- 388
- 267
If the word "debate" affects you so much, the problem is not with us but with you.I'm reporting @E6pire and @zaraus for having insistently made false accusations about the quality of my input in the following thread, in an attempt to finish the job of getting the thread accepted, potentially at my credibility's expense: Regular Show Revision. The thread itself is within the rules and I don't want to try reverting any revisions in accordance with this report, but I want to give attention to how the two aforementioned members practically cheated their way through my disagreement with one of the details.
Context
At the beginning, we briefly wrote about plenty of ideas that were quickly settled honestly, with me having agreed with most of them. Only one disagreement ultimately matters for this report. For what concerned the thread for the longest time and for what concerns this report, we were observing a scene from Regular Show where characters were fighting in a huge battle on two teams. One of the characters in question, the God of Basketball, has MFTL speed, as told on his VS Battles Wiki profile. He was shown to punch a different character named the Hammer twice, before preparing a wind up punch, which got him hit by another opponent's sneak attack, followed by the Hammer succeeding to punch the God of Basketball away while the latter was injured.
My opinion and E6pire's opinion differ about why the scene played out the way it did. I believe the Hammer was too slow to hit the God of Basketball until the latter was distracted by being in pain from having been sneak attacked, and I think the character who sneak attacked him doesn't have MFTL speed because the God of Basketball accidentally left himself vulnerable. E6pire believes the Hammer needed to have MFTL speed to punch the God of Basketball because the latter's injury wasn't severe enough, and the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball has MFTL speed due to intercepting his wind up and/or senses. Both opinions are based on seeing visible evidence and coming up with a belief about it for reasons, obviously, which I don't need to go into more detail about in this report. Also, I don't think I need to explain here that it doesn't matter whether one of the interpretations is correct or incorrect, since my report is about behavior in a discussion, and it's not against the rules to be reasonably wrong. Anyway, evidently, I am taking into consideration the other side's interpretation, which is an important detail to keep in mind concerning the events.
Proceeding Discussion
Normal discussion proceeded when I explained my ideas, except, along the way, starting at their second reply to me, E6pire couldn't help continuously falsely accusing me of dishonesty. It started as accusing me of merely "acting on probabilities", which supposedly invalidates my idea, even though their idea is also just as much "acting on probabilities" under their logic, which I had expressed. This disagreement escalated to them making far more direct and excessive accusations of me outright ignoring their point about the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball, and E6pire was acting as if I was really doing it, when I really wasn't. Zaraus concurred with everything E6pire wrote of me with the same bad attitude. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.
This was making the discussion drag on for longer than it should've, with some annoying repetition, because E6pire and Zaraus mostly weren't acknowledging my legitimate response, and thus, their own idea didn't adapt to mine for the discussion to actually proceed. Of course, it wasn't mandatory for me to provide input in the first place, but I have sufficient interest in Regular Show to do that, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, since the forum website is meant for this kind of communication. The kind of communication that isn't allowed is excessive false accusations like the ones E6pire and Zaraus made, including the subsequent ones that are even worse.
- E6pire: "[…] What you are doing right now is an "appeal to probability" where you are making an "appeal to probability" based on your gut feeling and what you think is true, even though I have given you the evidence. And you ignored my bonus evidence. That's fine because what I said is still valid."
- E6pire: "[…] So what do you expect me to say, again you are acting on probabilities, if it was as you say, he would not have been there to fight, but you continue to create new possibilities and you present as answers what we all know and see, but my arguments are based on visible evidence."
- E6pire: "What you are defending is now funny, you are even questioning whether you are serious in the war, which is not normally possible." I should mention that, no, I wasn't questioning anything of the sort. Read my message that E6pire quoted to discover that. I was responding to the sentiment they provided in the previous two quotes about "acting on probabilities".
- E6pire: "[…] I'm sorry but please learn to look objectively and don't come up with new theories you must have seen how serious everyone was during that battle and don't ignore the fact that hammer attacked him."
- E6pire: "Despite the fact that I have analyzed the whole moment and produced an argument accordingly, I have not adhered to a single basis and have presented backup evidence. "Invincible ignorance" It's not my fault that you did it."
- Zaraus: "The argument provide you is nonsense […] the comment you add is characterized as an empty argument that does not make much sense and causes unnecessary prolongation, we can discuss this until the morning, be sure I will not be convinced."
- E6pire: "Oh yes, we discussed this and after a while the topic turned super fast, anyway, let me put it this way, I gave more than one reason and he only focused on this issue, he ignored my other argument, I will explain it to you anyway. […]"
- E6pire: "No, you literally ignored my additional evidence and continued on with this issue, I am of course advocating this issue, but backup evidence makes things easier"
- Zaraus: "Dude, as a result of your ignoring, of course we have to say that you ignored it, otherwise you cannot say anything to my argument. If there is an answer to your argument, then we will discuss it until the morning, you have no chance of escaping."
The message by me linked to this text is proof that I, in fact, wasn't ignoring the point that E6pire and Zaraus accused me of ignoring. I posted such a message because the distrust in me was that distracting. If I address every point someone makes and they still tell me that I'm ignoring their point, then there's no other fair input that I could provide. Admittedly, I had missed one message, but that was after the two members already believed that I was totally ignoring their point anyway, which I wasn't doing, as I proven in my message linked at the beginning of this paragraph. It was unreasonable for them to have accused me the way they did. Also, I posted such a message because I actually do occasionally phrase things in an accidentally misleading way, so I wanted to confirm that I truly wasn't making a mistake. I wouldn't be making this report if my words were acknowledged by the other members understandably, regardless of the sentiment I truly wanted to convey.
Following the comment in the previous paragraph, I hoped for E6pire and/or Zaraus to answer me without being distracted by the possibility of me ignoring their point. Instead of our discussion getting back on track like I had hoped, the two's negative narrative about me was adjusted, suggesting that I was merely being biased and egotistical as a result of not being able to "win the argument", and that I should be excluded from providing input because I don't understand how to actually provide it. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.
- E6pire: "DUDE you didn't answer the relevant event, the fact that you said the event about success doesn't mean that you are answering this success. This doesn't refute anything against the fact that the man without rules can attack the basketball god, right now you are just trying to win the argument, I still haven't seen a debunk, if you move at the same speed as someone's attack you will be as fast as him. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPERIENCE."
- Zaraus: "If you're wrong, that's normal."
- Zaraus: "I think this guy won't understand words, we'd better wait for the staff."
- Zaraus: "Our purpose in saying this is that you cannot present a proper argument and we have already refuted your argument. All you are doing now is pride. Please stop being proud and accept it."
- E6pire: "Dude, if you want your attempts to justify yourself to stop, we'll discuss that later. BUT. I have now presented my argument that we are moving away from the main point of the discussion, there is still no answer and I am waiting for the LordGriffin1000 response, so please do not pollute the crt."
- Zaraus: "dude, if you are trying to bring us down by making up terms of your own, know that this will not happen and I am waiting for an answer to your arguments, instead you are diverting the topic and I still do not understand what we are accusing you of, stop creating scenarios in your head and go back to real life, this is an advice."
- E6pire: "Your only answer "The punch was indigestible and an attack from behind, vs" No, I've already answered them, above, if you move at the same speed as someone's attack, you're already at the same speed as them, on top of that, zaraus gave you an example, then you moved away from the arguments and looked to win the argument and I can argue until morning, I'm always here, don't worry, but your words don't concern me, what concerns me is LordGriffin's response."
- E6pire: "If you cared, you would have stopped responding as soon as I said I was waiting for LordGriffin, instead of polluting the crt, because you didn't go through the argument I made to LordGriffin in any way, and this is how the topic has been deflected, please wait for LordGriffin."
- Zaraus: "You are skipping the argument part by distorting what I said again and again. If you do not have a logical response to the argument, then there is no point in writing."
You could say that the discussion ended up going back on track after that, but it was at my expense, shunning me when I didn't do anything to deserve it, with my credibility perhaps harmed unfairly. I decided to stop answering them because reporting them is more productive than trying to fruitlessly defend myself, and their idea of asking for a staff member's opinion isn't bad by itself. Still, they circumvented my disagreement by getting rid of me and treating my input as nothing but trouble, so E6pire could go on their merry way to perform the revision without putting in effort to converse with me productively.
Summary
I joined the thread attempting to stimulate reasonableness in the performance of a revision by having a discussion, and I left having been told that I'm just a sabotaging egomaniac who doesn't know how to give a valid argument and who shouldn't be providing input. For tens of messages, the discussion that I was part of hardly advanced from when I joined to when I left, because most of the time, I was falsely accused of ignoring the other side's interpretation by the same two people, and when this was disproven, their distrust in me somehow became stronger, with the blame for the lack of progress being pinned on me. E6pire and Zaraus have an outrageous inability to handle someone disagreeing with their interpretation, and they seem to put in a lot less effort into fairness than they should, instead opting to put effort into accusations like trolls would. This forum website shouldn't tolerate members who misbehave like this.