The Banning of Funnyman

Hello everyone.
The following “document” was written by me after coming across and repressing the Funnyman, or Orcuo, case.


In this small document I will be exposing a case that is a little old, but that came to mind: the banning of Funnyman, or Orcuo. Not only to comment on the case, but to expose the hypocrisy and persecution against him, which, in addition to being banned for an opinion that, according to him, did not intend to attack any groups, minorities or people, but which proposed greater security and prevention against cases of rape that happen to millions of women every day and is a disgrace to humanity. Furthermore, Funnyman did not even have the right to defend himself, he was not tried before a Court and, even if that is how the Government defines it in its laws, it is absolutely unfair. All they said was: “He is a transphobe and should be banned”. REMEMBERING THAT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AGREE WITH THE WAY EEL PORTED HIMSELF OR I AGREE WITH THEIR OPINION, I JUST WANT THEM TO BE FAIR AND TREAT PEOPLE IN THE EQUAL WAY, AS THIS REGION INSISTS IN SAYING THAT IT IS.


All of Funnyman’s comments on the TSP discord (NationStates | Dispatch | The Original Incident) resulted in all that confusion. First of all: the way he said all of this may indeed have been offensive, but in no way did Funnyman intend to offend trans people and second: the opinion he holds it is nothing new and does not constitute transphobia. Contrary to what many have said and led others to think, it is not a question of separating transsexuals and cisgenders, but of finding a balance between the whole discussion. Afterwards, Funnyman also apologized, after trying to justify that he didn’t mean to offend anyone and explain his opinion. Of course, nobody cared, because people don’t care when others regret what others say. All they say is that this is wrong and transphobic, but nobody wants to help others understand their side and evolve or change their minds, all they do is accuse, accuse and accuse. They speak so badly about people who disagree with them, but they do exactly the same thing: they reject contrary opinions and close themselves off to arguments and objections. After all, it is much easier to accuse than to debate in a healthy way. This is regrettable. It is a delicate subject, therefore there is no right and wrong, good and bad, just opinions.


Funnyman received a warning for his inappropriate behavior by HumanSanity (NationStates | Dispatch | The Aftermath). Funnyman was still trying to explain himself about how he wasn’t being transphobic and not wanting to separate people for it. After a while of conversation, HumanSanity stopped responding and there was no more news of the conversation between the two.


After everything and the prior warning directed at Funnyman, he was simply banned, due to, according to him: “The only thing I didn’t add in there was the fact that I had already been warned for the ‘incident’, by HumanSanity.
Then a few weeks afterward, I was banned by the “incident” even though I had already been punished. It had to do with some person bringing it up in a conversation and then PeguinPies saying they would ‘investigate it’ even though it had already been taken care off”. As we could see in Funnyman’s statement, he was suddenly banned, even after he had already received an alert.


After the ban, Funnyman tried to contact Moderation via telegram and discord, but without any answer and without explanation of what exactly caused his banishment (NationStates | Dispatch | The Corruption). Thus, leaving no answer and no reason why he was banned, something that should be the basis for a fair trial. A region that claims to cherish Democracy gives Moderation the power to ban someone without prior trial or right of defense before a Court. Now I ask you: where is this fair and democratic? They used some other justifications for their banishment, but they clearly had nothing to do with this. They said evidence was shown of him making discriminatory trolling, but they didn’t make the evidence public.

Thank you all.

Honestly, you’re just digging up old graves. I wasn’t there when he got banned, but as someone who knew him he probably had it coming

1 Like

I am not familiar with the circumstances surrounding Funnyman’s ban, nor was I involved in its imposition, so I will not comment on that. I do want to comment, however, on what seems to be a misconception shared by a number of our members.

It is true that the Coalition of the South Pacific is a democracy, which anyone can verify from its laws and the way the government operates internally and vis-à-vis its members. This makes sense because we are roleplaying a government that was founded on the ideals of democracy, so this is how we choose to play as part of the NationStates government simulation. This is entirely different from how the online community of the South Pacific is administered, which is not, has never been, and should not be, democratic. Administrators and moderators are here to ensure that infrastructure runs smoothly and that the community is safe from harm. There can be internal appeals and other procedures to prevent power abuses, but to use democracy as an argument for inserting the roleplayed government into moderation matters is to miss the nature of how online communities should operate.


This matter will not be reviewed again. Please do not open further threads.