If we were to ban every single individual who was guilty of insulting, mocking, and trolling, without first receiving warnings, we'd have no more users within two months time.
Blocked
Well, we don't know for certain that this is in fact Shining Cross (unless a check has been made behind the scenes to verify that).
I think we should ignore him and/or make the ban permanent as Damage said. This user is very immature.
I'm all in a permaban then.
I'd support extending to permanent for sockpuppeting and not taking hints.
I second this.
Should we initiate the block now?
When you say I don't understand English then immediately concede, I'm going to joke about it. You don't get to stone wall and waste people's time whilst insulting their intelligence and think their annoyance is unreasonable.
bump
As of now, no one is inspecting this case. You'll be pinged here once we get to it, there is no need to be paranoid.
I'll clarify my perspective on the discussion as a whole. These were the first three remarks exchanged:
To me this was just banter, and I don't have any issues with it. However, your response from there progressed from a mere quip to seemingly actually challenging my stance on the matter:
From there, I provided clarifications as I felt that my position was not being understood correctly. I've since looked at my comments again, and I feel confident that they were completely respectful. In contrast, nearly all of yours included some form of insult or mockery, that I chose to ignore, for instance:
I could go on, but this is essentially a constant element in any discussion with you. By itself it likely doesn't rise to the level of being RVR worthy so I chose to ignore it. Eventually, a dozen or so comments in this discussion later, you took the stance that saying "It is figurative" and "It seems figurative to me" are essentially identical in regards to making a positive claim and incurring a burden of proof. A claim I find ridiculous
Which, per your own admission, you responded to by calling me a "pretentious fool," a "clown," a "smug stonewall" and that "nobody likes me."
The actual content of the argument is irrelevant to the report. Lest we have another debate on the actual topic. This is jut a posture to make yourseld seem virtuous.
Aside from tooting your own horn a bit too much here, a lot of the things you have listed are out of context.
The fact you actually think this is serious is again just false and hampers your credibility.
One I made you concede on.
I called you the first two because you smugly insulted my english ability, which is entirely pretentious and worth being called out.
Calling people's debate tactics dishonest are not the same thing as insulting them personally which you did. Calling people's arguments and the way they debate dishonest is surely the same thing as saying someone doesn't understand english.
Ok dude. You can keep believing that.
I called him dishonest and pretentious when he blatantly insulted my intelligence.
Uh sure we can agree on that.
Then you ignore them. Responding back with comments like "pretenious fool," or "clown" doesn't help anything regardless of who said what first. You can easily message another staff member to stop the nonsense.
Not really, as some people (mainly new users) on this site don't know that crossing out comments means it's suppose to be a joke, it's not like it's a rule, and if comments are exchanged between users that aren't on friendly terms or even know each other like that you could simply cross it out but still mean it (this is not saying that's your intention) but if the two users are in even a minor exchange and one starts making sarcastic joke, it doesn't help at all. My point is that using these comments doesn't hamper credibility, but it's also not something that hammers a point home.
Why? You make sarcastic jokes but that doesn't make it a valid excuse when in even a small heated exchange that can get you annoyed which you mentioned you were when you made those two other comments mentioned in the post above. My point is the same as above, these comments could very well be sarcastic jokes but when in an exchange between two people that results in a report being made in the Rule Violation thread these aren't things to just gloss over in my opinion but once again, potential joke comments don't add much to credibility but they sure don't hinder it when it reaches the point where we end up in the on this thread.
These are my thoughts on the matter as well.
I don't think that's reasonable to ask in the middle of a debate.
Even if we give Deagon this level of charity, which he honestly doesn't deserve due to his experience and position as staff, it still doesn't change the fact these aren't insults, which we seem to agree on.
Well if you're reporting someone, you're obviously going to make little things seem like a much bigger deal than they are. That's kind of a bias that comes with reporting someone. The fact Deagon is just so Blatantly wrong here should make his accounts of other things I said less reliable, especially the obvious jokes like this one.
How is calling someone dishonest more offensive than saying someone doesn't know English.
Oh yea. Considering that this seems to be a misunderstanding I'll just drop my case against you.
I rather consider the stories and feelings of both sides; I’m more inclined both of you should be supportive of a warning. A ban for him is too far tbh, considering he wouldn’t be incisive if it weren’t for you making such remarks.
Personally, I don't agree. He was rude the entire time, he simply got considerably ruder once I finally said something mild toward him, which itself wasn't nearly as bad as what he'd been saying in each comment leading up to it. In any other context we likely wouldn't even consider a remark like "I don't want to be your English teacher" as warning worthy, IMO. It's just been misdescribed as "insulting his intelligence" to justify what came after.
I called you dishonest when you were being dishonest. When you started to act condescending I called you pretentious.
I'll also clarify for others, I didn't say this. The discussion revolved around explaining the difference between two words, and I said "I don't want to be your English teacher" with regard to continually explaining what the word meant. Not "you don't know English."
