"Everything about DeviantArt and Side 7 drama"

*cough cough https://ghostarchive.org/archive/fkaP3 cough cough*

It's well known you'll see a lot of conversations where people talk about having been given the boot from the S7 community. A lot of these are two-sided and involve one person (either lamenting they were banned from the S7 community while accepting it, or they're openly questioning it) while another one who is happy they're getting that "consequence" is (while saying deceptive things about them) holding it above their head, often implying that the authority of the community's founder is sound. There has been a lot of discussion about this, and often the founder's absent-mindedness is at least brought up. A level of absent-mindedness that doesn't invalidate their boundaries but still undermines their ethical authority.

The most famous drama around this surrounds two people, one of which was accused of drama-milling while the other was given the ability to drama-mill as a result of that perceived drama-milling. In a way that at least reminds me of that principal who'd yell "fair is not equal" in your face.

So with that said, here you have this community that has existed for thirty years (which also means anyone could've double-checked their rules a few times a year, be it people who are joining or people who run the community). Thirty years. A community that's presented as a popular community despite only three humans joining a week (even if that's still a lot) and presented as a community where the people in charge (again, for thirty years) are presented as being good at what they're doing. A community that also happened to implement updates the other day. Updates that... included options for an age demographic that doesn't exist on the site... all before one of the mods mentioned they haven't checked the TOS in thirty years and discovered they were marking themselves as an adult community in the TOS... and allowing in children (in an era where age restriction is the huge deal it's made out to be).

Inb4 anyone asks why someone was banned despite following the rules while other people aren't despite breaking the rules, all while the community breaks the law and while those demonstrating their capacity to be deceptive harassers have been openly using the age of one of the other harassers as a crutch in order to harass a certain abyss watcher some more, as if the goal in life is not to follow rules but to make sure you don't get banned.

Thus I have a question I'd like to ask that you're urged to answer in a strict yes-or-no format so as to not be roundabout like you often are. Doesn't it undermine (along with the people in charge themselves) the act of holding it against someone when someone is so unreliable when it comes to enforcement of their rules that they can't be counted on to spot such an error after three decades (and would the people harassing the abyss watcher answer for what is now a gaping hole in their ethics)?

Since it's relevant to this, just a reminder you don't owe anyone proof of your innocence, no matter how adamantly people in a community claim it's necessary to defend yourself or that your argument falls apart by not giving a counter to it. It is completely valid to simply say something is wrong with the "evidence", and this should be taken as meaning the person providing the so-called "evidence" needs backing for their so-called backing, for if someone is making a claim of guilt, it's their duty (assuming they want their claims to be treated as more than hearsay) to provide proof or evidence, with proof or evidence being defined as anything that cannot possibly have any other possible explanations to it. Screenshots don't necessarily count, and a link to something that's even slightly vaguely worded doesn't either. It, in the most absolute sense, can only point to one possibility. Otherwise, by definition, it leaves the door open to it not being what people claim it is. If people look at "quasi-evidence" (if we would call it that, if it's not absolute) and say "this might not be absolute proof, but it's good enough for me", even then, they have sent a signal to people telling them how to fool them in our day and age where it's easy (which in turn, by definition, undermines it as a form of conclusion-making). This is what we often call "Lewis Carroll logic" since this was often used to say author Lewis Carroll of Alice in Wonderland fame was a deviant (look up that 200-year-old drama if you want). And you will be fooled by those who can masquerade anything as "good enough for me" quasi-evidence, and chances are each hater has already have been in some form. Lying is arguably immoral. But using deceptive forms of gotcha question tactics at least would count as defense against hysteria aimed directly at you.

You will know people make people prove their innocence out of bad faith because they do the same with media too. Suppose someone says "we think you're a guy, send us a picture proving you're a woman", often with a picture they claim is you. You will be led to think this is natural, until you realize it's like saying your steak or soup you ordered at a restaurant tastes wrong or looks funny (according to your standards) and the waiter must send another free one. It's a way to make you think their boundaries are being disrespected, not yours (in the act of mining you for something they can drool over).

So thus I'd like to ask you a question where you're urged to answer in a yes-or-no format so as to not be roundabout like you often are. Does this logic come off as sound?