowly, not with deliberate, targeted harassment over time.
If it were ongoing, intentional harassment, it wouldn’t have stopped when it became clearly unwelcome.

---

On the “convenient timing” of server improvements:
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the timing is influenced by the current situation—that still doesn’t invalidate the changes themselves.
You’re dismissing:

• clearer rules
  
• reset punishments
  
• mechanical fixes to reduce incidents
  

purely because of when they’re being proposed, instead of evaluating whether they actually benefit the server.
That doesn’t really move the discussion forward—it just rejects solutions based on motive rather than outcome.

---

At a broader level, the main issue with your argument is this:
Everything is being filtered through the assumption that Levi is acting in bad faith.
Because of that:

• mistakes become intentional
  
• corrections become manipulation
  
• frustration becomes harassment
  
• and improvements become damage control
  

When you apply that lens consistently, you can make any situation look malicious.
But that doesn’t mean it actually is.

---

If we step back and look at what’s objectively happened in this situation:

• Bans were issued too quickly
  
• That mistake was acknowledged
  
• The bans were reversed
  
• Explanations were given
  
• Improvements were proposed
  

You can absolutely criticize how the situation was handled initially—that’s fair.
But turning that into a claim of consistent abuse, bias, or harassment requires a level of proof that just hasn’t been clearly demonstrated here—especially when the current situation ended with correction, not escalation.

---

At some point, the discussion has to move away from trying to prove intent and start focusing on outcomes.
Because if every action—past, present, and future—is going to be interpreted in the worst possible way no matter what, then there’s no actual path forward.
And that’s where this conversation is starting to get stuck.

Reversing bans and punishments when its brought to public attention does not mean its not in bad faith.. Again the thread is there to read, they will see i had to fight to get you and sad punished.. im not gonna sit here and talk, talk, talk about it when its there to read.. I brought the link for a reason which you clearly dismiss because i want people to read it for themselves? THE WHOLE THREAD IS REALEVANT not any specific part.

Bans to quickly, agianst me once again, against phantom once again(3rd time this time), and fluxx... Again its a pattern if you want to admit it or not norm.

Yup very convenient indeed, the fact that it was even brought up here is questionable at best, as it really has no place here..

Rules are rules norm, follow them or dont.. The popcorn and Pushing which is what started this whole ARDM nonsense, has a rule along with it.. That would be Harassment, which Sad never once stated or asked anyone to stop until levi showed up.. Once again behavior he himself was participating in.. ARDM is not a thing plain and simple. So to try and punish on that ground is in fact abuse, the fact it was only targeted towards us and no one else shows targeting, along with other rule breaks that were allowed to pass.

Not out of frustration, to try and frame it that was is just once again wrong.. He can say he was, but he was not frustrated enough to deny the claim in any way whatsoever.. mind you the claim was stated mutliple times and he only reacted with Emoji and pictures....
And yes i can very much say he only took responsibility because he had to.. What do you think would have happened huh.. I already told you he did originally double down until i brought it up here.. I mean he managed to double down but not deny the claim..

Also Phantoms reverse ban was turned into a week for RDM, nothing showed she RDMed. So like, hard not to see that as targeting, as well as fluxx and his lesser sentence for RDM, again not shown anywhere. So again bans for things that did not happen.

Anyway ill be back tomorrow, i have work in the morning..

[icey]

my serious response: if there is evidence, we should definitely do something about this. however, if there is not evidence, not much can be done.

[Dildo Shwaggins]

my serious response: if there is evidence, we should definitely do something about this. however, if there is not evidence, not much can be done.

(Actually not a shitpost)

This exactly, it’s just a back and forth of people telling their versions of what they believe to be the truth. So unless someone comes through with any proof or objective context for what is currently relevant, any action towards any party at this point would be on hearsay.

[StrenuousSpider]

trying to ignore the past as irrelevant in a post about past and current harassment is asinine.

Levi had at least 2 chances to deny the claim, he did not.. He responded with again WHO CARE, I GOT NOTHING TO LOSE.. Proceeding with Emoji and picture reactions, THAT IS FACT.
Levi has had a past with false perma bans toward us... THAT IS FACT..
Levi has had a even bigger history of it with Phantom... THAT IS FACT..
Levi perma banned us with nothing being done to SAD and others RDMs and other rule breaks... THAT IS FACT..
Had to fight for Norm and Sads Punishments last time as he does not punish the same... THAT IS FACT..
Levi may have lessened the bans on us after this all started, But we still got bans for RDM with no Proof of RDM.. THAT IS FACT..

These thing are not, he said she said. My links and my Screen shots prove these things in fact happened. You all can flood this thread with all kinds of ARDM and IMA FIX THE SERVER nonsense to try and derail, but i will always be here to bring it back to what this is about.. Especially any attempt to strong arm the health of the server. A year and a half absence to now suddenly want to fix things... Giving precedence to the idea that this will happen if you dont get banned vs wont happen if you do.

[Dildo Shwaggins]

When the only active players and only active administration have irreconcilable personal differences (don’t know or care who hated who first) this entire fiasco is the result.

Back to being unserious about gmod drama (not on this thread though, I shitposted and made a low effort comment and will let this pan out however it does here on out)

[Norm Minder]

trying to ignore the past as irrelevant in a post about past and current harassment is asinine.

Levi had at least 2 chances to deny the claim, he did not.. He responded with again WHO CARE, I GOT NOTHING TO LOSE.. Proceeding with Emoji and picture reactions, THAT IS FACT.
Levi has had a past with false perma bans toward us... THAT IS FACT..
Levi has had a even bigger history of it with Phantom... THAT IS FACT..
Levi perma banned us with nothing being done to SAD and others RDMs and other rule breaks... THAT IS FACT..
Had to fight for Norm and Sads Punishments last time as he does not punish the same... THAT IS FACT..
Levi may have lessened the bans on us after this all started, But we still got bans for RDM with no Proof of RDM.. THAT IS FACT..

These thing are not, he said she said. My links and my Screen shots prove these things in fact happened. You all can flood this thread with all kinds of ARDM and IMA FIX THE SERVER nonsense to try and derail, but i will always be here to bring it back to what this is about.. Especially any attempt to strong arm the health of the server. A year and a half absence to now suddenly want to fix things... Giving precedence to the idea that this will happen if you dont get banned vs wont happen if you do.

Saying that bringing up the past automatically proves what’s happening now is intentional, targeted, or done in bad faith is exactly where this entire argument starts to break down, and it’s why this discussion keeps going in circles instead of actually reaching any kind of resolution.
No one here is saying the past is irrelevant. That’s not the argument. The past is relevant—but only when it’s used properly. There’s a big difference between using past incidents to provide context and using them as a blanket justification to assign intent to everything happening in the present. What’s happening right now is the latter. You’re taking multiple past situations, combining them with the current one, and then presenting that as undeniable proof of a “pattern,” without actually demonstrating that the intent, the circumstances, and—most importantly—the outcomes are consistent across all of them.
Because that’s what defines a real pattern. Not just repetition, but consistency.
And that’s where your argument runs into problems.
If this were truly a consistent pattern of bad faith moderation, targeting, or abuse of power, then we would expect to see the same behavior play out fully every time:

• harsh punishments issued quickly
  
• no meaningful reconsideration
  
• refusal to acknowledge mistakes
  
• doubling down when challenged
  
• or ignoring pushback entirely
  

But that is not what happened here.
What actually happened is:

• bans were issued quickly (which, to be clear, has already been acknowledged as a mistake)
  
• those bans were then challenged
  
• they were reviewed again
  
• mistakes were admitted
  
• and punishments were reversed or reduced
  

That last part matters more than you’re giving it credit for.
Because it directly contradicts the idea of a consistent pattern of unchecked abuse or bad faith. You can criticize the initial decision—that’s completely fair. But you cannot ignore the correction when evaluating intent. If anything, the correction is one of the strongest indicators of whether someone is acting in good faith or not.
Now, moving on to the Discord messages, because this point keeps being pushed as if it’s some kind of definitive proof of wrongdoing.
Yes, the messages happened.
Yes, “WHO CARES,” “I GOT NOTHING TO LOSE,” and reaction spam were posted.
And yes, that is not appropriate behavior for someone in a staff position.
No one is defending that.
But there is a very clear line that’s being crossed in how that’s being used in your argument.
There is a difference between:

• someone acting frustrated, immature, or unprofessional in the middle of a heated argument
  and
  
• someone engaging in deliberate harassment, targeted abuse, or acting in systemic bad faith
  

Those are not the same thing, and treating them as if they are is a stretch.
People in heated Discord arguments say stupid things. They react instead of responding. They ignore points. They post memes, emojis, and dismissive comments instead of engaging properly. That’s not unique, and it’s not evidence on its own of deeper intent.
The “he didn’t deny it” argument falls into that same category.
Not denying an accusation in the middle of a chaotic, emotionally charged exchange is not proof that the accusation is true. It can be criticized as a poor response, absolutely. It can be seen as avoiding the issue. But it is not definitive evidence of guilt, intent, or wrongdoing.
People:

• don’t respond to every claim in fast-moving arguments
  
• choose not to engage with certain accusations
  
• or simply handle situations poorly in the moment
  

That reflects on their communication, not automatically on the validity of every claim being made about them.
And this ties directly into the biggest issue with your argument overall:
You are repeatedly presenting interpretations as if they are facts.
Let’s separate them clearly, because this matters if the discussion is supposed to be taken seriously.
Actual facts:

• bans were issued
  
• bans were later reduced or reversed
  
• Discord messages were sent
  
• past incidents involving similar people exist
  

Interpretations:

• “this proves targeting”
  
• “this proves bad faith”
  
• “he only took responsibility because he had to”
  
• “this is a consistent pattern of abuse”
  

Those interpretations might be your conclusion, but they are not automatically proven just because the events themselves happened.
And when you label those interpretations as “THAT IS FACT,” it weakens your position rather than strengthening it, because anyone looking at this objectively can see the difference.
Now, on the point that “you had to fight to get corrections,” this is being framed as proof of bias or wrongdoing, but in reality it reflects how most moderation systems function in practice.
In almost any community:

• a decision gets made
  
• more context or evidence is brought forward
  
• people challenge the decision
  
• and it gets reviewed again
  

That’s not a broken system—that’s a system that allows for correction.
The important part is not that pushback happened. The important part is that the outcome changed because of it.
If Levi were actually acting in bad faith—if the goal was to target certain players or protect others unfairly—the easiest thing to do would have been:

• to double down on the original bans
  
• to justify them regardless of new information
  
• or to ignore criticism entirely
  

But that didn’t happen.
Instead:

• the situation was revisited
  
• mistakes were acknowledged
  
• punishments were adjusted
  

That is the opposite of someone trying to enforce a narrative at all costs.
Now, let’s talk about the RDM bans, because this is actually the strongest and most important point in your entire argument—and it keeps getting lost under everything else.
If people were banned for RDM, then there should be clear, verifiable evidence supporting those bans.
That’s it. That’s the standard.
Either:

• the evidence exists and justifies the punishment
  
• or it doesn’t, and the punishment was not properly supported
  

That’s not about opinions, feelings, past history, or intent. That’s a concrete, objective issue.
If you want your argument to hold real weight, this is where it should stay focused—because it’s the one area that doesn’t rely on interpretation.
But instead, the discussion keeps getting pulled into:

• ARDM terminology debates
  
• Discord behavior analysis
  
• timing speculation
  
• and past grievances
  

All of which dilute the strongest point you actually have.
On the claim of inconsistent punishment:
Yes, consistency matters. If players involved in the same situation receive different punishments, that should be explained clearly.
But again, difference does not automatically equal bias.
Moderation decisions often take into account:

• prior history
  
• severity of the situation
  
• context of the interaction
  
• perceived intent
  

If you want to argue inconsistency as proof of favoritism or targeting, you need to present clear, comparable examples with full context—not just state that punishments were different.
Otherwise, it remains an assumption.
Now, on the timing of the server improvements, because this keeps being framed as suspicious or manipulative:
A lot of changes in communities happen because something goes wrong.
Issues get exposed. Problems become visible. People react. Improvements get proposed.
That’s normal.
Could the timing be influenced by the current situation? Sure.
But does that automatically make the changes invalid, manipulative, or meaningless? No.
If anything, it shows that problems are being recognized and addressed.
Rejecting improvements purely because of when they’re introduced doesn’t help anyone—it just prevents potential fixes from being implemented.
Finally, the biggest underlying issue with your entire argument is this:
It starts from a fixed assumption that Levi is acting in bad faith.
And once that assumption is in place, everything else gets interpreted through it:

• mistakes become intentional
  
• corrections become “damage control”
  
• frustration becomes proof of character
  
• improvements become manipulation
  

At that point, there is no possible action he could take that would be accepted as genuine, because every outcome is already framed negatively before it even happens.
And that’s why this discussion keeps looping with no resolution.
Because it’s no longer about evaluating actions objectively—it’s about reinforcing a conclusion that has already been decided.
If the goal is actually to move forward, then the focus needs to shift back to things that can be clearly addressed:

• Were the bans justified with evidence?
  
• Were mistakes acknowledged and corrected?
  
• Are there clearer processes being put in place?
  
• Is there transparency in moderation decisions?
  

Those are questions that can be answered.
But trying to turn a situation where:

• actions were taken
  
• mistakes were admitted
  
• and corrections were made
  

into proof of ongoing malicious intent—based largely on interpretation of past events—is where the argument stops being grounded.
Acknowledging the past is reasonable.
Using it as automatic proof that nothing in the present can be done in good faith—no matter what actions are taken—is not.
And if every action, whether it’s a mistake, a correction, or an attempt to improve things, is going to be interpreted in the worst possible way regardless of context, then there is no realistic path forward for this discussion at all.

[StrenuousSpider]

Pattern of false bans and punishments as spanned his whole stent as Admin beside the two years we left..

The Bans were not reversed but lessened... Despite Levi not having evidence for said bans.. So regardless of the length of ban its false. And ive mentioned this in my last post, so your so called claim i ignored it is false..

Says those two things when called out by two people, doubles down on the ban, and constant reacts... Yeah i dont buy the frustrated response excuse. You can try to spin it that way, but if you go back to those SS or even the just the Discord itself... Im pretty much the only one that is clearly frustrated.. As little as it means, Im normally not that or this hot headed unless something has happened.. I even calmed down shortly after, apologized for what i had done wrong in the situation... My response was out of character in how i talk with people, Levis was in character as thats how he is from my experience... Hell even the SS ive posted shows that behavior in the past.. Look at the Carb one for example.. Admin stating for the joke to stop, he follows up the same way he did here, Reacts etc... So no i dont buy the frustration excuse.

Bans were issued and reduced- NO EVIDENCE OF ANY RULE BREAK, TRIED TO PASS A RULE THAT DONT EXIST AS A RULE, Past Issues with OTHERS saying similar stuff as Levi does not matter, this is about levi, as well as being someone as proven with the SS did not stop after the first time being told to. Certainly feels in bad faith.. Multiple on Multiple False bans, Many being Permas..

Yes i HAD TO FIGHT, to get corrections.. Not just against me and others, But to actually get PUNISHMENTS DONE ON HIS FRIENDS.. Again you can read this in the rats thread.

He did originally double down, Until it was brought here and he had to show something and found out he had nothing... ALL BANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIFTED.. But as it stands by levis own words bans were still issued when there is no evidence of the rule break..

THAT IS FACT on those Screen shots, Video(By SAD), Levis own post, Are not interpretations.. Those things happened, Actions taken, words spoken/written for all to see..

ARDM again a term your friends tried to bring up, A Term thats been passed off as a rule by Your friends, to justify the bans... That is incredibly important to this, as it also cuts down your whole DID NOT DOUBLE DOWN LIE. Again its in his response that ARDM fake rule was broken..

Discord behavior is important as this is about PAST AND PRESENT BEHAVIOR.. Timing speculation... Why do you not find it strange that after Nearly 2 years he wants to do something with the server, Only after he is called out for abuse.. Again its a strongarm tactic that ive explained before..

Prior Histroy.. Ive had one Ban, one that was a false PERMA ban as well. Fluxx had 1 Ban from many many many years ago. Phantoms Had 1 Proper ban, and several False Bans.. Not much of a actual history, as bans can be looked up, along with the appeals.. Severity of the situation? Nothing severe happened here, NOTHING in fact happened. Context of the interaction? you mean like how You, Sad, and Levi got on ALTs Pushed harassed us on server until we reacted back. We get perma bans that got reduced down to like a month while the Three People responsible for it got Nothing, week, and a day ban. The proceeded to make mystic cry and leave staff Because she got accused of bias.. Again all the evidence for those IS THE RATS THREAD and SCREENSHOTS.

The improvements are suspicious and manipulative. They had no place in this thread, and again as ive already stated a Strongarm tactic..

Were the bans justified- NO
Were mistaken rectified- N0, once again reduced ban with no evidence still happened.
clear processes- NO, did what he wanted.
Transparency- NOPE, as you have to come here for them to have to prove it.

Past is important to the present.. Had a significant amount of time happened between us playing and him getting on then id see your point.. But like i mentioned once before... The day we left this server was the day that Past part Ban appeal with the RATS thread happened.. We are freshly Back and it happens right away.. There may be a 2 year time frame between thes incidents, but in comparison to the context of when they happened is lost on you.. Its important on the WHEN not the INBTWEEN the two events happen, as well as the amount of interactions between the two parties.. After the last time we left, levi left shortly after that.. we come back, BIG SAD who is part of that last incident, pings Levi with claims of ARDM. Levi gets on and instantly issues bans,(thats ignoring being called retards). That interaction on the server itself is more important then the time frame between the two events.

Honestly norm, this whole back and fourth with whatever tool you are using to write all that with, Because i know you better then that.. Has been exhausting, I feel like i keep having to repeat myself as you seem to ignore much of what i say, and repeat yourself which makes me repeat myself, making responses messy.

What i stated you can find the evidence for as its all in my SS, Video by SAD, Levis response, The Links ive posted. But you ignore it, or try to say its up for interpretation but the Video from sad, SS, Levis response, are all there for people to read. From past harassment to strongarming, Falsifying rules etc...

[BIIG_SAD]

[snip] didnt read any of that shit. I really cant believe any of this is getting stretched out since its clear that there is no evidence from your side.
also im not really responding, just unpacking some thoughts I had at the beginning but wanted to say a bit more nicely.

first off, community bans are pretty much saved for people who break the law/come close to it, like PDF files, cyberstalkers, and people who creep on others in the DMs (to my knowledge).
so demanding one is honestly really funny and sad that you are making a false equivalency of this to that.

Second off (and rant/ramble):

so let me get this right.

you (spider) are saying the following:
you (spider) are experiencing years long harassment from levi, that has somehow manifested due to receiving a ban for RDM.
You(spider) are claiming this ban came from nowhere.
You(spider) are claiming you did nothing wrong, and thus the ban is false.

as a result, you are demanding that someone be community banned.

and let me ask you this:
would you agree with the following:
person A and B are not friends.
Person B joins the server.
Person A tells B "go away, this is my server"
Person A starts harassing B every round by damaging B.
Person A is also friends with C, D, E, ETC.
C,D, and E do not tell person A to stop bothering B.

if you had a problem with my behavior in the 2(?) year old post, the rats one, then you should have an issue with the behavior I described. after all, it is similar behavior to what I just described, minus the "get off server, this is my server". 

(since we've opened that can of worms), if you had a problem with my behavior during the rats scenario, then why did you not have a single issue with your friends in this scenario?
Clearly, you know that popcorning people in the head is annoying. So do your friends, since that has been a bitterly complained topic in the past.
And you know that RDM is wrong. so does everyone.

Another question set:
So if person F attempts RDM on person G, is that suddenly not wrong? It would have been RDM had person F died. So does person F not dying suddenly make it OK to do?

And if F engages in behavior that could potentially kill person G and the behavior is known to be irritable in general, and F does this consistently, is this not harassment (via ARDM)?

and if it was popcorn to the head, is that not Attempted RDM? after all, buckets that hit someone in the head currently deal damage and can kill.

in summary, at least one of your group was tossing popcorn at my head or shoving me for almost every round for the first map played. if that had been you getting popcorned and shoved, wouldn't you feel harassed? after all, you can see in the video I basically stop "playing" murder and start playing "try to dodge getting killed by popcorn". 

Then, following on that, I noticed a distinct lack of "hey mabye we should stop".
it follows that people can be complicit in something by failing to act.
Since apparently we are insistent on having only the highest standards in this thread, should that not mean that you too should have stopped your friends from doing that? and that a failure to do so is complicity?
obviously, that is stupid.

is it true you were swept up in a group ban that had a generic reason? yeah, thats probably true honestly.

what isn't true is that your friends didnt harass me. they very much did. and they did so with ARDM. just because something isn't by word in the rule does not make it allowed or not allowed.
For example, if I popped into murder and started to spam an obscure slur like g**k, I probably would catch a permanent ban off the rip, even though thats not in the rules by word.
If I came into the server, and somehow flung props at someone and brought them to like 1 HP and they died going down map geometry, I'd probably get punished for RDM since I am a majority cause of the damage.

Hell, lets flip over to the TTT rules to help define RDM/ARDM
in TTT rdm is fully killing another player. Ardm is when you damage another player, and is more easily defined as shooting to attempt/attempting to damage someone, for example, with a barrel.
TTT and murder share very similar design. (overarching, big ideas design yall).
so would it not track that if its ARDM on TTT, its likely ARDM on Murder? and that Ardm leads to RDM if the kill occurs?



 how can I not interpret the popcorn and pushing as harassment when its paired with a hostile statement and paired with the fact that I am provably not friends with you at the moment. And for that matter, you know popcorn ARDM can be/is mean, and you had an issue with harassing, so why didnt you stop your friends from carrying out this behavior? 

I do agree, you got banned wrongly.
But you've been unbanned and the rules will change to have better ability to enforce them and to be more clear. I've spoken with Levi about this on length.

clearly, after being banned we are suddenly talking after 2 years, and you messaged me as if we are friends (?).(I have, already, preserved all our DMs so, really, don't delete them. Or do. up to you tbh.)


with all that said, considering how I felt about your group popcorning me in the head for a full map, constantly shoving me, and softlocking me on my murderer round, can you understand my perspective on the matter? How am I supposed to interpret your most recent comm with me? to me, it seemed like there was some ulterior motive and that you were leveraging reviving the friendship with you to obtain footage from me. It seemed like you are reaching out to me in bad faith. It honestly seemed like you are doing this for some other reason that isnt just about undoing the ban.

that's not how friends behave to each other. If we are friends, then lets mend that bridge. If we aren't going to be friends, that fine as well. But do not use the promise of friendship to leverage things out of people. that's weird and manipulative. the tone shift is a huge fucking neck breaking experience.


I checked my footage and saw I had one real file and one file that was corrupted and unuseable. I immediately concluded that if I say/send nothing, you will be upset, and if I send what I have, you will still be upset. Ultimately, you would/did blame me for 'colluding' with Levi, and at that point, I simply opted to sit for a bit.
I didnt collude with Levi. I simply turned over evidence from map 1 once it had processed, stating ARDM consistent.

again, its true you didnt participate in the ARDM. And for that, I am actually not mad with you. I actually called that out to Levi in private quickly.

what I am, however, is disappointed. That, after 2 years, you would attempt to leverage reviving the friendship for the sole purpose of getting video out of me for some purpose. And that when I didn't respond, to sleep on it, you immediately assumed the worst, made accusations about me. That although you approached me in a friendly manner, you didn't behave like a friend on server after two years of no contact.

tldr - agree ban is wrong FOR YOU (then file it in unbans...), hard disagree on persistent harassment from levi to you. Have many questions about your behavior towards me and how it feels manipulative. Have many questions why its OK for your friend group to troll others, but complain bitterly when any trolling occurs to your group.
curious.


not responding to anyone. just had more time to unpack and un-nice-ify what I wanted to say initially.

anyway, back to ignoring this thread. or mabye i'll actually read it so it can hit 10 pages like the annual dinks drama requires. (joking on this one, please close thread).
I really do question the motive behind this whole thread keep chugging along from your involvement. Its clearly not about you being harassed, that's for sure. If it was, there would be a tangible trail of evidence of harassment, which there really is not from the screenshots to be honest with you. did YOU recieve an incorrect ban? yeah, but it was fixed. Poor wording immediately afterwords? absolutely. Harassment? the word stretch is itself stretching.

anyway, someone close this thread, its not gonna go anywhere productive.
and Im not gonna respond to anyone unless they include a goofy shitpost as well that was made with love and care(or hate and indifference, really just include a funny one unrelated to this topic). k, thanks. Bye.











anyway, heres a shitpost so I too am shitposting:

Code:

|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^||____
|.The WHO GIVES A | ||'""|""\_ _
| __ FUCK TRUCK __ l ||__|__|__|)
|(@)(@)****(@)(@)****|(@)**(@)

(anyway, now, really, k, thanks, bye.)