Sorry, I assumed the grievance would be obvious from the simplicity of the submission, but of course you're not a mind-reader. I submitted without comment because I'm not quite sure I'm in the right and I'd appreciate an unbiased perspective. Since you asked, however;
Quark's community description:
General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.
The moderator was happy enough to quote the first clause of the first sentence, but totally ignored the entire rest of the paragraph explaining the expectations: "Trek-adjacent discussions, other scifi, navigating the fediverse, server meta (within reason)...," presumably because it doesn't fit with his reasoning.
Further, there is no rule about "topic policing," the ostensible reason for my ban. I believe the actual reasoning for the ban had more to do with mirroring the moderator's snarky, dismissive, condescending tone back to them, which unsurprisingly they did not appreciate, but is not part of their publicly stated reason for banning me. I'd also like to point out that I'm not the only person who went in there expecting escapism.
I went in with what I feel like was a reasonable expectation of escapism given the community description, and even played along within the RP of the server on my first comment. I'm looking for a sanity check more than anything else, is my expectation reasonable? Isn't it unreasonable for the moderator to be offended by his own tone and word choice; do you agree that's what I've done? Most importantly, do you agree that the community description doesn't fit given the context of this conversation?
sound is necessary for driving; it isnt, and deaf drivers with and without a "lifetime of experience" being deaf yet being allowed to drive regardless is the obvious contradiction.
that listening to music or an audiobook or the news is an insurmountable distraction to driving; it isnt, and the fact that youre allowed to listen to music and news etc is the obvious contradiction. maybe its different wherever you live, but here youre expected to be able to cope with distractions while driving.
furthermore, not one single person in this entire thread has actually explained why or how it is dangerous to wear headphones while driving, but instead everyone just repeats it as recieved wisdom and implicitly either demands my compliance, or vaguely threatens me about a law that doesnt exist here, while simultaneously refusing to address either of those obvious contradictions and accusing me of being 'ludicrous'.
put all that together, plus my lived experience actually, yknow, doing the shit without the sky falling on my head, and i dont see a single reason to believe that headphones are any more dangerous while driving than being deaf, which is considered a tolerable risk (and, incidental to my argument, i can still hear eg. horns and screeching tires etc., not that any of you give a fuck about my lived experience.)
does that answer your obviously-bad-faith question?
for over a decade now, as previously explained, i have been wearing headphones while driving, both at work and not. im sure youll be as pleased to know its not illegal in my region as i am pleased to see you ignore the entire rest of my argument.