Thread:Agentstrauss/@comment-27462814-20161106142459/@comment-27462814-20161106153849

Then I don't see why the other user should be ignored. Azure stepped in while he continued to dictate his own opinions, treating everyone else's as idiotic. According to your ideology, one user is incessantly rude to anyone who doesn't share the same opinions as him (myself and Azure included), then Azure acts in retaliation, so Azure is therefore banned while the user that started it goes off completely unpunished. Yes, that makes perfect sense indeed. Well done.

You can't pretend this has nothing to do with the moderators' personal dislike for Azure. The worst thing she possibly did here was act accordingly to someone who treats everyone else the same way consistantly, yet she was banned while he wasn't even called up on it. It doesn't make sense that she'd be banned at all for this if he wasn't, yet I know that if you're willing to ban her for a month based on your feelings towards her then you're obviously unwilling to unban her, even though how she acted really didn't garner a ban at all since how he acted towards her didn't. That's why I felt a reduction in the ban-period was more realistic, regardless of the fact she was banned for 2 weeks beforehand, because it shouldn't result in a ban in the first place.

I see you haven't denied the punishments are inconsistant, and the fact that she should've 'ignore(d) rather than showing such behaviour' isn't much of an excuse, when the behaviour she displayed was in no way worse then his and he continued to provoke it in the first place. There's an obvious bias behind this ban-decision.