My intention here is not to discredit or demean.

I think it would be good if we would split this discussion into two halves:

1) Discussing whether your claim that @Crensch's claims are 'unsubstantiated' has merit,

2) whether you personally like @Crensch or not.

Re 1) please see my comment above. He was right in calling the users out. I looked into Esoteric's comment history, and I also saw that the users in question here upvoat brigaded, which is not allowed. They even admitted it in the end.

2) @Crensch has, together with @kevdude, saved the v/pizzagate sub when it got attacked by old Goats. This is why he is an O. He is here to protect the sub against shill attacks, and Esoteric definitely is some kind of shill, very likely a paid deepstate shill. Otherwise he wouldn't have invested this much time and energy.

If you don't like @Crensch and/or don't like his wording when he calls out people, that's fine - you also don't have to like me, or like me being a mod, I would accept that too.

I know that we should be aware that using aggressive language should be only used when necessary. In this case (Esoteric), even I called him out in an aggressive way, since I have an overview of what he did to people (like EYJP or Cc1914), and what he has done is not acceptable.

I try to limit the use of aggressive language to a minimum, since I am aware that there always is 'colleteral damage' - users who are not familiar with the background story might turn away from the sub. Maybe this is what you tried to say.

TL;DR: I would like to ask you to please not mix 1) and 2) when you discuss @Crensch's actions. Thank you.

@kevdude @Vindicator @EricKaliberhall @srayzie