The problem is, halplm is right, I was suspended for complaining to the Rangers about being subject to attack. And River's also right in that her mind is made up and she doesn't care about the rules. Apparently the official policy of this board is that complaining about attacks is against the rules.
The technicality by which the suspension was authorized is that technically I was posting about someone whose attacks I am supposed to ignore when I was complaining to the Rangers about their inaction. By that bizarre interpretation, I am unable to say "hey, ranger, I'm being attacked." The actuality by which the suspension was authorized is that acutally I was telling the rangers to do their job and do something about personal attacks.
In fact, complaining about the way the rangers do their job (or more precisely don't do their job) is a good way to get posts split off and the thread locked. Complaining about being attacked is against the rules, even though I don't find it anywhere in the charter. I see rules about not doing personal attacks, but nothing against complaining about personal attacks. Perhaps I should read the secret charter.
In the bikeracks thread that led to this supension, after the split, I only communicated with Rangers. Therefore I'm accused of arguing with someone who isn't a Ranger. In fact, when the non-ranger asked me a question, as much as I desired to answer it I did not because I'm not allowed to. I didn't even answer to say I'm not allowed to answer. I only communicated with Rangers about their job performance, which is why I was suspended.
_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.
Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total