Second thing: You all said that the only thing that matters is: were the 2 OOC msgs insulting, yes/no. He was not allowed to try to put his msgs in context, because you and others said, the context doesn't matter. At the same time, you and others have repeatedly cited Kai's supposed history of pissing people off. So you can put it in context (your context) but he can't, because the Mods/Mags threatened to delete anything they considered irrelevant.
Fair point, that.
Here's why I consider these two different things, but that doesn't mean I disagree. You do have a point there.
So why? One is putting the actual infraction into a context. But even doing so, it doesn't make it a non-infraction. i.e. my example of explaining why you stole my wallet - it might be interesting to a historian or a psychologist, but to the police it shouldn't matter.
The other is the background of the offender, and that does. In every court I know, it does matter if you're a first-time offender with a clean record so far, or a repeat offender. It matters because people make mistakes, and as a society we accept that, but at the same time we don't want evil people to use "sorry, didn't mean it" as a get-out-of-jail-free card all the time.
And that's why for BattleMaster I even created a rule that says "everyone is entitled to one warning". So this context is to check if Kai has had his warning already, or if he's a first-time offender.
Still, even with all that said, you do have a point. Background checking should be strictly limited to that one point: Did the offender already receive a warning for the same or a very similar behavior?
