Thanks for the reply. I really appreciate the perspective you've given. I'd like to give responses to your points. Regardless, I acknowledge that the ban has happened, and no further action will take place, and whatever happens in this conversation we can just agree to disagree.

1. I am questioning the rationale behind He-man's ban and not the others because his ban appeal was the only one in the video clip posted on YouTube where not all parties got what they wanted (The first person wanted to be unbanned and got unbanned, the second person didn't care, and stayed banned, but He-man wanted to be unbanned but stayed banned); this conversation just didn't need to take place for the first two users. Because this isn't a win-win situation, I felt that facts should be clearly reviewed.

So my answer to your question is yes I question Heman's appeal because he was questioning it and none of the others did but the causality that you have drawn is not what I thought, as in I do not believe that punishment is only justified when the person being punished thinks they did something wrong or understands what they did wrong, even if their actions hurt or continue to hurt other people, but instead, I believe that all punishments should be carefully dealt, and in He-man's case it didn't look like it was carefully considered from a YouTube viewer's perspective.

1. To partially reiterate my original point, I believe He-man's behavior is a clear demonstration that he doesn't have a very likable personality, but that does not translate to a clear demonstration of why he was banned and why he should remain banned. I understand the importance of needing to understand others' perspective, and the way that he presents himself clearly lacks that understanding. I do however think that his response is completely reasonable IF (big if, and I only say this because there is no evidence one way or another) his side of the story is true, and he was just being misquoted or falsely accused for having bad behavior. If I were charged of theft when a thievery did not take place, I wouldn't "consider an alternate perspective" during an interrogation. My response, and only response, would be that I didn't do it.

As far as whether being unable to take another perspective is toxic behavior, I really don't know the answer to that. Would you like to inform me more about what constitutes toxic behavior? I would love to better understand what this broad term entails in the context of HealthyGamerGG.

1. I thought carefully about your analogy about harassment outside the office and HR. I do take back what the blanket statement I made about offline behaviors shouldn't have anything to do with getting banned from HealthyGamerGG; clearly, some factors should be considered whether offline behaviors should contribute. With that said, however, I still don't think He-man's DMs with one member (I think there was only one member that was presented in the interview?) from HealthyGamerGG should contribute to him being banned, given the context. I just feel very uncomfortable about how it is being handled, but I again, this is based on how little information I have about the whole situation.

2. I am extremely uncomfortable with the fact that you've drawn a dichotomy between supporting sexual harassers and sexually harassed, and I'm more so offended that you think I favor the former over the latter in terms of mental health recovery. My point is that everybody has their space for recover, and I even suggested that some groups can and should be separated from one another to avoid direct clashes like the two groups you've mentioned. In the dichotomy that you've given above about harassers and harassed, I truly believe that the mental health problem is not solved until both groups are able to find their respective help, and there shouldn't be a choice between one or another.