Nothing wrong with typing it all out. There's no such thing as limited realty space on the internet. It's just a split-second longer on the scroll-wheel if people don't want to read it, anyway.
That's true. I just want my criticism to have some
nuance and
depth rather than just linking to a single post and point to it. I mean, for that i could just copy paste the ban bot (
Who is now official part of Kiwi by the way. I can already predict that this will be thrown together with the
''all of Kiwi is bad'' narrative simply because it just makes it easier to group that bot together with it.)
But the Arenanet thread is certainly a special topic. I mean,
this user gets banned (1 week) for nosing in Price's history (Which is exactly why i dont do that!) but.. lets be honest, this user is not getting banned for
that, but more because he prefaces the post with some (reasonable, in my eyes) mod criticism. Just don't agree with that post and provide more
reasonable criticism on the staff,
as that will get you permed and later the reason is changed from
Account Suicide to state that the length is permanent by
his request. Because thats what you do with
reasonable criticism: You perm the shit from the forums. Do that stuff via PM so nobody else can see what is going on.
So ofcourse things then
escalate, and you can tell
The Names don't care on addressing these matters, and as a result you get a week ban yourself.
But
this user feels like Price firing was not deserved (Ehh?A very definitive statement, but not problematic imo) whilst proclaiming her behavior is problematic. Gets a
permban with the reasoning:
''Demonstrable misogynistic double-standard as contextualized by infraction history; accumulation of severe infractions ''. I am kind of amazed you can reach that conclusion by that singular post, but wait, that user isn't getting banned for
that post alone.. that user gets banned for
infraction history. At the very least the ban reason is quite eloquently written.
What strikes me as most peculiar is how one user, the same user from the page before is
still baiting people.
''Maybe i should start barking again. I know you guys liked that.'',
''So now the thread has just devolved into people openly denying Gamergate had anything to do with this controversy at all. Cool.'',
''I hope you never work for a company that would either fire you for such a dumb reason or work with clients who would stop doing business with them over such a dumb decision -- which is the important part here: does anyone genuinely believe this was going to hurt Arenanet's bottom line? Like, were people going to mass boycott the company? All those hardcore GW2 players were going to suddenly stop playing the game because of this? Give me a break.'',
''Since I guess you're on your way out the door, this is a largely pointless response, but his post clearly says that he wants to be permed.''. All fair game for
The Names, when if you were actually moderating based on quality (and not on feelings/political allegiance), this kind of posting is framing the thread with a toxic ambiance, and its textbook bad faith posting.
But when you realize that said user does not think how Price originally replied is an
attack, then it becomes very,
very clear where the source of bad faith is to be found:
''I do like the repeated usage of the word "attack" (including in Arenanet's statement) to describe Price's actions. She attacked him. Rawr. Dangerous. She's abusive. She called a rando asshat a "rando asshat" on Twitter. Rude, yeah. Dismissive, sure. An attack? I wish I were so privileged as to consider someone calling me an ass to be an attack on my person. But of course, this overdramatic language is par for the course for gamers, who view themselves as the perpetually oppressed Rebel Alliance fighting the tyrannical Empire of feminists, politicians, corporations, and parents who want to take their games away.'' The kind of language Price used is definitely more leaning towards an attack rather than
respectfully disagreeing. But what do i know about language, clearly this
Master Baiter is better equipped to that task than most of ERA (Or Kiwi, GAF, Voat) anyways.
This is coming from the same user who then says:
''Plausible deniability is Gamergate's (and the alt-right at large) biggest weapon. As long as the Enemy is guilty of some sort of offense, no matter how minor, then the privileged will put their hands in their pockets and walk away.'' This is some next level self-reflection given how ERA (predominantly) dropped the ball on alt-right and all of Kiwifarms in general when Chloe Sagal passed away.
Kiwi is the Enemy, so its indeed the
Privileged (ERA) that put their hands in their pockets and walk away (Read: Blame them for it). Its just such a shame that these
Little Helpers are so poor at adapting their own advice and commentary to themselves.
Context.
But it does not stop there ofcourse:
''Ultimately, the reality is this: if you believe a person deserves to be immediately fired without disciplinary process because they insulted someone on Twitter a single time then we're not going to be able to come to an agreement.'' Hmmm, i wonder where she was when
ERA back in February directly contributed/caused a dev from Subnautica to be fired, also for
offensive tweets with the angle of Transphobia and Racism. Why does she not criticize that? Oh right, because that would be a bannable offense and you are a
Little Helper helping
The Names out with baiting others into a ban, so ofcourse you won't be criticizing said
Names on why that February thread was allowed to get to the end goal where it is now.
Hell even Pewdiepie (Who you will hardly ever see get mentioned in a positive way on ERA)
explains this better (Starts at 10.14) and in simple manners:
As for my own opinion on the Arenanet firing: Twitter is not a private place, its
public. So what you say can and will be criticized and commented. This user who commented on Price's long twitter convo (Which was a decent talk, i am not going to lie) did so in equally decent phrasings. For Price to retalitate in such stark ways is immature and not done. And i am only judging her based on that, not based on her history, which i
did look up by the way. The other employee defending her (And stating that Twitter is a private thing) in my eyes has a very strange perception of what Twitter
is. Its not a private talk, you know. I can read it, you can read it, we all can read it -
That is not the definition of private, but it is the definition of public.
And shadowbans like on Reddit?
They are a thing aswell, unless one can tell me where this user got banned for. This isnt new though: My very first ban was also done this way, so outside of a post, but more
random and for
''general behavior''. Seems like that is the case here aswell. Atleast more members are starting to see through
The Names, as evidenced
here, and
here (Which, very peculiar, is not ''
actioned'' yet).
Also The Graph Bot has some interesting new graphs on who gets the most bans. Personally speaking, i am surprised an ex-mod isnt included, but i guess name changes help circumvent this.
Context.
Credit: Crunklord420.
Data may not be final, so take it with a grain of salt. All public info though, these are just statistics that their bot just gathers. Saves on calculating this yourself.
Not a good look man.
''Bark Bark Bark.'' Don't you like those whistles? /s.
EDIT: This stuff took me way too long to research and nuance but there you go.
EDIT 2: Added in another
bait post, literally saying that the response is
''largely pointless.''
Redneckerz
The thread where some guy threw soda at a teenager wearing a MAGA hat was crazy. 
Xaero Gravity
