Bottom post of the previous page:
The An0n3 amendment was originally added to be used to cut out shit posting and misinformed comment in ban appeals, posts that were well written opinions that had clear and substantial disagreement with the banning admins opinion were left in, because it was important for a ban appeal to be a discussion about the merit of a ban based on it's facts, rather than just an admin passing judgement on the appeal with no input from the community at large.That was how we agreed upon the mutual contract between admin and players and was important to having a healthy community, because it meant that players felt like they could advocate on a ban and have their voice heard.
But the way it is enforced unequally these days, it's used to suppress anyone from posting in a thread at all as long as they're posting an opinion that dissents from the banning admins.
Admins are free to post repeatedly in a thread, all reinforcing the original banning admin, often when they're not even the involved admin, or posting any relevant rulings or speaking directly to any of the written rules. Right now it's an open joke among players about how many admins tend to post in appeals, each backing each other up and making it seem like the weight of opinion is stacked against a ban appeal, but that is simply because any dissenting opinion is swiftly removed for being (peanut).
To disagree with a ban, you either have to
A)post only factually, being unable to disagree with the underlying ban on anything other than logical grounds
B)rules lawyer your way to the original opinion about the ban that was held
A ban appeal is an admin opinion, the admin has seen a set of events and formed an opinion about what action to take under the rules framework, it then stands to reason that to offer some semblance of fair justice we *must* allow dissenting opinions to be raised on the same basis, of evaluating the facts on the ground, and establishing an opinion based on that.
People should be able to share that opinion in the ban appeal, without having it be suppressed because it doesn't explicitly speak to a named rule, or doesn't include new facts relevant to the case.
I say we need to rewrite the An0n3 amendment, to clearly restrict shit posting and memes, but to allow users to hold a clear and well stated opinion, where it is relevant to the ban at hand and especially if it's a dissenting opinion from the one formed by the banning admin. It should especially leave license for other admins to dissent from an opinion, and hold their own, without needing to speak to a specific ruling or item of fact.
As it is now, the An0n3 amendment is not being used to reduce shit posting from uninformed people, but as a tool to suppress anyone trying to argue a ban on the grey areas and not a technicality. This goes against the spirit of the original amendment and is deeply dangerous to our democracy.