0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
To the conservative and libertarians on the forum reading this, welcome! I hope this will be informative, and confirm your current suspicions about the FA administration and/or moderator teams, as well as motivate you to be more vocal and vigilant in regards to their abuses. To the SJWs and Regressives reading this, hello Nazis! See, this is what we call 'hyperbole' and 'irony', and it's part of humor – I'm exaggerating for comedic effect, but there's some truth to it. Hopefully you'll stop being gigantic pussies long enough to take a joke as well as you take feral horse cocks.Now, let's examine the facts of this particular shit show. A month or two ago I ran into a user I didn't know, and commented on their page (more on this in another journal) – something innocuous, not hostile in the least. The response I got was a snide 'Thanks for reminding me to ban you'. So, thinking I perhaps knew him on another account, I checked his profile to see if he had any other accounts I knew of. He didn't have any I knew, but he did have another account. I went to that account, shouted something along the lines of “Hey douche, you forgot to block me here too, though I dunno why you would in the first place tbh”. In normal big-boy land, where the rules aren't made for emotionally unstable little cunts who think words can really physically hurt, this would be the end of it; after all, people would be expected to enforce their own blocks, and if they don't then they shouldn't complain about it. Not so on FA! Apparently, we're expected to automatically know that this clause under 1.6 of the AUP - “evading any block a user has put into place, such as using an alternate account or commenting at the user,” - doesn't mean what you'd generally expect it to mean, but every single possible interpretation imaginable. That is, it isn't just using one of your own alternate accounts to talk to the same person after they've blocked you; it's also contorted to mean that using your own account to talk to an account that hasn't actually blocked you yet is considered 'evading a block'. Pretty retarded, right?Well, this was news to me – and I expect it would be news to anyone who isn't fucking insane. I debated this with the mods in question, but they wouldn't budge; so, continuing on from that, I went on with the assumption that this is how FA works until further notice.And, golly gee, would you look at that; someone else did exactly that to me! That is, someone I had blocked went to my other account and posted a shout on it, as well as using an alternate account of theirs to reply to one of my comments. Both of these actions are CLEARLY against the rules, right?Except, well... FA hasn't done jack shit about it yet. See, they responded within a day or two when it came to punishing me for my shout; but it's been at least a month since I made those other trouble tickets, and nothing has come of it. One ticket is the exact same situation as what got me a strike *immediately*, but when a progressive does it to me? Dead silence. Pretty shitty, right? It's damn disgusting when the moderator team or administration refuses to apply the rules equally; even more shitty, however, is to enforce the rules and refuse to explain exactly why it was applied. See, more recently I posted a journal entitled “The FA Rules on Gender and Tags”, poking fun at the FA administration for their stance on gender in the browse/search system, and having a laugh at the SJWs and Tumblrettes and their attitudes on gender in the process. Now, I've checked with several people, including an ardent tranny progressive who doesn't agree politically with me on anything, and they all said that my journal was exactly what I stated above; it mocked people who made certain choices, but not trannies in general. If you don't believe me, you can look up the title of the journal in Google and probably find something; I posted it in Pastebin and 4chan because of the shenanigans FA is pulling.So, I made another trouble-ticket. I asked them to specifically point out exactly where it makes fun of trans people, and not just the Tumblrette/SJWs who are responsible for the situation I talked about in the journal. Now, again, I was given a strike quite quickly; I posted it, went to bed, and woke up to find it removed with the claim that I had violated AUP 1.8 (Malicious Speech). Now, with how quickly they had taken it down, surely they had some solid reason, right? Something they could immediately point to and justify their takedown?Well, apparently not; I've asked for a justification for their takedown, and they don't even have the decency to give me that. Most likely because they actually can't; there was, again, nothing disparaging of any of those protective groups, but rather of the SJW attitudes and behaviors that led to the issue in the journal. Shoot, they didn't even cite what specifically in the journal that was specifically hateful or disparaging towards any of the protected classes. So, yes; the FA administration and/or staff are biased against conservatives and libertarians; they have given in to the Regressive Left and the SJWs. Do not expect a fair hearing; they will selectively enforce the rules, drag their feet, and do everything in their power to silence conservative and libertarian thought while promoting the SJW's retarded agenda.
Oh, an update; this journal was removed because it used the word 'Tranny/Trannies' to refer to trannies, claiming it was 'malicious speech'.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they removed posts using that term to refer to the transmissions of various vehicles, considering it's been a common shorthand for *years.*