My Response to the October 1st Incident

The quoted post is unavailable.

And why exactly should bigots be allowed to voice their bigoted views without any consequences? Transphobia should absolutely not be up for debate and doing the "both sides" bulls*** is only enabling transphobes to still exist within the community.

The quoted post is unavailable.

Believe it or not, with concern about this I have been in contact with a few people to gauge community feeling, but if one or two people disagree, one of which being the person accused of bigotry, this does not immediately point to a serious problem

Suggestions that moderations should grow a spine has been noted though, and I agree a step towards zero tolerance to bigotry is long overdue.

This thread is honestly laughable because you all think I'm condoning bigotry, when I've repeatedly explained the side doesn't have anything to do with one situation or another. I'm tired of this s***. There's a clear take away here, staff doesn't learn. Now give me my -2 points so you guys can then claim you're being vote manipulated.

Transphobia wasn't the issue being argued. So shut the f*** u*. If someone defending their point is allowed to talk like this, I guess I am to? Or am I not because then it violates one of the rules when its not the side you're taking?

Other community members are saying this:

“ I don't wanna leave dt because i don't wanna be viewed as a transphobe.”

By the way I sent an email but delete my account. I can’t be f***** anymore.

The quoted post is unavailable.

EXACTLY.

I initially re-activated my account to have my say on this, but seeing how so many of you are too self-righteous to accept any form of criticism, I don't why I should even bother. It's funny, because Jake's first message before he edited it was the most neutral of this argument.

The first response accepted criticism that it should have been a DM and tried to explain the reasoning behind why the action taken came off as quite severe.
I have reemphasised it a few times.

What then is the problem? Spell it out for me. What is the criticism that has not been accepted here?

The quoted post is unavailable.

I was trying to be neutral because I think there's clear issues that this staff doesn't understand and wanted to approach it from an "arms open" point of view. Instead, they brigaded a post, downvoted it and then I decided f*** it.

These people are essentially claiming I'm on the wrong side of this when I have done several things to advocate for LGBTQ+ in this community. I'm not saying bigotry by any form is acceptable, I'm saying the staff in this community don't know d*** about what they're doing.

Whether or not I agree with each and every community member, not having to be in the position of staff has allowed me to look at this with a new perspective. Fact is, there are many community members who do not voice frustration anymore because staff hasn't taken it seriously in the past. And as someone who may have contributed to that culture, I find it important now to try and voice that perspective from the people who find it either frightening or pointless to do so. If you can take anything away from my message, it would be the fact that staff needs to change how it responds to issues. And the proof is literally right here. Missing the entire point, vote brigading and the fact there is upset community members over how this was handled and will continue to be handled. Just today, it appears another micro version of this propped up in #shar-general.

I'm done here. I've made the point I wanted to. If its not going to be treated seriously and that people are going to jump to "Jake is condoning bigotry", they clearly do not understand the actual issue here.

If you'd like to talk about this with me privately, be my guest. Done checking this thread. Have a good day everyone.

The quoted post is unavailable.

Nobody has said this, nobody is saying this. People might be downvoting you because they disagree with your take on the issue?
Also to your previous point "If someone defending their point is allowed to talk like this, I guess I am to? ", I believe so. You haven't been banned?


the criticism that the initial action should've been handled privately has been accepted as a mistake due to the serious nature of deadnaming causing a bit of a rash reaction.

It was "not taken seriously" so much that Borb made a thread to explain their rationale in face of people criticising it. so I don't get this fantasy of it not being taken seriously?

What else is there? That Thomas and Mavis should have been silenced instead of flinging stuff? Maybe?

Also again I have been taking note of various criticisms about how moderators handling it, which include differing takes. Some people may be unhappy, some may be happy. Some may be unhappy for the exact opposite reason to others.

There's definitely been a problem about staff of the past not taking things seriously enough, but I believe we are working on changing that.

What exactly is deadnaming? I seem to be the only one here who doesn't know what that is, but it sounds serious. Is this something that puts the community at risk?