I'm not doing any damage, I just wanted to play a simple race called '"dracons". That's all. You clearly couldn't tolerate that. Suppose a player wanted to play some sea-based reptilian species? Would you shoot them down as well? And honestly, your abbreviated version of that exchange makes me look quite reasonable. Who cares if Narven already live in a desert? You can have more than one species live in a desert. The sky won't fall. 

And it's spelled "dracon. D-r-a-c-o-n. Not "draconis." I don't know why you made that typo. It's not hard to spell. 

Even if dragons are the focus of the story, you can still have a dracon. Most games have humans as the focus of the story, but no one says it's a problem if a human-like species is also playable. 

Again, I'm not doing any damage. How do I know this? If you had simply said "yes, you can play a dracon", there'd be no problem. You have sabotaged your own game by being so rigid, unadaptable, and stubborn. I wouldn't treat a player like this, and almost no other GM would. I know this because only one other has ever given me this much trouble. You owe me an apology for this treatment. 

Look, if you let me play as a dracon, what harm would it cause? None. You can just let me in if you want to. Is this thread defunct? Not at all. I'll leave if you insist, but this is on you, not me.