Official Transparency: brought to you by me

Not all mods are together on this and that is certainly not how it is. Ler has his idea up, if he was afraid of the people disliking him for it he wouldn't have put that back up.

No why of course by going against you, I must have only looked at just Kali side of the story.

So... They pass a proposal that makes partial transparency. Beforehand Ler puts an idea down that slightly differs from the idea. As it's voted to pass, Ler deletes the post in order to conform to the proposal. Kali takes this as Ler opposing the idea and the deletion as him trying to save face in front of the users(Plebians).

For once it seems you are correct.

No, it's just your only taking facts from Kali's Point of View.

And Kali... Please, stop. He was pretty right to say that you would twist it. As we can see by this thread's EXISTANCE.

The post I made on the first page, is pretty much the entire post that I made, and almost word by word. I've got nothing to hide here.

Is it possible to give people strikes for harrasment? I think Kali qualifies repeatedly.

Ler's post wasn't an alternative suggestion. It was voiced opposition to the proposal (in fact I believe it directly stated "I do not support this proposal") that included the justification of supporting 'Tribune transparency.' That's not the issue. That's perfectly fine. Power to Ler for supporting whatever he thinks is right.

The issue is that Ler used his moderation powers to delete the post because he was afraid of public reprisal.

Sure, that sounds legit. Of course he could've just made another post but that would've actually made sense.

You do have a point there.

Perhaps if Kali and others didn't attack the left of the forum so often then Ler wouldn't have feared an unnecessary attack because of his post. I will say that his post is the same as what he was saying before.

I like you a lot.

I wasn't afraid of public reprisal. I was afraid that you would find a way to twist it around. Considering everything you are doing in this thread, I think it is completely safe to say that is what you would have done.

In short: There is no way I could have come out of this without such a response.

You cannot seriously be saying this right now. Like honestly, please tell me that you're joking here. There is such a high level of fail in this post that it can't possibly be serious.

I think pretty much everyone agrees Chelsea's post had a high level of Epic. You are the only one who has a high level of fail in this conversation.

Kali you do attack the left alot here, its just in your nature.

Hmm, that makes it okay. I suppose that it's perfectly okay for an elected official to cover up their position as long as it's because another official might use it against them. Clearly, obviously, this is how free and democratic processes must work. Don't worry constituents, you're not being kept in the dark because you might lash out at your representative, you're being kept in the dark because your representative's opponents might use their statements against them.

I like the way you're all liking each other's posts. It gives the circle jerk a nice finishing touch.

This isn't a democracy. AT ALL. Never has been. Not the goal here. not to mention, this is used in a context COMPLETELY different from, say, the US primaries. There is a SERIOUS problem that you might twist his wording, and then he would have to do some unnecessary defending, because you have to get in fights ALL THE TIME. He is COMPLETELY justified in deleting his post. COMPLETELY.