What Remark :) lmAo

Although this may put a bad light, they did the same things to be because they couldn't handle my negative criticism and building of seperate competition. They tried to tarnish my name to control the public perception of me. So it gives me all the right to to the same back, I know I'm him the right in this situation and I couldn't care less of what they think of me, because I'm no longer working with them.

Either way, I don't even give a shit anymore, I just thought I'd dump it somewhere, so here it is

Sure,

Okay, so for context Mr. Ferrante is a popular backrooms youtuber who has his own discord server. It came to the attention of the staff that he was good friends with a lot of people who had been previously banned for transphobia. When we looked into it, we found that there were a lot of people throwing around slurs in his discord as well as just generally bigoted things (including some things he himself said that were ignorant at best). This isn't something we want at the wiki, so we banned him. Now, he appealed his ban, and we ultimately decided that he was just terrible at moderating his server, and that we can't really ban him for just being friends with transphobes, so he was unbanned, and the staff owned up to it. Additionally he and the banned members made their own backrooms wiki which is what he is referring to in his message

Now, as for his specific complaints

shadow banned

This is kind of our fault. We didn't realize that discord doesn't send the person who was banned the ban reason, so he wasn't told why until he asked us personally

Cherrypicked evidence

This is referring to a bunch of screenshots showing people in his server using slurs and making some pretty bigoted statements. He claims it's cherrypicked. By that he means that the screenshots were from messages over a few months, and it's not like that was happening constantly, but I would argue that people should just not be using slurs at all

Their ban poll lasted 5 minutes and no admins got a chance to vote

This is based on some huge exaggerations from a now banned admin. He's not lying here, but he is mistaken. The poll lasted for 24 hours, and all active staff members voted unanimously for his removal, including 2/4 of the admins (that's right Ferrante, both Stretch and Ev okay'd it)

3 admins who would have voted against the ban

I'm not sure where he got the number 3 from, but I will say this. 1 admin (Knaff) who was on his side the whole time would have voted in his favor, but was inactive at the time. It would not have changed anything because that's how democracy works. 1 other admin (Stretch) later decided that he made the wrong decision in voting to ban Ferrante (I mean, most of us did eventually considering we unbanned him). I'm guessing number 3 is Ev, but I don't think Ferrante is right about that

They never discussed the ban with me before or after

We generally don't ask people for permission to ban them, and yes we did talk to him after, we had a whole ban appeal

Especially considering I'm their biggest content creator

Our primary value is not clout

I had to fight for my chance to appeal

No he didn't, we let everyone who was banned appeal

I was not given an apology by the person who banned me in the first place

Well, first off, this was a decision on behalf of most of the staff, but I guess he has a point there.

I've seen people who make clearly satirical and funny jokes get threatened with a ban

Not sure what he's talking about here. We always start with a mute unless they're spamming or something. And yes, we don't allow jokes that make fun of marginalized groups. Get over it

Etoile is an ego bitch

This whole paragraph is about a specific situation I have never seen a single person complain about until now. I guarantee that if Ray wanted Eto to make it clearer that Ray had rewritten it in the past, Eto would have no problem with that.

The moderation/admin team is absolutely right for punishing people being transphobic, homophobic and racist; but sadly that was not my point. My point here was to express the lack of nuance and measure the said team is having regarding said behavior.

Fair enough I suppose. You have still remained really vague with what exactly you're talking about, so it would be nice if you gave some examples.

warn once, then execute the punishment the second time things go to far. I didn't see such a process in the new team.

I think you're mistaken here. Looking through the public disciplinary logs, there are only a handful of recent permabans. All of these are either for people who were literally raiding the server, or people who had a repeated history of toxic behavior. The vast majority of disciplinary is 1-24 hour mutes or kicks. Perhaps we should do more warnings before moving onto other disciplinary, but I would argue that a kick does almost the same thing as a warning since they can join back instantly.

I'm talking about the "vibe" those article have, but that may be to much of a personal view.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. I personally think that the "vibe" is more fitting of the backrooms, as by moving away from clinical tone more and more we have tried to separate ourselves from SCP.

However I can hardly understand how such pages such as the original Level 0 was bad to the point of needing a re-write since this page (original level 0) has clearly more vote (+67 vs +35) than the new and improve one

The reason we chose to rewrite it (it had permission of the author of the previous version, so it's not like etoile was doing anything shady) was because the original version went so far away from the idea of the original post. Sure the original one had a lot of upvotes, but it's a very similar situation to SCP-049 (a page that was eventually rewritten with author permission). That page had a lot of upvotes before it's rewrite because it was well known, but everyone agreed it wasn't up to current SCP standards. For Level 0, the author of the previous version of the page supported it being rewritten so we didn't need to wait for it to drop below -5.

Let me get that straight: the theme code is available right here , anyone can see it, anyone can edit it or use it. While not having a correct and all neat GPL3 license, the authors let an open access to their code. Furthermore, the previous theme was based on a SCP theme which is accessible here (this theme being based on the previously linked), and as for the previous one, it is freely accessible and made into a convenient wikidot component so other user can reuse it and modify it.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that anything illegal was going on.

The big problem the old theme had however is that it was a mess of code. Dependencies from right to left, an absolute horror to work with, the code needed to be re-written and I can only hope that this new theme also brought a cleaner code base which I would prefer over the "style" of the theme any day.

You would be happy then. Lynch did a very good job of making the theme compact.

I hope the new team continue their work and improving the wiki's content, but please I hope they would act more wisely when dealing with their community.

Mad respect for ending it on this type of note. I think you're mistaken with a lot of what you are saying, but you don't seem to be acting in bad faith.

No Lcy, you were not banned for saying "yes". In fact, your ban actually had nothing to do with transphobia. Your ban had absolutely nothing to do with the screenshots you're referring to. No one cared that a message of yours happened to be in the screenshots out of context, we were more worried about the people throwing around slurs. What you were originally banned for was working with the splinter wiki to directly undermine with wikidot. Guess what. You were unbanned along with Ferrante, since you didn't actually do anything, you just talked big (well technically you evaded the ban, but we let it slide because it was a bad ban anyway. Ban evasion is against the rules no matter what, so you're very lucky we chose to not do anything about it). The reason you were banned a second time is that people who are banned from the rp server are also banned from the main server because it's unlikely that behavior will change drastically between servers. This is publicly available in the disciplinary logs. I know you have seen it because you've made comments before about how weird it is that we don't mention the "yes" incident in your disciplinary logs. I hope that clear things up.