dendydoom wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 8:29 pm
thanks for the reply, it's clear that you've put a lot of thought into this.
i won't comment further on what happened during the funeral itself, because as i mentioned before i consider it resolved and out of respect to those involved including kieth more discussion on this matter would require fact checking and i feel like it would be unfair to go and look at things like logs etc. i do not want to drag that into this thread.
i would be careful about saying that it is misrepresented or spiteful. as was also brought up before: there is a lot of heavy inference over things that happened in admin channels that cannot just openly be spoken about. very few people are privileged with the full story around this, and 2 of those people are the ones discussing it: kieth and shaps. shaps is a gm who has their own concerns, and in this sense they are within their right to bring that up and try to discuss it, even if it gets a little heated. i don't perceive any insults for the sake of it or outright lies, just someone who is impassioned and has something to say about their concerns with a candidate.
if similar events had happened with other candidates, whether admins or players, i would not want to police their tone around the matter either. they have a right to speak frankly and openly (as much as can be done without leaking admin channels) and people who bear witness to that type of discussion should be careful how much they let it affect their view of someone without full knowledge of the situation. i say this both to people who are supportive of kieth AND those that are critical of him. he is not a villain or a saviour. he's just a dude. tiger. dudetiger.
hearsay and gossip cloud every election season; reality takes the backseat. a lot of people who have already served terms know this sentiment very well, because people seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear despite the facts and the evidence is just part of the gig.
no problem, i prefer non-halfassed exchanges during discussions as well. and yeah, i agree that this isn't really the place to go evidence-collecting.
when you say that a lot of it is related to private admin channel stuff, then that is not really something i can comment much on, but to be honest it is difficult to imagine what kind of perspective-changing context i'd be missing out on when i had seen the whole incident, and when there is no new information to be found in the appeal. to add to that, it was originally a very public ordeal, at least 20+ people participated, so it just does not seem like a situation where you need deep inside knowledge to know what had happened.
i would also expect that a resolved ban appeal would, at the very least, contain enough relevant information to give people accurate insight into the situation, especially since it is being posted to clarify his remark. despite this, none of the details in neither the appeal, nor what i'd personally experienced during the funeral paint the situation in a way where shaps' words accurately reflect what had happened.
if there really is some important missing context where the message does in fact not misrepresent the situation, then the way that shaps goes about it still does not make sense, because he makes it pretty clear he is talking about the funeral incident by linking to the appeal for it, yet in the resolved appeal, kieth himself says that he was never attacking any admin (which is true, he did in fact not direct it at any admin like how shaps is trying to make it seem). plus kieth was not even an admin at the time of this happening so it is a bit strange to say that he'd be aware of whatever happened in the admin channels.
unless you are trying to say that kieth had actually told an admin to kill themselves separate to this incident (and i am not trying to put words in your mouth here, i just genuinely cannot imagine what else you could be implying when you say that only a very few people know the full situation), but if this were the case then would the contents of the appeal not have included this information that would have been incredibly relevant to the ban that he is linking? like sure, you could say certain things can't be brought up due to privacy reasons, but then i doubt he'd even use the appeal as a clarification in the first place. i don't think he is trying to "outright lie", but it is really difficult to call his choice of words anything other than misleading.
i think it's generally fine to have an aggressive approach in a discussion even if it can be a bit provocative, but it becomes really difficult to justify it when it is done in a way that doesn't reflect the truth, because that is just unfair to the other person, and is not really the way to go about it if you want to get a proper answer either.