I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
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?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
- Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?
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
That user posted a follow-up the next day after being perm banned.
Babylon Bee editor: We refuse to bow to Twitter's censorship of a joke by beeahh61 in Conservative
[–] MsKim 135 points 2 days ago
On r/conspiracy I was instantly banned for posting that a candidate for Woman of the Year and an NCAA female swim champ were both male. What is the deal with banning people for stating facts?
...
now back to your comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
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?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
- Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it by raising any question it might unintentionally raise awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?
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
That user posted a follow-up the next day after being perm banned.
Babylon Bee editor: We refuse to bow to Twitter's censorship of a joke by beeahh61 in Conservative
[–] MsKim 135 points 2 days ago
On r/conspiracy I was instantly banned for posting that a candidate for Woman of the Year and an NCAA female swim champ were both male. What is the deal with banning people for stating facts?
...
now back to your comments
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.
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.
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.
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 private, unstated, and hidden?
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
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?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
- Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it by raising any question it unintentionally raises awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?
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
That user posted a follow-up the next day after being perm banned.
Babylon Bee editor: We refuse to bow to Twitter's censorship of a joke by beeahh61 in Conservative
[–] MsKim 135 points 2 days ago
On r/conspiracy I was instantly banned for posting that a candidate for Woman of the Year and an NCAA female swim champ were both male. What is the deal with banning people for stating facts?
...
now back to your comments
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.
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.
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.
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 private, unstated, and hidden?
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
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?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
- Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it by raising a question it unintentionally raises awareness that the LGBTQ lobby have been repeatedly trying to erase and censor 200+ years of human biology, psychology, medicine, and the field of science itself?
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
That user posted a follow-up the next day after being perm banned.
Babylon Bee editor: We refuse to bow to Twitter's censorship of a joke by beeahh61 in Conservative
[–] MsKim 135 points 2 days ago
On r/conspiracy I was instantly banned for posting that a candidate for Woman of the Year and an NCAA female swim champ were both male. What is the deal with banning people for stating facts?
...
now back to your comments
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.
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.
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.
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 private, unstated, and hidden?
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
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?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
- Is it stating that transgender women are biological males?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
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
That user posted a follow-up the next day after being perm banned.
Babylon Bee editor: We refuse to bow to Twitter's censorship of a joke by beeahh61 in Conservative
[–] MsKim 135 points 2 days ago
On r/conspiracy I was instantly banned for posting that a candidate for Woman of the Year and an NCAA female swim champ were both male. What is the deal with banning people for stating facts?
...
now back to your comments
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.
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.
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.
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 private, unstated, and hidden?
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
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?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it stating that Rachel Levine is a biological man identifying as a woman?
- Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
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
That user posted a follow-up the next day after being perm banned.
Babylon Bee editor: We refuse to bow to Twitter's censorship of a joke by beeahh61 in Conservative
[–] MsKim 135 points 2 days ago
On r/conspiracy I was instantly banned for posting that a candidate for Woman of the Year and an NCAA female swim champ were both male. What is the deal with banning people for stating facts?
...
now back to your comments
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.
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.
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.
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 private, unstated, and hidden?
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
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?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it bringing attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
- Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
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
That user posted a follow-up the next day after being perm banned.
Babylon Bee editor: We refuse to bow to Twitter's censorship of a joke by beeahh61 in Conservative
[–] MsKim 135 points 2 days ago
On r/conspiracy I was instantly banned for posting that a candidate for Woman of the Year and an NCAA female swim champ were both male. What is the deal with banning people for stating facts?
...
now back to your comments
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.
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.
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.
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 private, unstated, and hidden?
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
I am not a mind reader, I also did not click the 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?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it bringing attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
- Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
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. Another user was seemly banned for a similar post a day after me, which was on the front page discussing Lia Thomas. That user was nowhere near as polite or 'nuanced'
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.
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.
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 banning people with no warning.
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.
Way to blame the victim.
I didn't hit a 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 private, unstated, and hidden?
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
I am not a mind reader, I also did not click the 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?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it bringing attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
- Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
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. Another user was seemly banned for a similar post a day after me, which was on the front page discussing Lia Thomas. That user was nowhere near as polite or 'nuanced'
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.
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.
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 banning people with no warning.
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.
Way to blame the victim.
I didn't hit a ban button for wrongthink and then playing 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 private, unstated, and hidden?
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
I am not a mind reader, I also did not click the 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?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it bringing attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
- Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
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. Another user was seemly banned for a similar post a day after me, which was on the front page discussing Lia Thomas. That user was nowhere near as polite or 'nuanced'
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.
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.
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 banning people with no warning.
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.
Way to blame the victim.
I didn't hit a ban button for wrongthink and then playing word games for the better part of four days while trying to get a false admission.
I'm getting the distinct feeling you're an alt account for a mod.
How is it that I can immediately know what you did wrong and you claim you can't?
I am not a mind reader, I also did not click the 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?
- Is it reporting that USA Today gave Rachel Levine a women of the year award?
- Is it bring attention to the fact that Rachel Levine is a biological man?
- Is it stating that biological males are transgender women?
- Is it asking if CIS women feel disenfranchised by a biological male receiving a woman's award?
- Is it because the topic is simply LGBTQ, and controversial?
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. Another user was seemly banned for a similar post a day after me, which was on the front page discussing Lia Thomas. That user was nowhere near as polite or 'nuanced'
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.
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.
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 banning people with no warning.
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.
Way to blame the victim.
I didn't hit a ban button for wrongthink and then playing word games for the better part of four days while trying to get a false admission.