We had discussions about locking it down because you were/are unwilling to address the problem. I don’t feel like any of my suggestions were to come up with some ridiculous name with a meta timeframe of 14 days currency allowing all those people to just ride out 14 days.
They did provide you with super positive feedback and why is that do you think? Think about who you are enabling on your staff and then respond. I would really like a public guess of why some of them might want a space out of the public eye that benefits them specifically
I won’t waste your time with a PM because you are going to tell me that some member sent you a message asking to be scrubbed because someone at work they pissed off is doxxing them. You know I dealt with that also and without fail every single one of those people went right back to their old ways. They want to feel oppressed by the liberal agenda who somehow came here and singled only them out and left your shit stain staff out of it. (The people on your staff aren’t your decision but you not reining them in while forum banning Scream is)
You are right my comment, that I feel is medium banter, could be construed as an insult. You have to admit you are enamored with the trappings and ceremony of all this more than the admin portion. It’s a playground for you to come up with funny forum names, medals, currencies, reactions, and microtransactions.
Yes, I am unwilling to censor people for racism. So is every single one of the people who have been elected amod here in the last 2 years, with the possible exception of Tarrant. That includes you, when you had this job.
Are you asking me to lay out why I think 5 people agreed with a course of action based upon my own speculation? No, I'm not doing that. If they want to tell you their reasons, they're free to with no repercussions or bad feelings from me.
You're wrong about what I would tell you. It was far more serious than that, and the situation you describe is easily handled without anything major, as you say.
What you feel is 'just banter' is a dodge and you know it. Calling me Draegan 2.0 isn't an insult? Come on bro.
As for where I choose to focus my energies in relation to running the site, who the fuck cares? Is the administrative side of things being handled? Yes? Then what difference does it make where my preferences lie?
As for Screamfeeder, here is why he isn't banned completely:
The argument with Tanoomba and a few others in the past went like this: "Well, they are terrible and utterly toxic posters in the pol/gg sections, but they do contribute in games and movies and screenshots threads. Do we have to ban them completely and lose what positive contributions they may make in those areas?" This policy is my attempt to reconcile those two contradictory goals. Does it have to be a binary situation of banned site wide or allowed site wide? I don't see why that's the case. What you call having no sack to fully ban him, I call giving Scream a chance to contribute to the site in positive ways rather than negative ways, if he's willing.
Perhaps this will prove to be a fool's errand and Scream will end up banned completely as Tanoomba was and for the exact same reason, but that's the idea behind it.
Amod
witness that this is not infractible. 
lurkingdirk
is hard left? I think that would be news to him. Making shit up again I see and dreaming it’s reality.
