New Formatting Proposal

[Antvasima]

I'm repeating myself, but I still see no reason to make even more varying parallel running formats when putting the links into references does exactly the same while following the current format.
I'm against having many formats to begin with (why even have a standard format if you do it in many different ways in the end?), but to add one for something that brings no improvement when compared for an option in line with existing formats makes no sense on any level.

Thank you for the evaluation, DontTalk.

 

[Deceived3596]

'm repeating myself, but I still see no reason to make even more varying parallel running formats when putting the links into references does exactly the same while following the current format.

It doesn't though, it objectively doesn't when you're talking about it in the context of readability.

It's harder and more stressful on the eyes to read a block of small, bold white characters compared to blue ones given white is a lighter color compared to blue, this is especially so when you're using the dark mode that the site provides to you given the harsh contrast between the two colors.

I'm against having many formats to begin with (why even have a standard format if you do it in many different ways in the end?), but to add one for something that brings no improvement when compared for an option in line with existing formats makes no sense on any level.

This is just personal incredulity, and isn't a counter to what's being proposed by the OP, you aren't actually attacking the logic behind the argument we're making but instead you're just expressing your personal distaste for the amount of formatting options editors have.

Already explain why this type of formatting is an actual improvement compared to the one i linked previously above.

No one has actively debunked the notion that giving profile editors more options is an actual negative thing that harms the wiki in any sort of way.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This is completely unrelated to P&A formatting and doesn't impact it significantly. Putting scans in references is in itself also a format of its own which would require a CRT to be officially approved, not that I think the majority agrees.

No, bolding stuff is a P&A formatting decision and suggesting it isn't is an argument over semantics that has no relevance to the issue at hand. We regulate what gets bolded on profiles.

Putting scans into references is not a new format. Giving sources is what references are for. We established that we are using them and putting links there doesn't alter the page format. In fact, putting links just about anywhere on pages is long since allowed. (albeit as unwritten rule)

Brings no improvement, subjectively. Look at the amount of agreements, even by experienced users, and understand that this is simply your opinion, you can't use that as the primary crux of your argument.

No, there is an objective aspect to it. The reason for doing it is to create a distinction between explanation text and ability text. It is objectively true that if the links are in the references such a visual distinction exists: The abilities are blue, the explanation text isn't. That isn't a subjective factor. The distinction objectively exists.

I'm not sure why it's being treated as some different format, it's just the original format but bolded.

So I can simply bold random stuff on pages and it is not bad formatting or out of line with our standards? Like, if I bold every 3rd letter that's fine? Or simply bold the entire page?

 

[Armorchompy]

No, bolding stuff is a P&A formatting decision and suggesting it isn't is an argument over semantics that has no relevance to the issue at hand. We regulate what gets bolded on profiles.

Putting scans into references is not a new format. Giving sources is what references are for. We established that we are using them and putting links there doesn't alter the page format.

It does though, changes where you have to look for the scans which is far more impactful and experimental than a visual change.

No, there is an objective aspect to it. The reason for doing it is to create a distinction between explanation text and ability text. It is objectively true that if the links are in the references such a visual distinction exists: The abilities are blue, the explanation text isn't. That isn't a subjective factor. The distinction objectively exists.

In light mode, our shade of blue for links is too close to the black of normal text to be easily told apart, especially on a light blue background which causes it to blend in slightly. As such the difference is not enough to make reading smoother. Meanwhile, Bolding P&A creates an immediately identifiable split.

 

[Antvasima]

Brings no improvement, subjectively. Look at the amount of agreements, even by experienced users, and understand that this is simply your opinion, you can't use that as the primary crux of your argument.

It is a purely aesthetic change, so it objectively brings no concrete tangible improvement. There would also be considerable work time involved, particularly for myself, which is also objectively directly detrimental. In addition, without any concrete standards whatsoever for when the new formatting should be applied or not, there is a high risk that different members would switch pages back and forth.

Subjectively speaking, I also do think that it looks incoherent and hard to read to rapidly switch back and forth between bolded and regularly formatted text, whereas you, also subjectively, think that it looks more aesthetically pleasing. So according to your own standards, your own arguments would be far more irrelevant, since they argue for amounts of work (mainly for other people than yourself) that we tend to reserve for wiki projects that are actually extremely crucial, purely out of a "it looks nicer" personal preference.

 

[Armorchompy]

It is a purely aesthetic change, so it objectively brings no concrete tangible improvement.

Wrong, makes it easier for me and many others to read big walls of P&A for reasons I've explained already. So clearly it brings an improvement. Aesthetics =/= unimportant, readability is an important matter.

 

[Abstractions]

So I can simply bold random stuff on pages and it is not bad formatting or out of line with our standards? Like, if I bold every 3rd letter that's fine?

No, because that's a bad example you gave, nobody is currently bolding or bullet-pointing singular letters, we can if you'd like, but you'd agree it's silly and wildly different.

Also a good point.

Respectfully, it isn't.

 

[Antvasima]

No, bolding stuff is a P&A formatting decision and suggesting it isn't is an argument over semantics that has no relevance to the issue at hand. We regulate what gets bolded on profiles.

Putting scans into references is not a new format. Giving sources is what references are for. We established that we are using them and putting links there doesn't alter the page format. In fact, putting links just about anywhere on pages is long since allowed. (albeit as unwritten rule)

Yes, I also think that this would make our pages look more professional.

No, there is an objective aspect to it. The reason for doing it is to create a distinction between explanation text and ability text. It is objectively true that if the links are in the references such a visual distinction exists: The abilities are blue, the explanation text isn't. That isn't a subjective factor. The distinction objectively exists.

Good point. There is already a sufficient distinction in that regard.

So I can simply bold random stuff on pages and it is not bad formatting or out of line with our standards? Like, if I bold every 3rd letter that's fine? Or simply bold the entire page?

Also a good point.

 

[Damage3245]

Wrong, makes it easier for me and many others to read big walls of P&A for reasons I've explained already. So clearly it brings an improvement. Aesthetics =/= unimportant, readability is an important matter.

That's the argument used in favor the list format too.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It does though, changes where you have to look for the scans which is far more impactful and experimental than a visual change.

Are you suggesting that you won't look at the references when you look for references?

In light mode, our shade of blue for links is too close to the black of normal text to be easily told apart, especially on a light blue background which causes it to blend in slightly. As such the difference is not enough to make reading smoother. Meanwhile, Bolding P&A creates an immediately identifiable split.

As a light mode user I have to disagree. It's a quite clear distinction.

Given, if users had an actual problem differentiating links from text that is a huge problem that should be addressed anyway. If that is true, then we would need to change the writing colours as not finding links is bad regardless.

 

[Deceived3596]

So I can simply bold random stuff on pages and it is not bad formatting or out of line with our standards? Like, if I bold every 3rd letter that's fine? Or simply bold the entire page?

.......

Dude don't be this dishonest, you know exactly what we're talking about, don't try to act like we're arguing something that's completely arbitrary when people have literally told you why we should specifically bold the hyperlinks of powers.

Literally comparing apples to oranges with this comment.

 

[DontTalkDT]

.......

Dude don't be this dishonest, you know exactly what we're talking about, don't try to act like we're arguing something that's completely arbitrary when people have literally told you why we should specifically bold the hyperlinks of powers.

Literally comparing apples to oranges with this comment.

I know what you're talking about. But my point is that it is clearly a formatting matter. If it weren't, then what I stated wouldn't be a formatting matter either. Comparing one type of bolding outside of current regulated practices to another type of bolding outside of current regulated practices, is not comparing apples to oranges. It's the same thing.

 

[Antvasima]

Wrong, makes it easier for me and many others to read big walls of P&A for reasons I've explained already. So clearly it brings an improvement. Aesthetics =/= unimportant, readability is an important matter.

Given that other people, including myself, consider rapid switching back and forth between bolded and unbolded text to make it harder to read, and more professional-looking wikis and encyclopaedias do not constantly use bolded text as far as I am aware, that would be a non-argument according to your own standards, whereas several of the practical issues that I mentioned earlier are not.

Also, given that you were the staff member most adamantly against our new Deluxe Supporter tier, simply because it would cause a little bit more thread evaluation work every month to be spread over 38 staff members, despite that it would genuinely help our community to survive in the long run, why are you so extremely eager to dump considerably more extra continuous work on the single staff member who handles most of the daily edit patrolling (me), even though I am already far more overworked than you are? It seems like a massive double-standard.

 

[Deceived3596]

I know what you're talking about. But my point is that it is clearly a formatting matter. If it weren't, then what I stated wouldn't be a formatting matter either.

Of course it would be a formatting matter, we're literally talking specifically about the formatting of the profiles P&A sections, it being a formatting matter doesn't negate the fact that the comparison you used is completely illogical to what we're arguing .

 

[Armorchompy]

Are you suggesting that you won't look at the references when you look for references?

No, I won't look at the references when I look for scans.

As a light mode user I have to disagree. It's a quite clear distinction.

Right, now that you disagree with my perception of things, I agree I'm wrong and you're right and I guess I'm an idiot since I have issues scanning walls of text and you don't.

Given, if users had an actual problem differentiating links from text that is a huge problem that should be addressed anyway. If that is true, then we would need to change the writing colours as not finding links is bad regardless.

It is being addressed, a format was created to deal with it and we're pushing for a second one, isn't that obvious.

That's the argument used in favor the list format too.

Yeah? I don't disagree with the list format being allowed anymore and haven't for a while, I just subjectively dislike it.

Given that other people, including myself, consider rapid switching back and forth between bolded and unbolded text to make it harder to read, and more professional-looking wikis and encyclopaedias do not constantly use bolded text as far as I am aware.

Most professional-looking wikis and encyclopaedias also avoid massive walls of text, we don't.

Also, given that you were the staff member most adamantly against our new Deluxe Supporter tier, simply because it would cause a little bit more thread evaluation work every month to be spread over 38 staff members, why are you so extremely eager to dump a lot of extra continuous work on the single staff member who handles most of the daily edit patrolling (me), even though I am already far more overworked than you are? It seems like a massive double-standard.

Oh now we're resorting to personal attacks? I won't respond to this and I hope you realize how scummy it is to use an opinion someone gave in private against them for something unrelated. Not that that was every my issue with it in the first place but I suppose misconstruing it is more convenient for you.

Also you don't know what my ******* life looks like. Just because I'm not on the wiki every hour of my life doesn't mean I'm spending the rest of my day doing nothing, I'm busy with other shit and so is everyone else, you're not the only person on-site who's "overworked".

 

[DontTalkDT]

Of course it would be a formatting matter, we're literally talking specifically about the formatting of the profiles P&A sections, it being a formatting matter doesn't negate the fact that the comparison you used is completely illogical to what we're arguing .

And if you read what I replied to you will notice that it was to a comment that said it's not a different format. So my argument was valid as to the point I was replying to, no?

 

[Deceived3596]

And if you read what I replied to you will notice that it was to a comment that said it's not a different format. So my argument was valid as to the point I was replying to, no?

It's still an illogical comparison at the end of the day.

 

[Abstractions]

And if you read what I replied to you will notice that it was to a comment that said it's not a different format. So my argument was valid as to the point I was replying to, no?

No, because it's an optional additive to the original format that appeals to sensibilities that we already subscribe to. Your argument was called being ridiculous because we've never bolded, italicized, or bullet-pointed singular letters.

If I thickened the lines of an artwork have I suddenly made it a different artwork? No, it's the same artwork with stronger line art. There's no stylistic change or color difference, or real expansion of what the original was, I made the line art slightly thicker.

Your comparison was illogical, and it shouldn't have been made. Thank you.

 

[DontTalkDT]

No, I won't look at the references when I look for scans.

Well, maybe you should start then, because that's already one place where we put scans. Unless you suggest prohibiting putting scans into references then.

It is being addressed, a format was created to deal with it and we're pushing for a second one, isn't that obvious.

No, if you can't separate links from text just bolding the P&A wouldn't solve the issue. You would also have trouble differentiating links from text in all other places where we have links and text. Like in the Stats section, in the feats section, in the Notable A/T section, on pages that aren't character profiles. If many people have a problem of not being able to differentiate links and text, then the only choice to fix it is to change the colour of links and/or text to be more distinctive.

 

[Antvasima]

Most professional-looking wikis and encyclopaedias also avoid massive walls of text, we don't.

That was the intended point of the bullet point lists.

Oh now we're resorting to personal attacks? I won't respond to this and I hope you realize how scummy it is. Not that that was every my issue with it in the first place but I suppose misconstruing it is more convenient for you.

How is it a personal attack? No insult was stated. I simply genuinely perceive your attitude here to be a double-standard. You were strongly opposed to having a bit more staff work spread across 38 people, but are apparently eager to dump more work on me over a formatting change that I do not even consider beneficial to our wiki.

Also you don't know what my ******* life looks like. Just because I'm not on the wiki as much doesn't mean I'm spending the rest of my day doing nothing, I'm busy with other shit and so is everyone else, you're not the only person on-site who's "overworked".

My apologies if what I said came across that way. I am constantly working very hard in this community though, and have recently tried to deal with some to me important issues IRL as well, which has been very stressful for me to find the time for.

 

[DontTalkDT]

No, because it's an optional additive to the original format that appeals to sensibilities that we already subscribe to. your argument was called being ridiculous because we've never bolded, italicized, or bullet-pointed singular letters.

We have never bolded P&As either. And it's not really an addition. An addition would mean the original format isn't modified, just extended. This modifies it, so it is a parallel running format, just like the bullet point lists.

If I thickened the lines of an artwork have I suddenly made it a different artwork? No, it's the same artwork with stronger line art. There's no stylistic change or color difference, or expansion of what the original was, I made the line art slightly thicker.

Your comparison was illogical, and it shouldn't have been made. Thank you.

If we are talking about formatting then changing line thickness does indeed make it a different artwork. If a company were to make the lines of their logo thicker that is actually a change of logo.


So no, this really isn't just the minor change you try to make it out to be. It's just a major of a change as to allow bolding of the whole page would be.

 

[Armorchompy]

How is it a personal attack? No insult was stated. I simply genuinely perceive your attitude here to be a double-standard. You were strongly opposed to having a bit more staff work spread across 38 people, but are apparently eager to dump more work on me over a formatting change that I do not even consider beneficial to our wiki.

You took an unrelated opinion of mine, an opinion that I had given in private and was meant to be kept private, one that was not an attempt to skip out on "work" but simply a concern I had with something YOU HAD LITERALLY ASKED US FOR OPINIONS ON, and utilized it to drag me through the mud on an unrelated thread just because I'm standing opposed to you and you are oh so busy.

Your work on this wiki is completely voluntary. You don't like it, stop doing it instead of guilt tripping us over how much our attempts at making the site better are making it harder for you to do the same.

I wasn't opposed to more work, I was opposed to setting a precedent of forced work.

My apologies if what I said came across that way. I am constantly working very hard in this community though, and have recently tried to deal with some to me important issues IRL as well, which has been very stressful for me to find the time for.

I know you're working hard but guess what, I am too, I've been working on a revision for two weeks almost all day all days, just because you don't perceive the work others are putting in it doesn't mean it isn't there, but quite frankly I'm tired of hearing about your issues, you bring them up every time someone goes up against you without realizing everyone's overworked, stressed and exhausted both on and off-site. You're not any more busy than me, I'd wager.

I don't even ******* care about the bolded P&A, I think they look better, I think it's insane that I must be guilt tripped and dragged through the mud for attempting to help pass something that will make the website better and improve my enjoyment of profile-making. But I just don't care anymore, do whatever you want, I'm sick of having to ice skate uphill just because whoever I'm debating against has a better color than mine.

This is my final post on this thread and possibly my final post in any staff thread for a while or ever. I'm tired. If I'm gonna stay staff I'll just help in smaller threads. But I'm just tired.

 

[Andytrenom]

Ant. Did you really just leak a discussion that happened in private among staff that would villainize Armor

Do you realize how bad that is

 

[Deceived3596]

I can't believe we're arguing why the bolding of powers on walls of text so it makes the overall profile more readable is comparable to bolding the 3rd letter within each sentence, this wouldn't make the profile more readable at all, and would actually have the adverse effect of completely ******* up people's capability of reading the profile and their overall enjoyment of reading the profile as well.

This is literally peak debate bro logic, trying act like these distinctions don't matter and shit, i can't.

 

[Abstractions]

We've never bolded P&As either.

That's exactly what bullet lists currently do, We also already bold Tier, Striking Strength, etc. Full words, not single letters.

And it's not really an addition. An addition would mean the original format isn't modified, just extended. This modifies it, so it is a parallel running format, just like the bullet point lists.

This is a semantics argument, the words are interchangeable. Things and rules can be modified by adding additional caveats or asterisks to their meanings, that's extension. Bolding is additive because you are applying bolding to something that already exists without sweeping adjustments, that's why it isn't a different format.

If we are talking about formatting then changing line thickness does indeed make it a different artwork. If a company were to make the lines of their logo thicker that is actually a change of logo.

No, because the essence of the logo has remained unchanged, you've simply bolded it. If a rival company stole your logo and bolded it, a fair use court wouldn't deem that transformative enough to constitute a change in the meaning of the original.

If you're arguing on the basis that a single pixel adjustment changes the soul of an original artwork then that's your prerogative, I'm just telling you that the grand majority of people and a court of law would not see it that way.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's exactly what bullet lists currently do, We also already bold Tier, Striking Strength, etc. Full words, not single letters.

Yeah, we bold specifically regulated parts of the page. As that's the format. So changing what is bolded is a change in format.

This is a semantics argument, the words are interchangeable. Things and rules can be modified by adding additional caveats or asterisks to their meanings, that's extension, bolding is additive because you are adding bolding to something that already exists without sweeping adjustments, that's why it isn't a different format.


No, because the essence of the logo has remained unchanged, you've simply bolded it. If a rival company stole your logo and bolded it, a fair use court wouldn't deem that transformative enough to constitute a change in the meaning of the original.

If you're arguing on the basis that a single pixel adjustment changes the soul of an original artwork then that's your prerogative, I'm just telling you that the grand majority of people and a court of law would not see it that way.

So are you suggesting we allow any visual change to the standard format that leaves the sections intact, as those are just minor deviations instead of actual format?

 

[AKM sama]

Ant. Did you really just leak a discussion that happened in private among staff that would villainize Armor

Do you realize how bad that is

That happened publicly iirc on a thread.

Anyway, I think there should only be one standard format. It's standard for a reason. We don't want too many variations. For example, there is a normal AP section formatting that we use with the keys and all, but for large profiles we include tabbers.

Similarly, there should be one standard formatting for P&A, but if the section is big we can use a different approach. I don't agree with having to use three variations (normal, bullets, bolded) because that would look too ugly and inconsistent for our overall user experience.

 

[Starter_Pack]

Ant, and I say this with the highest of respect, but in accordance with what both Andy and Armor said, what the hell are you thinking by using statements made in confidence to guilt-trip and gaslight your fellow staff members just because they have differing opinions on the subject at hand?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I can't believe we're arguing why the bolding of powers on walls of text so it makes the overall profile more readable is comparable to bolding the 3rd letter within each sentence, this wouldn't make the profile more readable at all, and would actually have the adverse effect of completely ******* up people's capability of reading the profile and their overall enjoyment of reading the profile as well.

This is literally peak debate bro logic, trying act like these distinctions don't matter and shit, i can't.

The point I'm debating isn't that those are equally good changes to format. The point I'm debating is that both are actual serious changes and not just minor things that can be handwaved through as not really being a proper change, but just minor deviations.

 

[Abstractions]

So are you suggesting we allow any visual change to the standard format that leaves the sections intact, as those are just minor deviations instead of actual format?

Depends on what you're suggesting, if it appeals to sensibilities and not to being absurd.

 

[Andytrenom]

Just going by the OP, it would be ideal to bold them if it's optional. I cannot envision this being a realistic revision. Even if it's meant to be gradual it could very easily just be taken as cue to not actually continue revising the profiles past a certain point

 

[Antvasima]

You took an unrelated opinion of mine, an opinion that I had given in private and was meant to be kept private, one that was not an attempt to skip out on "work" but simply a concern I had with something YOU HAD LITERALLY ASKED US FOR OPINIONS ON, and utilized it to drag me through the mud on an unrelated thread just because I'm standing opposed to you and you are oh so busy.

Your work on this wiki is completely voluntary. You don't like it, stop doing it instead of guilt tripping us over how much our attempts at making the site better are making it harder for you to do the same.

I wasn't opposed to more work, I was opposed to setting a precedent of forced work.

I know you're working hard but guess what, I am too, I've been working on a revision for two weeks almost all day all days, just because you don't perceive the work others are putting in it doesn't mean it isn't there, but quite frankly I'm tired of hearing about your issues, you bring them up every time someone goes up against you without realizing everyone's overworked, stressed and exhausted both on and off-site. You're not any more busy than me, I'd wager.

I don't even ******* care about the bolded P&A, I think they look better, I think it's insane that I must be guilt tripped and dragged through the mud for attempting to help pass something that will make the website better and improve my enjoyment of profile-making. But I just don't care anymore, do whatever you want, I'm sick of having to ice skate uphill just because whoever I'm debating against has a better color than mine.

This is my final post on this thread and possibly my final post in any staff thread for a while or ever. I'm tired. If I'm gonna stay staff I'll just help in smaller threads. But I'm just tired.

Well, I still don't really understand why you took what I said as a personal insult. It was definitely not intended as such. I just tried to explain that I think that this would likely cause a lot of extra edit-patrolling work for me, and that I don't really have almost any more time available, which makes me constantly stressed out from trying to keep up.

I also feel responsible for taking care of this community, and there isn't anybody else available who is able to handle the entirety of the gruelling daily maintenance work if I left, and it gives me a sense of purpose to continue trying to help build this site as I have done for over 8 years now. I do not dislike the work in itself and like this community overall. I just get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of everything that I have to do at times.

Anyway, I apologise if I brought offence. My social skills are pretty bad, and I have limited mental buffers, so I am quite blunt by nature, and am compulsively honest, but I do not mean any harm. I sincerely greatly appreciate all of your help and that of the rest of our staff, and am sorry if you are feeling very stressed out.

 

[Deceived3596]

The point I'm debating isn't that those are equally good changes to format. The point I'm debating is that both are actual serious changes and not just minor things that can be handwaved through as not really being a proper change, but just minor deviations.

Even i granted you this contention this still isn't an actual counter to the main argument being proposed in this thread, you haven't nor Ant has logically argued against the main contention of "giving more power/options to profile editors is a good thing", which we've been arguing for.

Literally all of this doesn't matter until the main argument gets addressed, and i want an actual addressement, not some hand waving bullshit like "its to hard" when ******* references exist or "i don't personally like it", i don't care how you personally feel about this, i only care about what's logical, and guess what? the argument being proposed by the OP and others is a lot more logical than anything you or Ant have said.

 

[Armorchompy]

That happened publicly iirc on a thread.

Wrong.

"A thread for important information from our bureaucrats to the rest of our staff", Page 4, CTRL+F "I don't agree with"

 

[Noneless21]

Guys, i think we are derailing a bit here (a lot actually) so imma go and say something before I go to sleep

first of all, this thread was made because the members here thought the bolded but unbulleted P&As looks great for some profiles thathave a long list of P&As like that one

And I never ever EVER want, need, or tried to replace the standard of formatting or anything like that, all I want is to propose another option regarding the formatting the profiles, especially the big ones like the one at the OP

Second of all, I had ask about half of the staffs here about this matter, some said the bulleted and bolded P&As is better, some say it depends, some say the bolded but unbulleted P&As is better, and more than half that I asked thought the bolded but unbulleted P&A is better than the bolded and bulleted one

If you think it doesn't look good because it isn't professional or something, that's fine, it is your opinion as this matter is heavily subjective, but a lot of people agree to add this format that I propose as the third option regarding the formatting the profiles since there's some profiles that's doesn't look good if we use the standard format, there's the bulleted and bolded P&As formatting for this after all

And also, when someone new come to the wiki to see the character profiles, the very first thing they do is look at the tier of the characters, then the P&As, then the stat of the character, almost nobody would probably bothered to check the reference nor do they care, this is one of the reason why tiering of the character is bolded after all, because it's important, so is the AP, LS, speed, dura and intelligence section

And lastly, PLEASE don't go and do some shit that I don't want to intrude like what happen above there, it shouldn't happen, all of this is for the convenience of the readers of the character profiles, whether they are a frequent visitor or not

And that's my two cent, good night and have a good day

 

[Antvasima]

Ant. Did you really just leak a discussion that happened in private among staff that would villainize Armor

Do you realize how bad that is

That happened publicly iirc on a thread.

I think that it happened in the PM discussion for all of our staff members, but I didn't think that it was sensitive information, and I did not intend to villainise Armorchompy, just try to explain that I am not happy about having to likely do considerably more continuous work due to projects that seem unnecessary to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Ant, and I say this with the highest of respect, but in accordance with what both Andy and Armor said, what the hell are you thinking by using statements made in confidence to guilt-trip and gaslight your fellow staff members just because they have differing opinions on the subject at hand?

Well, I just tried to explain the similarity between the situations. It was not a private conversation between me and Armorchompy alone, but between all of our staff, so I didn't think that it seemed confidential, but I have pretty awful social judgement skills due to the mid-level autism and limited social interaction experiences.

I also did not intend to manipulate or guilt-trip him, as you claimed. I am not even mentally capable of deliberately manipulating people in that manner or in playing social games of any kind. I was sincere in what I said. Again, I apologise if I messed up though.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I think that it happened in the PM discussion for all of our staff members, but I didn't think that it was sensitive information, and I did not intend to villainise Armorchompy, just try to explain that I am not happy about having to likely do considerably more continuous work due to projects that seem unnecessary to me.

Doesn't matter. You leaked private information in an attempt to win an argument. That's disturbing and puts everyone else's privacy at risk to your own warped standards of what is and isn't "sensitive".

 

[Andytrenom]

This probably isn't the best place to continue arguing about it, but I do think this needs to be addressed somewhere somewhen

 

[Antvasima]

Doesn't matter. You leaked private information in an attempt to win an argument. That's disturbing and puts everyone else's privacy at risk to your own warped standards of what is and isn't "sensitive".

Warped standards and putting others at risk is way too harsh. I have been able to keep confidences for several years when others have approached me about being genuinely very depressed, and I tried to help them.

I just intuitively didn't think that a staff thread for 65 people where nothing confidential or personally dangerous has been said, and nobody had told me that they wanted to keep something secret, seemed like something that anybody would take offence about.

I am not neurotypical. I do not intuitively understand all layers of social interaction that others are preprogrammed with. I can learn from experience though.