The age gap may inherently mean there is potentially a bigger maturity difference. However, to label someone who consented to a relationship with a 2 year age gap as a pedophile - a life destroying accusation - is WILD. Furthermore, many of the prosecutors in this appeal are being even more "obtuse" than I am. Claiming that the relationship was "18 and 14" is a far stretch of the reality that occured. However I word this, or however you word this, there will always be a bias created. Saying "18 and 15" makes it sound much worse, when CCJacky was not even 18 yet (2 months away btw). While you may think "17 and 15" is weird, it 1. should not be bannable, especially not permanently, 2. should not warrant pedophilia accusations, 3. should not warrant harassment, and 4. has no place being discussed so much? There are plenty of normal relationships that occur with that age gap. How is this even an argument?
Legality does not define morality, but it is an indicator of morality; especially when legality and morality are linked, depending on region. Legality, especially in this case, can indicate morality in its respective region. "Severely inappropiate age gaps" does by no means extend to 17 and 15. The excerpt from my message that you quoted only discusses the legality, because, like I said, I believe it is morally acceptable. If it is both legally and morally tolerable, where is the issue? Why does it warrant a permanent ban, excessive harassment, and literal life destroying accusations?
It should be perfectly within their capability to "go through with it?" It's not evil to consent to a 2 year age gap relationship. Azules was not manipulated, she literally initiated it. If one person here is the victim, it is CCJacky. 17 and 15 is very acceptable? She did nothing wrong. The person who DID do something wrong is the individual who, as I said, "intentionally manipulated [their] age in order to illicit sexual favors".
Jacky's ban is for what, again? The fault I am finding here is the first claim, 1. "17 and 15 is fundamentally wrong[/evil/bannable/whatever]". This is a restrictive mindset, that I deeply HOPE is not what the majority of people think, especially to this degree. Perhaps it is normal to think it is weird, but to think it is so wrong to this extent is insane. Loka staff team banning for a postulation that is so non concrete is, in my opinion, absurd.
Perhaps this is a tangent, but I would even go so far as to say some people are using these accusations as an excuse to project their hatred forward. Harassment, accusations, and perm bans for this behavior is not normal. Stop leaving hate comments on this thread. Perhaps the people commenting on this thread telling people to "grow up" or "go outside" should rethink their values and stop prosecuting people to this degree.
As I see it, AND as I just explained, I
1. Did not "make this point", I am explaining it as I see it was intended to be made. I do not believe that point was made to try and deflect blame, but rather to explain the mindset between entering this (already acceptable) relationship. It shows that this relationship was an honest mistake (if it can even be called that in the first place), and not indicative of pedophilia or grooming or manipulation or any of these despicable behaviors whatsoever.
2. Did not state it impacts the appeal (i quote, "i havent even thought about my actual sentiment on this point yet, just saying this for the sake of informed argument"), because I believe the age gap is already acceptable enough to not warrant a perm ban. I simply included this statement for the extremists, because, as I have been seeing, this point has been (from my perspective) misunderstood.
3. stated it also was not a reason to ban CCJacky. To ban someone for being mentally unwell is honestly very discriminative, and to do so would almost feel like Loka is marketing itself as an unhealthy environment. If the staff were to ban CCjacky for her mental protection, they might as well be sending the message that Loka is a dangerous community that has poor tolerance for mentally unwell individuals. Also, stop hating on CCJacky for this. This only propagates that view that Loka is a dangerous community. We should strive to tolerate, nurture, and help such individuals, not restrict, bully, and hate on them.
"Dishonest" is, in my view, quite a stretch.
Likely, CCJacky truthfully thought the ban reason was for chat messages."Harassment", the ban reason, does not really describe this situation at all. If I was in CCJacky's situation, I would also assume the ban was for ranked chat messages: It is, at least to me, quite unthinkable to believe that this azules situation was the true reason of the ban. While people may believe it was weird, and people may be spreading excessive hate because they have heard twisted narratives such as "18 and 14," believing that Loka would permanently ban someone for engaging in a 17 and 15 relationship is honestly a far stretch.
Following this line of thinking, then, it also becomes quite clear to see why she would, for instance, appeal in a couple days:
Sending a couple of hateful chat messages is quite a minor offense, and she was not even muted for it before she was banned. If she believed the ban reason was for arena chat messages, appealing early would make sense.
Furthermore, an appeal is supposed to garner sympathy... especially one where the entire community (one which already hates CCJacky because of that twisted narrative) is able to chat in, directly affecting the outcome of the appeal. Is it bad to try garner sympathy? I suppose the argument you are making here is that she was not being responsible for her actions, but, again, I do not see something she should be responsible for. She apologized for the arena chat messages, which is quite a minor offense in comparison to the villainous picture some individuals are painting. What was ban for arena chat messages should have been a simple appeal. What CCJacky did makes sense.
I did not argue my perspective because I am her friend. In fact, I have not spoken to CCjacky in maybe 3 months, and we are not anywhere near true friendly terms (at most, acknowledgement). Literally, all of my interations with CCjacky are her stealing my items and doing no grinding. Reducing my argument to a motive of personal want is incorrect and diminishing. I am only speaking on this issue because I believe that:
1. a permanent ban for this is crazy
2. people are using this situation as an excuse to harass CCJacky and
3. people are using the term pedophiile too freely, which both harms CCjacky who is definitely not a pedophile for this, and also simultaneously normalizes the term to make actual, despicable pedophilia more tolerable.
So, the mistake that she made is not trusting someone is what age they say they are? As I already very clearly in my previous message explained, it's
1. unthinkable to think that someone would lie about something as important as age
2. insanely insecure/untrustworthy to believe that everybody online is lying
3. absurd to suggest that CCJacky is at fault for not thinking to call someone out about lying about something as unthinkable as age
and, furthermore, it's also
4. very rude to assume someone is lying about their age, and it would be very uncomfortable or weird to try and call someone out on something like this. Because of how sensitive it is, it would be a very touchy topic.
And, it was not "17 and 14". This is CCJacky's appeal. Please stop twisting this narrative. The information given to CCJacky was that Azules was 15. Azules being "actually 14" makes no difference on CCJacky's decision to enter this relationship. This is a perfectly unquestionable, non-concerning answer to the perfectly normal, trustworthy question "how old are you?". It is not normal to go around questioning everyones age. It is not a mistake to be insecure and not trust people. It is not bannable, nor a mistake to edate. From CCJackys perspective, which is all we are concerned about here, because, this is her appeal, she made no mistakes.
Twisting this to be a "3, almost 4 year age gap" is absurd. Firstly, I am only concerned about the numbers (not any month, day, birthday bs), and I will treat them as black and white (ie, 17 and 15 = 2 year age gap). To do otherwise makes no sense, because you would be assuming the worst situation, assuming HEAVY bias to try and twist the argument. Arguing the age gap has a basis in demoninations of months, or weeks, or whatever, is heavily biased, because, as far as I know, we (ccjacky included) do not know when Azules birthday truly is. In fact, as you people are so cleverly suggesting, we would not even be able to trust this information, and we would have to make our own, far fetched assumptions.
Instead of following this biased line of thought, I have treated this situation morally as a black and white 2 year age gap. If anyone attempts to argue it was "almost X," then the reverse is also true. Instead of being, perhaps, 2 years and 10 months, it also could be 1 year and 10 months. This "almost 18, adult" stuff is inherently biased and is being used to twist the argument.
The information CCJacky knew at the time, and the information that should be relevant to this appeal, is that it was a 17 and 15 year old age gap. This is not "disgusting". This is normal. This is not bannable. This is not deserving of harassment and, like I said, LIFE DESTROYING ACCUSATIONS.
As you have listed, these are the faults of both parties:
"Azules has lied about her age."
"CCJacky has engaged in a 17-15 relationship. (and, apparently another grave mistake she has made, according to some prosecutors: "shes mentally unwell, so we should discriminate and ban her because unwell people cant play loka and loka is an unsafe environemnt and the staff should definitely ban her, and by doing this the staff are literally sending the message that loka is an unsafe environment unfit for all types of people").
Which one of these is the greater danger? Which one of these is literally grooming? Which one of these ACTUALLY hurt someone? Why should CCJacky be banned? I agree Azules may deserve more forgiveness because she is younger - she should not be banned for this behavior alone. (sidenote: manipulating evidence; twisting the narrative; subconsciously nudging harassment; creating social outcasts; and weaponizing trust of not only CCjacky, the community, AND the loka staff team; is a different story altogether. I am not here to discuss whether Azules should be banned or not.) In CCJACKYS ban appeal, regarding CCJACKYS ban only, I believe that CCJacky should not be banned, and especially not permanently.
final sidenote: im not proofreading this message so there may be mistakes, if clarification is required please reply.
u r fried
