i was using the term “sadpost” in reference to whatever content that was removed, whether comments or posts. i see that you interpreted the “post” in sadpost to mean reddit-style top-level posts only, where my tendency is to interpret the “post” to mean any content, i.e. the act of hitting “post.”

So, let’s go over this

You created a space primed for harrassment, dude. Intentionally or not. You’ve seen the descent into bigotry comments sections like those go to? You made a live drama trap for more of the exact behavior admins have the unique goal of fighting to combat. You might as well have titled your sadpost “Hey guys, here’s a space to do the harrassment this entire community is designed around avoiding also I’m leaving.”

The mods aren’t obligated to host open honeypots like that, especially not from users self-admittedly on the way out. If it wasn’t intentional, I hope this helps clears things up! Cuz wow.

So I ‘created space’, something not generally associated with comments, implicitly enabling ‘comments sections’ in the ‘sadpost’ which might as well have had a ‘title’ of (insert the title you made here) despite the fact that comments don’t have titles.

So you managed to use a whole hell of a lot of language implying that you meant a top-level post, and an argument centered around the space provided by a top-level post, but really what you meant were the comments. Wow! It’s amazing that you managed to accidentally use all that language in such a specific and logical way that fits with your previous arguments made, but suddenly you clarified that DEFINITELY wasn’t what you meant when it was called out that it makes no factual goddamn sense.

nevertheless my point stands. you created a space which attracts the very drama blahaj is founded around avoiding.

There are two places where my comments were. One, in the announcement by one of the mods of 196 bringing attention to the rule clarification. The rest, in a post citing the modlog that itself, was not removed.

In what possible fucking way were either of those ‘creating space’ for harassment? In the former, space is already created without the comment; in the latter, space is already created without the comment. If it was about creating the space for harassment to potentially occur, even assuming you were talking about my comments previously, how would that in any conceivable way reconcile with the fact that the post, a much bigger space for ‘harassment’, was left up?

Your latest argument makes zero goddamn sense in light of the evidence, just like the rest.

it’s like you went into r/GirlsWithHugePussies (SFW 😄 and very cute, it’s clothed women holding big pet cats) and posted comments saying, “sorry y’all i have to leave because of the rule that you can’t comment about the women’s bodies.”

Or if it’s like I was posting to GirlsWithHugePussies for over a year with no problem, and then the INSTANCE of GirlsWithHugePussies clarifies that “Dogs are pussies too”. The comm of GirlsWithHugePussies mentions this, and when I comment to GirlsWithHugePussies “That’s unfortunate, I don’t have any desire to stick around guys/gals, sorry”, it’s removed for ‘gatekeeping pussies’.

And rather than dispute it, because ultimately I have neither power nor desire to influence the instance’s admins, I simply leave and bitch about my comments being removed for ‘gatekeeping’ on a comm about bitching about moderator/admin actions.

Then a whole bunch of defenders of the instance come in and say, in this bitching thread on a bitching comm on and instance entirely separate from GirlsWithHugePussies’ instance, that I’m felinephobic for not acknowledging dogs as pussies, and one commenter in particular claims that I was acting ‘entitled’ for daring to mention leaving in the process of leaving, claiming that my anodynely worded original comments were actually ‘not nice’ enough, and that if I wanted to avoid a removal, I should’ve just worded them nicer, and that, furthermore, I was ‘creating space’ for harassment by saying farewell to a comm I’d been posting on for a long time whilst having any reaction to the rule clarification other than utter bootlicking sycophancy, since “It’s not for me, I understand, but I’m leaving” was apparently too hostile.

That put it into perspective?

Doubtful, considering what lengths you’ve went through to avoid any troubling thoughts in your head in the course of this conversation.