@eddie should the same staff member that muted you or banned you handl

[Jank69]

@eddie @steve #commonsence #wtf .. how in the world is it possible that they have set it up to where the same person that did dictates a disciplinary action is the same person that handles the appeal? Makes no sense this person is obviously biased and not wanting to admit that they are wrong in the action that they initially took. A neutral third party should clearly be the one that handles any appeals on any disciplinary actions! One of the most incompetent displays of policy making that I have encountered within an organization. A good friend of mine was permanently muted for something he did not even do! The person who handled this was clearly wrong in the same person that handled his appeal of course he upheld his decision and took every action he could to silence the individual from exposing the clearly ignorant action. He was even blocked on Twitter because he repetitively pled his case which was clearly a mistake on the part of the staff member. Rather than rebuttal they just muted him further mute mute mute none of the staff members within support could answer why he was muted. Now I find myself in the same situation. I was asking a chat member about the currency they were using because they had finally switched over to dogecoin... The comment that got me muted was" @Zamia2001odoge?" That was it and I was muted for begging even though I maintain the balance I was just impressed that she had finally switched over to Dogecoin! I've appealed the decision but the same person that muted me is the one that handles the appeal how is that at all fair? Imagine if that was applicable in the judicial system or in any other facet of society? Imagine Hitler saying you're Jewish you're going to die the Jew says I wish to appeal this and then Hitler says I'm handling the appeal you must die. If the person goes so far as to make an appeal there's probably a good case that he is innocent that moderator or support member who took the action against this staker is very unlikely to admit their wrongdoing. It should clearly be a neutral third party that handles this and not the bias individual who issued the disciplinary action. Does that make any sense though? Another example would be that a judge makes several mistakes throughout the decision-making that leads him to the conviction of an innocent man. The man appeals only to find out that the same ignorant judge is the one handling the appeal. How likely it is it that the judge is going to admit that he made several mistakes during the initial judgment? This is common sense I guarantee this will be removed because it makes common sense and you are not allowed to do that here!