So you think him being toxic against us is perfectly within the rules?
Which is YOUR opinion. You didn't wait for ANY othed staff member to come and even AFTER I told you other staff were interested, you refused. You even rejected the 48 hours deal.
Thing is, most of these threads if I recollect were using specific writer cosmologies.
You guys constantly say the revisions are coming soon, but they never are
Exactly
No one said that. At all. This is what is meant by "arguing in bad faith." This is an egregious mischaracterization of what was said.
Calling people delusional is not toxic now?
No one said this. Good grief.
You did imply it by saying it was an egregious mischaracterization of what was said
You do realize we didn't start arguing about our threads? Others did.
Anyway, let's get back to the relevant matter.
All the screenshots have been addressed thoroughly before, at this point you are spamming them.From my perspective, I do not believe their collaborative efforts are inherently a problem as many users do that. I also don't think the way they engage in discussions is per se rulebreaking as they're far from the only group of users to do so.
However, I did think that using # of agreements as a key part of a complaint about the threads being closed seems problematic given the fact that they are soliciting FRAs from their discord friends. I also think they should not have hijacked the General Request thread as a venue for their frustration about their CRTs failing.
More importantly, the decision to pretend they haven't been collaborating for FRAs in Discord when they plainly have, and for all of them to pretend they're being falsely accused of something and bringing me up in the RVR thread, is a serious issue in my opinion.
And over the long run, this game of whack-a-mole with sub-par CRTs and bad faith arguing is becoming a significant time-waster for DC-involved members, amplified by the fact that they are convincing their Discord friends to make accounts here to support their threads and to argue on their behalf at times.
Whatever the decision is, I'm fine with it, but I am especially concerned about this collective response to pretend a false accusation has been made rather than just admit they've been working together to get CRTs passed.
As mentioned earlier, I have not noticed him being toxic to a reportable degree.
I thought that I called for several knowledgeable members, including staff, but that none of them showed up, and that I then closed the first thread after lots and lots of circular arguing, which lead to me closing the thread.
We would get a lot more free time to make the final finishing touches if we would not be forced to spend so much time on related threads that your group created in conjunction.
Yes. I will do so. Let's wait to see what they think.
To be clear, this was a discord server with 100 or so members, not private DMs or anything like that.
This is not true. For example, in Tetra's case, he only did the "I agree" thing about 3 times, and there were 17+ times where he didn't do that.
Xearsay also actually agrees with it with his own free will- https://media.discordapp.net/attach...53607444635658/Screenshot_20221023-201725.jpg
I do not know why you are still posting the first two screenshots, despite the fact we addressed them. Those people too, actually agreed with their own free will, no one was forced. You are also forgetting the fact those are old, and if those two screenshots are all you have, that's very weak argument against the countless screenshots I have shown about me asking for input, and even telling them they can disagree.
Not true. In two of the 3 threads, we said the agreements and disagreements were similar. In the one of them in which we did have a majority, again, they agreed with their own free will. Plus people, who aren't part of our "group" gave their agreements as well.
The server is a private server if you didn't know
I see, regardless it's not something that concerns wiki. Many things turns out to be fair to someone or unfair to other. It's just not the right place for these issues which has been raised because wiki can't go around stopping ppl from sharing discord SS or stop ppl from working on projects.
What I want to make very clear is that I am not primarily concerned about them collaborating on threads. It is how things spiraled out from there I find problematic:
This is the only issue here, a debate w/o tie breaker or knowledagle member to sort out stuff can get toxic as time goes on, maintaining a healthy debate is as well not a easy task for even members for prolonged period of time. So keeping aside all things this should be the issue to be discussed than accusing each other unnecessarily.
I did taken it into account and said that this collaboration can be unfair for someone. I didn't mean that you are saying it's unfair or anything but just that it's not a wiki issue or anything above about you two is against rules or report worthy. I am not accusing anyone for anything but just that it has nothing to do with wiki, So we can stop with any further personal issues.
I just checked and I did call for several knowledgeable members and wait afterwards. I should probably have asked for more of them though, but as I said in a preceding post, I had spammed quite a lot of notification messages very close to this, so I was likely rather uneasy with it at the time.
But I asked them, and they were interested. You only had to wait
That's not what happened. They gave valid agreements out of their own free will. After that, none of us used those agreements to paint Ant in such a bad light, we said it was closed unfairly, with the primary reason being that the staff members would have come soon. Is waiting really a big problem?
I already did wait though, and after I eventually closed the thread, I sent a private apology message to you for likely being too rude and suspicious earlier. Then you asked me to reopen the thread, but I was sick and tired of having to waste time there at the time, and also did not want it to force us to spend lots of time rewriting the premises for our upcoming cosmology revision thread when we were finally beginning to wrap it up after 2 years of preparations.
Yes, but during that time I didn't actually message them myself. They only got your pings.
With a 48 hour time limit
Which is why I said you didn't have to waste your time there. I wouldn't have put up an argument or bumped, we would have only waited. I specified all this in our 48 hour deal
Well, there was a screencapture of one of you wanting to see me demoted and then to gloat about it, and news flash, although I only mention this when confronted about the issue, this wiki would most likely have stayed at 1/100th its current popularity and 1/1000th its current quality, and not had a functioning forum either, if I had not been here working so extremely hard as a force of maintenance and organisation for almost 9 years now.
I agree. This is the biggest issue. If I had to order it in priority these are my biggest issues, from most important to least important.
Seriously dude? Look, I will post some screenshots here. You tell me yourself if I asked my "group" to agree with me or simply asked them for input-
Instances of you asking for input do not change the fact that the group has, at various times, overtly asked for agreements, using agreement with CRTs as a bargaining chip, discouraged disagreements on CRTs, and a call to arms for collaborative efforts to get CRTs passed. In combination with asking non-VSBW discord users to create accounts here for that purpose.
