okay sorry hold on I'm really confused.

The post got deleted and it seems like only part of it was copied above, and while I do feel I should defend myself I don't know what I'm defending myself from.

I'll be honest and say there were times personal opinion was involved in mod decisions. I think it's very difficult to fully remove bias from moderation, because the reason we have human moderators is because humans can understand nuanced situations more than a bot ever can, and as such there's an inherent bias based on the moderator's perception of things.

I still stand by what I've said in the past in saying that I always made reasonable mod decisions, apart from occasions I've apologized for where I wasn't sure what to do (like the stuff with puurpledrank posting NSFW that one time).

The thing is, the rules are weirdly (and tbh badly) designed, and things that deserve very different responses can get the same response. I always followed the rules of the sub but there were cases where it was literally required for me to assign separate numbers of points based on severity, which I fully admit is prone to bias. I don't think I was more biased than any other mod, really. I tried my best. My best wasn't perfect, but I think it was good enough.

I'm not gonna try to present myself as some sort of perfect symbol of moderation because I've accepted in the past few weeks that even though the public hate circlejerk against me was ridiculous, I wasn't always the best moderator; although I personally think that for different reasons than most people. But from what I can tell this post is accusing me of stuff I never did, or at least phrasing things so terribly so as to basically be doing the same thing.