after replying to that, everything else went smoothly and we both agreed that there were mistakes from my part for revealing the influences and the mistake of not putting enough attention to my submission from the staff.

We have also talked about censorship and we both agreed that we don´t defend the lack of free speech, so yeah, it was proven that we were both tolerant towards each other views. What he didn´t accept was about the root of the problem, posting a story that heavily implied a real life person and dealt with the topic of suicide. He would understand if there was a friend for the one who submits the story that allowed him to post said story but it´s not allowed when one doesn´t know said person because that´s an immoral thing to do. He summed it up pretty well here:

>The issue people have is the story in context. If you hadn't said anything about DWK, then no, none of this would have happened. But don't take that as me saying "next time, just don't tell anyone." The story's actual content has been poisoned by the associations you made. You left the closet door open a couple inches and people looked in and saw the skeletons. Nobody would have seen them if you hadn't done that, but they still would have been there. The story was still, on some level, about the real-world person. The lesson here isn't to put an extra lock on the closet door the next time you have visitors.
this answer came because I had replied before one thing about not telling the influences over there, just leaving the basic info and leave the story over there, just to avoid problems. He encouraged me to open myself a little bit more than that mostly because this was an exceptional case in which both the staff and me have learned about this situation. I simply decided to deny that practice because it could lead into problems, so I am adapting an overly cautious practice, even if it leads to irrelevancy.

He wished me luck and repeated the acknowledgment of their mistakes and I told him not to worry about that.

Of course, there were more things in this story such as reporting to more staff members in case that I get no answer from one of them or showing the actual influences that drove this story. He concluded that no one got hurt in the end, so the controversy didn´t go all that far.

And that was it. The conversation is long and I could quote several other things but I have described the key points (I hope) without showing a biased perspective nor feel any remorse about them. In fact, I got a nice conversation and there is some value to keep in mind from his posts. The staff didn´t go against me and the one who kept this conversation with me has been really sympathetic towards my answers. I´ve got nothing to complain really.