Edit History

2 hours ago, SegFault said:

In regards to Red and Sorcerer I believe the context of it is understandable, he was trying to defend his daughter who keep in mind, is a young child, and I can't even imagine how offensive and infuriating it was to hear what was said and read that about a his own child.

As for the interaction with lux, I was not there so I can't voice much of an opinion there.

 

I fully agree with this and believe a extended ban is in order for general behavior, interactions with others, and trolling.

In terms of revoking membership, I think Aegean nailed, just because Red messed up a bit doesn't mean hes not welcome here IMO. He's been a long standing member and an active contributor to our community, which I feel shows he cares more than enough to stay part of it.

+1 for ban, -1 for revoking of membership.

That's taking the context backwards since as deplorable the situation was for both sides revolving that particular comment, red had already been going at him before it was said. 

timestamp for comparison 

1 hour ago, SegFault said:

In regards to Red and Sorcerer I believe the context of it is understandable, he was trying to defend his daughter who keep in mind, is a young child, and I can't even imagine how offensive and infuriating it was to hear what was said and read that about a his own child.

As for the interaction with lux, I was not there so I can't voice much of an opinion there.

 

I fully agree with this and believe a extended ban is in order for general behavior, interactions with others, and trolling.

In terms of revoking membership, I think Aegean nailed, just because Red messed up a bit doesn't mean hes not welcome here IMO. He's been a long standing member and an active contributor to our community, which I feel shows he cares more than enough to stay part of it.

+1 for ban, -1 for revoking of membership.

That's taking the context backwards since as deplorable the situation was for both sides revolving that particular comment, red had already been going at him before it was said. 

timestamp for comparison 

1 hour ago, Aegean said:

Just gonna say the reason why we don't remove people from member often is because we would be pretty much telling him he doesn't have a place in our community and to find a new one. The ban I have no opinion on and will accept whatever the TF2 staff decide, but -1 on member removal based on his response.

I'd say this is both an exaggeration to an extent, and personally not even accurate as a generalization. If membership was viewed with this kind of extreme in mind then it would be a different story when some people have been denied membership multiple times until they succeed only on the forth or fifth attempt. While this has been the way things were pushed for certain membership removals at a point it was taken more seriously, membership is viewed a lot more lightly since people no longer needed any form of backing to get in (hence why it was claimed as easier to lose) there's also cases of the opposite such as with @Tatost having his membership removed then reinstated within a month and even voluntarily giving up membership and then accepted back with open arms afterwards. I have full doubts of anyone looking at repercussions here that harshly and instead see it as a need for a behavioral adjustment if members are going to be held to any kind of a standard. I may not have been in favor of removal of red's membership, but went into detail because I would think it nice to have a more concise ideal for when membership should come into question instead of the contradictory attitude that has been expressed overtime. Whether that would be having a higher (but at least layed out) standard for members, a more passive attitude and only holding removal for the most extreme of situations (kinda where I'd prefer things) or somewhere in between by bringing the idea of different types of membership back to light (really not in favor of this as it could end up being rather underdevloped and unfair).