[Ckg]

1. If it is any consolation; as the person who said it, I can confirm that I did not say that.

2. I have to agree with you there. For the past few months there has been a group of people consistently harassing, berating, and targeting those they don’t like, almost to the point of obsession. It has been especially difficult to handle as staff because that group also tries to render staff powerless to intervene by claiming they’re being censored and discriminated against, and by publicly calling out everything they disagree with using an immeasurable amount of vitriol

1. Fair. apologies for misinterpreting, it just came off that way to me. I would appreciate a response to the other part.

2. I think it is pretty disingenuous to misconstrue Avi's argument to suit your narrative since, as I would hope you know, you are not talking about the same group she is.  In fact, in this whole response you make a lot of big assumptions that do not really hold water.  If consistently disagreeing with the promotion of someone that I think should not have even a modicum of power over the community is deemed harassment and targeting by you, then so be it.  You are free to try and discredit opinions by slapping the label of toxicity on whoever opposes your point of view.  Just as I am free to disagree with Laced being in a position of power, you are free to take the easy way out by deeming disagreement as toxicity and harassment. 

However, this labeling is extremely concerningly, especially from an admin, because seems like you are dog-whistling for a community ban since both toxicity and harassment , as you have described them, are offenses that constitute that punishment.  We have seen harassment in this community before and for you to lower the standard this far due to a differing point of view is, at best, worrying and calls into question your judgement and interpretation of the rules, and, at worst, a thinly-veiled threat to stop opposing the forward progress of someone or face the consequences from those, who hold a position of power, who support said person. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, those accusations carry a serious weight, especially now that you have the power of an admin, and it was you, and only you, who picked those words knowing the context that they carry.

So my question is, do you think that those who have consistently opposed Laced are now delving into the depths of harassment because they refuse to give in and support his march upward?  Or was your claim of harassment and targeting a hyperbole/oversimplification?