XBOX Enforcement supports bullies?

we are just guessing based on the info you provided and common sense. Fyi donno from pet perspective who knows maybe it's an older offence

But based on this event I pointed out the error

ummm they dont support bullies but you should read the terms of use its pretty clear

You have to be rated e for everyone and that's a universal code of conduct

Regardless of who starts a fight you should know this as part of life everyone is accountable for their own actions

The point was rhetorical of the title was rhetorical. You are right everyone is accountable for actions as this platitude is not beneficial practical application of the policy. Nice party line though and E is for egalitarian compliancy and not everyone.
The policy implies: 1. Be compliant, even if your experience is diminished due to others behavior. (Not your job to speak out against bulling that is only for Microsoft as I was not the victim in this case.) 2. Report everyone who bothers you and a "neutral
third party will" be the judge, jury and sentencer; you have not natural rights or dignity that involves you correcting others as a community. 3. You will not be given a context to help extract a lesson from your behavior, to help identify and improve your
behavior, you will just be banned. 4. "Regardless of who starts a fight" <- have to say natural law, legal systems and most sports actually don't recognize this doctrine as a valid method for guilt. As in many school system who implemented zero tolerance,
it was quickly realized this is a failing strategy to mitigate behavior and good people get washed out because of the policy. Party A assaults party B. A,B are kick out of school. A is put in jail and found to be the aggressor in a court of law. Party B is
still banned from school because of policy.

Lets be honest, most complaints are most likely fielded by algorithmic analysis and thus, this is why you are no longer able to chat or talk with the enforcement team. It is to cut cost, with head count. Thus, the models that are most likely utilize most
likely has a bias toward the reported party to stream line efficiency and not actually a human making a decision based on facts.

Doesnt.matter what you did was.incorrect

What the right thing to.do.was block. Mute and report

That's all

Any other retaitory actions is.sunject to.the terms of.use as with any service and yes even the police will tell you that.

Any retaitory actions in a fight is subject to.laws

They are judge jury and enforcer

As it is their job.

what you got.incorrect.is.you playing.all.three roles.with inpunity

Oh lord if you.think that's what the zero tolerance policy is here is a lesson

One zero tolerance means noone is immune to.the rules

So if you both fight you both get punished.regardless of who starts the fight

If you had done the correct thing and walked away you would be not subject to zero tolerance

But since you retailiated in a way that violates the rules of any online service you are subject to the zero tolerance rule too

Any police officer or principle can tell you that

It's common sense

Noone will take sides just because the other person broke the rules it doesn't mean you are immune to.the rules

You have to break the cycle.

Bully fights person fights back = rules broken on both sides all punished correctly

Bully fights person does the right thing and walls away = Bully gets punished when reportrd

ummm they dont support bullies but you should read the terms of use its pretty clear

You have to be rated e for everyone and that's a universal code of conduct

Regardless of who starts a fight you should know this as part of life everyone is accountable for their own actions

The point was rhetorical of the title was rhetorical. You are right everyone is accountable for actions as this platitude is not beneficial practical application of the policy. Nice party line though and E is for egalitarian compliancy and not everyone.
The policy implies: 1. Be compliant, even if your experience is diminished due to others behavior. (Not your job to speak out against bulling that is only for Microsoft as I was not the victim in this case.) 2. Report everyone who bothers you and a "neutral
third party will" be the judge, jury and sentencer; you have not natural rights or dignity that involves you correcting others as a community. 3. You will not be given a context to help extract a lesson from your behavior, to help identify and improve your
behavior, you will just be banned. 4. "Regardless of who starts a fight" <- have to say natural law, legal systems and most sports actually don't recognize this doctrine as a valid method for guilt. As in many school system who implemented zero tolerance,
it was quickly realized this is a failing strategy to mitigate behavior and good people get washed out because of the policy. Party A assaults party B. A,B are kick out of school. A is put in jail and found to be the aggressor in a court of law. Party B is
still banned from school because of policy.

Lets be honest, most complaints are most likely fielded by algorithmic analysis and thus, this is why you are no longer able to chat or talk with the enforcement team. It is to cut cost, with head count. Thus, the models that are most likely utilize most
likely has a bias toward the reported party to stream line efficiency and not actually a human making a decision based on facts.

Doesnt.matter what you did was.incorrect

What the right thing to.do.was block. Mute and report

That's all

Any other retaitory actions is.sunject to.the terms of.use as with any service and yes even the police will tell you that.

Any retaitory actions in a fight is subject to.laws

They are judge jury and enforcer

As it is their job.

what you got.incorrect.is.you playing.all.three roles.with inpunity

Oh lord if you.think that's what the zero tolerance policy is here is a lesson

One zero tolerance means noone is immune to.the rules

So if you both fight you both get punished.regardless of who starts the fight

If you had done the correct thing and walked away you would be not subject to zero tolerance

But since you retailiated in a way that violates the rules of any online service you are subject to the zero tolerance rule too

Any police officer or principle can tell you that

It's common sense

Noone will take sides just because the other person broke the rules it doesn't mean you are immune to.the rules

You have to break the cycle.

Bully fights person fights back = rules broken on both sides all punished correctly

Bully fights person does the right thing and walls away = Bully gets punished when reportrd

So saying "stop doing that" is judge and jury... If you think this is not permitted then I guess this is a phycological divide we will not agree upon as telling someone to stop hurting me is something that is a fundamental right of being alive. Bully
does not always get punished, as I am about to publish a story on linkedin to prove this on another account I have. Basically, you also have a logical fallacy in your statement because, as specific to the context of compassion as stated by enforcement website:
You can not have compassion with out the fundamental respect associated with rights of the individual and the dignity associated with that person. Thus, a fundamental right is escalation of force. Stage one it telling someone to stop. If a policy does not
understand this fundamental right then it is flawed or Rated E for egalitarian. Our psychological divide and your sycophant/legalistic view point may make you technically right based on the standard of a policy. However, it does not make you correct besides
the perspective of policy. Policy changes all the time and it takes people speaking up about policy that causes it to change.

by your own admission you broke the rules with more then that

As pointed out by the word filters

And yes bypassing the word filters on forums is subject to the terms of use too

If you had left out the colourful words there wouldn't be an issue but you violated the rules

And common sense with the retailiation and that's from a common users perspective

Remember the pet has to follow the same rules as we do

Go right ahead ask anyone what the error of your ways are you sure you want to be proven again the err publically?

Use common sense man

Since when does not throwing the first punch make you immune the rules it doesnt

Ask any police officer or professional

Zero tolerance also applied to you when you threw the second punch a curse word

ummm they dont support bullies but you should read the terms of use its pretty clear

You have to be rated e for everyone and that's a universal code of conduct

Regardless of who starts a fight you should know this as part of life everyone is accountable for their own actions

The point was rhetorical of the title was rhetorical. You are right everyone is accountable for actions as this platitude is not beneficial practical application of the policy. Nice party line though and E is for egalitarian compliancy and not everyone.
The policy implies: 1. Be compliant, even if your experience is diminished due to others behavior. (Not your job to speak out against bulling that is only for Microsoft as I was not the victim in this case.) 2. Report everyone who bothers you and a "neutral
third party will" be the judge, jury and sentencer; you have not natural rights or dignity that involves you correcting others as a community. 3. You will not be given a context to help extract a lesson from your behavior, to help identify and improve your
behavior, you will just be banned. 4. "Regardless of who starts a fight" <- have to say natural law, legal systems and most sports actually don't recognize this doctrine as a valid method for guilt. As in many school system who implemented zero tolerance,
it was quickly realized this is a failing strategy to mitigate behavior and good people get washed out because of the policy. Party A assaults party B. A,B are kick out of school. A is put in jail and found to be the aggressor in a court of law. Party B is
still banned from school because of policy.

Lets be honest, most complaints are most likely fielded by algorithmic analysis and thus, this is why you are no longer able to chat or talk with the enforcement team. It is to cut cost, with head count. Thus, the models that are most likely utilize most
likely has a bias toward the reported party to stream line efficiency and not actually a human making a decision based on facts.

Doesnt.matter what you did was.incorrect

What the right thing to.do.was block. Mute and report

That's all

Any other retaitory actions is.sunject to.the terms of.use as with any service and yes even the police will tell you that.

Any retaitory actions in a fight is subject to.laws

They are judge jury and enforcer

As it is their job.

what you got.incorrect.is.you playing.all.three roles.with inpunity

Oh lord if you.think that's what the zero tolerance policy is here is a lesson

One zero tolerance means noone is immune to.the rules

So if you both fight you both get punished.regardless of who starts the fight

If you had done the correct thing and walked away you would be not subject to zero tolerance

But since you retailiated in a way that violates the rules of any online service you are subject to the zero tolerance rule too

Any police officer or principle can tell you that

It's common sense

Noone will take sides just because the other person broke the rules it doesn't mean you are immune to.the rules

You have to break the cycle.

Bully fights person fights back = rules broken on both sides all punished correctly

Bully fights person does the right thing and walls away = Bully gets punished when reportrd

So saying "stop doing that" is judge and jury... If you think this is not permitted then I guess this is a phycological divide we will not agree upon as telling someone to stop hurting me is something that is a fundamental right of being alive. Bully
does not always get punished, as I am about to publish a story on linkedin to prove this on another account I have. Basically, you also have a logical fallacy in your statement because, as specific to the context of compassion as stated by enforcement website:
You can not have compassion with out the fundamental respect associated with rights of the individual and the dignity associated with that person. Thus, a fundamental right is escalation of force. Stage one it telling someone to stop. If a policy does not
understand this fundamental right then it is flawed or Rated E for egalitarian. Our psychological divide and your sycophant/legalistic view point may make you technically right based on the standard of a policy. However, it does not make you correct besides
the perspective of policy. Policy changes all the time and it takes people speaking up about policy that causes it to change.

ummm they dont support bullies but you should read the terms of use its pretty clear

You have to be rated e for everyone and that's a universal code of conduct

Regardless of who starts a fight you should know this as part of life everyone is accountable for their own actions

The point was rhetorical of the title was rhetorical. You are right everyone is accountable for actions as this platitude is not beneficial practical application of the policy. Nice party line though and E is for egalitarian compliancy and not everyone.
The policy implies: 1. Be compliant, even if your experience is diminished due to others behavior. (Not your job to speak out against bulling that is only for Microsoft as I was not the victim in this case.) 2. Report everyone who bothers you and a "neutral
third party will" be the judge, jury and sentencer; you have not natural rights or dignity that involves you correcting others as a community. 3. You will not be given a context to help extract a lesson from your behavior, to help identify and improve your
behavior, you will just be banned. 4. "Regardless of who starts a fight" <- have to say natural law, legal systems and most sports actually don't recognize this doctrine as a valid method for guilt. As in many school system who implemented zero tolerance,
it was quickly realized this is a failing strategy to mitigate behavior and good people get washed out because of the policy. Party A assaults party B. A,B are kick out of school. A is put in jail and found to be the aggressor in a court of law. Party B is
still banned from school because of policy.

Lets be honest, most complaints are most likely fielded by algorithmic analysis and thus, this is why you are no longer able to chat or talk with the enforcement team. It is to cut cost, with head count. Thus, the models that are most likely utilize most
likely has a bias toward the reported party to stream line efficiency and not actually a human making a decision based on facts.