<p>I'm not entirely sure what it is you feel is against policy here, so perhaps you could clarify a little more. Considering a relationship to be pandering is not in itself inappropriate (unless, of course, that opinion turns into throwing insults etc.) and considering a relationship to have been badly written is also not inappropriate. I cannot comment on the validity of their belief on <i>Voltron</i>, but unless they are directly mischaracterising another person's views I do not see that as inappropriate. Accepting your statement that their belief is not reflective of how the community feels, having a false belief is not against policy. If you think it is wrong, you are free to challenge them on that belief. </p>

<p>This person doesn't know how to argue in good faith, at all.  Either you agree with him, or he <i>starts</i> throwing insults. He's just gotten off of a ban for spouting insults and the occasional slur—and claimed that he was the victim of "harassment" over getting reported and banned for it—and the very day that the ban expires, he's right back saying: </p> <div class="quote"><i>Lol sad you can’t have a broadminded conversation on here. You either like the material or they harass you so you get banned.</i></div>
<p>Note that, again, his idea of a "broadminded (sic) conversation" seems to consist of flaming anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes his rhetoric (myself and Neo Bahamut were his preferred targets, although he also went after a user going by "Blur123" a few times), as we see in every other thread in which he's commented.  (This thread contains quite a few links, including to what initially got him reported and to what got him banned the first time.) </p><p>Basically: he seems incapable of arguing in good faith, taking accountability for his own behavior, or learning from his experiences.  (Also: he <i>is</i> deeply mischaracterizing the views of queer Voltron fans on our disappointment in their handling of the queer content in said work.  And referring to queer content—aside, perhaps, from material deliberately designed to titillate at the expense of all else, which Korra and Asami falling in love over the space of half of the series was decidedly <i>not</i>—as "pandering," <i>regardless</i> of what one's excuse may be, is <i>coded as hell</i>.) </p><p>Also of note: the thread in which he posted that opened with the insinuation that queer fans are supposedly lousing up the fandom by calling out biphobia when we smell it (as opposed to the biphobes and their apologists lousing up the fandom with their biphobia, biphobia apologism, and defensiveness over both).  And while that's not <i>directly</i> on him: both he and the person to whom he was responding were co-signing the premise. </p>

<p>If the user does start to re-engage in bad faith comments or throwing insults, then those issues can be appropriately dealt with and the previous block will be accounted for in that. As I said in my previous comment, however, I do not see anything in their comment that currently warrants such action. Consideration of something as pandering is ultimately subjective, so it would be inappropriate to directly assume bad faith on their part unless it is very clearly so. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>You either like the material or they harass you so you get banned.</i></div>
<p>This is a direct continuation of the claim "fans who support the pairing/users I dislike are a hate mob/cult for telling me I'm wrong." </p> <div class="quote"><i>Considering a relationship to be pandering is not in itself inappropriate (unless, of course, that opinion turns into throwing insults etc.)</i></div>
<p>That's very sad if it's true. Also nonsensical. The "pandering" argument is used to say that a same sex pairing is less legitimate, & can only exist as a shallow move to placate the "gay agenda." It's an insult <i>by definition</i>. </p> <div class="quote"><i>If you think it is wrong, you are free to challenge them on that belief.</i></div>
<p>Aside from the fact that no one wants to pal around with hateful trolls who call them neo Nazis, pretending they have "legitimate ideas" to satisfy some facade of civilized debate? <i>You're</i> the one who said that if we see something we think is inappropriate, we should ignore & report. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Considering a relationship to be pandering is not in itself inappropriate (unless, of course, that opinion turns into throwing insults etc.)</i></div>
<p>That's very sad if it's true. Also nonsensical. The "pandering" argument is used to say that a same sex pairing is less legitimate, & can only exist as a shallow move to placate the "gay agenda." It's an insult <i>by definition</i>. </p> </div> <p>The user also said they felt their relationship in <i>Ruins</i> was not pandering. I do not think, therefore, that their comments can be directly attributed as bad faith. If in future comments they go beyond that, then it can be appropriately addressed. </p> <div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: </p> <div class="quote">If you think it is wrong, you are free to challenge them on that belief.</i></div>
<p>Aside from the fact that no one wants to pal around with hateful trolls who call them neo Nazis, pretending they have "legitimate ideas" to satisfy some facade of civilized debate? <i>You're</i> the one who said that if we see something we think is inappropriate, we should ignore & report. </p> </div> <p>I am thankful that the comment was reported as I had previously requested it should be, and I hope you feel I have given an acceptable review of the comment and my reasoning. </p><p>You are mis-stating my previous statements. You are free to comment/respond/defend/clarify (add to as needed), as long as you are respectful. You can report the comment and then respond, as long as you are respectful. However, if you find yourself physically unable to comment in a respectful manner, then you should ignore it. The problem is not the act of responding but when the response is disrespectful. If a comment had been left of the form: </p> <dl><dd><i>I don't agree with your characterisation of the community's response to what happened with Voltron. The disappointment concerned ... [respectful comment] ... [more respectful comments] ... [comment so respectful it will make you cry] ...</i> </dd></dl><p>then that is fine. It would make me wonderfully happy to see that. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>The user also said they felt their relationship in Ruins was not pandering. I do not think, therefore, that their comments can be directly attributed as bad faith.</i></div>
<p>That doesn't follow. At most that would prove the motivation is something other than simple homophobia, which isn't the only thing that can render an argument bad faith. We <i>know</i> it's a bad faith argument because we <i>know</i> they trot out this "cultist mob" shit whenever someone disagrees with them, & because they ignore it when someone points out that "Turf Wars is all about pushing gay issues" is proven wrong by simply counting the number of pages that even deal with the subject. Their opinion on Ruins of the Empire, <i>even if</i> it's genuine, doesn't change any of that. </p> <div class="quote"><i>If in future comments they go beyond that, then it can be appropriately addressed.</i></div>
<p><i>When</i> it happens, maybe it will be. He did eventually get the ban I said he should've gotten for ages. But that was only when someone other than you got involved. Otherwise, it's always the same spiel about "make a respectful comment or ignore it." Oh, I guess there was also that one time you suggested we volunteer for moderation, which Deist did, & nobody's ever heard back about it. </p> <div class="quote"><i>I am thankful that the comment was reported as I had previously requested it should be, and I hope you feel I have given an acceptable review of the comment and my reasoning.</i></div>
<p>No. It's not even him being homophobic (even though he is) that's my main point, it's the petulant shit about Deist & I "harassing" him & "causing" him to be banned. As if we made him call people "faggots," or something. </p> <div class="quote"><i>I don't agree with your characterisation of the community's response to what happened with Voltron. The disappointment concerned ... [respectful comment] ... [more respectful comments] ... [comment so respectful it will make you cry] ..</i></div>
<p>I can't help but notice that Ironbender was far ruder than this fantasy script, but you're not nagging him about being nicer like you always do when I complain about someone being a cretin. </p> <div class="quote"><i>It would make me wonderfully happy to see that.</i></div>
<p>But <i>we're</i> the ones who have to put up with it. </p>

<p>Every time someone engages with that person, he responds in one of one of two ways, depending on whether or not the other party has disagreed with him in the past.  If they have, he flames them (ranging from calling people various permutations of "stupid," to slurs, to invocations of Godwin's law, to <i>lynch mob comparisons</i>).  If they <i>haven't</i>, he takes it as an endorsement of his behavior and uses it as an excuse to take potshots at everyone who <i>has</i> disagreed with him (it's generally accusations of "trolling" and "harassment," and always an attempt to spin himself as an innocent victim).  This most recent post is an example of the latter (and "Truthteller" has the same modus operandi, to be honest; but that's <i>its own</i> can of worms).</p> <p>Again: he has no interest in arguing in good faith or taking accountability for his actions.  Everyone's <i>done</i> trying to reason with him, and he seems highly unlikely to ever learn his lesson.</p>

<p>Yeah, I didn't really say anything in the other thread because Truthteller isn't quite doing the same thing he usually does, but the reason why he's been inactive for so long is because he literally only shows up to stir shit around LoK comic releases. Which is actually why I've never bothered with him in the past, he's more like a pesky housefly than an infestation. </p>

<p>I'll butt in here and say that I do feel his comment is a bit testy and this remark was clearly uneccessary: </p> <div class="quote"><i>Nevermind the cringe gay history</i></div>
<p>Other than that, though, he really only seems to be giving his opinion, which like Thor said, you can argue if you want. I wouldn't give him a warning just yet. If he really hasn't learned anything, then he will undoubtedly earn a block sooner or later. </p> <div class="quote"><i>Neo Bahamut wrote: Oh, I guess there was also that one time you suggested we volunteer for moderation, which Deist did, & nobody's ever heard back about it.</i></div>
<p>Administrators have the right to give Discussion Moderator rights and seeing as Deist Zealot's request hasn't been answered, it's likely they never saw it or if they did, they forgot. Deist, feel free to ping an admin and let them know of your request for Discussion Moderator rights. </p>

<p>He also spuriously accused myself and Neo of "harassment" for reporting him for flaming people/flame-baiting/arguing in bad faith, on the grounds that accountability occurred.  Just saying. </p>