Thread by @AlexandraErin

So, Tabletop Simulator's statement here, in the most charitable interpretation of how it happened, was written by someone from @BerserkGames who was only familiar with one ban out of a sequence of bans, which they had only been told a self-serving summary of how it had happened.

https://twitter.com/TabletopSim/status/1479909440065257474

The description of a user "spamming different key words in an attempt to get flagged" describes an event near the end of the affected user's account of events, linked in this tweet.

Laughably and sadly, that was the user saying she was cis and straight.

https://twitter.com/XoeAllred/status/1479685597350350849

And the moderator she sought clarity from about why saying she was cis and straight didn't result in a chat ban when saying she was gay (consistently) did, the mod retroactively banned her for it, and the reasons he gave included "discussing sexuality".

So from top to bottom, this statement from @TabletopSim is incorrect at best (dishonest at worth) and utterly inadequate to address what happened or to reassure queer gamers that their product is safe, welcoming, and inclusive.

https://twitter.com/TabletopSim/status/1479909440065257474

I got up from bed to check if I could still get a refund for having bought Tabletop Simulator years ago meaning to get into it and never actually running it, and discovered I had only ever thought about getting it.

So I don't need a refund. @BerserkGames is not getting my money.

So update on the @BerserkGames/@TabletopSim situation with a message where they admit they got things wrong in the previous statement... without apologizing for that, or the ban, or anything else.

https://twitter.com/TabletopSim/status/1480229909150769156

And while they have removed global chat from @TabletopSim pending overhaul of their moderation practices, they still have the same mod on their Discord channel who

1. Defended banning people for being gay as policy.
2. Manually banned the user.
3. Lied to @BerserkGames about it.

Of course, point 3 is granting the premise that the statement from earlier today is itself honest. Which might be giving them too much credit. But I find it plausible.