Meh. It's probably important to not lose track of perspectives and objectives, and also to keep in mind the differences between mitigation, exacerbation and apathy when one interprets the information around Sinny's ban.
First, I'll accept some amount of blame for shit posting a bit and maybe thereby unintentionally contributing to making the forum not great between July and late December 2016; whether any of that fell within or outside of acceptable sub-forums/threads or met with acceptable parameters for frequency and content of shit posting, or to define how much aggro I caused against myself isn't my call to make.
I believe a lot of what you "said all along" between November and December 2016 contributed in a significant way to catalyze the outcry against Sinny which lead to her being banned. That is to say it seems like the action taken against Sinny was based largely on reactions to you and your conduct as it related to her. Tensions already existed, but you exacerbated them over the course of a couple of months. In short, you basically got Sinny banned in the first place by chasing her here.
Sinny's initial temp ban came with conditions: like 30 days without Sinny for the forum to be improved by less shit posting, some conditions for RB and TSR to contribute a baseline of meaningful forum output, something to that effect. So, by the conditions the only way to support Sinny would have been to shit-post-to-rule as much as the rules would allow to prove that the forum wasn't in fact better without Sinny. I'm more of a natural flow shit-poster, I don't like to have to shit-post under pressure and besides, what kind of conditions are those really? The permaban was somewhat of an inevitability so apathy won in my case as it didn't really seem like there was any point to fighting that battle. So yea, I am one who did nothing.
Your "defense" of Sinny seems to have largely consisted of some outburst on Dec 26th prior to your "ending" the "experiment" and pardoning yourself from the discussion (nay, the forum?). You didn't say a thing until the month after Sinny's ban went permanent, when you returned and just carried on like nothing had happened. If you wanted to say something against it then you should have spent that time doing something about it instead of hiding in embarrassment.
In the time since her ban it seems that you have required intpf moderator intervention more than once to undo embarrassing and real violations of Sinny's privacy on this very public platform from which you got her banned: some images and a chapter of "One Shades of Vanilla" which had to be removed?... and that's just on intpf. That is some profound psychological wrongs, dude, and you're apparently blind to it. Given the ease with which you make those kinds of bad decisions and perpetrate such conduct here it stands to reason you do it elsewhere online and IRL. The mind you use to control your online conduct is the same mind which you use to make your decisions in life and it speaks volumes about you as a person.
A beneficial lesson for you in self awareness might be for you to first think about the role you played in Sinny's ban and then think about how much collateral damage you have caused her since then compared to the amount of damage done by those who "did nothing" before you shift blame from yourself onto those who couldn't really do much for her in your pervy, stalky aftermath.
Further to that point, you posted a response to TMB earlier today about Sinny and then seem to have just recently edited it away; it's like you can't help yourself. So now I am replying to a scrubbed quote. I spent a while composing it so I'm posting it.
That post you just sanitized, like all that other stuff: happened at all in the first place because you decided to do it with your decision making process. What does that tell you?
