Talk:RainOfPain125: Difference between revisions
forgot siggy
No edit summary |
(forgot siggy) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 164:
-ducky
Making nonsense edits like removing the backstory of events leading to MCSpenguin pearling me doesn't fix any bias, it simply removes the content altogether - which is not what Neutrality Notice's are for.
Line 174:
We held a vote in the Anarchist Communist Association discord regarding making our own dedicated discord for IWW on civ, mostly for the purpose of delegating positions and roles to people. Even though UO as a title wasn't made yet, it's intended purpose already began way before I got pearled.
This can be moved as a footnote in Napistan's & IWW's history. I will refrain from calling the continent Napistan.
At the end of the day, it's not a stretch to say the intended purpose of manipulating the vote was to rig it in order to avoid the hassle of a hostile takeover of the IWW. It is made very clear on the IWW page that bastions/snitches were taken over by the crowd of traitors that aimed to subvert the Union, under the guise of "what if Rain doesn't honor the vote results?".
Line 184:
If it is still necessary, then I can provide my side of events vs yours to be "unbiased", but you'll need loads of evidence to support it.
=July 6th, 2022 RainOfPain125 v tybug=
Please provide reasoning on why giving context to the situation regarding my ban on CivUniverse was "bias" that needed to be removed. It was done in [https://civwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RainOfPain125&diff=52299&oldid=52295&diffmode=source this edit]. Explaining that Ian is a controversial person is not biased, as it is generally well understood that their server and their character is controversial (refer to [[CivUniverse]] and [[Ian_X12]] pages respectively). It is also not "bias" to point out, considering the ban was done after the server had already closed, that there was little to no practical reason behind the perma ban besides for clout or making him look better. Not to mention, if Ian wanted to make his server a "safer place" then he would have been perma banning the '''real doxers, alt addicts, and known pedophiles from this damn server while it was online and running'''.
The fact that ian is controversial is not relevant to the fact that you were banned for doxxing. It is not biased to say that this ban occurred after the server closed, which is why I left that comment in ("After CivUniverse closed..."). It is, however, not appropriate to speculate on why the ban occurred in the fashion that you did. --[[User:Tybug|Tybug]] ([[User talk:Tybug|talk]]) 02:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
| |||