I will have to bring it up here. Arcker123 is being needlessly toxic in
this thread.
Eh. I disagree. (Insert Moyai Emoji here).
Right after posting the thread him and Deceived started engaging in light trolling, taking sarcastic potshots at Damage and Duedate before they even commented on the thread as can be seen
here.
...
This is just the usual banter that pretty much everyone gets up to before discussion actually starts. Me personally tho, I was just memeing about how I expected the thread to be controversial (Which is true). Like, everyone was memeing at that point and I even memed about Deceived "Coping."
If you scroll down the thread the light trolling continues, with responses like
this,
This is quite literally me responding to some low effort argument from damage with another low effort response? I use emoji's to convey the absurdity of an argument.
I have no clue how you can interpret this as Damage related in anyway. This is just me responding to goonery and emoji's with similar behavior. I doubt he took that as seriously as you did.
Again, I did this because Damage was just is giving half assed non responses instead of actually debating the arguments. We had an entire section of the CRT dedicated to why the attitude displayed by you and Damage was annoying. I don't take low effort responses like that seriously, hence the emoji. I was just annoyed at the dismissal.
These are all targeted towards Damage and this is not at all appropriate to do in a CRT as it comes off as rude and mocking.
First of all, the claim this is all targeted towards Damage is false, your own scans debunk that. Secondly, I can concede to poor etiquette or appearance sure... but nothing I said is that mocking tbh.
Arcker123 goes on to include passive aggressive bits like
"this is how you cope"
I clearly did that in a joking way and it's obvious it's not meant to be taken seriously. Hence why it's crossed out. I said that because Damage's response seemed like a tacit admission he couldn't provide evidence, and was just trying to dodge around that fact by using vague nonsense and passively aggressively dismissing my request for evidence "spelled out in explicit detail." Hence, me calling it "cope." I deadass explain this in the same comment.
and calling him
goober, which in the context of things, isn't meant in a good way.
It's meant in a way no different from me calling him a goon or Mrk. It's not supposed to be that offensive.
If you want tp get technical, the term is used to describe someone as funny or odd OvO.
Dread was just being annoying and trolling with Jibz whilst derailing so I did that. That clearly wasn't a serious convo, so I don't take it seriously, hence my use of Emoji's.
He then calls Damage
a rat on
two occasions.
This is just dishonest and leaves out why I said that. I also explained why I was saying those things several times in that thread. Damage was just being frustrating to debate against and was being needlessly pretentious so I called his behavior ratty (Yes Behavior, using the term to refer to someone is specifically in reference to that persons behavior, and even then, in one of those scans I verbatim said he was "being" ratty). It's no different then calling him dishonest or arrogant (albeit in a more flippant manner). There's no way to put this that isn't going to come off as offensive (Yes, calling someone dishonest qualifies, in essence, that's all I meant by "ratty" anyway). Y'all are just over reacting to what I said. I'm also not going to explain the context in this post further, as I did so adequately in the linked scans, so everyone who wants to can just read it for context. This issue was even mutually resolved by Arc, so IDK why this is even brought up.
I don't need to explain why this is a problem.
Is this not the point of RVR? I'd imagine you would have to explain the issue, given how your report consists of:
- Emojis I use in response to unserious posts
- Extremely Mild Language
- Out of context responses
I personally don't see much issue here tbh beyond poor etiquette, but whatev.
Behavior like this is what turns everybody off from threads like these and it's clearly not an encouraging environment for anybody to contribute. Most sane people would just stop responding if they were treated like this, or otherwise, the thread would become a shitfest.
Such a hyperbolic post in response to emoji's and mild insults. Generally with me tho, I won't troll people who aren't just being dishonest (Damage) or not already trolling (Everything else).
I think a threadban is in order
I don't think you provide a compelling enough case for this. Most you have is again, some emojis and me being mildly frustrated with a dishonest actor.
Uh so yea. This is my response. If it comes off as unserious or offends you then I apologize. That's not the intent of this post. The intent of this post is to give context and add my thought process to the convo to explain my behavior. I personally think everything I said in that thread was very mild, and a thread ban is unwarranted. As I said, most I did was Emoji spam and respond with mild frustration to someone who I explained was being dishonest. I think a warning is fair. I can admit to all of this being in poor taste, but I think the suggested response, or pursuing any further action based on this is gonna be baseless. This is not that bad in context.
I really hope this is coherent and easy to read. I kinda have a problem with rambling kek.
vsbattles.fandom.com
