Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25763213-20170701151659/@comment-5392675-20170701160510

Danial6492000 wrote: Master Hydraffe wrote: "He was controlling others' freedom with baning Danho from everywhere, tho only he didn't like that artist."

I thought it was clear that I was the one who pushed for it, but if I had been the only admin to say 'yes', then it would have fallen through. The other admins had a majority saying 'yes', and then we actually decided to reduce it to a less strict ruling [Danho can be mentioned as long as it's not spammy, and if it breaks a certain quota then we will revert to the original ruling] which acted as a fair compromise, which, by the way, everyone accepted (whether they liked it or not I don't care). So that was that and of course I would enforce this rule strictly, because I'm biased.

So even then, everyone knew the rules, everyone seemed to be okay.

Suddenly out of nowhere Danho stages this raid and now they're upset as to why they're not being treated kindly.

And am I really the only one being a toxic, pretentious person when you're the one in a Facebook chat group of people deliberately saying mean, hateful comments about me? I highly doubt so. And you added Bunny and JD4, presumably so you can use them to manipulate admin decisions -- thankfully, they are trustworthy.

So that's that. I was completely fine with the "no spam" compromise but then you decided to ban the whole thing all together when someone mentioned the subject without knowing the quota was reached, at least give him/her a warning or something. I'm glad you are at least becoming rational about your arguments.

Ignorance does not excuse failure to comply.