Allow me to clarify unequivocally: this is not a rebuke, but rather an observation. Should anyone perceive it as a rebuke, it is solely because they are excessively sensitive to personal matters.
I appreciate the symbolic gesture, but it would be even more valuable if you refrained from deleting individuals solely based on your emotional reactions. I understand that moderators have certain privileges, such as being able to mark someone and then, just like that, they disappear. But think about it: is it fair to delete someone just because they happened to prove the regulars wrong and showed that they don't know what they're talking about? Are you guys bored in the closed club where it's currently quiet? Instead of hearing crickets, does it appeal to everyone to increase the traffic here to hear the powerful roar of a lion, devouring the souls of the innocent? Seems your monikers continue unimpeded, while you blame others for having to create a different account just to return. How is that fair play?
I comprehend the tolerance of abuse and foul language exhibited by the individuals endorsed by this group.
Additionally, I have observed a tendency to selectively enforce the bylaws. I believe there was an issue concerning the number of downvotes. Could you please explain that? If people are not permitted to express their dissatisfaction with an unappealing post simply due to ignorance, what purpose does the downvote function serve? I came across a post that raised an invalid concern about the inability of a poster that creates a topic to lock it, especially if they believe it will attract unnecessary negative comments. The rules seem not to favor the poster in this situation. Can you explain the reasoning behind this?
It is important to include a clear disclaimer regarding bylaws on your website. It is crucial to recognize that only moderators have the authority to lock a topic, not the individuals who initiate the discussion. It appears that this website is attempting to suppress individuals by altering its bylaws simply because they dislike being confronted with evidence from scripture and common sense. While it is within your rights to manage your site as you see fit, it is important to be consistent in your decisions and refrain from blaming others for creating new accounts when faced with your regulations of deletion. There is no justification for criticizing individuals for a situation that your own decisions have created.
If you want to address issues like "rebuke," "superiority," and "unreasonable language," "harsh behavior," it's best to start with yourselves before addressing others. Am I going to be removed for sharing my views on this website? I hope not.