Because if it is, I think a compromise can be reached with the interests of both parties at heart.

Well since you guys unbanned him without getting the owner to sign off on it, we're back to square one.
If you want him unbanned for any length of time you gotta cut a deal, before you do it. Incognito's current plan, to use you guys to go to war with Scar for him, will fail miserably because it demonstrates Incognito hasn't learned his lesson. Plus half the stream backs Scar.
If you go to war with Scar, you also go to war with me and Pepe's Ground Pounders. I support you as president. You've been doing a great job. But that all goes out the window if a civil war breaks out.

And that's just it. If Scar can ban people on a whim, then this stream isn't a democracy, but an autocracy. If IG, or anyone else, did something wrong, then they should have appropriate consequences. The initial ban was because of alternate accounts, and he served that ban term. Once he came back, Scar banned him again almost immediately, saying that he was "not good for the stream". I don't know about you, but that sounds a hell of a lot like Stalin ordering people to gulag because they were "detrimental to the Party". Also, Congress voted to unban him. If the owner has unchecked power, then, like I said before, this stream is an autocracy.

1st off: get a personal lawyer. Incognito is setting you up, and all this crap is gonna blow back on you at some point. I can volunteer if need be. I know meme law and would prefer you not get in trouble for believing Incognito's BS.
2nd: the stream isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional Republic. I.E: the law, not simply the majority is in charge.
Since Scar followed the constitution in banning Incognito for bad behavior and followed the law when rebanning Incognito for more bad behavior, the ban is legal.
Since Congress did not follow the law when trying to override the supreme court, the vote doesn't count. It's like in the USA: Congress can't pass a law the goes against the supreme court or the constitution or it'll get thrown out.
3rd: you can change the constitution (just like in the USA) but it's purposely difficult cause it's rule of law not majority rule.

Thank you for the offer, but how do you know I'm not just doing this on my own? I just recognize the potential for a dictatorship. Even if that dictator is benevolent, it's still a dictatorship.
Exactly. And Congress, i.e. our elected representatives, voted to unban IG. After all, he committed no crime, and the stream Constitution says that we should work towards a peaceful solution. Scar didn't do this, nor did any of us.
I agree, but the Constitution can also be updated. Perhaps with a limiting of powers for the owner.
True, but you can at least try. And I think a lot of people would like to see some limits on the power of the owner. This isn't just about IG, this is about the entire stream.

Ok well, I tried.

When did Congress vote to unban IG?

Past few days

Unfortunately, yes

Don't know why it auto corrected to "band" ...

Correct except the his ban for the alts was only 30 days. He came back and was banned for two days for something related to "language", which I still don't know the details. When he came back from that Scar banned him.

Well what do we do now?

Well, as far as a compromise, I would say establishing a rule where to ban somebody, any moderator (not just the owner), would have to provide a reason for doing so. And not just "I didn't think he was good for the stream", a real reason. I would also say that if Congress votes to unban somebody, then the owner should respect that. The last thing I would propose is an amendment limiting the power of the owner, as our current constitution is very vague about what the owner can and cannot do. Unchecked power always leads to a dictatorship, and I highly doubt any of the stream's constituents want that.

I agree and support this completely