Board Thread:Reporting station/@comment-27385163-20170527235032/@comment-27385163-20170528045543

Camwood777 wrote:

Mental Skillness wrote:

Camwood777 wrote:

Mental Skillness wrote: you've simply repeated yourself with claims i disproved

1. it's not derailing, it's relevant, the people who responded made it derailing.

2. i'm just stating a problem with the wiki, silencing me due to that is a breach of freedom of speech. you quite literally just said "if we dont like it, we delete it". which in itself is an abusive system.

and you're basically now trying to belittle the situation by flatering yourself, and making everyone think i'm trying to provoke you, which isnt how the world works. heck, i could say that these warnings and reply removals are attention towards me, and are trying to provoke me. Firstly, if you have an issue with me repeating myself... That's because you're not getting the point of my statements.
 * 1) I flat-out told you why the people reacting weren't the ones derailing, and why I can't just warn everybody reacting. Simply put, that's literally against the rules, and against how warnings for derails work. If a thread derail occurs, you don't punish the people reacting to it, you punish the person who derailed. Yet, you continued to not understand. So I said it again, and... I'm now wrong because I repeated my statement?
 * 2) As I've stated numerous times, freedom of speech =/= freedom of consequence. I don't really get why this is such a hard concept to grasp. You can say anything, but you're not free from the consequences of what you say. If you want an example, just go in public and just randomly say the N-word at random intervals; you'll see what I mean very, very quickly, implying you're in an urban or suburban area.

The thing is, I wouldn't need to repeat myself if these statements were actually understood.

There's not going to be an exception to the fact that wiki rules say you warn the person who derailed, not the people who reacted to it, so no, I'm not going to remove the warning and give warnings to everyone else who reacted to your warning, and no, your derailing posts being deleted is not "censorship" and it is not "protected by freedom of speech."

If you have an issue with me repeating myself... maybe don't make me have to repeat myself. 1. but, my posts were on-topic?? and you can warn multiple people, there's no limit to how many people you can warn. and no (to you saying you're wrong for repeating yourself), it was because i already countered it, and i didnt want to repeat myself.

2. but removing replies because of an opinion that thinks negatively about something you may possibly appreciate and know easy to abuse, or basically indifferents to what you think is a breach on freedom of speech.

drama is an extremely easy to profit from with corruption.

and like i said, i didnt derail, you're saying that. they derailed the conversation, not me. the topci was the pvz community, and drama is a huge flaw in the pvz community. they were not derailing, or tried to invoke a negative reaction.

and even when i tried defending myself and saying it was unfair, they were deleted with no response or argument. this is a breach of censorship, since a lot of people made it really clear that they didn't want to talk about flaws just because?? and because my posts thought differently, they were deleted.

and they were obviously censored lmao. you guys provided no argument to what i said and simply deleted the posts straight-up. which in itself is power abuse, and i dont feel like people should get away with that
 * 1) Except there is. It's called "if you basically go mad with power and warn a ton of people for reacting to a post, you're going to get into obvious trouble because that's against the rules and not how warnings work." If you want to see actual warning abuse, go ahead and try doing that some day. The bureaucrats will be happy to teach you a friendly lesson about that.
 * 2) How exactly does that refute my claim? My statement is that the freedom of speech doesn't equate to freedom of consequence, not that you can delete posts randomly. Your post broke a rule (derailing), hence it was removed. Simple as that.

However, looking at your comments, I think I've got a better clue of exactly what on Earth you're attempting to say.*

The problem arises that your attempts to "defend" yourself were akin to digging yourself a deeper grave. Specifically, because you kept bringing up the topic of drama when attempting to defend yourself, even indirectly, it kept revitalizing the derail, and only caused more problems.

A much better way to go about defending yourself would to simply ask "why were my posts removed?" or "what am I doing wrong?" and nothing else. A staff could then easily state exactly why, and what you did wrong, so that way, you could know not to do it again. Anything more specific usually just risks making the same mistake... and also not being told the mistake clearly.

This is a problem even I struggle with, so I'm not going to act like this is some major problem that you should feel bad for doing... Because heck, even I do it. Just look at me in this thread.

In theory, it sounds wise to defend yourself. In practice, sometimes, it's just a lot better to say either a generic "hey, can you tell me what I am doing wrong?", or simply just concede and say "wow I'm dumb, sorry" and nothing more; anything more could just worsen the situation.

As for the censorship, I've stated numerous times; they did derail the thread. Initially via just flat-out mentioning a topic nobody likes to hear, and then by digging yourself a deeper grave on accident as you attempted to defend yourself. While the magnitude can be argued, they did all have the same effect of turning the thread into basically one big argument... And that's not exactly what one looks for in a WD thread.

Again, I still don't this does not justify your actions, and I still don't feel totally okay with removing warnings, but not only is that just me, but it's understandable if this is just a case of digging yourself a deeper grave and simply not understanding what's going on and also makes a lot more sense why you are reacting the way you are.

* i sound like an alien meeting humanity for the first time, and because it's about 12:40 AM for me, this amuses me. 1.oh nice, making up rules on the spot. good admin. and what do you mean?? i cant warn people lmao

2.i just said it wasnt derailing. my god. i'm not going to explain my point again, i've explained it several times, SEVERAL TIMES. and you just agreed that removing a reply taht doesnt agree with what you think is ok because the user is lower than you?? you mind being a bit less vague

and, nah, i just argued it was unfair, and the mods deleted the posts with no response. i said it wasnt derailing and thats all there is to it. you're just makign up stuff as we go.

i just argued it was unfair, and because of how i state what i said (which it was clearly stating how moronic of a decision it would be to remove my replies for no reason) it's removed?? i already said it's in the same status, and in those posts, i literally said i agreed with another post that went with my argument, but that post didnt get removed.

and now you're trying to belittle the argument and encourage to simply concede to mods because OHH THEY'RE ALWAYS RIGHT, DONT EVER QUESTION THEM. making authorities extremely powerful to the point where you cannot question their decisions is extremely unhealthy in a community.

and like i said numerous times, it wasnt derailing. those warnings were not correct at all, as they were still to the topic. and you just admitted, that it caused a ruckus by the others, but it wasnt my intention. and it was on-topic, my opinion on how drama is poorly handled.