UserChan__

That's a "bureaucratic trap." Sending me to an office you know is locked and whose key you have in your pocket. It's an incredibly cynical move: someone offering a solution ("talk to them") knowing full well that the platform doesn't have a working direct messaging (DM) system, I'm not going to use external apps, and I can't post in a community where I'm banned.

It's the equivalent of telling me, "If you want me to put you in handcuffs, go talk to the guards on the other side of that locked door." You're literally the only one I could contact, and you ignored me, even though you could have told your "colleagues" that someone wants to communicate but can't because of the ban. You're the only one I contacted because you're in communities I can visit. The other moderators are sitting pretty with an unfair warning that I never violated, and it's their ignorance that caused this problem. "This is exhausting," of course it's exhausting, but you yourself keep dragging this out even though you still have the title of moderator. It's incredibly ironic that you and the moderators who have the power to end everything with two clicks, complain of being tired in front of the person who has had to research, debate with 40 people and defend their artistic identity against a wall of ignorance for days. Do you think I didn't get a headache a few days ago arguing with so many incompetent people who think they own a term they misuse and judge my work based on that ignorance? Everything could have been solved in two clicks, but no, they prefer to keep justifying their inability to listen to their users, instead of providing a real solution called listening without causing more problems.

The "Modlog" fallacy: You yourself admit that you use Photon to see the logs clearly. This confirms my point: Lemmy only shows what's public to the average user, not what you control. Even I understand that simple explanation and see the error, because Photon isn't for public use on the platform without being a moderator. Furthermore, you admit to having the power to unban someone the whole time, and you didn't use it. You probably didn't even mention that you got into trouble because of moderator X, and you didn't tell that moderator about the issue, even though they're active in the community, as I saw a moment ago. And since they're only active in the community where I was banned, I can't contact them through a comment; otherwise, I would.

Confirmation of timing: You just confirmed that the logs show the time of the action (the ban), not the creation of the post. This proves I was right all along: the ban happened weeks ago. My confusion, which I already mentioned in my other comment, stemmed from the mistake of continuing to show my drawings and then disappearing.

The gaslighting of the "misunderstanding"—that everything is a "language misunderstanding"—you continue to underestimate my knowledge, even the most basic and obvious, but you don't take into account the fact that I research what you tell me. The misunderstanding was seeing my drawings untouched less than a week ago; the lack of definition and prejudices you have in art are not a "misunderstanding." You impose it and don't appeal to complaints. It's a condescending way of saying, "It's not that I'm lazy, it's that you don't understand English and you got confused."

"If you're going to come back, you'll get banned; if you're not going to come back, why do you want the unban?"

The reality: It's about cleaning up something I didn't even do. The ban is an unfair stain based on a lack of understanding of an art concept that doesn't apply to mine. Demanding an unban means demanding they acknowledge that the sanction was a technical and artistic error. It's not just a whim; it's about the dignity of defending my art and myself.

Basically, this is the "not my problem, even though I still have the moderation button" handbook. You admit I'm right about the timing (three weeks, not months), but then you use circular logic to justify that "your art isn't welcome" based on a seven-month-old deletion that, again, stems from your personal opinion and not a technical definition. And as I said, I accept that if that time has passed and it was Lemmy's mistake to keep showing my drawings even though they were "deleted," I should be allowed to. Furthermore, you're blaming me for something I didn't know, because it's not like I received notifications warning me of a violation. The public log shows the creation date and the reason for deletion, but it doesn't provide any warning to someone new to the platform. I literally had to learn how the moderation log works because of accusations that "I'm a liar," and ironically, I ended up learning about the Modlog, something the average Lemmy user doesn't know and is left with only the public information, which is open to interpretation. Nor should they assume that users who aren't familiar with all the functions, such as viewing their own public log, know everything. What your response implies is this: You admit the timing error, which I appreciate. But there's a "It's not my community" fallacy: You say it's not your responsibility to lift the ban because "you no longer wanted to moderate," but you're still an active moderator enough to respond and review logs. It's a complete contradiction: if you have the power to view the Modlog and respond, you have the power to correct an injustice. By saying "you have to accept that some people consider your art furry," you're admitting that the rules of that community aren't based on facts, but on opinions. Ignoring the very history of art.

But if you don't want to lift the ban—because it's clear you won't, not because you lack the power, but simply because you don't want to—then you're not doing it. If you remove it, good for you. I assume you understood something about this whole circus (which wasn't the goal; it was to get you to lift an unfair ban). Anything logical will do. I'll decide in time whether to post there again or not; currently, I don't feel like it, even without the ban. For me, it's fine. With such poor moderation and prejudiced moderation based on opinions rather than facts, it's not worth being there. It's easier and more honest to admit that you clearly don't want to reinstate me because of one of your opinions, than to keep making excuses. I have no problem admitting a mistake, or saying, "I think your art is garbage, and that's why I won't lift the ban." Because I have no qualms about telling you that you're just avoiding and dragging this out. After all, you'll carry on as if nothing happened, and I'm the one who takes the flak from people who think I'm the problem, even though it rolls off my back once I see their attitudes, their racism, and their aversion to information. It's not for nothing that I prefer to respond with memes in Spanish, because it's impossible to reason with the majority in this thread anymore. I've already had my fill of headaches arguing with dirty, pseudo-expert walls. Now all I can do is read, knowing full well that this will all come to nothing, because you're too lazy (Except for washing your hands of the matter) or you don't want me there, and as I said, I only have one thing left to accept about this ridiculous problem: Not everyone is willing to reason. And I'll just move on with my life.