Owen

Yeah. Antagonism, Notoriety, Infamy, Provocation, Opposition, etc... anything like that would make sense in my opinion

First, I must apologize for my delayed response. I have been traveling for the past several days and am just now settling in and finding time to properly write a response. Right, so, thanks for the detailed appeal/complaint. I get that you feel the ban was based on a misreading of your intentions, so I want to address this before reviewing staff make their call. The ban wasn't about any single comment or getting terminology wrong but instead was made based off of, in my judgment, a pattern going back to the first of your strikes in October 2025 which centers on, at minimum, poor judgment on your behalf in determining what is or is not appropriate to discuss on the Discord. So, I don't necessarily see that any one explanation fully accounts for this. I'll let the reviewing staff look at the prior strikes on their own merits rather than relitigating them here, but I do want to walk through the pieces that were directly relevant for the ban. On the terminology dispute: honestly, whether you said 'Third Way' or 'Third Position' isn't really what is at stake here. The issue is the framing around those terms and the broader conversation that they are appearing in -- no one in that conversation, if they were familiar with either of the terms, would have confused you for talking about Bill Clinton-era politics when you said Third Way. Any, additionally, the terms are used rather interchangeably on the colloqiual level, even within political science in my experience, but that is beside the point. What stood out to me though, which is what prompted the ban, is that you were claiming that they were 'not even fascist' with something that was entirely unprompted, in a channel where everyone else wa pretty straightforwardly (and rightfully) calling the group fascist and genocidal. It was with that framing, combined with everything else, that raised flags for me. Reviewing staff can weigh in on this themselves. You are, nonetheless, still ultimately responsible for what you post. The original 4chan post was, as one would expect, rife with racial slurs and is genuinely like... a gross image to look at. Given that Rooster could not prove whether or not you know of the origin, it was left as a strike -- but even then, he emphasized that this was toeing the line. And very much so. So, I am not sure what else you would expect us to take from this. Genuinely, even if this is an ironic statement... It is simply, in my view, not something that you need to/should be posting. Again, up to reviewing staff to decide, but I still think that this is relevant in the ban. On your argument that detailed knowledge of fascist ideology proves you're opposed to it rather than sympathetic to it: that's a reasonable point in principle, and I am not going to claim that researching something means you support it. The issue isn't the knowledge itself. Being specific and intellectually engaged in something that you have an interest in. But the way you discuss such things reads to me as apologetics, and it is difficult for me to read otherwise. This is all being decided in the context where, as far as I am concerned, you've been warned twice for adjacent posting. At the very least, these repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment about what constitutes an appropriate conversation to have here. I also want to gently say, and I don't mean this to be dismissive, but a staff complaint forum for an SS13 community probably isn't the right venue for citations from Hannah Arendt, Frank S. Meyer, and other academic literature. I can appreciate the impulse, and it is clear that, if you've read these authors, then you're familiar with the topic, but I do not believe that this changes the substance of what is being reviewed here. And it will, inevitably, make this harder to parse for people. The question reviewing staff are looking at is pretty straightforward: does the pattern of behavior in this community warrant the ban that was issued? To be clear, the ban is about a pattern of conduct in this community that I did not think another warning was going to fix. I'll leave the final call the staff who review.

Changed Head of Personnel to Executive Officer, added Operations Manager. Overall updated the species and command jobs section

As Alberyk has since retired, I'll be processing this appeal. Unbanned

Locking and archiving.

Yeah sure, it's been a while. Read the rules before you join another round. Unbanned.

In order to have your accounts transferred (easily at least, afaik), you need to have not joined the server with your new account yet. @Arrow768 has already been notified and will be able to make the necessary changes.

@zha everything broken and I will be handling this complaint.

turns out it was in the medical cabinet the whole time

Interview: https://pastebin.com/s1E1LkMN

😔 good luck soldier

Accepted

On trial until 8 September 2025.

Accepted

On trial until 27 August 2025