General Leadership Questions, Concerns and Compliments topic

Concerns about a previous conversation in the “Regular Chat Topic 5”:

I do not intend to beat on the metaphorical dead horse, nor do I wish to ignite or reignite the “flames,” so to speak, of the conversation. That said, I felt a need to speak something on the matter, and thus, I apologize—strictly to the parties involved, though others may indeed apply—if I seem to overstep in one form or another. The conversation was between a leader and a regular, and I shall refrain from using any direct names as it is not too necessary because this could apply to every forum user, and to preserve the respected dignity of those involved.
Right, here we go…
Quite frankly the issue was infantile. It was avoidable. It unfairly left people feeling hurt even up to now. I could give a list of (non-vulgar) words to describe it; however, that would be entirely unnecessary, possibly rude, and likely even against the Community Guidelines article 1. The initial conflict, simply one party being upset at another for supposed “impersonation” when choosing the same profile picture they themselves had, seemed somewhat premature for two reasons (please note that I would not have said a thing were not for these reasons).
First off, indeed, impersonation is something rightfully worthy (and the party which accused the other was precisely in the right to be concerned about this) of receiving a ban and is against community rules—however, it is not something strictly addressed in the Community Guidelines as currently posted (@Ana, this might be an oversight to correct if possible?), and the closest thing that could be applied to impersonation within them is article 2 in the Community Guidelines, which states,

The rules applying directly to impersonation were actually discussed in the topic “A message about impersonation” where William04GamerA gave the community rules on the subject. Therefore, it is understandable that possible confusion or lack of knowledge on the issue may have been involved. However, this did not seem to be considered, nor were the rules explained.
Second, the intention of the accused party did not appear to be impersonation; rather, at its core, it seemed to be done with the intention of bringing a smile to another user just as others were doing (it goes to note that the first user knew this, and was the one to suggest the accused user at least change their PFP in the first place in an earlier post essentially for that reason). Simply because two users have the same profile picture does not mean one is impersonating the other, especially, mind you, if they both have different usernames! It is virtually impossible to impersonate someone if your name is entirely distinct! The rules about impersonation, as posted by William04GamerA, state that if it is intentional impersonation, a user will receive a ban.

But, if it is obvious one is not impersonating another user, or one’s PFP is essentially “okayed” by the user it was borrowed from, it is fine, and one will not receive a ban.

Granted, in this instance, though it was obvious for common sense factors that it was not intentional, the party the image was borrowed from was not, in fact, in agreement with the second party applying its use to themselves. However, this was not something strictly mentioned in William04GamerA’s post as something to be banned over. Instead, William used an “or” statement when listing the two reasons it is okay to share a profile picture—meaning even if only one of those reasons apply, it is okay to share a PFP with another user (@Ana, perhaps this could be clarified somewhere to prevent potential future confusion?).

There should have been more consideration from both parties; the leader for understanding that things are not always as they might seem, and the user for being more aware of community rules.
Now, to clear up any doubts or confusion and to cool possible heat for this post, I will say—fully out of honesty and empathy—that it truly did appear to be an act of caring from the first party to the accused party, as they seemed to want to make sure the second party was following all guidelines so they would not fall under the dreaded ban. This is entirely, completely understandable and even worthy of praise, yet I would still say the whole ordeal should have been handled somewhat differently.
I deeply and humbly apologize if I have come across as harsh or demeaning. As I said before, this was not my intention. This is a tricky issue, and I simply felt something should be said—if for no other reason than the fact that there is no direct mention of impersonation in the Community Guidelines themselves. Apart from this, I would not have said anything, as again—in and of itself—it seemed to be a trivial matter.
I understand that I am no longer a leader and likewise have no position to make final statements or decisions on issues that take place here, and that any comments I might make on tricky subjects will likely be taken with more than a grain of salt (as they possibly should). Thus, if I have said beyond that which I am allowed, I accept any penalty I should be delivered.