Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

11

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

Oppose. They claim to have made a genuine error when missgendering you.

Of course that's assuming they didnt say anything malicious since.

2

amongstclouds wrote

Genuine error is a funny way of saying they saw my pronouns and decide to say exactly what every other cuck does. hE/sHe!1

1

Freux wrote

After explaining everything he still uses "their/them" knowing what u/amongstclouds pronouns are and knowing she wants him to use "she/her". Might be yet another mistake but I don't buy it. Also he seems more interested in defending himself than owning up to it and being angry that she insults him and not acting "civil" (his word).

I tried to make him understand why amongstcloud could be upset, but then he got annoyed at me and start downvoting me because supposely I took her side because I didn't tell amongstcloud that she was in the wrong by insulting him.

5

punkprivilege wrote

I'm new so i cant vote but from what i saw it was a genuine mistake and they just put a poorly worded argument up in defense A ban also seems extreme for something they either didnt mean or obviously regret

1

ziq wrote

I decided to support because they keep deleting evidence.

1

Fossidarity admin wrote

Banned them for transphobia, deleting evidence and not seeing the harm in their words.

1

Freux wrote (edited )

I support the ban!

Edit: Would be nice that you take away the link to the stuff he deleted since it leads nowhere.

1

amongstclouds wrote

Yeah, it got deleted. :p

2

Freux wrote

I screenshot the thread I wrote with him in case he deletes it. Now he can't even feign ignorance after I've explain as much as I could.

2

amongstclouds wrote

I'm just baffled at how they assume I want them to change. No. They won't change. It's much better to voice my distaste at those who mean nothing to me.

-3

BADC wrote

Everybody means something to me motherfucker. If you want to spam me with insulting bullshit I will come find you.

3

ziq wrote

Don't threaten to beat women you loser.

-6

BADC wrote

I said I would come find them. I said I would show you my click. It means exactly what it means. Tell that woman to get civil and watch her mouth.

4

Witchman05 wrote

Oooh, does /f/iamverybadass exist?

"TeLl HeR tO bE mOrE cIvIl!!!!!one!!!"

3

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Woah, big man. You must be very tough and macho to threaten a girl on the internet for not bending over fucking backwards for you, what an alpha.

1

Fossidarity wrote

Did they just call you he/she or used it in a specific way to insult you?

1

amongstclouds wrote

They went to my profile to downvote me. There is no way they didn't see my pronouns. Reactionaries do this all the time.

1

ziq wrote

they deleted all the evidence, ha

1

amongstclouds wrote

I took screenshots. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

1

Fossidarity wrote

Can you show them?

0

amongstclouds wrote

Oh, I only managed to save one, sadly. Just the original post with the 'he/she,' comment which I will still say was done on purpose. They went to my profile. They saw my pronouns and decide to throw some underhanded shade because I straight up think he's a cuck for making such a big deal about not being able to say words.

Whoops

-5

ThrowawayLaw wrote (edited )

Throwaway account, because I don't want my main account dragged into this.

I do have to agree with those opposing this. I think a ban was bad form from the mods. I can't speak for Deadman and maybe his wording was shit, but it seemed to me he was ganged up on from the thread in https://raddle.me/f/meta/55897/policy-should-mods-be-able-to-ban-bots-from-their-forums.

It's true we can't see the original thread, but we CAN see what happened in the super long thread located in the comments here. I honestly see a guy who didn't mean to offend and tried his best to clarify that. I also see a portion where he explained his reasoning for deleting the original thread, something about it having become toxic, and he didn't want the toxicity on raddle. So maybe he did delete 'evidence', but I think his reasoning was not ill intended. I even see a few places where he apologized for offending, even though it was unintentional.

On the other hand, I see individuals ganging up on him, one of which was only insulting and nothing more. It seems odd to me that Raddle would care that one user was insulted, but completely disregard that another use felt insulted, but that's what I seemed to see.

Now, I don't know Deadman personally, but I've seen a lot of his posts on f/shoplifting, and I can say, I've never seen him insult, abuse, or harm another person. Almost all his posts are there to help and guide others in that forum, with one or two calling out people who have been rude to others. I just have a hard time believing that this same person was intentionally being mean.

As a lawyer IRL, this looks to me like you banned because you personally disagreed with his word than because of anything he actually did wrong. Did you warn him of a ban? Can anyone point out a place where he maliciously attacked another? Did the person who was offending/attacking him get any discipline? Did you go through every undeleted comment? Youre banning a person because they unintentionally offended someone, based off word alone simply shouldn't hold up.

You claim he deleted evidence, but then cant say what that evidence was because you didnt see it. The screenshotted 'evidence' really only supports what he was saying when you read the entire context of it. Now, essentially, you've banned a good standing person with no history of being oppressive on Raddle, because of... Lack of evidence? Have any unbiased person read down the thread that I posted above and point out to me where this person said something to actually deserve a banning, and when you do, you should include all context and not just copy/paste what suits your needs for his banning. He was a person doing his best to get his point across while also trying to protect himself from accusations that he believed to be false. I would bet that MOST people would try to defend themselves in such a situation, rather than simply being told what to do and how they were wrong. I actually have to give Deadman (or whatever his new name is) respect for not getting aggressive as well as apologizing WHILE still defending himself.

Sorry mods, but I really do think this was a blunder. Either way, whatever you do is whatever you do. I'm tossing this account now. I have to argue enough in IRL life on peoples behalf than continue here! Later!

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Wasn't just the original thread that the user deleted, they deleted 2 threads and several comments in other threads, so there's really no way to follow the thing unless you saw all the original comments. Since there was a proposal open in meta about the whole thing, they shouldn't have deleted all the evidence. That makes them look guilty.

You also can't really blame any mods for the ban since the proposal was voted on by the users (3 supports, 1 oppose).

-3

ThrowawayLaw wrote

I mean, I understand. My only thing is, does anyone have proof that Deadman was actually being sexist, oppressive, etc (Intentionally). And By proof, I mean more than someones opinion. I didn't see the originally deleted threads. I do see a lot of upvotes on THIS post against his banning, and I wouldn't think he'd have so many votes in his favor here if he was a 'bad' individual, ya'know?

I can only go off what can be seen rather than what can't, and I'd assume that the judgement to ban should be off the same. A person isn't guilty just because they -look- guilty. =/

I think direct evidence should be reason for a ban, not the lack-there-of. With that said, I do find it really harsh that it goes straight to ban without warning... That's almost worst than most reddit subs.

6

ziq wrote (edited )

The proof is that amongstcloud has her gender stated right in her profile as 'she/her'. Deadman was all over her profile stalking her and whining about her comment history in his drama thread on f/shoplifting.

So even if he somehow didn't see her pronoun on her profile, he would have seen from her post history (which he was clearly putting under the microscope) that she's a trans woman.

So he was going through her whole history reading everything she said and downvoting it. But despite his familiarity with her, he called her "he/she", which is pretty messed up.

So then clouds got pissed off and made clear to him what her pronoun is. But then he still refused to call her 'she', and switched to calling her 'they'. He deleted his f/shoplifting drama thread that complained about clouds and her post history (which is important evidence to establish he knew her pronoun), and his f/shoplifting thread complaining about the languagebot (which had more drama in it I think), and then some of his comments in other threads where he was arguing with her. He then changed his username, perhaps in another attempt to escape responsibility. And he made some really offputting arguments to try and give himself a get out of jail free card.

That's the only evidence I have and people are free to consider it and vote on how to proceed.

If he hadn't sneakily deleted everything, changed his username, and made weird arguments to try and frame himself as somehow a victim / a marginalized person (because he's only rarely sexually attracted to people or some shit), I wouldn't have voted support.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Something else I remembered: in his drama thread he kept pointing out that clouds is a mod "on other forums", and suggested a mod shouldn't be talking back to him. Which means he knew she mods f/trans... Which means he knew she was trans when he called her 'he/she.'

1

loldv wrote

My favorite part was when he started crying for 'CiViLiTy'.

-2

ThrowawayLaw wrote (edited )

I mean, according to his own words he -didn't- see it. And the only 'History' he went through was downvoting comments that were just straight up insults. Doesn't sound to me like he went into each post to look at context. I, myself, having just glanced at the users comment history, see way more insult than anything that has to do with indicating she is trans. Hell, I didn't even know there was a biography part of the profiles until I just looked because of your comment. (And Ive been here for 6 months!-- Granted, I dont frequent many political forums)

I also don't see where Deadman "refused" to call her "she", as a matter of fact, once he apologized and understood the problem, it looks like he used "They" from that point out. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it's not in the view-able posts. And if you want to say it was in the 'deleted' posts, but have no proof of it, it's not something that should be judged on. Maybe taken into consideration as a possibility.. But with it gone, it just leads to a battle of words that can't be proven...

This is why I believe a warning before ban would have been a better decision than the black and white decision that was made.

-3

ThrowawayLaw wrote (edited )

In the end, it is what it is. A forum ban isn't life or death. I simply don't agree with the decision based off what was presented, and I think many, especially those in f/shoplifting feel the same. But it's not my place to speak for them.

Plus, I have no reason to have any hostility towards you or anyone else, other than simply disagreement, so Im going to go on my way. Consider this throwaway account done. =)

3

amongstclouds wrote

It's hard to show you evidence of posts being deleted when he already deleted a whole thread and over 20 replies. Go take your degree and shove it up your ass.

You probably spend all day getting rapists off.