>>83351709>ban is still a disciplinary action. The consequences of disciplinary action can range from verbal/written warnings to outright bans.>A person can still be punished with disciplinary action even if they leave whatever circumstance they're in The point is that he can't receive said punishment because he himself separated himself from the punishers by divorcing and unfollowing first, THEN he got banned as a reaction to all of these factors
>The bottom line is that Fleece is that she divorced him.He objectively divorced her
>You're arguing over a point that isn't even relevant. You're just stupid and pedanticIt's very relevant, fleece's and T's situations are fundamentally different, saying they're the same because in your eyes they've just both been banned and that it, in your mind, means divorce is dishonest
Their bans can't be properly compared since they're too different
Also being specific is very important, to be able to argue and converse properly it's important that both parties are clear on what they might mean
>That doesn't prove anything. She just re-married himThat isn't the point, the point is that despite both being banned for similar enough circumstances they are interacted with way different, which must mean that there's something else at play
If you want to argue "then she only divorced T and not S" then you lose your entire footing of "ban = divorce"
>That is literally what it says on Twitch's website. It is objective. See picrel and actually readI read it, it says that it removes him from HER list of followers, anyone else being able to see that his account is still following, supporting this statement
There's no contradiction
>Yes, it means he has kept his 'wedding ring' on despite being divorced by her.>If a woman is divorced, the wedding ring she 'had' may be discarded or in a sense "not showing up" on her hand. Her hand is the "Followers list" and him not showing up for her is her 'wedding ring' to him removed. She has willingly removed him from that list and removed her ring of marriage to him.She divorced him and there is nothing you can do or say to skirt around this fact.
To get a divorce you still need to do so legally, so that the state and everyone recognises the divorce
The difference and reason for why it's not applicable is that unlike a proper marriage, there is no legal system to take care of the divorce and twitch just forces them to be removed(for you) from the followers list, all the while anyone else sees the follow as still being valid
>Fleece divorced her and she divorced him in return.Yes, but that's not how that works, if one person files for divorce you don't file for divorcr back, she just responded to his divorce by banning him
>And since I have to repeat for the millionth time, the "no bans are permanent" statement included her consent of allowing you back but if you are punished again, then you are gone and it was on you for not reformingShe never added that last part, I went back and checked, it's your agenda seeping into reality
She herself also compared being banned as being put behind bars, this on top of the statement only indicate what i had said previously; that bans are just bans-- not a divorce, just a disciplinary punishment or reaction to one's actions
I do agree that his ban was justified though
>The current state of his ban is permanent and it is all within the rules and stated terms that Shondo is now on record forNo, as stated by her, no ban is permanent, emphasised by her saying it twice
He is not banned permanently
He is not divorced
Bans are not divorces
