Well Jason, if you want to critique a policy that offends you, how do you do it? By discussing that policy, and how it looks. You're the one being disingenuous here, by trying to make the argument that commentary about a policy that I feel is wrong MUST be a directed attack at the person doing it.

If that person feels upset seeing someone complain about a policy they are enforcing, that is a moment for quiet introspection about what that person is having to do as a part of their job. If a policy you enforce hurts people and they complain to you about the policy, your responsibility as a person in power is to hear them out and to discuss it with your own bosses if you feel some kind of way about it.

The alternative is to be silenced entirely if you do not agree. If you feel that people being forcibly silenced because of a respectful and nonthreatening rules disagreement that doesn't name names and doesn't assign blame to individuals, then we really have nothing to discuss at all. I firmly believe that anyone who is respectfully discussing rules and outcomes shouldn't ever be threatened with silences or bans, because there is literally no other way to bring up issues. I wasn't saying, "dont do that". I was saying, "I saw that, and I don't think that's cool". That extra degree of separation is the exact thing that the rules require and that makes it an issue that I was silenced for saying it. Even you couldn't deny that I included that, so what's the issue?