Digital_Franz
He/Him- 1,386
- 617
The discussion has already started without any staff present? Chill out and be patient.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sorry, I haven't read the series, I can't comment on your example but maybe we can agree to disagree? Hope I haven't come off as rude throughout the discussion. Anyway, I'm not even exactly sure what the goal of the argument is anyway.
I don't understand how this is relevant.Okay I guess I can start. What should I even do? Defend myself? I don't think I did anything wrong.
First of all Masque points to posts from the old thread and the new one. On I said he's acting like a "know it all" because Gabbling Dragon took an example, as a member who knows the verse I said the example doesn't fit the situation and it wasn't Gabbling Dragon who argued but Masque himself yet in one of our discussions in the thread he told me this:
He can't comment on my example but wants to argue in the CRT on the same example even though it was the WN version.
I don't believe I've been rude to Vietthai and I've never claimed that anyone lacks common sense. And I encourage constructive criticism and have remained kind to multiple people who have disagreed with me.Furthermore, Masque has already displayed rude behavior, especially towards Vietthai96 which earned him to be reported here. He displays passive rude attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with his point of view, telling them that they lack common sense and such. Why haven't I reported him since? Because I don't give a sh*t.
I claimed that you were rude because I interpreted your comments as being disrespectful and they made me uncomfortable, there's no other reason.I tell him that he chose the wrong examples and he directly says that I am rude. Why? Because I said that he chose the wrong examples? The farce. Almost everything he pointed out for the new thread is not rude.
I don't believe this is relevant to the topic of the report.And furthermore saying that it is a farce is my point of view that I can display. If it were not the case, the concept of wankers would not have existed in the first place. Literally all Masque spends his time doing in the CRT is: it is said this, this is the most logical conclusion. Are we here to work without a statement and believe things? Curry and him say: yeah increasing and multiplying are the same thing. With this logic I take Naruto, the chakra being a UES, I just see the gap between his 8-A key for part I and his 5-C key for part II, I make the ratio and I place him at MFTL+ because "speed and strength increase proportionally".
I don't "play on words", I just wanted to give you a serious answer. And please don't call me childish, I try hard to always behave in a mature and respectful manner.When I give him a metaphor like "can you hear yourself talking", he wants to play on words and say that he doesn't speak but he writes. Of course that's the case. But if he wants to play this game, he should do it alone. Basically I ask him for direct statements but he gives me roundabout statements. Isn't that a joke? In any case, I don't want to waste time on this childishness.
You brought up the subject of the old CRT and you say you don't understand how it is relevant?I don't understand how this is relevant.
Hmm. Maybe it's only the case for Phoenks and me? Well, that doesn't matter to meI don't believe I've been rude to Vietthai and I've never claimed that anyone lacks common sense. And I encourage constructive criticism and have remained kind to multiple people who have disagreed with me.
Because you interpret. Let's ask the staff to interpret the same comment.I claimed that you were rude because I interpreted your comments as being disrespectful and they made me uncomfortable, there's no other reason.
Just to show your behavior. It all comes down to logic for you which logically leads to criticism of things you take badly.I don't believe this is relevant to the topic of the report.
And do you think I take the debate as a joke? You should have just answered me that that's not what you meant instead of adding a bunch of useless things.I don't "play on words", I just wanted to give you a serious answer. And please don't call me childish, I try hard to always behave in a mature and respectful manner.
This all appears just like that. You're just making yourself out to be the victim when you're not. As BlackeJan said here, you reported him without mentioning Curry's rude attitude and making him out to be the bad guy.I don't "play on words", I just wanted to give you a serious answer. And please don't call me childish, I try hard to always behave in a mature and respectful manner.
Specifically the rude comments in the CRT, not who's right or wrong in the argument.You brought up the subject of the old CRT and you say you don't understand how it is relevant?
I've been nice to You, Vietthai, and Phoenks as well, even after the disagreements and rude comments.Hmm. Maybe it's only the case for Phoenks and me? Well, that doesn't matter to me
Sure, that was the plan for my initial post.Because you interpret. Let's ask the staff to interpret the same comment.
I mean, what does you believing that Naruto is MFTL+ and disagreeing with my claims in the other thread have to do with any of this, and aren't arguments supposed to hinge on logic?Just to show your behavior. It all comes down to logic for you which logically leads to criticism of things you take badly.
No, that's why I responded with a serious answer, and I did.And do you think I take the debate as a joke? You should have just answered me that that's not what you meant instead of adding a bunch of useless things.
I wouldn't exactly call myself a victim per se, I just feel disrespected, and I don't think you'd exactly have the right to decide who is a victim and who isn't. And as for the Curry thing, she didn't really say anything wrong in the newest thread, definitely not in regards to what the two of you are implying, it's just a common phrase with no negative connotation toward anyone.This all appears just like that. You're just making yourself out to be the victim when you're not. As BlackeJan said here, you reported him without mentioning Curry's rude attitude and making him out to be the bad guy.
OKThat's enough now, please. The back and forth doesn't make it easier for staff to reach a conclusion, it makes it harder.
Ig, I only really dismiss things if the conversation goes back and forth without progression as there's really no point in arguing then. And I think Curry's use of the phrase was pretty reasonable given the situation but overall, it's fine.Regarding BlackeJan: My immediate impression is that both sides were being rude. Masque dismisses opinions he doesn't care about, and Curry spams people with "end of discussion" towards people she disagrees with, despite having no authority whatsoever to actually silence dissent. Given the tameness of the accused comments, I do find it difficult to actually regard anything as a rule violation rather than a simple escalation when faced with aggression.
In that particular instance, the person who I was conversing with was applying the context of one situation to another. (Ex: Blank was described in this way in this instance, but not in another instance, so my point was invalid. Disregarding the fact that the context of these two instance were different so logically, their descriptions would be different.) I believed this argument to be fallacious, therefore I asked them to use common sense because of the nature of fallacies being a lapse in logic during argumentation. I don't believe that what I said was exactly wrong/rude, but I can definitely understand that it could be interpreted in that way and I could've worded my response better, and for that I apologize.The old thread may be a smidgeon worse than the new one (acknowledging that it is practically a month old), but really isn't much different. Even in your own evidence, you accuse him of not using common sense, and then want us to consider it a rule violation for him to retort that you common sense?
That's fine, I didn't want anyone to get an official warning or anything like that. Just for someone with more power than me to ease the hostility of the discussion. (And in regards to these two users being placed on my ignore list, would that be possible? Sorry if I'm asking for too much, I just don't want to deal with any rude comments.)Regarding Digital_Franz: I will admit that Franz was more aggressive than Blacke, although when questioning whether their behavior deserves more than the usual "stop doing that" response we usually give, I would hardly say it is that much worse. The environment itself was made aggressive. I am hesitant to apply a warning in this instance.
Sure, and thanks for the response, I appreciate it.I'm against a warning in the instance of Blacke, I don't think he behaved any worse than is the median for that thread. Franz is more debateable, but for now I lean in favor of leniency. Neither have a history of poor behavior, after all, and minor spats like this are simply bound to happen in a hobby such as this.
It should be fine, though a bureaucrat would have to handle it. @Antvasima would you mind?That's fine, I didn't want anyone to get an official warning or anything like that. Just for someone with more power than me to ease the hostility of the discussion. (And in regards to these two users being placed on my ignore list, would that be possible? Sorry if I'm asking for too much, I just don't want to deal with any rude comments.)
Iirc, it was cause he was acting rude himself and proceed to say something along the line of me not having commons sense so I retaliated back. I also did say that all I want was a warning, he only reported me cause I did the same to him and as I said many times beforehand, he hides his rudeness with innocenceyou accuse him of not using common sense, and then want us to consider it a rule violation for him to retort that you common sense?
i know basic math, the whole “double exponentially” is also cause it’s stronger then a sacred gear that doubles power as well so i see it as far beyond that of 2x. I keep forgetting u aren’t a staff, it took me awhile to know that anyone with a “content mod” isn’t part of the staff. My mistakeI wasn’t touting some sort of authority or something, I was just using the phrase because from my perspective Black was arguing against literal proven math, as in the definition of what it means to double something.
Removing the option to appeal would be unprecedented, even in the most outrageous of cases. Now, we obviously reject many appeals, but to silence one outright doesn't seem necessary.Over a year ago now, I proposed unbanning Raven as a matter of correcting previous staff communication breakdowns, as well as after having preliminary talks with her and Promestein to determine her behavior. Throughout the course of the following year, Raven has shown a gradual unraveling of her self-control in pretty much every interaction I've seen her in, and quite frankly, I don't think it should be tolerated anymore.
I promised you all I would see to it that, if my belief in her at the time was misplaced, I would correct my mistake. I believe that time has come. I am advocating a permanent ban with no chance of appeal.
Yes, of course, but I need some specifics regarding which members that @MasqueTLDF wants to automatically ignore.It should be fine, though a bureaucrat would have to handle it. @Antvasima would you mind?
@Digital_Franz and @BlackeJan, thank you very much.Yes, of course, but I need some specifics regarding which members that @MasqueTLDF wants to automatically ignore.
Thank you for the information. I will handle it.@Digital_Franz and @BlackeJan, thank you very much.
I have done so.Thank you for the information. I will handle it.
From her posts, she seems to believe that chicken bones aren't dangerous for dogs (or for herself) if eaten slowly, based on personal experience. She was dismissive of evidence to the contrary. Based off of this belief, she feeds one of her dogs that "1% of the time" if there's nothing else to feed them.About Raven, I am personally a vegetarian who really loves animals, especially dogs, but is she intentionally harming them, or is she just being clueless and in need of instructions to adjust her behaviour?
If she is genuinely continuously deliberately attempting to cause controversy after having her ban lifted with the requirement that she should not do so, that is a separate and ban-worthy issue though.
Well, if she is willing to adjust her behaviour, I do not think that in itself seems sufficient to punish her in that case.From her posts, she seems to believe that chicken bones aren't dangerous for dogs (or for herself) if eaten slowly, based on personal experience. She was dismissive of evidence to the contrary.
Obligatory disclaimer that I disagree with this, and that I do not feed them to dogs I'm around.
I don't think this is the right approach, really. That one great evil exists (the meat industry) does not mean we should allow the small evils (animal abuse). Raven's post is dismissive of the real harm she is causing to an animal she is responsible for. The simple fact that we cannot stop the slaughter of livestock does not mean we should stand by the harming of a dog. I can't say that I understand the perspective suggesting otherwise.About Raven, I am personally a vegetarian who really loves animals, especially dogs, but is she intentionally harming them, or is she just being clueless and in need of instructions to adjust her behaviour?
Also, technically the entire pig meat industry engages in unfathomably enormous amounts of animal cruelty, and most people are so used to it that they ignore it, despite that pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs.
Regardless, if she is genuinely continuously deliberately attempting to cause controversy after having her ban lifted with the requirement that she should not do so, that is a separate and ban-worthy issue.
Raven was dismissive of evidence that she was harming an animal, essentially just trying to get the people bringing evidence to stop talking about it. I take this as sufficient that she was simply ignorant, but is now stubbornly endangering an animal's life.That was more an aside mention for the purpose of general awareness given my vegetarianism. What is relevant seems to be if Raven is engaging in deliberate animal cruelty or is just clueless, and if she is deliberately and continuously causing controversy.
Okay. That is very different then. I generally try to make a distinction between being clueless and being malicious, but this seems to cross into the second territory if she refuses to change her behaviour.Raven was dismissive of evidence that she was harming an animal, essentially just trying to get the people bringing evidence to stop talking about it. I take this as sufficient that she was simply ignorant, but is now stubbornly endangering an animal's life.
Okay. Thank you for the information.Whether she is causing controversy deliberately is another matter. I think she does cause controversy, and I am willing to believe it is not for the intent of doing so. However, she does intentionally return to controversy to resurrect it, which may be considered an equal offense.