20220210-FurNet-Agris-Truewolves

File: <20220210-FurNet-Agris-Truewolves>

10 Feb 2022 08:49 with TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org@biboumi.nuegia.net

```
Agris
```
```
[08:49:50]
```
```
Why did you ban me from #affection?
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[08:52:40]
```

I already had warned you about misrepresenting arguments to attack them or other such strawman fallacy tactics. (Not everyone has or will ban evade.) There was also already multiple people who had come to me in PMs about feeling you stalk them. I awaited further behavior before counting those as strikes, but with the disregard for a warning within less then 24 hours and said complaints, it's

enough strikes for a ban from the channel.

```
Agris
```
```
[08:53:13]
```
```
what are you talking about
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[08:54:04]
```

If you don't understand something specific about what I said, you'll have to be more specific about what part.

```
Agris
```
```
[08:54:23]
```

> I already had warned you about misrepresenting arguments to attack them or other such strawman fallacy tactics.

> There was also already multiple people who had come to me in PMs about feeling you stalk them.

```
what argument had I misrepresented
```
```
and who was i 'attacking'
```

and who told you they were 'feeling me stalk them'

your going to ban me because someone 'feels' something

```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[08:56:21]
```

You were complaining about a video game and about OSes, making up information about both (that the former was on a multitude of things it wasn't, that the latter was a limited form of Linux) because you didn't like them and were arguing why people shouldn't like them. I warned you to stop misrepresenting things that you don't like, as it's an unfair logical fallacy.

```
Agris
```
```
[08:56:40]
```
```
yeah
```
```
i stopped when you asked me to
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[08:56:53]
```

I didn't use the word attack, you're putting words into my mouth. I said more than one person has come to me about being stalked. I will not exponge other people's private information. That's just a complete disrespect for Opsec.

```
Agris
```
```
[08:56:58]
```

and i invited you to further discuss it undner private message

> I already had warned you about misrepresenting arguments to attack them

```
you said attack right here
```
```
do you have any evidence
```
```
for this 'stalking'
```
```
it's bs
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[08:59:42]
```

You did it again here: [21:55] <Agris> everybody ban evades - [21:55] <Agris> especially if they aren't given info on why

```
Agris
```
```
[09:00:09]
```
```
did what there?
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:00:18]
```

I said you misrepresent arguments to attack them, not people. Debate logic 101.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:00:24]
```

stick up for someone i saw being abused?

```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:00:52]
```

And I do, once more, exposing other people's private information is against standard anonomous opsec. You said yourself people shouldn't fear retalation.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:01:38]
```

now your saying I'm exposing private information?

```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:01:58]
```

You were warned about misrepresenting arguments/strawman tactics. You continued the behavior within 24 hours.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:02:20]
```
```
false
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:02:27]
```

You're requesting private information, and you continue to misrepresent what I say as well in an attempt to argue with me. If you keep the logical fallacies up in this argument, I'll block you as well.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:02:44]
```
```
you mean asking why someone got banned?
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:02:58]
```

[10:01] <Agris> now your saying I'm exposing private information?

I said you're requesting private information, I said nothing about you having exposed any yet.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:03:17]
```
```
TrueWolves I'd like appeal this ban
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:03:45]
```

Isn't that what you're trying to do right now?

```
Agris
```
```
[09:04:44]
```

no i'd like to more formally do it because I don't feel like your being reasonable or truthful and I much rather have a jury of my peers

```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:05:08]
```

That's assuming that the appeal process involves a jury, which isn't stated anywhere.

You can by all means PM another mod about it, that's about the extent of appeal rules we have right now.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:05:43]
```
```
so how long is this ban for?
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:06:04]
```

You're not being logically reasonable with me either, I've pointed out 4 times now how you've used one fallacy or another when arguing.

Personally, I also don't believe in permenant bans.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:06:55]
```

I don't feel like your being reasonable or truthful

I feel like this is retaliation for asking why someone got banned

```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:07:20]
```

You said so your self that "feel" doesn't mean much by your own argument here: - [09:56] <Agris> your going to ban me because someone 'feels' something

```
Agris
```
```
[09:07:23]
```

and sticking up against perceived admin abuse

```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:10:18]
```

I have proof of logs and have even identified specific statements where they are not someone else's private admission. At the momment, all you've provided to me is double standards of stating I'm using only feelings, which is what you're doing, and that I'm being unreasonable, which again, you've been multiple times already. If both a month has passed and you can provide a convincing argument

of not repeating behavior that led to the ban (both in rude argument practices and stalking of users) then I'll side with you on unbanning you.

Right now? You just keep repeating the same behaviors that led to the ban and then blaming me for them.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:11:05]
```
```
hold on
```

i'm saying that you are misrepresenting logs and issue

```
and your saying i'm 'stalking users'
```
```
where is the burden of evidence
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:11:56]
```

No, I've had other users, multiple, come to me with evidence of you stalking them.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:12:18]
```
```
so i don't get to defend myself?
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:12:25]
```

You wouldn't want someone to reveal such information of you to someone abusing you, would you?

```
Agris
```
```
[09:12:47]
```
```
that's not how justice works
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:12:50]
```

I also said I didn't base the ban entirely on that behavior.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:12:57]
```
```
it's not guilty until proven innocent
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:13:12]
```
```
Evidence is proof.
```
```
Agris
```
```
[09:13:25]
```
```
so
```
```
i don't get to dispute it?
```
```
call into question the integrity of it
```
```
it sounds to me like defamation
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:14:12]
```

Not to mention, there are multiple cases in law where evidence is shared only with the jury/judge and not the accuser when there is precieved threat of retribution. If the evidence is no longer valid because the behaviors have stopped, then it's no longer valid.

SAPR laws, witness protection programs, just off the top of my head.

```
It's not just claims, it's also logs.
```

I've been trusted with such information, you have not. Your behavior of being logically rude and using double standards doesn't paint a good picture of integrity either.

Ultimately, there has already been evidence, some presented to you, of how you're guiltly. It's not guilty until proven innocent, the proof has already been provided.

Now the punishment has happened, and most of your arguments have been continuing the same behavior that led partly to your ban.

So, why should I unban you, based on those premises?

```
Agris
```
```
[09:16:52]
```
```
well, lets talked about the first issue
```
```
you asked me to change the topic
```
```
so i did
```
```
and problem was averted
```
```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:17:19]
```

I also said it was a warning for having done a particular behavior twice, which was repeated again within 24 hours.

```
Agris
```
```
[09:18:25]
```

I don't how you can come to the conclusion that defending someone who got banned is that

```
TrueWolves%wolf.furnet.org
```
```
[09:18:36]
```

That wasn't the behavior. I already posted the logs.

You keep bringing up the situation you did the behavior in, saying that is what you're doing instead. The two were not mutually eclusive. You were both defending someone else (which is not against the rules) and misrepresenting the other side to do so (which is against the rules, as it's both a logical fallacy and rude.)

Considering you treat me with the same behaviors, I have all the right to block you as well. You said I'm abusing you as an admin, despite the fact I continue to talk with you and give you chances to give a fair argument.