Update: March 22, 2022
Stating or implying that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' will result in a perm ban from r/conspiracy as it appears the mod team considers this a TOS violation.
Human biology and science is to be classified as 'hate speech'.
It also appears you will be banned for submissions or discussion of
- CIS women that feel disenfranchised by transgender women receiving women's awards or competing in women's sports
The mods will not clarify whether discussing LGBTQ topics results in a ban, but by the evasive nature and continuous gaslighting it seems someone on the mod team does not want civil debate or any discussion on controversial topics.
Instead the mod prefers to run a honeypot permanently banning users that make submissions or discuss topics on a mod's private blacklist.
No matter of compromise would appease the lead mod who appeared to be putting on theater display.
Asking for clarification on blacklisted topics to prevent future misunderstanding and bans for wrongthink received additional evasive responses and gaslighting.
Suggesting mods should be open and honest with users about banned topics makes you a TMOR shill that wants the sub banned.
I did manage to get one honest reply.
Updated PM appeal:
short update:
https://files.catbox.moe/aqtt5j.png
[archive]
Full PM chain updated:
https://files.catbox.moe/0v3wxe.png
[archive]
Seems like there are a lot of old mods here and I remember u/axolotl_peyotl being pushed out under strange circumstance.
Summary:
Perm banned from r/conspiracy about 4 days ago
I asked why I was perm banned and what specifically in my submission and submission statement was a TOS violation for 'hate speech'.
I was never contacted or sanctioned by Admin.
This was 100% mod action..
To be honest I never anticipated the mod team Orwellian newspeak, mental gymnastics, dodging, projection, and gaslighting. I never once got a clear honest answer to what specifically in my submission or submission statement was a TOS violation.
Presumably if you engage in civil debate on r/conspiracy you will be perm banned if you raise the question of CIS women potentially being disenfranchised by biological men identifying as transgender women in awards and competitions .
The old public modlog is also offline, for how long who knows, but it seems like the mods over there currently in charge have two sets of rules (public, private) and do not like transparency.
A small passage from the pm
I repeatedly stated I was willing to compromise and post within the confines of a sandbox. I just asked what are blacklisted topics or how my submission was in violation something you refuse to respond to. You say use nuance, but then don't define what that means. You can't say follow the rules, when rules are unstated, unspecified, or ambiguous especially with respect to hidden blacklists.
PM chain appeal: LONG
https://files.catbox.moe/qybjve.png
[archive]
Submission:
https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/tfgmpv/women_of_the_year/
https://i.redd.it/h8llggn7pqn81.png
Submission statement:
USA (Today) announced their women of the year.
Included in the list was Biden's Ast. Sec HHS Rachel Levine. As more and more awards for women continue to be handed to biological men, you have to wonder at what point women begin to feel disenfranchised by a rigged system.
Tweet:
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1503747553669623818
https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1504004683639111682
USA Today column
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/opinion/2022/03/13/rachel-levine-honoree-usa-today-women-of-the-year/6600134001/
This is incorrect.
It wasn't until four days and nearly 14 messages later that a mod specified saying a 'transgender woman is a biological male' was the reason for the ban.
Up until that point all I received was evasion, mental gymnastics, blame shifting, dodging, projection, and gaslighting from the mod.
Claiming to have permanently banned a user because similar posts were deemed a TOS violation is an ambiguous dodge that does nothing to explain the exact infringement by the user.
Let's assume you were the mod.
In my case it was the equivalent of blaming the victim for saying the sky is blue which is a factual statement and then refusing to acknowledge you banned the user for saying the sky is blue, but ambiguously telling the user that their submission was a TOS violation and linking to 'hate speech'. Saying 'the sky is blue' is hate speech? Are we also banning people for saying the earth is round?
Meanwhile you ignore that the person was willing to compromise and you again refuse to tell them exactly what offended you so there will be no future misunderstanding.
Again the admin didn't ban me or contact me. It was a mod.
Say you post a picture of Joe Biden being incompetent then write a submission statement saying some people might think Joe is incompetent, old, and looks to be losing his mind. I'm a mod, and I perm ban you claiming it's a TOS violation because I say similar posts were banned. You ask what exactly was wrong with the submission. I repeat stating it's a TOS violation and link to some ambiguous text claiming 'hate speech'. That doesn't tell you what was wrong with the submission or submission statement and attempts to pass the blame to Admin without explaining the infringement.
I've done nothing to harm r/conspiracy, if anything they've harmed their own community by not being open about banned topics while running private blacklists and banning people for wrongthink
This is nonsense. The mods wanted me to make a false admission stating that I committed a TOS violation. I disagreed.
I did however say I was willing to compromise if they explained what was the violation.
I gave the mods every opportunity to list the ban justification, and asked for a list of banned topics so I could compromise and follow their rules. They refused. The mods also rebuffed any suggestion that they should be open with the list of banned topics instead of running a honeypot and banning users for violating topics on private blacklists.
If the mods had not perm banned me for making a factual scientific statement while raising the question if CIS women felt disenfranchised about transgender women receiving women's awards we would not be at this juncture. This topic is not going away.
Similarly had a mod not played games and accepted that I was attempting to compromise and had been honest, I might not have typed this self.text to warn others about the duplicity taking place.
I really don't understand why you don't understand. The very first message from the mods to you:
TOS are you trying to get this subreddit banned by submitting content that will induce TOS violations? [Link to your woman_of_the_year post]
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
The second message from them went into detail about you baiting users in a way that risks the existence of the sub. It's concise and clear.
Your absurd responses about being confused and biological men just take their time and wear them down. Then you go around the Internet to say mods are compromised. It seems to me like you're just out to get them.
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
I am not a mind reader, I also did not click the perm ban button. I asked multiple times for clarification on what the mod deemed to be a TOS violation in the submission or submission statement.
Apparently you are free to discuss and criticize pedophiles in r/conspiracy,.
You are free to discuss and criticize killers, thieves, mass murders and so on.
On the other hand if you post a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raise the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions, then that is a bridge too far.
What is the TOS violation?
Simply responding your submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.
I wasn't the only person banned either apparently. I mentioned this in the pm chain. A different user was seemingly banned for a similar post a day after me, which was on the front page discussing both Lia Thomas and Rachel Levine. That user was nowhere near as polite or 'nuanced'. The self.text was removed by mods
https://web.archive.org/web/20220320074230/https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/tid93y/does_anyone_think_it_is_a_bit_orwellian_that_an/
That user posted a follow-up the next day after being perm banned.
...
now back to your comments
If the mods have a private list of banned topics and they do not want users to discuss them, then they probably should tell the users what they consider wrongthink instead of running private blacklists and then perm banning users.
I did nothing to bait users. The submission statement was polite which I copied in the first reply as well as in the self.text.
If they have problems with LGBTQ topics then it's something they should say publicly instead of permanently banning people with no warning.
Way to blame the victim.
I didn't hit a perm ban button for wrongthink and then play evasive word games for the better part of four days while trying to get a false admission.
I said I was willing to compromise, I just asked for the list of banned topics to prevent any future misunderstanding. They refused. How exactly is a user supposed to comply and 'follow the rules' when the rules are ambiguous, private, unstated, and hidden?
Promoting Hate Based on Identity or Vulnerability https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951
https://youtu.be/y_9ZmiuyF7M?t=7
I'm guessing you would similarly ban South Park and all comedians whom you personally disagree with.
Stating that a 'transgender woman is a biological male' is not promoting hate or inciting violence.
It's a biological fact.
Biological males have XY chromosomes in their DNA and are born with male physical characteristics. You can't simply wish this away even if you call yourself a woman.
Posting a picture of Biden Assistant HHS secretary Rachel Levine winning USA Today 'women of the year' award and in the submission statement politely raising the question asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by biological males identifying as transgender women when permitted to compete in awards and sports competitions is also not promoting hate or inciting violence.
The argument is based on human biology.
What is the TOS violation?
None of these topics or questions are 'hate speech' or inciting violence.
You can identify as a potato, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you. I might also find it ridiculous if you a identify as piece of carry on luggage to avoid paying full price airfare, it doesn't mean I hate you or wish death upon you.
Simply responding that a submission is a TOS violation does not show the thought process behind the ban.
^^^^ username checks out. ^^^^^^