An Opposite Day themed outlet, see pinned message for rules

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)?

I was born in 1990 Hitler died in April 30, 1945. I wasn't even BORN. 1990 is my birthday year and you can confirm this by fact checking me.

This is why you CAN'T troll the "Troll Queen" ( running joke they fell for.) Honey you really really need to re- think how you talk about drama if you are so easily fooled.

It is impossible for me to have been related to Hitler at all.

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia died on 17 July 1918 at the age of 17. Also unable to be related to Anastasia as she was a child.

...debating with the person and letting the normal rules of debating do the work.

...letting the person lose against their own self at the hands of their own contradictions and resorting to repeating settled points and personal attacks, which is more likely to happen the more you tempt them to go on and on. "Triagonal sees no problem with challenging anything she says" is false (looks like someone has just been blurting things out). Same with anyone defending anyone "just because" and with the claim nobody else from KF interacted with T (I guess Nacrefangs isn't Volkamer and is being impersonated). They also backtracked their interpretation of the exchange where T requested a fanfiction. Hmm...

One crowd of people (which, like the rest of the crowds, have found their way on DA) even dissed them for casting a blind actor as Toph. Oh the horror! The character IS blind, you fandom fakers!

Perhaps they were hoping Brad Pitt would play Toph.

I now know what it feels like to hate your generation, the hater generation (if the misfortunes of everyone here are anything to go by).

Imagine people being so full of themselves that after excusing the leak on the basis that it was the company's fault, now they're defending the bad actor (as shown in the comments of the videos on the topic, whose commenters won't do so much as look up why the leaker got such a hefty punishment), almost as if to imply it's acceptable to have it normalized to grasp at straws if it provides a defense for tyranny of the masses, which also hold it would be wrong to request people be courteous enough to do so much as donate to the studios.

I often am surprised how often I have to tell people that, if anyone was wondering, more than just peoples' boundaries (which already should be respected) are at stake when people violate IP laws, it's also creative planning that gets ruined in the process.

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

Do certain competing codes of ethics have a "millet system" relationship to yours?

(for the record, to give a summary, "EverythingButOpposites" is "Inquisitron" using the "alting" format of the community to embrace her heritage, "GrandDreamPaper" runs "SorceryDramatica", "ExactlyBeardedNinja" and "GrandDreamPaper" are a couple that feed things into each other, it wouldn't technically undermine us to say we do partially "perform" what we say copypasta style because that's how hermeneutic dialogue works [which as it happens gets linked to in the code of ethics; it's a building process], and "Cat" is thinking of "Key" but should backtrack considering it's quite selective to set up a criteria on which to base suspicions of who "The-Abyss-Watcher" is but exclude "Gelly", "Mariana", etc. especially if cracks are showing in the form of a schism, the final nail in the coffin on how bad this criteria is when people use it. And I don't know how someone can't have ethics they codified for themselves just because they give someone a voice or because they've been accused of things in the past; that has been addressed too and answers that question.)

(For people who say they're longtime tumblrites, they have forgotten that identity works so differently here you can't use the same "alt"-finding rules. Also, did one of them just use the Wheatley line on an underweight adoptee expecting people to forget the argument has failure built into it by script writers?)

I don't know about you, but I'll grant their request to say "I don't like you" or "we think this is trolling you" to them.

I don't.

Just a piece of criticism here. Everyone might claim to have solid evidence, but that doesn't change that the evidence of the claims towards all of us varies drastically, being struck with denial of even the most mundane claims about one's life, like it would matter to someone who wasn't trying to express anything more than a dishonest grudge (what makes people think they can speak for others on that level?)

First of all, complaining that someone (multiple people in this case) you want to turn into an exhibit is being boring? You mad that beggars can't be choosers?

Second, complaining that the same individual is reading what you say? Wow.

Third, this will either go through one ear and out the other (as it has) or come as a shock to you, but nobody is saying Emily is perfect, and this has been clarified on many occasions, to the chagrin of people who whine it must mean T is biased. So that settles that then. So far so good, whiny dress boy?

For more on why it might look to your kind that T is biased, see the part where @bloodzucker4545 mentions T merely giving Emily a voice. One of T's most famous quotations is saying that guilty people with voices either end up enlightening everyone or digging themselves into a hole (one of us will elaborate that if need be, that isn't for anyone to take out of context). And while also mentioning that many of Emily's critics have not held basic negotiative courtesy and have also been banned from Tumblr before only to come back, if Emily does something that breaks Tumblr rules, as is how rule enforcement on Tumblr works, that's for people to report Emily over. This is the whole of T's logic. Boundaries first. There is nothing wrong with directing people to help give a defense.

As for the claim some of those rants asked people to harass Lamby, show me. I take it this is an oversimplification as it's also claimed anyone said anything about any fan fiction in the way that's described. You know how to hold onto a settled issue (over a few exchanges that were not remotely like you describe) for a while and demonstrate the obsessive drive of the mob that anyone in the mob can see right through. I'm sure you and Evie would get along juuuuuuuuust fine.

Fourth, you don't have to ban evade to have full power to report people, you just need to know how to contact the admins and nothing else. Anyone who has been in the community knows this. Big exposing moment there. Again, complaining people got banned from a community? Stop whining.

Person 1: *explains a situation that happened, using only mildly vagueness*

Person 2: *says something like "wat" or "are you drunk or high" or "come back when it's not jibberish" or "I found the lost ChatGPT", stuff that implies they claim to speak for an audience who they say doesn't understand person 1*

Person 1: "What part don't you understand?"

Person 2: *dodges the question*

Person 1: *speculates more and more about whether people are claiming not to understand them to escape a burden in an argument*

Don't people know there are AI stuff anyone can access that can determine if something would be comprehensible to a modern audience?

There are three kinds actually, 1) a regular AI made specifically for measuring comprehensibility 2) word counters and other autocorrect tools which can tell you if something you're saying is structurally sound, and 3) things like Siri, Cleverbot, and PI, who, by virtue of being inevitably programmed that way, won't respond to you as intended if you aren't being comprehensible (with similar technology made to determine if people have a similar enough speech style as each other to determine if they're one another, with the technology never giving a yes answer because it's false "science" like horoscopes are and thus a stupid question).

Recently I tested this out with specimens and a control group. I repeated the two messages we often talk about here that are most called out for being incomprehensible in all three methods and they turned out to be completely and correctly understood. I then proceeded to put four of the most incomprehensible passages from different political manifestos, two from the Communist manifesto and two from the Libertarian manifesto, and they all were deemed incomprehensible.

The proof is in the pudding, people who claim to not understand someone are just being fallacy-loving babies who can't choose between necessary alternatives, full stop. Or in the very least, understandability should be seen as relative, though I've noticed this has become a problem ever since pot became legal here. Coincidence?

One example anyone can see is a gem from an earlier comment in reply to a certain other gem (and you can probably guess who posted it, wink wink), which inspires me to take back what I said before, with the bots just doing a little exploration and looking out for me based on such non-logic from the other end which is getting more and more tiring. Nevertheless, I continue to get responses in this back-and-forth going on in the form of vagueposts. Responding to these now, with another reminder that simply saying someone is being manipulated into doing something or that someone is a certain gender doesn't make it or anything else true, as an individual is the authority of their own intentions in the same way an individual owns their own body, and (I don't see an Adam's Apple on any pictures presented of being of Tri for one thing, and everything else seems to check out both in her photography which she has a method for and me chatting with her at events, which side note also allows me to confirm her underweight self doesn't qualify to be a sad bloated fish) and that only I've been concerned with alts because you carry a persona in all but name, with Triagonal being more cautious, not that the person I'm addressing has been, or most people (consider people are still outed for merely resembling something Triagonal would sign up as even by the likes of the former second mod of r/DeviantArt who was banned from Reddit by Triagonal which caused her to be banned from r/DeviantArt in delayed fashion), though most people don't have an obsessive nature that drives them to this, especially the kind that has ramped up with the banning of DABewareHub and their senior spokesperson.

Neither of them being new, my response to them is more or less similar, though a more complete version of my message has already been said in my links above. Nobody reading this is some kind of championed dragon slayer because nobody cares enough to idolize you, and people are less recruitable than many give them credit for. And that's how it should be. Club-Dreamiverse, GellyGirl, and Triagonal, in all sites they're in, show every adaptibility and satisfaction in simply being friends with people, unlike the antagonists at play.

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?

No you can't. Kiwifarms isn't practicing medicine. Nobody on KF is claiming to be a licenses medical doctor. Specifically, nobody in your thread is claiming to be a licensed medical doctor while prescribing you anything. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about. As per fucking usual.

Kiwifarms and nobody on Kiwifarms is committing medical malpractice. Which, by the by, is one word, you dunce. "In trouble" also isn't hyphenated. It's just "In trouble" Distributing your medical information via text or images is not medical malpractice as nobody who is posting about your medical information is a doctor, nor are they pretending to be one. It's therefor (which is one word, Emily) not a violation of HIPPA either.

When your medical history is brought up, it is

Speculation

Hyperbole, a joke, or sarcasm

People have sued under such circumstances before. I'm not even saying that to defend myself, that's just fact, a tidbit I thought was relevant enough to share. I say that because there's a difference between poking fun and making claims, in this case about medical history. Now making claims under the guise of poking fun? That's... no different actually. Not in disputes at least. That's what the people on DA used to say to justify people with 1000 ban evasion accounts coming back, like Caggon, if they wanted to claim it was different from someone like Kiricia coming back. I spoke to the people on Buzzly who the people on KF dragged into the conflict via screenshots and they agree.

Also, you don't have to be a doctor to commit medical malpractice. I would say that's a silly thing to think is true, but then it dawned on me you might be a black market surgeon trying to be an apologist for your job because you have a family to feed (not being a doctor must mean you're not committing medical malpractice). Ah well, at least there's hope that at least one of you out there follows the Hippocratic Oath; actual doctors don't tend to anymore.

@everythingbutopposites @the-abyss-watcher their arm has an extra piece. Their arm hangs off where as a real human arm does not do that.

Re blog so innocent users do not fall for Kiwifarm's harassment.

One crowd of people (which, like the rest of the crowds, have found their way on DA) even dissed them for casting a blind actor as Toph. Oh the horror! The character IS blind, you fandom fakers!

Perhaps they were hoping Brad Pitt would play Toph.

I now know what it feels like to hate your generation, the hater generation (if the misfortunes of everyone here are anything to go by).

Imagine people being so full of themselves that after excusing the leak on the basis that it was the company's fault, now they're defending the bad actor (as shown in the comments of the videos on the topic, whose commenters won't do so much as look up why the leaker got such a hefty punishment), almost as if to imply it's acceptable to have it normalized to grasp at straws if it provides a defense for tyranny of the masses, which also hold it would be wrong to request people be courteous enough to do so much as donate to the studios.

I often am surprised how often I have to tell people that, if anyone was wondering, more than just peoples' boundaries (which already should be respected) are at stake when people violate IP laws, it's also creative planning that gets ruined in the process.