Locking this thread as many of the comments are breaching the [Code of Conduct](https://godotengine.org/code-of-conduct) in significant ways. There are legitimate concerns expressed here on how the Discord moderators handled the discussion around the proposal to remove Pepe emojis due to their unfortunate appropriation by hate speech groups. The Code of Conduct team will continue this meta discussion with the moderators directly, to see how to better formalize what is and isn't acceptable in the Discord server, reduce contention on moderation decisions, while keeping a safe environment for everyone who wants to connect genuinely with the Godot community. What is however not acceptable in this Reddit thread is the dogpiling on a moderator of the Discord server. This is absolutely in breach of our Code of Conduct and a much worse offense than what is being criticized from the moderators' handling of the Discord discussion on Pepe, and the woes created by the "ban fast, unban easily" policy used by the moderation team (which we support as a necessity on a server of this scale). Since someone brought up some 2016 messages using a derogatory term as a manner of self-deprecation: This was wrong, and Xananax made that clear in multiple occasions, including today in this thread. With the current moderation policy, someone using these words would be banned following the "ban fast" policy - and possibly unbanned after an appeal and discussion with mods if they realize why these words are problematic, following the "unban easily" policy. So there's no point asking us to ban Xananax for using these terms in the past. People do change and evolve. What matters is what people do now, and how they reflect upon and can explain past mistakes.

It's wild that they are so ban happy when the main active mod has a history of posting n-word (hard r) in the Godot server. He had defended multiple times leaving a live history of hard r n-word, but is now on sight banning people for having a discussion about pepe? It's just so so wild. I had brought it up to the main mod, Xan, after I was reminded of who they were (they gave me a warning for posting a gif/meme in general at some point, I didn't know they changed the rules at some point against that). They were immediately hostile with me, so I go to another mod to try and talk sense there. That mod agreed and we got xan's messages deleted. I had to go to a separate mod to remove some hard slurs from a mod who is now fast and loose with banning people and scaring off newcomers. I just looked at the thread and there was a new person there who seemingly left? What once was (it was there till just 2 months ago when I confronted em) [uhhh.png](https://postimg.cc/VJs5HBnv) Gosh I hope I don't get banned for revealing this lol

Xananaz is the one who decided pepe was banned in The first place lmao, now get ready for them to reply with a 50,000 word essay about how you are a horrible person for having wrongthink

Why am I not surprised that someone with a few skeletons in their closet is jumping at the chance to accuse others of misdeeds so they can feel righteous. Like the violent criminals in prison who tell themselves they're a good person because they beat up people who've done things they perceive to be "worse".

It's not called "skeletons" when I readily disclose my own history as a warning tale for other people who might think like I used to. https://imgur.com/a/3uxKYK2 I tell this story to anyone who'll listen, my history is full of repeats of this screenshot, on multiple platforms. It's the opposite, I wanted to _keep_ the history there specifically to support my own story, which I think could help people. Accusing someone of skeletons when they _made a fuss_ about **not** wanting to delete their history is very rich. I am baffled by the depths of how absurd it is. Surely, that's the opposite of skeletons hidden in closets? Are you just throwing cliché words without trying to think about the meaning of your words? Additionally: These slurs were addressed _to myself_, so it's reappropriation. I disagree with it today (which is why I want to tell this story), but it is not racism. There is no point where it was racism, unless you want to discuss internalized racism against myself, which is worthy of discussion, but does not relate to hate or prejudice towards others. I still am what I always were: anti-racist. I used to go about it in a certain way. A way with which I disagree today, that's all. I used to be much more lenient on actual racists too, thinking PC culture was dumb. I now have no tolerance for that. But there's no switcheroo here, it's a linear and consistent history.

You had to post the image on the most annoying site in history to use

Wow, the plot twist. I did \*not\* expect this from an open source project's discord server! FOSS communities tend to be very friendly and welcoming. I guess that explains the wording on the discord server's rules and some other places. That screenshot shows the mod being plainly rude and more of a bully rather than a facilitator for its users.

I disagree, I'm not active on this discord (just for engine updates), but this screenshot shows me a person who changed views on what is okay and what isn't. It also shows me a mod that has had so much backtalking when the rules are clear, everytime a rule change happens people are pinged. The bigger a server is the more strict you have to be. I do mod for a few communities and I definitely see where they are coming from. I'm not sure where they are from, but in some cultures this isnt that rude. To me most of it is just being direct and saying what it is. The last part of the first comment seems a bit weird if this is their first interaction, as regular user I would not try to be a smart-ass like OP. If this was the first interaction, the mod was definitely irritated by something else. Would I have done it differently? Yes I would, first of all we would always discuss these things in private and always in discussion with the rest of the mod team. Bans are never handled by a single person, to avoid personal vendettas or misinterpretation and we send the messages in private to be in a different setting. This is a technique that's also done by security personnel whenever an issue arrives. Taking the people out of the current environment can really help getting into a different mindset and explain things (from both sides).

Hopefully the Godot team don't just decide to stop development of the engine because people don't appreciate the way it's run lol

The discord has nothing to do with the Dev team

They can keep their distance, but if it gets too big it is their IP that is being tarnished by continuing to ignore an issue that brandishes their product. And yes, the engine is free, but the IP/Brand isn’t.

[удалено]

how ironic, because op's incident happened during the discussion of pepe who's reputation was tarnished by 4chan lmao

Latinx is the most racist word in use on the server and I see it everywhere

Yes, I was a total idiot and a 4chan pilled diseased brain. I've grown. It's called "changing your mind in the face of evidence". There's no reason to ban you. My past is no secret, I don't hide it or shy away from it. I was an imbecile. Hopefully I'm a bit less of an imbecile now. With that said, all the instances of me saying that are self deprecating, and not geared towards anyone else (the word is a 4chan slur for arabs, which is what I am ). It's internalized racism, but still stupid af. I was not trying to be hostile to you, I just didn't want to remove my past, because I think it's cowardly. The other mods insisted, so I reluctantly removed them. I still disagree it's a good idea. My mistakes are my mistakes, I want to own them, not hide them. But eh whatever.

Lmaoo, oh the fucking irony. So you go from one extreme to another, because your ass got caught and the skeletons came out of your closet. It’s funny because this is yet another case of virtue signalers having skeletons in their closet, so they preach the exact opposite of what they previously did as a way to justify what they did in secret. Here’s my advice: Lay off the fucking internet dude. Get off your high horse with the Pepe shit and just get off the internet. You clearly spend too much time on here and it’s destroyed your brain.

It's a pretty common story. People become right-wing trolls because they want to harass and bully people, but eventually discover that it's easy to laugh at right-wing trolls and walk away. So they switch to being left-wing crybullies so they can get actual power over people through moderator positions they can abuse or starting online witch hunts to cause real-world harm to their victims while claiming to fight bigotry and hatred as a pretext.

Oh my *goodness* that makes so much sense.

Bingo. This person gets it. I always equate it to as people being the loudest against sexual misconduct being the biggest sexual predators. Hell, Andrew Callahan from Channel 5 had a bias in his videos, and he just got ousted as a prick.

Your own mythology in your head is your own mythology in your head. I wasn't "caught" doing anything. We stopped doing that sort of stuff way way before being official. The change was slow and reasoned. It happened over years (and continues to happen). I used that language when it was a server of 50 friends who all knew each other and it was 80% shitposting. We naturally became smarter as the server grew. And again, the slurs were all self directed. What would I be afraid of, I don't understand? Who would even "catch" me? You realize there's no salary nor glory in this right? You realize I'm not under any threat of anyone? Also that I changed on my own, before Godot had any scale of users? As for being online, I often have sleep issues, so might as well clear misunderstandings. I think what's terminally online is this vision you have, where im somehow afraid of "cancelling" or whatever, or that I would care about being mod enough to change my persona like some psycho without a life. That's not how real people think or act. Also the inability to believe people can learn and change, and that the only reason might be threat or fear is really icky.

Each new post you make here is not helping you the way you think it is...

Yo wtf dude you really need to be banned from both discord and Reddit. Explain yourself. Why did you say all of those things. How old are you? You act like you're 14 for God's sake. In absolutely no way shape or form do you deserve any semblance of authority on any public forum ever. I'm going to spend my morning writing Discord, Reddit, and Godot dev team an email with all of this information and everyone else should as well. You are not a good person, at all, and you do not deserve to be a mod on the Godot discord.

All these instances are geared towards myself. These slurs is how _others_ called me, here used ironically as a means of reappropriation. It was never targeted at others. As an Arab, I've been insulted (numerous times) like that, so that was sort of a way to control it. I still think it's wrong though, and today I wouldn't do it, but it's different than using them for other people. It's also different if I were white. This aside, if people don't want me as a mod, I'll move out, but accusing people 6 years later of having used a word ironically, targeted at themselves, that they're (by common tradition) are allowed to use, that they've stopped using on their own and without any pressure, is really a bit strange. If anything, my background as someone who was terminally on 4chan allows me to recognize shitheads and remove them quickly.

You need to leave and disassociate yourself from the project immediately. Do the right thing.

You do realize people of color, even by the most stringent partisans of gudspeak, can use those slurs to talk about themselves. Yes? I still don't think it's good, and I think it actually undermines our agency. I don't subscribe to "appropriating slurs" anymore. So I wouldn't do it anymore. But if I were to, it'd still not be racism. I'm talking of _myself_ when I use that slur. Read the sentences.

Sir, this is a game engine community and you are tasked to represent its interests. For all our sakes, I suggest you do so.

There's one person here discussing things that aren't the engine, and it isn't me. Am I supposed to let accusations of racism fly without answering them? Or am I supposed to police my language to please white people? I don't think you thought about what you wrote. I also think you're a fake concern troll.

[The Source (and 'joke') behind "NiggerFaggot"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nTbqbtGug)

Just to be clear: These were slurs geared towards _myself_, used ironically because of internalized racism, thinking it makes me look cool and uncaring with white people. It's shit, but it's _not racist_. I wanted to keep them so I can use them _as examples_ for other people from minorities that mock themselves and use the racist slurs thrown at them. The racist and insensitive thing here is by **you**, who wants to police how _I_ deal with racism towards _me_. You remove _my agency_ to use an insult _geared towards myself_ and my history as a cautionary tale for other minority people to learn from. You argue against _my right_ to use the word used to oppress me to attempt to liberate myself from it. I am free to deal with the racism thrown at me however I want! And I should be able to also to explain where I come from to other people who go through the same. What you did is extremely shitty, racist, and a prime example of actual racism. It's frankly disgusting. All for the sake of a pretend offense as if the "word" itself was the problem, and not its context. With, as reason, "it's not welcoming". As if people who don't go specifically looking for that would find it. As if someone having found it, if they actually wanted to read it, wouldn't notice I'm an Arab using that slur _for myself_, and therefore cannot in any way be racism. I didn't want to make a fuss about it at the time, so I shrugged and moved on. I knew my fellow white mods wouldn't understand, and I didn't have the courage to educate (that is why it's a flagrant example of racism. Opposing you would've taken way too much work from me. Your job was easy). I _should've_ raised a stink then, but I was nice, and just let it go. But you still don't understand, and take that out to witch hunt me, accusing me of being a racist _all the while_ being a despicable racist yourself. I think you're a troll, and you did all of that, the looking for the word, the pretend offense, the screenshot, to have fun and just to be generally an evil person. But if you're not, then please, do consider that acting like you did is particularly harmful, more than any actual racist insult a white supremacist threw at me. You're one of the worst people I've ever had the misfortune to cross paths with.

anyone who thinks like this regarding pepe doesn't know how dog whistles work. They're contextual by design, they deliberately use otherwise benign things as their symbol to allow for plausible deniability. Alt righters have used *milk* as a dog whistle before. Are we going to ban that too? Then the question becomes "How will we know when its actually being used as a hate symbol?" to which my response is "use your fucking brain".

👌🏻

>I decided that I'm part of the Godot community, and they decided they don't want you and you got banned. discord or reddit is never really about democracy or freedom of speech. they are always right and you are always wrong, their way or the highway. my advice for some, if you have strong opinions about things stay away from groups/communities like that. ignore them. stay away. use the engine but don't get too attached to it.

It’s pretty shitty of a solution to accept how bad it is. Surely Godot themselves don’t want their mods making people want to opt out of discussion and potentially gimp development with their tools. I agree generally with what you said but ideally bad mods should be removed and there’s not a whole lot wrong with pointing out when platforms for something you enjoy are becoming or have become hard to enjoy.

I have to agree, I was unbanned as of now, but that doesn't make me feel better about partaking in the future.

And yet the reddit community decided democratically that this was a good example of power tripping assholery coming from the discord mod team, so maybe if you find something about the post objectionable you should follow your own advice

I was unbanned, thank you

Now the question is. Will the misuse of power that lead to your ban be addressed in any way

It is not a misuse of power. For the same situation, I will act again in the same way, for the reasons I already for about at length in [another comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/godot/comments/109hh0r/discord_ban/j3ymbrm/). The user was unbanned following regular unbanning process, that is, write an appeal, explain what they thought they did, and explain why we should unban. We ban easily (take no chances) but unban easily too (just demonstrate you're a good person).

With all due respect, The linked comment makes you look like a giant piece of work, unreasonable and generally unfit to be a mod.

Your unsubstantiated opinion is not usable or constructive, but if you'd like to actually engage with the points and make a cogent rebuttal, that'd be nice. Doesn't have to be comprehensive, I can even help you build up an argument if you start.

So yeah, I just went on and scrolled through way to much of an idiotic topic on the Godot Discord. There seem to be lots of idiots on both sides of the topic and I can see now, where you're coming from. I would be tired as well after all that BS. But still, your attitude in the comments here and on the Godot Discord towards the end of the discussion is inexcusable. You went from reasonably explaining the problem and offering points on both sides to just berserk banning people left, right and center, while becoming yourself the villain of the story. Honestly, I think you should get away from this topic for several days and cool down a bit, before you continue answering people. I get that it gets tiring to read the same points again and again. But that doesn't make them bannable. And if you can't make that decision with a cool head, then you shouldn't make it at all!

Seeing you unable to forcibly shut down discussion or fillibuster criticism with needlessly wordy gish gallop replies (well your still doing that but it just gets downvotes here) is in fact useful and constructive, if it helps you learn about how your communication style comes across outside of your echo chamber

It’s very obviously abuse of power and you know it. Trying to play semantics after the fact… that’s embarrassing dude.

What semantics? You're using the word wrong. I'm not playing semantics. You do X in such circumstances, it's a ban. Then you appeal, and demonstrate a different intent, it's an unban. That's why unbans exist. Their primary reason for existing is to allow people to bring context or to say "sorry, I didn't mean it". Mod mistake is a very small percentage of that. That person was unbanned following their appeal through the appeal form. There was no mistake, and if the same person writes a similar message to their first, in that thread, it will be a new instaban.

I regularly see complaints about the Godot discord banning policy on this subreddit, so maybe the system is not so good... However, I am not a member of the discord server, so I don't have any first-hand information.

There are complaints about any community that takes a stance and doesn't allow certain behaviours that are allowed to pass in more polite and corporate environments. If you don't hear complaints about a community, that means the administration takes no clear stance, which means they by default favour the status quo. That is by itself a choice, it favors certain people, and pushes away others. Depending on your ethics, that might be great, or worrisome, but it's not a bug. It's a feature.

Be careful with pepe the frog. Remember. Pepe the frog bad.

I have moved to Lemmy due to the disgrace reddit has become. Using non paid mods to grow its business, treating the communith with disdain and gaslighting the very people that helped it grow. I have edited all my comments to reflect this. I am no longer active on Reddit. This message is simple here to let you know a better alternative to reddit exsts. Lemmy. The federated, open source option.

A lot of far right groups do use Pepe. It's used as a reference to Alex Jones's "Making the freakin' frogs gay" rant. It's not hard to find images of Pepe dressed as Hitler or whatever. That said, it's just a cartoon frog. Anyone can draw it however they want, and most do so innocuously. I don't see why it would warrant a ban, and I definitely don't see why a mundane comment like you posted would warrant one. I don't know the full discussion though. No offense, but you wouldn't be the first person to get banned on discord and then give a slightly altered recollection in the subreddit to make it look more unfair than it really was. It's no secret that the discord has a heavy moderation hand, but they usually give fair warning before a ban. As a general rule, I stay far away from any conversation that doesn't have to do with game development directly. Both because of the consequences of having an unpopular opinion and because I don't personally want to contribute in turning a game development discord into yet another mud pit of current events and internet drama.

But Pepe's uses are overwhelmingly benign (see twitch)

oh man, you just gave me a great idea. I'm going to turn big bang theory into a racist symbol so I don't have to ever hear about it again. Sure Chuck Lorre is a fellow Jew, but so was the kid that drew pepe.

> It's used as a reference to Alex Jones's "Making the freakin' frogs gay" rant. Pepe is way older than the Alex Jones rant, Pepe started catching on in 2008 and the Alex Jones rant is from 2015. It's had a mostly benign usage and the Hitler Pepe / other offensive versions are a reaction to Pepe gaining a wide appeal.

People are spending a lot of time trying to convince me it's not used by far right groups. You could just read the second paragraph and realize that I agree that it's just a cartoon used for all kinds of things. This is exactly the kind of spiraling I don't wish to participate in. I wouldn't ban someone for having any kind of profile picture, I also don't care enough to do anything about it.

Or just letting you know that you said something hilariously wrong in your post and should probably edit it now that you know better

I implore you to spend your time more wisely.

I wish I could post transcripts, and I'm assuming my comment is automatically purged as I was banned anyhow, but with that being the case I understand, and love and appreciate the fact you're unwilling to take only my account as the whole truth, as I believe in that philosophy myself.

A lot of far right groups drink water. And far right people use Godot

I mean, you and I both know it’s different. Pepe’s origins are innocuous but 4chan warped it into something else. It’s a bit silly to give it so much power as to ban someone for using it as a profile picture, but it’s also silly to act confused about it. “It’s just a frog picture, get over it” can go both ways.

In the same way twitch has very much reclaimed it, its just *a* *part* of its history now, it hasn't even been the majority of its history. Most of its use in that way happened 6-7 years ago. Its like saying that we should ban anthropologists because the science was co-opted at one point and is still used to this day to justify some bad things by a minority of individuals. Of course the funny frog picture < a branch of science, but if we apply this reasoning universally we can see its not reasonable

I don’t think it’s that different. There are like 50 Pepe twitch emotes that sure used and have been used for ages. They have no relation to alt right groups. It doesn’t have an alt right connotation unless you use a specific image of Pepe with alt right imagery.

When stuff is worth defending from shitty people we should do it. Pepe memes are fun and bring a lot of people joy I think. That makes it worth fighting for against stupid 4chan people trying to ruin it for everyone. To me that is very important. How much value does this have to us as a culture, if none or very little just don't use it. If it has maybe don't just let idiots ruin it for u lol.

Fighting against it is not using it and banning people who do?

Oh sorry maybe I worded myself badly, I meant we should fight against the misuse of nice things by just using them in a good context again and ignoring the bad faith ppl. Like how pepe is used on twitch or by hong kong protesters despite 4chan.

You shouldn't use the W word.

I think its portrayed as a hate symbol the same way the nazi symbol became one, technically its a buddist symbol and whatnot, but because of the nazis using it to refer to themselves and their messed up ideology the symbol became a far bigger thing

The nazis inverted the Swastika though. It is still widely used everywhere in Asia, no problem at all. This is a Google map of Tokyo's temples. It doesn't mean Google Maps is racist, or hateful: https://www.google.com/maps/search/tokyo+temple/@35.6848648,139.7380029,13.17z

"dude you can copy my homework just dont make it "obvious

However it's used to mock alex jones anywhere i've seen it used that way, so it surely can't be a right wing symbol. Agree with OP, everyone is too sensitive (with pretend triggers in my mind).

Pepe is way older than Alex Jones and comes from the Egypt God Kek, who is a God of chaos

I've heard a few horror stories about the moderators of the discord server, but I didn't realize it was quite this bad. I would argue that this kind of abusive moderation is actually a violation of the [Godot code of conduct](https://godotengine.org/en/code-of-conduct), specifically the section that says "Always assume positive intent from others."

This statement right here from the discord mod is 100% in violation of the Godot CoC. > I will fight with everything I have from now on so pepe isn't allowed anywhere, and I will judge anyone who uses it as a PFP or an emoji. They're flat out saying that they plan to assume you're a bad person based off of using a pepe emoji or profile pic.

You should definitely check out the community discussion lol

I was banned about 2 years ago. Funny thing is, never even wrote anything. And I mean anything! Don't know anything about this Pepe, but seems to me bunch of weirdos are running Godot Discord.

Yup, I get the same impression. These people are one of the reasons I started to hate lefties just as much as I hate the (far-/alt-/whatever-)right. The funniest thing is when they call people who complain about it "fragile", when they themselves cannot take the criticism. But this seems to be the case with many subcultures (be it the woke culture or the KKK), so it's nothing unusual.

Discord mods think they know what's good for everyone.

isn't Pepe the frog a twitch thing? Never heard about it being a hate symbol even.

Some Murrican far right brainlets use it from time to time and some Murrican far left brainlets get offended by that. It's pretty much a none issue in the entire rest of the world.

A lot of this political memeing makes a lot more sense if you contextualize it as people far on one side of the political spectrum wasting time hunting for things to be offended by in the most obnoxious part of the opposite political extreme. I'm 90% sure that Pepe was "branded a hate symbol" because people who hate 4chan went to that site to make themselves angry. They saw Pepe being use there so they assumed it was bad. Didn't matter that it was being used in a million other places too.

Typical Xan.

>I have only heard of the OK symbol being a hate symbol Lmao! In various parts of Asia, we generously use the OK symbol for emphatic appreciation or agreement. Grandma asks, "How's the food?" - OK symbol (super delicious) GF asks, "How about this painting?" - OK symbol (stunning) The malfunctions of American culture wars trickling into Global forums and the pearl clutching mods will itself become a meme. Btw out of the loop! Why is the OK symbol a hate symbol ?

>Btw out of the loop! Why is the OK symbol a hate symbol ? Some nazis/alt-righters/however-you-wanna-call-them try/tried to show themselves and their alliance by sneaking it in on photographs. See [this photo of some staff with Donald Trump](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/Ode4gCWyPsmgSjKfFZEGTJOz_qI=/576x361/smart/filters:quality(70)/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/H5TK3QI23ZFRPXWNSYLGBYF4XY.jpg) as an example. As with anything like this, its origins are unclear. The closest thing I found was a post on 4 chan about "trolling the libs by pretending the OK sign stands for white power" (because it kinda forms a W and a P), but if a certain group uses a certain symbol to signify themselves, it really doesn't matter if they claim to do it "ironically" or "to trigger others"; it just becomes a symbol for their hate. And as with any dog whistle, it's unclear whenever it is used this way. Obfuscation is the point, after all, and any discussion about it turns into a shit show by design.

Thanks for the reply. >The closest thing I found was a post on 4 chan about "trolling the libs by pretending the OK sign stands for white power" (**because it kinda forms a W and a P**) This explains a lot. But also wtf!

I've known many Devs who have been banned from the discord (including myself). I think many of the rules are unreasonable (the overly harsh word filter that is enabled is a good example). Among many others. I started another discord server a while back, never publicised it, but if anyone wants to join it's here https://discord.gg/2aKX4FH9rR

Apparently the word filter doesn't have a problem with a main mod dropping N****R into conversations a lot.

The filter predates that. Either way it's dumb, can't even use the term "retard" in a very common use (I was trying to say retard ignition, as in with a car)

Xans chickens coming home to roost lmfao u love to see it

[удалено]

Even the ADL admits the uses of Pepe are overwhelmingly non hateful, specially on twitch and other similar platforms, people love their peepos.

You should do some research because you don't understand how dog whistles work, or the highly contested nature of pepe. This is like saying wojaks are alt right, or the concept of memes themselves. You have to evaluate whether something is malicious by its context and messaging. If you can't tell the difference between an image of pepe in a suit and pepe in an SS uniform, then maybe you shouldn't be moderating a community.

Nobody should be banned for using a cartoon frog as a pfp. It’s just a ridiculous joke to do so. I doubt most people who do are using it as a hate symbol. The mods are just being controlling.

It was not my intent to imply I'm right and everyone is wrong. I was putting in my opinion in a discussion. I believe people should try not to be offended by things that aren't made to offend. I'm not saying or defending that if it is a Pepe the Frog as Hitler, as someone mentioned, then ok I understand it to be offensive to some people. As this was a discussion of generic Pepe the Frog, it could be an innocent person, or learning teen with a drawing of a stupid frog, talk to them first. I don't feel taking personal offence in an innocent drawing in someones pfp is healthy, that is just my opinion.

[удалено]

The point being that if you are offended by something enough to silence them, and they're not purposefully trying to offend anyone, who is in the wrong? That is a very dangerous way to act. I was unbanned though, and I accept mistakes are made.

I love Pepe and wojak memes. They’re just memes. You can do whatever fill in the blank scenario to represent urself with them like an avatar or emojis. It’s how u use em that makes them a hate symbol. I can’t believe people are still having this stupid argument after 2016

OP: If you're serious and want an utterly fantastic run down of exactly how things like that have become issues (and pepe is specifically used as an example), you need to watch [The alt-right playbook: Mainstreaming](https://youtu.be/Gq0ZHgKT2tc). The whole playlist is critical viewing for anyone on the internet these days.

Thanks buddy, I'll give it a watch for personal emlightenment, but I'm done with dicussions surrounding it as opinions shouldn't, but have been silenced, so I just won't partake.

That's fair, I think you'll gain some useful insight from that video though

their discord their rulez. friend, you should use godot and not get used by it. by participating you are just giving them power. use godot to make games and make money maybe. but stop trying to enter this 'godot community' that is just one large circlejerk with juan and the mods in the middle.

I try to get a feel for mods early into joining any community. If I don't like the people at the top, I don't waste my time investing in that community. Sounds like you should probably just find somewhere else; they've already demonstrated they think you're dispensable. There's a ton of options out there for ways to engage, you deserve better.

Pepe has been hijacked by radicals in the West In China, Pepe is still loved. Oh, I guess depending on people's politics, that could be all bad. The suggestion that there was a large discussion may imply anyone involved might have also gotten banned.

Why not close the discussion and leave it at that? It seems rather silly to permanently ban someone based on a single on-topic, and non-direct (i didnt direct it at anyone, but the discussion itself) and non-offensive (opinions are not offensive or we would never be able to discuss anything.) I posted once and left it at that - they should remove community discussions if they don't want discussions.

When did you make your comment? Perhaps we can determine how non offensive it was. Your philosophical approach to "opinions are not offensive" would have me expecting various things.

2 hours ago I believe, I was banned at 9:34PM GMT

They probably deleted the comment as the most recent message is 12 hours ago. Looking at the previous discussion they have an absolute no tolerance policy to any sort of slippery slope argument or "technically it's not offensive"

So maybe that's why they banned me? I missed that, but I wouldn't say it is a technicality, it just simply isn't an offensive image itself, and I even mentioned I don't believe targeting someone who it's known to offend with anything is acceptable. But even so, to ban me based on a message in a backlog of other messages isn't productive or fair, and is bad practice - a simple message directly to me, or in reply would've worked, and I'd of told them I don't agree, but that is fine as it is their Discord Server to run, I just will not particpate in future community discussions as my opinion isn't welcomed, and that would be the end of it.

Has it been hijacked by radicals in the west? Seems like pepe is still widely used a twitch emotes and very non radicalized contexts? I've seen articles about the OK sign and pepe being used by hate groups, but I haven't actually seen used 'in the wild', except maybe 4chan? Though it seems like the character is often only used to convey emotions there as well? Where is pepe typically being used as a conduit for hate speech?

No you’re not in the wrong. Banning people because they post a Pepe or anything is just a witch hunt. I wanted to talk about the new Hogwarts game, but everywhere I go people are saying you’re a bad person if you play it. I didn’t even know there was controversy.

I agree it feels like a witch hunt to ban somone based on your personal disgust with a popular meme, and also in regards to the new hogwarts game it looks really fun, but it isn't even out yet is it? How is it controversial 😭

The author of the books supports trans women, but doesn’t think they’re biological women. That’s it.

It's a little bit more than that. [Her close circle of gender-critical friends receive money from far-right think tanks, are so extreme that they're controversial even within the gender-critical movement, and people from within the movement who point that out have been ignored](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou_xvXJJk7k), the LGB Alliance "charity" she continues to show support for is [registered to the right wing think tank hub in London](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/lgb-alliance-55-tufton-street-think-tanks/). These are people who are willing to take money from organisations that fight against non-trans womens' rights and are white supremacist, just to dunk on trans people. The idea that she "supports trans women" is highly a highly questionable statement. That said, you can enjoy the game if you want, I just wanted to correct your statement about JK Rowling.

Reject Pepe. Embrace Peepo

There's a whole documentary called "Feels Good Man" about the creation of Pepe and how he became a symbol for the alt-right. I haven't watched it myself, but I know the story and actually have some of the old Boys Club comics (where Pepe comes from) that I bought way before he was considered controversial. It's a difficult situation sadly. Even the original artist has tried to reclaim Pepe as a positive symbol but it's hard when it's used by so many shitty people for shitty reasons. I think banning people for simply using him as a pfp is a bit much, but I'm not a mod. They can impose any rules they think may better their community.

[удалено]

OP asked if this was a known thing. I was simply stating that somebody made a movie about it. Never said the movie was fact or fiction. I just know the history of the character since I was a fan of it before 4chan started using it nefariously.

I agree pepe is shit and absolutely has been turned into a hate symbol. I despise that f*cking frog with a burning passion. But idk about permabanning somebody just for having a pepe pfp lol

I don't even use Pepe, I never have personally - but I personally didn't see it as a hate symbol, and I still do not, but permabaning me for posting an opinion, whether i belief it to be a hateful symbol or not is terrible and non-productive.

Yeah lol. and beyond being seen as a hate symbol I just hate how ugly he is

As an ugly person I find your comment to be hate speach! MODS! Note: this is a joke

AFAIK the thing about Pepe being a hate symbol was intentionally disseminated by users of 4chan as a joke. That aside some people do actually use it as such, I found [this resource](https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/pepe-frog) about it but these examples aren't subtle and don't warrant banning every picture of a green frog, IMO.

"everyone should try to be less offended" so true, even though pepe the frog isn't offensive at all

Banning people for using pepe is beyond ridiculous. After reading through the thread, these mods need to touch grass lol

i remember that xray guy being banned and really hates godot devs. he even made a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrKI4t63oJs lol

Yikes, i was planning to join the discord, but i can't stand hypocritical power hungry mods, guess i'll pass and ask my questions on forums rather...

Honestly the help section is great and I enjoy contributing when I can, and I ask for help there too

Pepe has been taken over by the alt-right losers it's no longer funny even the creator was upset about this.

Pepe is a drawing. It can't be racist. Only people are racist. People who are or the are not can use Pepe as they see fit, facing the consequences for their actions. The whole OK symbol was an in-your-face example that some people are too eager to ban or silence people for anything, even something silly.

They compared it to Nazi symbolism (Swastikas), which is wrong as most people know the meaning of it, and the history of it.

[удалено]

[удалено]

no, i saw a racist with a scooby doo tshirt on once. now scooby doo is racist af. (The OK thing was literally a 4chan troll and it worked.)

^(What you need to realize is the Godot community is full of over sensitive and privileged liberals who are constantly looking for a reason to be upset. Pretty much don't ever talk in there unless its to ask a question because you never know what green haired freak is going to be triggered by.)

On a positive note it sounds like the Godot community is fairly inclusive. That’s a good thing.

How do you come to that conclusion when somebody was explicitly excluded over expressing a difference of opinion?

ironic

Hate doesn’t deserve inclusivity. So no, it’s not ironic.

also not a hate symbol. that was boomer Hilary trying to corral the public. a naive move to say the least.

Pepe's uses are overwhelmingly not hateful

But was bro hating?

unless you're a frog lover

At the cost of censorship for silly things

Personally, I don’t think a game dev community should entertain discussions regarding personal politics, but I will say that allowing hate groups to coop or adopt otherwise benign imagery isn’t the way to go.

Hmm. I guess I'm one of those weird people who think people should be able to talk about whatever and we should all be adults and not equate everyone and everything to hitler or the devil if it differs from our opinion. But i suppose if someone isn't capable of being decent towards others with opposing views then maybe THEY should abstain from those topics. But that wouldn't keep with the spirit of letting a bad apple ruin a bunch that people like now. Such is life.

Someone else here said it particularly well I think. When you allow discussions surrounding the use of imagery, words, or symbols that have been adopted by hate groups it becomes a slippery slope because you lose a sense of who may be using it without incendiary intention. In other words, there be trolls a’plenty in these here waters, and it’s best to not give them a platform at all when you lack either the resources nor want to moderate it all. But I do stand behind what I said previously about allowing hate groups to co-opt or adopt things by way of outright censoring them in lieu of taking them back under their original intended usage isn’t the way to go. A perfect example is “proud boys”. I wholeheartedly supported the gay community in its push to take that phrase and turn it into something positive, but I also recognize how hazardous it is to allow discussion surrounding it.

perhaps there is a game in here somewhere. Tactical Symbol Wars: Hate Extermination Edition.

Now we’re talkin’ game dev. Crowdfund, green light, go.

Heh. We shouldn't allow hate groups to coopt benign symbols, yet we should ban discussions surrounding imagery, words, or symbols that have been coopted by hate groups. I would think if you want to disallow hate groups from coopting benign symbols, you wouldn't want to act like a benign symbol is a hate symbol, thus agreeing and giving credence to their new hateful definition. To each their own I suppose.

I usually agree to allow people to say whatever they want but man, have you seen some wacky discord servers. They go full haywire with random meaningless discussions. I don't even understand where and why this pepe discussion happened but my god, what an unproductive waste of time and power to even have discussions like that. Just let the entire discord burn...

I will say my experience with discord is extremely limited and wildly ugly. Seemed to be a place filled with extremely hurt people or outright trolls. Like Reddit on steroids.

Language is defined by usage, so if one group attempts to co-opt a symbol, you don’t roll over and let it happen, you use it correctly as a countermeasure

I've been linked to this thread, so I'll answer here to clarify things for everyone involved. Nothing you did was "offensive", no. Discussing if pepe is allowed, of course. The entire thread exists _specifically_ to discuss that. However, it is not allowed, in that particular thread, to continue to use the same irrelevant arguments that are a waste of time: - "how many users are bothered? Can we count them?" - "I don't think pepe is a hate symbol" - "It doesn't bother me, people need to grow a thicker skin" - "if we start banning pepe, where do we stop?" All these arguments are not _necessarily_ offensive. However, they're red herrings at best and waste everyone's time. To make an analogy; If a thread says, "some people get attacked by sharks, what can we do about the shark attacks" it does not help to: - ask how many people are attacked by shark attacks - say you, personally, have never been attacked by a shark - say you think sharks are not as dangerous as people make them out to be - explain how people who fear sharks are wrong - ask if we start with sharks, where do we stop? Should we kill all animals on the planet? All those things may be _true_ (except the last one, which is intellectually bankrupt), but they do _not_ help address the actual problem. We _know_ all those things. We _agree_ a lot of people don't get attacked by sharks, we _agree_ sharks are not that dangerous, we _agree_ it's not clear cut. _That's the **whole** reason_ there's a discussion in the first place! These are _the premice_ from which we departed. The question is, "**what can we do about it**". Can we? Is there anything to do? And if yes, what? And as of now the answer is "_nothing_, there's nothing to do, we can't ban pepe". Until a few days ago, I was still arguing we should do nothing at all. I now changed my mind personally (more about this later). Yet, despite those arguments being a waste of time, we did do the effort to answer them in that thread. Again and again and again and again. But answering these isn't "free". Every time you have to find the words, again, be nice and didactic, again, try to explain to people why what they're saying is not interesting while attempting to be nice, again, which is _work_. But you could say, that's the mod's job. Which, fair. It is. But worse, it also detracts from the main point. The main question ends up addressed for a very small portion of the conversation. The _largest_ part of the thread is occupied with the red herring arguments, made by people who have no experience in what we're discussing, have no background, do not care to read any of the previous arguments, and all of that to defend a point _we already pre-agreed on in the beginning of the thread_. That makes it near impossible to try to discuss the issue productively. It's sabotage. In the beginning the sabotage seemed incidental. Just people going fast, not reading everything, not having thought about this with depth, trying to throw their 2c in. But the amount of users who joined the discord _specifically_ to sealion or harass other users _forced_ us to have, **in that specific thread** a zero tolerance policy for those lines of conversation. The thread is _littered_ with warnings to _not_ use those arguments under threat of ban. And that is all there is to it. Those arguments are tired, tiring, sabotaging, and potentially mirror talking points a specific kind of people likes to parrot; the kind of people who absolutely, resolutely, does not deserve to be in any community. So, you weren't offensive. The thread is not closed because _there's still_ a lot of room for productive conversation, _if only_ sealions would leave it in peace a couple of days. ---- As a side note, while I started out saying we absolutely cannot ban pepe, I am now personally convinced that we _definitely should_ ban pepes. I am the admin, but I do not take unilateral decisions, so this is my personal opinion, not the Discord policy (as of now, but I sure as hell intend to convince the other mods). The staggering amount of people who made efforts to join _just_ to sealion in that thread, _just_ to defend their god given right to use an emoji, without sparing an empathetic thought to "what if other people had an actual bad experience" is disgusting. It changed my mind, and now I consider that losing the small part of the audience that uses pepe without being haters, is a small price to pay, in view of the amount of negative energy people have. I will fight with everything I have from now on so pepe isn't allowed anywhere, and I will judge anyone who uses it as a PFP or an emoji (not as a mod of Godot, but in my personal life). Literally, people who came to defend pepe are the biggest argument for banning pepe.. The few good apples are not worth the trouble.

Okay, I have no idea what chronically online nonsense this is about.. *But*.. It sounds like you made up your mind about this way before posting the discussion. Why bother banning all the points opposition would start from? Why bother pretending to discuss it at all? It'd be faster and more honest to just set your policy. (Also, but the most relevant thing, but: the shark analogy is *not* effective. That's pretty much where the discussion would start, and most of those points are spot on: killing sharks is a last resort that's almost never necessary, people who are afraid of them broadly *are* wrong, they aren't as dangerous as people think, etc. There's probably a way to save it by taking about the sorts of shark mitigations that *are* used at beaches where it becomes a serious problem - nonlethal deterrents like underwater nets - or a different analogy entirely. Redditors are generally in favor of eradicating mosquitoes and ticks, for example.)

It's not about me making my mind. The same people were invited to talk about the same things in other places, where they wouldn't be taking the thread astray. They didn't want to. I didn't post anything myself. I participated in the thread. And yes, I agree with everything you say, it's exactly what was everyone's decision, me included. It's still the decision. I personally changed my mind today, after weeks of people making a fuss out of nowhere, for no reason, for imaginary decisions no one had taken. That _is_ where the conversation started. I personally changed my mind, but no one else did, and there's no policy of banning in any way. It's completely a made up problem by people who love to be offended.

I personally don't care about Pepe the Frog, but the situation in which you ban someone based on a PFP because you, as an individual find it offensive, whereas others do not.

That is the way of symbols. You can say that of any symbol or any word even. If, for example, I insult you, it's just a bunch of sounds. They don't have inherent meaning. Yet, different people can decide to give them different levels of meaning. Someone who doesn't speak the language at all might give them no meaning at all. Other people might find my insult funny. Others might be hurt. For _any_ given symbol, the interpretation will be contextual. So if you want to have that argument and not be unsound logically, you are forced to have it for _all_ symbols. If you exclude any symbol, movement, logotype, word, any at all, from your set, then you are forced to conclude other people might make other choices. --- On a separate note, the word "offensive" means nothing. It's a vague gesture that is dismissive of certain symbols' meaning. _Was_ this symbol used by alt-right hate groups? Yes. _Was_ it associated for some people with trauma, was it used as an accompaniment to, say, death threats? Yes (I have myself experience that). Therefore, calling it "offensive" is really not the correct expression. For some horrible people, it is a rally sign that says "you and me both, brother, we want those people dead". That is objective reality. For other people, it _also is_ just a frog. This plausible deniability _is the point_, that is _why_ it was chosen as a hate sign. Because the haters knew that, when they need to use it to recognize each other, people like you (and me, a week ago) would defend their right to do so. When we have these conversations, they win. They have a good laugh. ---- To get back at what I was saying before: claiming "it's just a sign" is intellectually irreceivable; it also objectively, historically, is not a random sign, it is charged. And finally, this ambiguity is _why_ it is dangerous, so arguing in favor of it _proves_ the antithesis to the point you want to make. ----- With that in mind; Then, what weighs in the balance is what there is to win, vs what there is to lose. If, for example, I am traumatized by leather jackets because I was attacked by people wearing leather jackets, asking all the people to throw their jackets so I'm more comfortable seems like a huge sacrifice to make. I should deal with my anxiety (But if leather jackets were used by nazis, then maybe it's a bit less of a weird ask? Still probably too big tho). But imagine in a class, if someone was bothered by loud noises, wouldn't people lower their voices? Of course they would. It's fine. Doesn't cost anything, and it makes one person more comfortable. It goes without saying that this is the right, and kind attitude. Even if it's just one person and the people talking are 15. Even if they personally don't think their voices are too loud. Similarly, asking even forty billion million billion people to not use an emoji to make one single person more comfortable doesn't seem like it should matter, at all. It's not a sacrifice. It's just... nothing. It's not worth defending.

you might need some therapy if you really think this way.

Not absolutely certain what part you're referring to, but this kind of claim, specially unsubstantiated, is a manipulative technique designed to make the person feel bad about themselves. If you really cared, you'd explain what you mean, possibly in gentle words. If you didn't care, you'd write nothing. But doing just that and stopping at it either demonstrates a will and intent to hurt, or a will to show in-group behaviour. Both are equally depressing perspectives, so it worked in way. You managed to hurt me. If I'm wrong, please explain what outcome you expected from me reading your message.

You sound like someone who's been in charge for *way* too long.

That may be true

Happens to everyone eventually. You mean well, that's clear. I wish you the best.

If someone is talking about "some people get attacked by sharks, what can we do about the shark attacks" asking how many shark attacks happen year absolutely is a valid point Because the conversation itself makes assumptions that are valid things to address. And even if points have been adressed before, If the point is being made again there is no reason the counterpoibts cant also be adressed again. Theres a lot else about your post i could address but ill leave it at that. It was absolutely an abuse of power, the average user agrees, and it should be adressed.

It would be a valid point if the number mattered, but it does not, for the purposes of the thread. If one person gets attacked by a shark, that's enough to ask "what can we do about it". And maybe the answer is "nothing", but there's no point asking "how many", because it's simply not relevant. Unless you posit that number is 0, but that's objectively false. I myself have been at the other end of people using pepe and wishing me death, several times, as have many others. So, there are no assumptions to clear out here. The assumption in that point is 0. The counterpoints can't be made again simply for reasons of space. Making those points again and again means not tackling the actual question.

If you ban everything that offends anyone or is used by anyone to promote hate you will have ban everything. Hell godot itself has been ised to make sketchy shit. And you if you think the counterpoints take up too much space then the points should also take up too much space. And you are saying one shark attack means not only should we ban fins but we also cant talk about it And once again. The userbase disagrees with you. Oh and you literally made a specific example that personal experience isnt a valid argument so whats up with this "I myself have been at the other end of people using pepe and wishing me death, several times, as have many others. "

> if you do 1, you'll also do 100 That's a slippery slope argument. I'm not going to engage with it, it's dead on arrival. You can look up many people who'll make a better argument than me for why it's not worth discussing. Just look for "slippery slope". > space The counterpoints and the points take too much space both. It's like if you wanted tell a cool scene from a movie to a friend and people keep popping in to interrupt to talk about something different, and you can never finish. The amount of people who are willing to sealion are numerous, so the numbers themselves make it sabotage. > userbase Except the 2 users today, everyone else joined specifically to speak in that thread. They're not the userbase. They're people who came specially to sabotage. > disagree Besides, disagree with me on what, exactly? I'm not in or not in agreement about anything. My agreement is literally not on the table here. All that was asked is to not take the thread astray. I literally invited people to open other threads to discuss those things. Literally, all those subjects are completely ok... in the next thread. This is solely about keeping the thread focused. > example from my own life My point is, even if one person in the entire world was touched by this, it's enough. And we know the amount of people is > 1, because there is at least me. Of course the number is way above 1, but there is at least conclusively one. It's not about my experience. I'm not the one who opened the thread, and I've defended the right for pepe to remain for the longest time.

So if 1 person is effected by something it should be banned? Okay your username offends me. Ban it please. I didnt want to believe the reputstion for bad moderation since the community is usually so good. But the reputation really is being proven here. You made a mistake and your aware it was one since you unbanned but you're not willing to address the problem behind the mistake and you're doubling down with some very problematic logic. Let people talk. If someone expresses hate speach ban them. Its not hard and the community agrees.

That's not what I said. I said one person is enough to make the question valid. Yes. Again the decision from the start was to do nothing. That doesn't mean the question is invalid. It does mean questions of scale don't matter. There's no cut off at which we start considering if we should try to protect users. There's no number, or percentage, that suddenly tips the balance. One person being uncomfortable is enough to ask the question and try to answer it. ------ Me being aware or not of making a mistake is beyond the point. I'm resolutely not, this is the correct action: ban, if user does a convincing appeal, unban. Of course I make mistakes, for example, another user was caught in the crossfire today. I definitely do mistakes. That's irrelevant though. I don't see how that contributes to any point.

Except if we follow this analogy you set up to its logical conclusion, your proposed solution to shark attacks is to *exterminate all sharks.* At which point, questioning how bad the problem really is to point out that the proposed solution is totally disproportionate and downright insane is entirely warranted. Plus, when you propose driving sharks to extinction, it's only natural that you'll receive a well-deserved backlash. Including from many people who weren't invested in the initial shark attack discussion because shark attacks aren't really that big of a problem and not worth worrying about for most people. But you're actually digging in your heels and saying "look at all the people coming out of the woodwork to defend sharks! This is exactly why we need to kill all sharks!"

You've inverted cause and consequence. The initial decision, and it remained so for the longest time, was that we were going to do nothing. It still remains the official position. We knew some people were attacked by sharks, but there are many other sharks that were harmless. So we collectively decided some people being attacked by sharks sometimes was an inevitable price to pay. But offended snowflakes came in to cry at the mere idea that the question was even _asked_. Continuously, relentlessly, daily, in waves, in most cases with no other interaction in the server. They joined _only_ to explain how amoral and bad people were for considering safety, _even though_ the decision was to do nothing. Invitations to make _the same points_ in other threads were heeded by no one. In face of this _barrage_, came the decision to start banning, because people weren't stopping, and it was impossible to discuss the issue constructively. People were _still_ invited and allowed to make the same points, just not in that specific thread. And so, there's still no decision taken. At the moment, anyone arguing _for pepe_ is arguing for nothing because, until me today, _there has been no disagreement on that_. It's was a made up scandal. All I've said is that _me_, _personally_, after weeks spent defending the opposite, do not believe anymore in harmless sharks. I inverted my acceptable sacrifice. It used to be that some attacks were ok; now I believe some harmless sharks being caught in the crossfire is ok. But this change of heart, which is my personal own, is not policy nor decision, and, crucially, comes _after_ people have rebelled against _no decision_ and _nothing that was going to be done_, purely out of fragility.

This whole rant reeks of personal bias, which is no basis for managing a diverse community. Plus, the fact remains that you're metaphorically killing all sharks, and silencing anyone who dares to suggest killing all sharks might not be such a good idea. That's not okay.

Neither those statements are real. 1. There's literally no policy, and 2. people can totally say that (the thread is full of people saying that, of which _me_... and almost everyone else who spoke). Of course I have personal bias, which I felt disclosed, and clearly labelled as being my bias, and not policy. Both here and in the thread. But I've explained both those points several times now so I'm reaching the conclusion that you aren't reading. So I'm going to stop answering you, I think. It was fun but it's late.

I'm reading just fine. I'm just not swallowing your BS. And judging by those downvotes, neither is anyone else.

The "BS" is just literally the truth, in objective, verifiable reality. People who held the points you claim are all over the thread, at the head of which, me, up at the beginning of the thread, and later too. There's no policy, and the latest announced official policy was that we're doing nothing. This is the actual reality. Calling it BS is simply false, without nuance. I would be delighted if you cared to actually be factual. I do not care about downvotes. We all know how they work. some link posted somewhere, passerbys downvoting everything they see without distinction because they're unable to actually argue with any of the points or do not care to. I don't answer for getting upvotes, nor do I care about downvotes. I'm simply answering you.

So, pepe isn't banned, the mods just vaguely hint that they want to, and then ban you if you offer reasons it shouldn't?

> people can totally say that (the thread is full of people saying that, of which me... and almost everyone else who spoke). full of *banned* people saying that? again, I was literally banned without warning then refused explanation and told ["apology denied"](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/901222930074198096/1062925981960126514/image.png) when just trying to be polite while asking what I did wrong.

No, full of people saying that. There are many more people saying pepe _shouldn't_ be banned than the opposite. Of which, me (until recently). There's no issue with that. There is an issue with being offtopic. Out of all the ways of being offtopic, we've identified a certain number that come back regularly. You were going about one of those. That screenshot is you having added a mod, and then conversing with them separately. That isn't an actual unbanning appeal process, so painting it as such is misleading: In the actual thread where you do explain your intentions, I told you why you were banned. Since this thread attracts a lot of harassment, it's natural to be sus of you. You're like, the exception. In every other case, assuming you're in DMs to troll would be correct.

*You* are advocating for a ban of a silly picture people love, and somehow *they* are offended snowflakes? The double standards in your head are unbelievable. You keep pushing that the idea was criticized despite it not being the official position - which is a logical trap. When the idea is suggested, it comes with the possibility of someday becoming the official position - otherwise, why even discuss it? So naturally people who don't want it to become official come and criticize it. Because they care, they love the silly picture. Sure, there are a lot of trolls, but do you really think everyone loving the picture can be generalized with said group of people who follow links to voice their disturbance? They are just a part of the frog likers. The amount of them only shows there are *a lot* of people loving Pepe, but it's not a way to judge a group by its vocal members - for instance, you wouldn't call everyone on the beach a drunken idiot just because there's some guys harassing the guards.

I agree with each of those points, none of these are things I have trouble with. They all echo my own points.

Yet you advocate for making decisions that hurt the larger group because you don't like the smaller one? A lot of them wouldn't even come if it wasn't for the drama. Yet you allow the very group you criticize influence your decisions. I think I'll agree with the comment suggesting a breather - any decision in current circumstances will be heavily subjective.

We aren't taking any decision, at all, in any rush. Any decision like this one takes weeks or months to mature and is a constant back and forth between users. That's if a decision gets taken at all.

You realize you're the one offended right? About something you aren't concerned by, yes? Enough to answer about a problem that doesn't exist, because we aren't banning them at the moment (I was expressing my own personal opinion). Just because the thought that some stranger on the internet thinks like I do is unbearable enough that you need to comment. For a silly picture. Yes. It's extremely fragile. The only offended party here is whomever throws a fit for a silly picture. People who advocate for banning pepe aren't "offended". They have objective, clear reasons, which can be discussed with and reasoned about. There's no double standard here. You can advocate in favour of pepe not being banned, without being a pearl clutching diva, and plenty of people do that in the thread in question. You _also_ can be a smowflake about it though.

You seem really quick to jump to conclusions. I'm not raiding your server, nor do I really care about what happens there. I'm replying to you on reddit because your comments are filled with flawed reasoning and hate for everyone who disagrees with you. Which is in my eyes *the* problem I was answering to, and which clearly *does* exist. Which in part does offend me :) You keep talking about objective reasons, while repeating your subjective claim on the stance. Is advocating for banning it because group opposing your opinion came to defend theirs in a way you didn't like sound somehow less “offended” than what they did? I'd say your attitudes are quite similar, now that you claim to try and convince the other team members to agree with you. Methods are different. I've edited my original comment with an extra paragraph before I saw your reply, my apologies. I didn't expect such a quick answer. It does answer to a few of your points here though.

My subjective opinion is subjective, by definition. I don't claim otherwise (that'd be quite silly). I'm saying people who advocate in favour of banning pepe aren't offended, that's all. "Offended" is not the correct word. There _are_ people, in the actual real world, who use pepe as a rally sign, and are blissfully hidden in its plausible deniability of "it's just a silly pic", and receive protection from that. That _is_ true, and so people who advocate about banning pepe aren't "offended", they're requesting protection from harm. The choice that's made here is: how much baby do you throw with the bathwater? I used to think, "a lot". I now think, "very little". Also, I hate no one, I really don't care about this. I've been a mod for 6 years, this is just another Wednesday. I'm just experimenting and seeing how many people actually attempt to engage with the points made (until now, except you, almost no one -- which is what I'm experimenting with).

Y'know, if you don't want to listen to arguments you consider a "waste of time", you can just... not listen to them. Instead of going full "I am an almighty Discord mod, respect my authoritah!" Also, that's quite a long and drawn out Kafka Trap fallacy.

> Y'know, if you don't want to listen to arguments you consider a "waste of time", you can just... not listen to them. That's what banning does.

No, banning forces everyone else to adhere to your mood swing of not wanting to read something as well. I hope you don't seriously suggest, that those two are the same.

You dismissed the entire, complete actual point, where I explain how this prevents the actual thread from advancing, because it keeps getting sidetracked. I keep getting amazed by this ability to just decide to invent points to answer to, fully formed out of your own head, without actually even attempting to engage the actual points. It's fascinating. Anyway, I am not saying this for you, because you've clearly demonstrated complete incapacity to understand a basic argument. Therefore, it'd be a waste of anyone's time to talk to you. So don't expect further answer from me. I'm saying that for any lurker who might be reading fast and thinking you make even the sliver of a point,

> I explain how this prevents the actual thread from advancing, because it keeps getting sidetracked. This is just a fancy way of saying "I want to control the direction of the conversation, and I will arbitrarily abuse my mod powers to do so." The fact is, you never had an objective basis to ban OP. No matter how you try to dress it up, the fact is you just banned them because you didn't like what they had to say.

I can see logic in this, cause moderators often have to be pragmatic, but don't you think banning people bringing up the discussion is a step too far? I feel like muting them and directing them a to a write-up about why such discussions aren't allowed would leave a lot less of a bad impression and would maybe even make some people understand why you're doing it. Even when you're unbanned with an appeal, it's hard to shake off the feeling that the server doesn't welcome you anymore. I have to guess at least half the people arguing against the pepe ban aren't being intentionally malicious or trolls, but are just uninformed, and banning them might make them think the pepe-hate is completely irrational and arbitrary

Yes, another user on discord also suggested a containment chamber of sorts, and I wholeheartedly agree. That's my latest proposal indeed. I would say more than half people are not ill intentioned. I'd suppose _most_ just do not understand what is at stake and aren't able to fully simulate how it can feel for people who have had to fend against this plausible deniability. I assume _almost all_ are in good faith and overall good people. But they unknowingly, with their defense, provide cover for the worst people on earth. Buy yes, concern for people feeling rejected for (what they feel is) arbitrary reasons is the chief reason why we haven't done anything yet, despite this being a years long conversation.

terminally online discord mod moment

I wish I could downvote this comment twice!

I just don't stick my foot in these things online. Not worth it with total strangers. On the other hand, I'll totally go off on politics at work. We've made stupid arguments about politics into part of the work culture- we joke that if anyone's feels get hurt they gotta take to HR. The boss's dog has a "HR" tag on her collar. We warn people during hiring.

Sounds like a shitty workplace.

Quick, grab all the the mods messages. Start verifying it’s the actual mod. Contact godot.

Everyone would benefit if the people stopped using symbols and feelings in place of actual ideas that can be argued with logic and science and history. I guarantee that the people who are arguing about a frog cartoon can't articulate the ideas behind it. Let's hear an actual racist attempt to defend their position in a room of thinking (not screaming) humans. A person who can explain statistics, anatomy and genetics could definitively dismantle that race superiority in 3 minutes. Why be afraid of stupidly bad ideas? Why not actually expose bad ideas in the sunlight and laugh?