Thread:Vastmine1029/@comment-39613415-20201126030931

I understand why the case would be "closed" as counterarguments were provided, but the majority of counterarguments we actually misunderstood, and misleading.

"You're going to get banned for spamming and not hating lolol".

Firstly, the context of the situation contradicts what you think about it, "You're going to be banned" was based on the prior assumption that we were already going to be blocked(through no behavior of our own) due to the strictness and potential unreasonable interpretation of the rules. Furthermore, It was a prod to other users to stop the behavior they were participating in. It was not an insult or a comeback, rather, it was the complete opposite, to help them.

Again, context matters. I didn't post the reasons, someone else did. That person chose to name the title that way, without any influence from any other users. Furthermore, why does the naming of the title matter if both the post and the responses were civil, clean, and didn't violate any rule? It seems to me that naming the title is a very minor thing, and not a reason to block somebody, especially not indefinitely.

So, what do you mean exactly by "poor behavior"? On paper, me and the other users were simply discussing about the post. We were not plotting greater, we were not cooking something malicious up. We were simply talking, albeit behind the scenes, of how it was going. Not only that, the discussion simply came up, spontaniously. There was no prior planning, nor intent to cause disruption or drama. Thus, the post was posted, and then the subject never died down. Simple as that.

Also that message? That was posted a super long time before the rant. Over a month and a half if I recall. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

Not only that, the points you brought up disregarded entirely what happened on the Adopt Me! wiki itself. There was absolutely 0 drama or disruption. There was 1 person who responded with moody language, nothing else beyond that. Many of the members, at least 3 I think, agreed with me. And since it was so peaceful, and I've already established that nobody intended to cause drama, and the details are misleading and wrongly established, thus, I believe that the grounds that you blocked everybody on, are wrong.

-BrillanceDisplayed.  