Reminds me of when I posted in this thread:
“No, the fact it can be used against innocent people who actually didn’t break any rules is what makes it an injustice.”
"I think it’s really telling that people who argue in favor of the automated punishments always assume those against it just want to be able to say things that are actually against the ToS.
Our entire argument is that the system does not actually differentiate between guilty and innocent and equally applies punishments, automatically, to both.
RCR should add the target to your ignore list temporarily, but that’s it. Just because YOU don’t want to hear what someone has to say doesn’t mean no one does, nor does it mean it’s against the rules."
"Appealing it doesn’t change the fact it was unfairly, and automatically, applied in the first place.
The squelch is applied regardless of whether they were breaking any rules. That’s the problem."
"The good reason is we are against punishing innocents. It doesn’t have to be a common occurrence for that to be a concern.
As I said, it’s really telling that you people think we just want to be able to break the ToS, yet everyone arguing against RCR says that people who actually break the rules should be punished and those who don’t should not be punished."
Interestingly, throughout that thread, and numerous others like it, I often argued that RCR could be abused. Many argued that it would not be a widespread problem, yet here we are…