I mean... That shouldn't really matter, if someone is reported for X, but during the appeal process Y is discovered, that shouldn't eliminate Y's impact. Some dude recently was reported for leech scamming, but ended up being banned for RWT, it doesn't matter what the issue being reported is. To clarify my stance, the guy is perma'd for something else so it doesn't even matter to him, but I'm interested in the precedents and implications this thread has on the rules, so ironing out details is a good thing.
My original intent was to bring light to what i felt and still feel is a dangerous path we are setting ourselves down for thought crimes and health of a community. Im not in any position to believe that right now banning for the use of a letter will have any immediate impact on things. I do however believe if given enough time, will potentially lead to a scenario were all abbreviations and letters will eventually be deemed to be used in a negative fashion and be ban worthy. Im not calling this the final step, but the first step in the direction of an enviroment where basic communication ceases to exist in fear of reprisal. Look at me as a conspiracy theorist, but im not a huge fan of that scenario. Ive never used a racially charged term here or frankly anywheres on the internet so im not trying to flex any desire to do it. I believe that any person over the age of 10 should almost certainly not be using said language. However if somone chooses to use not the word, nor the much more socially accepted version of the word, but the first letter of the word, and it is now being assumed even if correctly Im mearly making it know that this is not an ok path for us to take in my opinion. You can set rules in place to ban for the word and any attempts to bypass the filter with numbers or symbols but beyond that should be left a lone. It just sets us down a path that if given enough time can lead to people finding other offensive words to try and get by with and we set more and more restrictions and we end up in a scenario where nothing can be said in fear of some massively all encompassing system finds your speech to be against the tos. I liken this to real world example where certain words or abbreviations get deemed unfit for public consumsion like Tiananmen or square and as time passes more and more examples are removed, eventually you find that free think and public discourse has been completely framed to be confined into some box the government designed where mentioning the now mile long list caues you to end up in some communist gulag. Im obviously not trying to liken the royals staff to the chinese government but idk i guess to try and give examples of what i mean
While I entirely agree with your position and share it, it's also dangerous to not moderate cases like these because it sets a precedent. I believe context should matter far more in these types of situations, where something like (oh god I'm going to get forum banned for giving an example, if this needs to go, please let me know and I'll delete it)" Shut up you dirty n", it's very clear what's going on and what the intent is, opposed to something like "What up G", where, if we're not careful, could fall under the same seriousness of the first example. Not every situation will be as black and white as the one described above, but discretion in this is required.
