▶ No.120
As I should say for the charges arrayed against me:
>attempted to cause migrations of explicitly idpol communities into leftypol
I have never brought forwards people into the community save for individual basis, where I recommend them to the community because I figured they'd enjoy the content, or as a part of a wider board mission to draw in people from elsewhere, and even then all of the examples of that are in the past before my tenure as a moderator, such as when the chapo subreddit was banned and there was a board initiative and OC drive to try and attract some here. To constrew these efforts, community efforts, as not only my own but also undesirable is betraying that you view /leftypol/ as an insular entity which should not take in and educate outsiders.
>constantly suggested to copy the wordfilters of these communities and tone police leftypol
I have never suggested or proposed we introduce wordfilters beyond that which we have had in the past on bunkerchan and further on 8chan. There is simply no truth to this.
>outright stated that his goal was to "get rid of brocialists" in favour of these people
For the record, no such quote of me saying we should "get rid of brocialists" or anything of that sort exists, and indeed I never said or believed that we should get rid of certain posters in favor of "these people", whomever that might be. Have I made my position that we should move against reactionary idpol clear? Yes, I have. But have I *only* moved against reactionary idpol? No, I haven't. I've banned radfems and racial and ethnic idealists in equal measure, so much as they exist to prosecute. My emphasis on reactionary idpol isn't because of some kind of inherent political bias, but because it is the primary source of rule-violating idpol.
>one sidedly enforced the idpol ban, warning and deleting posts insulting liberal idpol while basically never banning the people he drags in
I addressed the first bit above, but the second bit? How would I even "not ban the people I drag in". Am I supposed to be in some kind of cabal with them and never ban them by their IP? If you had half the organization you imply I do, maybe you could put together an actual accusation with evidence.
>There has been a large shift of idpol into the board and it may be in part due to people going out of their own way to attract it.
This isn't even accusing me of anything, just insinuating this has something to do with me, rather than a wider trend of idpol being a political topic of discussion which is happening in the wider political space - between racialized shootings in America, the electoral bid of Castillo, ect. Not only founded, but profoundly non-materialist.
>Furthermore during the many confrontations, they have never expressed regret in their actions, only bowing down due to pressure by the other mods.
This is simply silly, if even one mod (including you, Zul!) expressed distaste at my moderation policies I would usually try to modify or curtail them. I have always worked through the proper channels to discuss moderation and have tried to bring on whatever criticism, be it user or fellow mod, that came my way.
>Wvobbly wants a leftypol thats totally different than what leftypol currently is.
Do I? Or do I simply accept that the community shall change over time, and that the moderation should change to suit that community? Not wholly mind - we cannot simply drop everything and remake the board's identity every few months, but accepting change and taking on new ideas from the community is something I have always advocated for.
>The latest in the long line of violations being the snarky reddit tier messages left on warnings in an idpol thread, trying to develop an idpol line on the board instead of anchoring the thread.
The reason I did not anchor the thread was a rule you proposed - that at least 3 mods be around to give the ok to anchor a thread if it is not clearly idpol shittery. The posts in question were not so egregious to be rulebreaking, the thread itself was of generally high quality enough that I was hesitant on just anchoring it, and there weren't other mods around to ask about anchoring, and I didn't want the thread to derail. So, my options were to intervene or delete those comments, and another rule I adopted because of your suggestion was to not delete posts without consultation, so warnings were effectively the last option for me, while acting in accordance to your wishes as best I could while still upholding moderation duty.