Thread:Sannse/@comment-8-20150719161728/@comment-233706-20150801015011

Thanks for checking and confirming that you found no evidence of a sockpuppet. That said, how would any of the badmins on the Dragon Age Wiki find evidence of this if you could not? Isn't it at least possible that Kelcat simply stated a false charge against me?

Sannse wrote:

The first thing I want to point out is that you seem to sometimes "hear" things that aren't said. For example, you have said "[Kelcat] admitted that I did not sockpuppet". From what I see, she didn't say that. She did say that the reason she changed the ban reason was that she didn't believe you were going to change... but that doesn't mean she couldn't also believe you socked.

Right, but my post to her was regarding the accusation of a sock, which is the reason she gave for increasing the ban. She replied to that stating that her reason was based on her own opinion that I would not change to suit her wants. So what she admitted was her reason was not that I supposedly socked, it was because of something not related to sockpuppeting as she claims in her ban rationale.

Sannse wrote:

I've also seen you take a complicated statement and reduce it to one point. For example, your talk page and the ban notice give a range of complex problems (as the admins see them), but I have seen you describe your ban as being for just one of those things, or a re-phrasing of one of those things. So I hope you will take both of these into account when you read my thoughts below.

I don't know what you are referring to. Can you please be more specific?

Sannse wrote:

I would state your ban as being because you displayed a number of opinions that others on the wikia found offensive and saw as attacks against certain groups (woman, transgender people, gay people, bisexual people). It seems you dispute that on two grounds: that what you were stating was fact, and that you did not say specifically the words in the examples.

But they can find anything offensive. Even mere disagreement with their opinion is offensive to them. A few users may have found it offensive, but the vast majority of users did NOT find it offensive at all. Many other members of the wiki were replying to the topic and carrying on a civil discussion with me. Some also agreed with me. So this is a case of a few users not liking what I think, being ineffective in forming a counter-argument, and then running to the badmin to silence me.

Also, it should not matter if they "see" my words as attacks against those groups. The fact of the matter is that my words were not attacks at all. Those users were lying. They feigned offense for the sole purpose of getting me banned. So I'm not arguing that I didn't write those things "specifically", I'm arguing that I didn't write those things AT ALL. I did not write the words they claimed I wrote.

Sannse wrote:

You once said "If it's just opinion then you should be able to refute it", where really the opposite is true. If I say red is the best color, and you say that green is, neither of us has a way to persuade the other. But if I say "that rose is red", you either except that as a fact, or claim I'm wrong (preferably with proof). So when an opinion is stated as a fact, the process is broken.

But if you say, "that rose is green" then that's an opinion that can be refuted with fact. That was my point, and I think you also admitted that in that last sentence. If I had stated opinion as fact, when it really wasn't fact, then they should be able to refute me. And this was in response to Vexed Forest who said the whole thing was just opinion. I merely replied that what I posted was based on facts, not opinion. So he should be able to refute me if it is opinion only.

And this is the key difference here. This wasn't a debate between the taste of ketchup vs. mustard. This was a debate involving statements by game developers, storyline texts, and game scenarios. So I wasn't asking them to disprove the opinion that ketchup tastes better than mustard, I was asking them to disprove the alleged opinion that the game was made for human characters only (which is a fact, the developers confirmed that the game started as human-only and then expanded out to other races when the game was delayed for a year, and I posted a link about this at the top of the thread).

Sannse wrote:

You saying that "a woman can command, but almost ALWAYS at the cost of her femininity" is an opinion. It is based in your understanding of what femininity is - which may be different from mine, and your belief that a woman cannot (or can only rarely) express the attributes of femininity and the ability to command simultaneously. It is an opinion, and one that is going to be seen by many as offensive and an attack on women - even if you didn't mean it to be

Well let's assume that what I wrote was an opinion. Okay, fine. So how is what I wrote offensive? Notice I specifically allowed for exceptions in which a woman can indeed maintain femininity and command with authority. I merely wrote that a woman can command but almost always at the cost of her femininity. I also stated before this in the prior post that this means males are typically better suited to the militaristic role. Better suited doesn't mean women have no place there, just that men have advantages in certain areas compared to women, and the whole point of that thread was to find which gender, race, class combo fit the storyline best. So of course talking about how each gender fits the various parts of the storyline is necessary.

Sannse wrote:

There's a slightly different slant to your statements on gay people.

Wait. I didn't write anything about gay people. My statement was about same-sex only romance options in the game and how I feel about them personally for my gameplay experience.

Sannse wrote:

There you acknowledge that what you said was an opinion, but reject that it is offensive and attacking to gay people. A good way to demonstrate the offence is to change the group: "I don't hate Christians, but I detest all that Jesus stuff". That's not a perfect analogy of course, because it suggests I am saying that sex is the defining element of being gay, which I'm not. But it does explain my point that stating that you hate is going to be read as an attack on that group.

Well I have read statements like that about Christians and Christianity before. That doesn't offend me. The person is saying they don't hate people who believe, they just detest (feel abhorrence of, hate, dislike intensely) the belief. There is nothing offensive about that. The person is saying they don't like the belief for themselves. And I wasn't even saying anything close to this. I only said that I detest the game options available to my custom character regarding same-sex romance. I then went on to say that some players might like those options, and so I addressed those options and how they compare in terms of storyline. Again, for the purpose of finding which gender fit the storyline better. All of this was on topic.

Sannse wrote:

And on the specificity side, you challenged the accusation that you said "bisexuals are incapable of having real relationships". It's true that you didn't say those exact words, however you did say things that could be summed up that way, or that clearly imply the point. So, in practical terms, the same thing.

No, they really aren't. If a Christian tells you something about the Bible, and then you tell someone what that Christian told you, and that person misconstrues (sums up) what you said and blames you for it, is that your fault? What I wrote in that separate topic, which I was banned for separately, was that I have heard those who have dated bisexuals outright state that they face unique relationship problems that heterosexuals and homosexuals do not face. This was not my opinion. I was not even stating that this was factual reality. I merely posted what I have heard bisexuals and those who have dated them tell me about their relationships, and it was a very simple and specific point, that a bisexual faces a unique relationship problem where a partner who is not bisexual himself or herself will feel that there is a desire in their bisexual partner that they cannot fulfill since they are one gender and their partner likes both genders. That was the only point. Other users purposely twisted that into something I never wrote, and Kelcat accused me of saying that bisexuals are incapable of having real relationships. WHAT? I never wrote that! Kelcat was making stuff up, and no one could quote a single thing I wrote to prove Kelcat right.

And as you have seen and stated here, I didn't write those things. At most others could only "summarize" my statements that way, as in, completely disregard what I wrote and create their own false account of it. A.K.A. libel.

Sannse wrote:

So, I understand that you did not mean to cause offense. And that you were interested to talk about some controversial topics, not meaning to include elements that others would regard as sexist, transphobic, biphobic and homophobic. But the fact is that what you said did feel offensive and attacking to others.

Or did it? Isn't it possible that they pretended to be offended just so Kelcat would ban me? I mean, they outright lied about what I wrote. And besides, feeling offended by an opinion isn't grounds for a ban. But I realize we are not discussing the functions of the Dragon Age wiki, I'm just making the point that I did not attack or insult anyone, that I did not sockpuppet, and that I was banned for having a different opinion than the badmin who lied about me and what I wrote. Meanwhile, other users were posting direct insults to me on my page and using derogatory terms. Nothing happens to them however.

Sannse wrote:

So for the overall good of the wikia, the admins removed you from the community.

For the good of their own private blog. Again, I realize this isn't a discussion that will affect their positions as admins. Just clearing up that I did no wrong in those examples.