KiA mods do not apply the rules equally. They are bad people and should feel bad about themselves. Dox up on gghq again too. [r/KiA mods won't approve this post] https://archive.is/TrJ6g I'll just copy the whole thing here as well: From this thread here: https://archive.is/uH3bm#selection-4687.1-4691.10 Not trying to be dismissive of the effort here, but to "find solutions" you need to work out what the exact problems are that need solutions beforehand.  You would need some serious structure, focus, and some moderation ready to crack down hard to prevent it from turning into 2 hours of S4T sperging out on everyone who dares disagree with his theory-of-the-day. What you will more likely come up with is that each "side" has a list of "demands" for the other, here. They want: They don't want anything. This is a free speech board and anyone can post here. You've posted here, so by that metric, you are a part of They, as is Hatman.  I don't speak for everyone who posts here, but I do speak for myself. To take what I have to say and claim that I represent everyone who's ever posted here, you would be saying that I represent you as well, and I don't think I represent your opinions too? This is what I would like to see though: Only the ones who abuse mod powers. coughcha0scough No, for the rules to be reverted to before the only approved link submissions were "ethics and video games related." Most of the community there were against the rule changes, and yet Hatman basically said "fuck you, this isn't a democracy." The rules aren't being applied equally, and if it's a user you know who posts here as well as KiA, you're harsher towards them. Rule 1 - this is applied selectively to users you don't like  Rule 2 - "deadnaming" which isn't against reddit content policy and was only put in place because Hatman wanted to get pegged by John Flynt Rule 3 - this is applied selectively to users you don't like. i.e. /u/BasediCloud in the thread "GGRevolt wants to give cha0s the AcidCuck treatment", he was the only one to be given a warning for a rule 3 violation, and some of his comments were deleted. Also, that entire thread started by /u/YoungWookie was a Rule 3 violation, yet /u/MaleGoddess gets banned for Rule 3 for being completely honest. No, wait, he was banned because he pissed cha0s off and the cha0s rebanned a revoked ban to make up a bullshit reason to ban.  Rule 5 - Milo's article getting removed today, come on. Also, you have pory, former KiA mod, direct linking to my thread on Voat to encourage downvoats https://archive.is/SDJu7 , "No rule violations here because we like pory!!!" Rule 7 - https://archive.is/Ynch0 submitted by MG, but removed for a rule 7 violation. Why? Let's check the video to see if it's sourced properly: https://youtu.be/BYsGzf8K-C8 Well, would you look at that, all of the fucking citations are in the description underneath the video. I may not like s4t, and he's a fucking autistic spaghetti spiller, but he does put out some good videos, and his citations check out.  Rule 9 - only if you're an approved submitter can you use the [Humor] tag Rule 11 - the rule that is applied only if we don't like you. proof: https://archive.is/8Wicz What the fuck are you talking about here? [citation needed](not even joking, you're full of shit) No, you know who wanted that, confirmed troll Wulfgar, who made like 6 fucking threads on KiA bitching about not being in the sidebar. All I ask for is equal representation. GGHQ was listed as the "Pro-GG 8chan board" or some bullshit like that. When they host dox, and it's pointed out that /ggrevolt/ was removed from the sidebar for much less, you fucking ban the user who points it out. /ggrevolt/ was removed from the sidebar because MannoSlimmins was just being butthurt. https://archive.is/kpR4o The only reason someone said that GGHQ should be removed as well is because that would be equality.  Meanwhile, what we want? This is just a board, not an ideology. I think the only ideology users who post here share is they support freedom of speech.  What users are being witchhunted? The only mods who are called out are the shit mods who about their moderator position.  Sounds simple enough, right? Yet here we are, more than two months after my first attempt at reaching out to them, and the only changes have been their doubling down and turning into ideological fanatics. We aren't banning them for being ggrevolt posters, despite it being brought up on several occasions as an option, there are multiple mods who are firmly against doing that. You wouldn't think asking people to not be dicks when posting here would be such a massive point of conflict, but apparently it is. Oh, your attempts to "reach out"? https://archive.is/Msjd1 https://archive.is/Msjd1#selection-8919.0-8919.54 -relevant section  https://archive.is/6LBep  Show the community here you can contribute more than letting your pasta factory explosions run loose as the most visible representatives of your own community, and you can get back up there. As if anyone has control over who posts here and also posts on KiA. No one here controls me, no one here controls Wulfgar, and no one here controls the troll account with -53 comment karma users will cite as "proof" of anything. You demand that the users here reign in on the rouge agents to "prove" this board should be on the sidebar are completely unreasonable. image from OP Also, /gamergatehq/ has dox up on it again.  /u/YungWookie is still making threads that are Rule 3 violations Participating in bad faith can mean the following: Having no intention to engage in a meaningful debate or being willing to consider other opinions than your own. Being here to preach about some dogma and not to listen. Being here to fight people, or being driven to post by any other disruptive agenda while not contributing in some other reasonable way. Yet, he is not banned, and his thread is not removed. I guess that's the right type of crusading, that's why it's allowed. His entire posting and comment history is a rule 3 violation.  >inb4 banned