Mods, you haven't answered my direct question yet. Where are you? TBH, this is kinda starting to tick me off.
I missed it, apologies.
That's fine. Apology accepted.
If you mean this one:
Oh look, more unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable claims that I'm actually a ban-dodging former user. Direct question to the mods: why is this shit allowed? Like, if these people had any actual evidence, they'd have presented it by now.
then the reason 'this shit' is allowed is that the forum does have a pattern of ban dodgers who have been detected first via circumstantial evidence. It seems rather unreasonable to say nobody is allowed to suggest that someone might be a former user dodging a ban, when that has absolutely happened before.
Hmm... when you put it that way, it does make sense. Still, there are quite a few users (not all, but some) who are talking about me allegedly being a ban-dodger not like it's a
possibility, but like it's a
certainty. This despite the fact that they haven't even proved their circumstantial evidence objectively exists. For all I know, the alleged similarities could just be a matter of perception. And even if we are similar in the ways they say we are - we very well might be - there are other explanations than us secretly being the same person. Political positions? AOC and Ilhan Omar have some very similar ideas (wanting to abolish ICE, supporting single-payer healthcare, etc.). Writing style? Like I said before, there are entire lists of authors with similar writing styles. The example I pointed to was the late Anthony Bourdain writing similarly to Chuck Palahniuk, despite them being different in plenty of ways (not least of which is the stuff they wrote). And yet these people constantly harp on about how I'm a former user like there's no other explanation.
That really sums up a lot of my frustrations, I think. Those who most vocally disagree with me always seem to gravitate towards possibilities that reflect negatively on me. It doesn't matter what other possibilities there are, or how likely they are. They always go with the ones that would paint me in a bad light. And they never show me evidence to support their conclusions, so I can't defend myself from the accusations. They keep harping on and on and on about these things I've supposedly done, but they never show any examples of me actually doing what they say I've done. Do you know how frustrating it is to deal with people assuming bad things about me and slinging around allegations they won't back up? This isn't just people voicing their suspicions, it's borderline character assassination. And the only reason I added the qualifier "borderline" is because I don't know whether they actually believe what they're saying about me or just want to destroy my reputation. But that doesn't really matter, since it's a witch hunt either way.
Look, I can admit that I haven't always toed the line myself. There are things I said that were unwise and unkind. And maybe I could've responded better to being disrespected. But the shit I get is completely out of proportion to what I've done. Not my fault this guy lives in their heads rent-free.
Maybe there's some kind of compromise we could come up with? Or maybe I could find some way to get them to back off.
I'd like to think you have reasons for things being the way they are I can at least understand. Really, I would. But the longer you maintain radio silence, the harder it is for me to believe that. Like I said, I'm willing to listen if you're willing to talk, and I think a conversation about the rules and their enforcement among the staff and users is necessary.
I disagree, I think my opinion that I don't think that conversation would be productive has been clearly stated, and I don't intend to answer requests to that effect. I believe this is what you are interpreting as 'radio silence'.
How will you know if you don't try? Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think any conversation can be productive with the right participants.
