In this report, there are two content revisions that have been impacted.
- One of which was made by the user @Eseseso, who reported an offender,
- while the other was made by @Fireld.
I will begin by evaluating the first reported content revision, which
@Suigetsuhyugs opposed. In the initial report, the offender questioned the content revision and their right to do so should be acknowledged. While there were concerns raised that appeared to derail the conversation from its main topic, the offender's concerns were not necessarily invalid. They even pointed out that they couldn't create any new CRTs due to limitations.
However, the conversation became heated, and there were some slight insults exchanged between both parties. It is worth noting that the offender only received one warning and responded to the OP's request. They weren't ignoring or not listening to the request, but rather questioning if their comments were derailing the conversation.
In my opinion, the offender found some scaling issues in the verse, and the OP was trying to evade them
(or better phrased, he ignored them, since it is not “relevant”). The offender's responses were calm until the discussion became heated.
The second content revision was also relevant to the report, and the offender had shared their concerns in a respectful manner. They kept mentioning the issue because it had been consistently ignored, and people were evading it to get the CRTs through.
This is not considered derailing, but rather
pointing out scaling issues in the verse with those content revisions which It is worth discussing (the main goal of this community is to share and exchange opinions).
@Eseseso may want to consider the opponent's perspective and think about the scaling issues raised in the relevant content revisions.
Note:
If the concerns presented have been discussed and
rejected, this may be regarded
as derailing and warrant
a warning. However, if the concerns were not addressed, it cannot be considered derailing.
