Dead Reckoning posted:

I don't understand the concern. If the mods think that secret racists have started using "zebras" as a coded slur, they can always come out and say "knock it off with the zebras." The mods weren't powerless to ban ableist slurs.

I've already explained: I think that "a clearly and provably negative outcome for a protected group" can be stretched to cover nearly anything, especially since, I'll note again, no one has made any attempt to define "protected group" or "negative outcome". No one has explained why such a broad, outcomes based definitions wouldn't cover the use of, for example, standardized testing.

It's weird to me that I'm pretty left wing on topics like environment protection, labor rights, and civil rights, but because I deviate from left-wing orthodoxy on some issues, you to assume that I'm alt-right. I'm not so convinced that I'm correct that disagreeing with me can only come from a place of bad faith, and I don't understand what the purpose of D&D is if people can't disagree without risking a probation.