Well now that you've asked, there's a connection issue. But the community in question goes by a different style of expression anyways. The two communities aren't really in a state of competition since they cater differently. Think of it as the uno reverso to the other one.
That much I did in a way. The small patio or opening outside the back door is closed off and has den features, and I left an old flat container out with water in it as well as some nuts.
Speak for yourself and your own mentally documented behaviors (which I say partially literally, as that's what this place is for, unless you just came to mock). Nobody is denying the Jedikkeneus and ShinigamiOokamiRyuu names have a driving force in common, but several people can attest the other names involved have no such connection to one another, even if administrators in some places who are infamous for their unreliability (and confessed inability to verify themselves) claim otherwise. Funny how people avoid dumping others' personal information and fingerprints when it proves them wrong on something, eh?
And how would you know what the OP is talking about? Especially considering you are wrong about the supposed alts (with one exception) and the viewpoints and intents of the people you claim to speak for.
I wasn't baiting anyone. It was an honest inquiry and could've at least been answered from afar if anyone was afraid of stepping up to do so. And I have a seven-day-old name, so what? Whatever number of days old it was, the complaint would just adapt to that number to fit the needs of the complainer.
Especially when retaliation (andbackbiting) is involved that shows all this wasn't taken well (retaliation aimed at anyone who follows their criteria of who is who and which depends on the idea that their sources are always honest whentheyaren't), I arguably can't dissuade you from positing something there is definitively proofof, complete with a conversation attached (one that isdisprovable) about who banned who or whether the motives given are always honest, as well as gossip attached about being "out of one's damn mind" (for what? Debating semantics?) and "having to be committing some kind of offense" based on "past behavior" (arguably spoken like anyone involved has committed any "offenses" or like they come ready to think the worse when they walk into the situation, which undermines conversations about bad faith).
Does it precede your ability to answer the question without giving an irrelevant remark though?