Thread:Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali/@comment-26084195-20170102024039/@comment-26347028-20170102230501

Eureka Enderborn wrote: It's under the harassment section.

You were speaking about him.

Look, there was an admin collaboration on the matter, like there ought to be, and this conclusion was reached.

I'd like to point out how extremely confrontational you've been lately, picking fights at basically every turn. Which says insults and just shrugs it off to somewhere else that isn't explained.

And you specified "to" in your definition.

I don't care what conclusion was reached, I care why.

Confrontational about what, exactly? You know what, I'll tell you. His rules aren't him, first off, so that disqualifies almost all of what I've said. Otherwise, I believe I said he was arrogant, and a few other things, yet that was in direct response to someone else talking about him.

I do believe the harassment clause includes there being "no reason". In fact, it doesn't matter if there was a reason, it just requires the administration team to be blind and not be able to see the reason. I'm tempted to agree with that sentiment, if you're going to class it as harassment.