Gets his Blackbelt and leaves

[Sirelrohir]

Ok... look.

1. The post i had removed wasn't even harmful to kaizen... if anything it was harmful to Zalbag, and in my opinion would probably have shown a more reasonable light to kisada. One that anyone outside of Limitless/Kaizen rarely sees, because he is a bit rough around the edges in almost every other venue...

Anyway, back on topic- A large part of the reason zalbag left was because of the drama involved in end game... and the way he was treated by some for wearing our pearl. Knowing that the copied post would re-instigate replies, many of which would probably have been negatively directed at him as per the initial replies he got on this thread when he made it... and that the post was never intended to be viewed by him or qcdn, i asked Alyada what he thought about the possibility of removing it. I asked him for an opinion b/c i knew i was probably biased... even though the motive was to protect zalbag in this situation.

Anyway, he agreed that if it was made without Kisada's conscent it should be removed, and removed it himself. He also offered to make a post explaining why it was removed, since it had been up for nearly 45 min... I decided i could at least make the post, since another mod had agreed it should be removed. Bad choice on my part i guess. Oh well.

2. The post was made by someone who isn't in our shell (IP matching yay). In the examples such as Aim conversations, and quotes from in game conversations... the person who made the post was directly involved in the conversation. That to me is entirely different than a non-involved, non-authorized to even see the conversation, third party making use of it.

3. As for kaizen's forum policy. The general agreement is just that. General. ANYONE can register at our boards. That is what we ask, and what any phpBB board by default, asks of its users. What we as a shell ask of our members is quite different.

Also, while i think artems call to copyright is a bit over-the-top... all you need to do to copyright stuff on the internet is make a statement that it has been copyrighted. Yes, if you want to legally take action as a US citizen, the site must be registered... however, under international standards all content on the web is protected upon creation. Facts based off of a webpage/post/whatever are not... but the exact words are.


So... many of you probably wonder why i would want something removed to protect someone else. I know at least one person is going to call complete bullshit on the idea. Sirelrohir, to you, and to anyone else who doubts... Have you ever seen us make a flame about someone who leaves? Have you ever seen us even mention that someone left in a public venue? When people leave we feel that is between them and us, and no one else.

Zalbag choose to involve the QCDN community on this one, a choice he has stated he regrets. If you notice, none of the replies by kaizen members that were made to him said anything negative... they didn't drive a flame... as i stated above, and perhaps rappa who still has the post can confirm, i believe some of the details in that post would have rekindled the less-positive comments he had gotten at first... Kaizen doesn't flame its ex members, even when they might deserve it (not this case)... I simply didn't want a post that was made in private to instigate flames from others either...

Of course its total bs. You are abusing your mod duties to protect your ls. This isnt the first time you have had someone lock a thread or delete a post. It wont be the last. This is a GENERAL community board for everyone on the server, not a kaizen fanboard. If you cant handle the duties and treat your ls members the same as you treat everyone else on this board, then you need to quit your mod position.

Why was it ok for neophytal to start a flame on good times? Why didnt you jump on him for that? Because he's in your linkshell, thats why.

Why didnt you delete the link to anteres private website? Because its a rival ls, that you love to see get a bad rep, thats why.

Why didnt you say/do anythign when neophytal took firestreaks private message from this board, and post it on your site? Then almnut posted this same private message, that was not to him on this site? Its totally BS, and you know it.

The fact of the matter is, you and the other kaizen members that are mods on this message board love the fact that you can control what people see.

It goes along with my previous rants about your ls. You guys think your so great, that in order to perpetuate this myth, you edit out anything on this site that would put you guys in a bad light. Either treat everyone the same, or quit, but dont come on here w/ some nonsense about trying to protect zalbag, b/c i dont think anyone, except your ls members are buying it.

 

[Artem]

They removed the post that was an attack on you. Kaizen doesn't flame it's ex-members, which may seem completely altruistic but it's not. Just like me talking about thinking some Kaizen people flee hack... it can be seen as an attack on them, but without proof, who's gonna look bad?

When you pick fights with your own ex-members, who's gonna look bad as well?

Edit in: On the bright side, now I know how to get rid of those annoying spambots that plague the flameboard. When 1 posts, just follow it up with a post about Kaizen, instant-delete!
(PS: Is just a joke.)

Just pointing out, it was not a post attacking him. Ask Rappa he still has the post, it wasn't an attack, it was just filling in some of the hole's in Zalbag's story that were not mentioned.

 

[Mirewen]

LS stuff should stay in the LS >.< Unless if effects the public, it should stay private.

 

[Zalbag]

Just pointing out, it was not a post attacking him. Ask Rappa he still has the post, it wasn't an attack, it was just filling in some of the hole's in Zalbag's story that were not mentioned.

Now I'm mildly curious as to what parts I left out. Because my post was pretty long due to not wanting to omit anything.

Edit:

LS stuff should stay in the LS >.< Unless if effects the public, it should stay private.

It became public before this post. I was recieving messages from other ls's congradulating me on screwing over Kaizen. Partly why I brought it here, I didn't want people to think that was what I had done.

 

[Artem]

Now I'm mildly curious as to what parts I left out. Because my post was pretty long due to not wanting to omit anything.

Edit:



It became public before this post. I was recieving messages from other ls's congradulating me on screwing over Kaizen. Partly why I brought it here, I didn't want people to think that was what I had done.

Sorry, I should have been more clear, it really just another person's perspective and what happened, not important now

 

[Lavi]

So... many of you probably wonder why i would want something removed to protect someone else. I know at least one person is going to call complete bullshit on the idea. Sirelrohir, to you, and to anyone else who doubts... Have you ever seen us make a flame about someone who leaves? Have you ever seen us even mention that someone left in a public venue? When people leave we feel that is between them and us, and no one else.

Zalbag choose to involve the QCDN community on this one, a choice he has stated he regrets. If you notice, none of the replies by kaizen members that were made to him said anything negative... they didn't drive a flame... as i stated above, and perhaps rappa who still has the post can confirm, i believe some of the details in that post would have rekindled the less-positive comments he had gotten at first... Kaizen doesn't flame its ex members, even when they might deserve it (not this case)... I simply didn't want a post that was made in private to instigate flames from others either...

http://www.qcdn.org/showpost.php?p=563422&postcount=204

Tailss is in your shell, I believe. If not, you can correct me, but I will go with the presumtion that he since Kisada did mention his name in that deleted posted. He DID say something which actually contricted that post by Kisada that was deleted. He tried to downplay the comment made towards Zalbag which Tailss MTed (I can only assume that is the same MT that is mentioned in the OP, but no person is given credit for). If you look at that quote taken directly from QCDN and by Tailss, word for word, he is a Kaizen member bashing an ex-Kaizen member, again, that contradicts you as well.

Now, I find it funny, but it seems more like you are searching for a simple difference to find a reason for allowing previous examples to be considered standard while making your own problem below standard. Private is private. Either you treat ALL private messages, be it MSN, forum conversations, PMs or whatever as illegal material or you treat them all as acceptable material. By the way, I've seen PMs used as evidence previously as well and that post is very similar to a PM, why is it those are acceptable?

If the post was improper, then don't you think someone who wasn't partial should have been the one to say something? I mean if no one found it improper except those who were harmed by it, don't you think that's just like any other FB thread? It's not like FB threads have never come back to harm the OP'er or the intended targets. It's just like any other thread except now, it's you and your shell who are the ones getting the brunt end of it. I'm sorry to say, I honestly thought you were a decent mod up until this point (I had thought you could remain an impartial judge), but I gave you far too much credit. If you cannot stand back and allow the flameboard to be as it is without acting partial towards yourself and your friends, then you really shouldn't be in the position you are in now.

 

[Lavi]

Also, while i think artems call to copyright is a bit over-the-top... all you need to do to copyright stuff on the internet is make a statement that it has been copyrighted. Yes, if you want to legally take action as a US citizen, the site must be registered... however, under international standards all content on the web is protected upon creation. Facts based off of a webpage/post/whatever are not... but the exact words are.

This part had me a little annoyed. So I had to make something clear and do a little research (two seconds actually). While you are correct, the information you posted is indeed copyrighted, the person who copied was in fact allowed by law to reuse it. While, you didn't lie in the above statement, I think you are just using this as an excuse and to infer that what the sockpuppet did as illegal in order to give credence to deleting it without directly saying that it was illegal when in fact it was not.

Fair use.
Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined, but here are a few benchmarks.

Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not. Fairness also means crediting original artists or authors. (A teacher who copied, without credit, much of another's course materials was found to infringe.)

Commercial uses of another's work are also disfavored. For example, anyone who uses, without explicit permission, others' work to suggest that they endorse some commercial product is asking for trouble! Yet, not all commercial uses are forbidden. Most magazines and newspapers are operated for profit; that they are not automatically precluded from fair use has been made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Licenses implied in fact.
Fair use allows limited uses of another's work without approval, but other uses may be approved by implication. For example, when a message is posted to a public email list, both forwarding and archiving seem to be impliedly allowed. It is reasonable to assume that such liberties are okay if not explicitly forbidden. However, when forwarding, archiving or, say, using part of a prior message to respond to an earlier message, be careful not to change the original meaning. No one impliedly authorizes another to attribute to them an embarrassing (or worse) message they did not write!

One web site confidently asserts that all list owners must approve before email can be forwarded. Yet, absent rules governing particular lists, I am aware of no legal basis for it. Why would the power of approval be implicitly given to list owners? Beyond that, few who post to public lists would object if their messages are forwarded to others apt to be interested.

In the same vein, it seems that few authors would object to having messages archived. That serves the interests of list members who may want to revisit topics addressed earlier. Indeed, most would prefer archives to seeing old topics rehashed -- why one often sees lists of frequently asked questions (FAQs), with answers.

Can people revoke implied permission once granted? Circumstances allowing that seem rare. Courts are, at best, reluctant to allow someone to impose a difficult burden on others. Email authors should be careful. Inadvertent messages could be removed from archives, but list owners -- particularly if they are not paid to maintain the list -- may have other things to do than correct members' mistakes. Worse, it may well be impossible to recall inadvertent postings after distribution.

That should more than cover the copyright laws regarding the post. While Kisada may not have intended it to read outside the private Kaizen forums, once one of your members, past or present, had viewed it, they had every right to distribute text as long as it wasn't used for profit while stealing profit from the creator. Since Kisada makes no profit off his posts, the poster made no monetary profit, and there was no express copyright law posted with the message (Privacy Policy had none and in fact made "No Guarantees") we can conclude that posting it broke no legitimate copyright law.

 

[Firestreak]

Just pointing out, it was not a post attacking him. Ask Rappa he still has the post, it wasn't an attack, it was just filling in some of the hole's in Zalbag's story that were not mentioned.

No, it wasn't a post attacking him, but in the context of QCDN it makes him look bad.

And really, it doesn't matter what was on it, it only matters why it was deleted.

It's in no way at all different from the Private Messages of mine Almaut posted. I wouldn't complain about either individually... deleting this post cause it's private, or posting my post because nothing is private. Just pick a fucking stance, please, and don't waste my time with bullshit responses until you actually consider the issue from my perspective instead of trying to generate bland arguments to confuse the issue.

It's pretty obvious you don't actually believe half of the stuff you're saying right now, afterall... like a month ago you were making fun of Hellstorm for calling parser a cheat because it's true by the CoC language... now you're trying to prove you're point with a CoC? Give me a break. When I read it coming from you, I know you don't believe it... so don't waste my time.

 

[Artem]

Reread the thing you quoted, first of all that's an unofficial document written by someone who may or may not know. Maybe if you post where you found it, people can decide how accurate it is? Second, it speaks of nothing in a private forum. It mentions about how some people do not want their posts from being archived in a public list, but the deleted post was not public, nor was it on an email list. Forums != email lists.

Third, there is a specific clause in Terms of Use on our site that says that members cannot copy and distribute any information by another user (it does not say personally identifiable information, it says information, as in any information... personally identifiable information is only mentioned in Privacy Policy clause). Direct copy of that post was in violation of terms of use, which encompass copyright. By international laws, it is a violation of copyright, but it doesn't really matter, no one is taking something so stupid like this to court. I used copyright to describe before because violating collection and distribution agreement is in fact a copyright violation. I'm sorry if copyright is such a narrow term for you, because it encompasses a lot more than you think.

Also, posting conversations between two people on msn and in game is not in violation of privacy because it is an interaction between two or more people. Unless specifically expressed otherwise, any of the participants can distribute that (something like that goes with publicly available posts, unless specifically stated that a person cannot distribute that post).

EDIT to Firestreak: Did you request to have your publicly posted PM removed by a QCDN admin? If they refused you, than yes, I'm sorry to hear you were wronged. They should have removed it if you asked.

 

[Firestreak]

Reread the thing you quoted, first of all that's an unofficial document written by someone who may or may not know. Maybe if you post where you found it, people can decide how accurate it is? Second, it speaks of nothing in a private forum. It mentions about how some people do not want their posts from being archived in a public list, but the deleted post was not public, nor was it on an email list. Forums != email lists.

Third, there is a specific clause in Terms of Use on our site that says that members cannot copy and distribute any information by another user (it does not say personally identifiable information, it says information, as in any information... personally identifiable information is only mentioned in Privacy Policy clause). Direct copy of that post was in violation of terms of use, which encompass copyright. By international laws, it is a violation of copyright, but it doesn't really matter, no one is taking something so stupid like this to court. I used copyright to describe before because violating collection and distribution agreement is in fact a copyright violation. I'm sorry if copyright is such a narrow term for you, because it encompasses a lot more than you think.

Also, posting conversations between two people on msn and in game is not in violation of privacy because it is an interaction between two or more people. Unless specifically expressed otherwise, any of the participants can distribute that (something like that goes with publicly available posts, unless specifically stated that a person cannot distribute that post).

EDIT to Firestreak: Did you request to have your publicly posted PM removed by a QCDN admin? If they refused you, than yes, I'm sorry to hear you were wronged. They should have removed it if you asked.

So you're saying that you agree by the same standards this post was deleted, that entire flame was wrong as well?

-------

I'll put that point on hold for a minute though. You appear to have a lot of misconceptions about intellectual property law. You're arguing the spirit of the law, but you don't understand it's execution perfectly. It's true that AmuzedHitler was violating the CoC of your messageboard by copying and pasting...

...however, breaking a CoC of another entity isn't breaking the CoC of QCDN. It's breaking the CoC of FFXI to use windower, yet people post screenshots of FFXI being run through windower here. QCDN's rules are completely separate, the only issue you may come across is something called plagiarism, however Amuzedhitler didn't try to play the post off as his own writing, and he cited the source.

 

[Firestreak]

Oh yes, by your logic most of our signatures are violations of QCDN CoC. Afterall, I'm quite sure that model-viewer is a violation of FFXI CoC, and by posting it here... we're posting something that was obtained by violating another entities CoC. I could go on and on about all the things we'd have to remove from QCDN... but I think it's safe to say we trust our mods to enforce the "spirit" of the law... I'd just prefer they did it uniformly.

 

[Artem]

I'm quite aware how copyright violations work, I never said our terms of use extended to QCDN, I said that it broke our rules and QCDN cooperated. If SE contacted admin of QCDN about a violation, I'm quite sure QCDN would cooperate. The whole point is QCDN won't do anything until someone requests, then they will consider and do what they want. Never did I say anything about the flame being wrong or anything. You are going back to your own habit of twisting people's words. You've done that to me several times now and many other people. Spirit of the law is never executed uniformly. But whatever helps you sleep at night, if you think what I said is wrong, power to you. I stated my opinion you stated yours, can we call it quits now? I'm going to call it quits on my part.

 

[Firestreak]

I'm sorry if you think I'm twisting your words, but I'm reading your arguments within the contexts of the flameboard. Since we agree that the CoC of QCDN hasn't been violated, we then look at the context of where the post was. It was on the flameboard, not the general discussion board. I assumed you realized the nature of the flameboard and the idea that mods would only delete posts from the flameboard if absolutely needed. Therefore I assumed you were arguing the CoC of QCDN had been breached.

Not my intention to misrepresent you, just trying to connect the dots.

 

[Sirelrohir]

So, basically artem is trying to use all this copyright bs to defend the fact that his ls member/mod is trying to cover for his ls. Look nasya abused her powers, plain and simple. Its obvious.

Also, why wasnt the amuzedhitler sockpuppet not outted? Are the mods only outting sockpuppets that arent in kaizen? Another double standard? Can i, or anyone else make a sockpuppet now, and be sure that no one is going to say its me? Why arent you telling us who amuzed hitler is?

If someone flames outside the flameboard, can they get away with it like neophytal did? The severity of his flame isnt the issue. The issue is that he is a mod, and decided that he could get away with breaking the rules of this message board.

I'm sure nasya wont answer these questions as she would like this subject to drop. But we'll see.

 

[Lavi]

Even if what you said was true about copyright protection (it's not, but I'll humor you), the OH website also had the same clause. It's a generic forum Terms of Service/Privacy Policy, Nasya even said as much. All you're arguing is that the terms protect you and Nasya had a right to remove it, but in doing so, she neglected any right to all the other players who've had their PRIVATE messages, forums and conversations posted as well. If you are arguing for privacy then argue for everyone's privacy, not just your own because it suits you.

 

[Zalbag]

A friend who had received a copy of the post which was removed sent me a copy of it just recently. Now that I've gotten a chance to read it I really wish Nasya had left it there. It cleared up a number of things that I really wished one of the leads had told me of sooner.

Kisada mentioned that I had left due to my faith in leadership and assumed I meant both him and Meast. This was not the case. I never had any issues with Meast. And after reading the post by Kisada I have very little with him.

People who know Kisada know that he is a big fan of sarcasm. Kisada is also a fairly intelligent person and is fond of putting lots of wit into his sarcasm. While for the most part he means it as nothing more there is only so many "your power must be too weak" you can hear before you start to think that it's a little more then a joke. These comments mixed with a number of situations including the BB one and the gear situation that happened shortly after my joining added up to my assumption that Kisada had a rather low opinion of me.

Anyway after reading the post he had made I can very clearly see how Kisada could come to the conclusion that I had only the BB on my mind. I just want to clearly state like I had in the past that this was never the case. While I had talked with Meast recently about wanting to leave the shell due to a number of situations that had bothered me, when he asked me to think it over I had told him I would. I decided that I'd try to ignore the drama of end game because Kaizen was worth another chance.

So I decided to continue with the shell. I had learned that obtaining the last BB item from sources outside the shell wasn't going happen, so suggested the ks99 run. Originally I was simply going to ask for help with my own orbs and let the helpers keep all the drops, but far too many people expressed interest in using an orb, which was why I suggested it as an ls event.

Like I said, after reading the post I can clearly see how you came to the assumption that I wanted nothing more then my belt. But at the same time I don't think I can be faulted for feeling belittled by you. You (kisada) wrote that you weren’t interested in explaining anything to me. I really wish you would have. It seemed we both assumed far too much about the other and failed to communicate our concerns.

For the record, I'd never do something as shameful as join a shell simply to obtain an item and then leave with no other reasons. I hope my returning the Gaiters (which I earned and paid for in full points) helps show that. I basically gave back 100 hours of my work for the shell and asked nothing in return.

My last few days in the shell, and I doubt you'll deny this, your opinion of me had dropped somewhat low. After reading your post I cannot blame you for this either. I can clearly see how you interpreted everything that happened in my last few days in the shell. This is also why I wished you told me about it. I honestly was completely ignorant of how you interpreted the events. I also never even connected any of these events in my head until I read your reasoning.

I'd like to apologize to Meastoso, Hailie, Kisada, Nasya, and the linkshell. To Meast, I never had any issues with you; anytime I said leadership it was to not put all the focus on Kisada. Nasya, I'm sorry for the post and that you felt you had to shelter me from it thus bringing about a lot of additional drama for the shell. To the shell, I'm sorry for all the drama that has been brought about as a direct result of this post.

I'd especially like to apologize to Kisada. While I do feel a lot of this could have been avoided if you had come to me and expressed your concern I cannot blame you for how you came to the conclusion that you did. I really wish you had expressed your concern. I don't know who the "amusedhilter" is but I have to thank him for allowing me to see the post and have a chance to comment on it.

Edit: rewrited a sentance because it didnt make any sense.

 

[Makelith]

Well now that the big reason for deleting the post is gone, care to share it with the rest of us that didn't get to see it?

 

[Rappa]

*shrugs* Zalbag's seen it. Considering I still don't think it was proper to delete it, I'm reposting it. If it's deleted again, I'd be pretty upset at the double standard of what is and isn't privacy. idc personally, and I don't see anything overly bad about it. So cheers.

"Originally i was just gonna let it go, as my thoughts were that it was another case of someone leaving the linkshell, and tails making a silly mistake. However, more based upon some of the comments made in response to him from our members, i feel that it's a good idea to explain some of the things that had been left out in these events.

On the surface, here's what happened. Zalbag lotted on his final black belt item, and then left the linkshell the next day. Later, tails was speaking in tells to someone who'd inquired about the situation. He said "zalbag got his black belt item and then left." However, rather than replying with ctrl-r, he hit ctrl-t and the tell went to zalbag. Zalbag in turn decided to make a flame about me and meast saying that he left because of both mine and his lack of faith/trust.

Those events were the only things that happened, however, and it was somewhat deeper. Perhaps what was unknown to most people outside of myself and meast, was that on monday (the 11th i believe), zalbag sent meast a tell saying that he wanted to gaiters and quit the linkshell. This was preceded by jda winning the king behemoth camp, him asking to buy the black belt item from them, and them refusing him because he was in our linkshell at the time. He cited this, among many other reasons for him wanting to leave the ls, primarily along the lines of negative attention. He'd said that he couldn't handle all the negativity directed at him because of his membership in our linkshell, both from people responding to his posts on qcdn flameboards, as well as people emoting slaps to him in public. He was also quite surprised and upset when jda refused to sell him the black belt item. Simply put, he couldn't handle the flak you get from being in a high-profile linkshell, nor the opinions offered his way after he posted on qcdn.

Meast asked him to re-think his request, in case it was being made in haste. In personal discussions with me, i disagreed with meast and said that it was best to let him go: it was very clear that he didn't like the things people said or did because of his membership with us, and i didn't feel that he'd be happy staying with us. After their discussion, zalbag began to ask people (and also myself) about interest in ks99, and began trying to push for it to happen as our saturday event. I was already aware of his prior plans about leaving, and i figured that he'd decide to leave fairly soon after getting his item, but there wasn't anything i could do, or chose to do. He was still a member, and it was still his right to use his orb and take his item or items. Even if he was a guest at our event, he'd still be given the same rights to lot his items. So i let it be, and he finished his black belt on saturday and that was that.

However, more did occur that same day. Hailie and zalbag had an argument about a couple replacements for their party. I prefer not to go into details but in essence, once zalbag was told that ks99 might start early due divine might cancellation, he made hailie stay in his place so he could be on time: he didn't want to lose a chance for his item. Further argument ensued but i assumed it was all taken care of later. Zalbag sent me a PM the next day (presumably because he was still upset) detailing the argument and his side of the story. He, however, left out information in his PM to me, which is why i made the comment to him about "omitting information," and i felt that he did so because he wished to earn sympathy from me. I found it very unusual for him to send me a message like this out of the blue. Either way, i replied to him essentially telling if he had problems with hailie that it wasn't really my personal business, that it was his thing to take care of in a mature manner. I felt that their argument was between friends and that it wasn't really something that i should have or needed to get in the way of.

After the PM, he sent me a tell and i had a conversation with him going into further detail. I essentially echoed the same things that i said in my PM to him, he repeated his own thoughts. Our conversation ended after that.

The next day (i believe) at fafnir, he sent me another tell saying that he was going to leave the linkshell and that he would send me his gaiters through his d-box. I told him that i was aware of his preferred decision he made the week before, and that it was ok, nothing more. I didn't ask him to return, i didn't berate him for his actions, and i certainly didn't proffer any of my opinions (and yes i had many at the time) to him for what had happened. He wanted to quit, i said "ok," and that was the end of it.

I will have to say that it irks me a bit for him to say that both me and meast sat here the entire time he was in the linkshell, saying that we had no faith in him. As far as i could tell, it was both me and him who were the ones begging him to come back the first time. Even the second time i said nothing negative while again meast was asking him to return.

I'm not interested in catering to qcdn's flameboard, nor am i interested in trying to explain anything to zalbag. His assumptions and false premises, as well as his bogus claims about me and meast aren't anything i feel i have to prove to him. However, i do feel that i need to explain to you guys about what happened. Many of you guys were friends or are still friends with him, and i don't want there to be any confusion or miscommunication about what went on.

thanks, and don't hesitate to ask me anything if you need to."

 

[Sirelrohir]

thanks rappa, this sheds some light on the original topic.

 

[Vilurum]

Summary: both sides judged the other by their own, ultimately false assumptions that they never actually personally confirmed. Especially with somewhat ambiguous behavior on both sides, what is done for an arguably positive reason can easily be interpreted as being done for an arguably negative reason, and it happened here (in both directions).

Moral: before forming a negative opinion of someone if possible, or at the very least before *acting* on that opinion, try having an honest conversation with them, with the open-minded intention of learning their viewpoint. (On whatever subject this opinion was about.) This will either *justify* your negative opinion (in which case, by all means, act on it), or, horror of horrors, you discover that your assumptions were wrong and unfair. Or, of course, it can be somewhere in between, particularly if there are multiple issues at hand.

Oh, and regarding that whole deletion/censorship thing? The "selective deletion isn't justified" argument is *way* stronger here, when I look at the arguments objectively. (Bear in mind that subjectively, I happen to *like* the people on the other side of the argument somewhat better. But I'd like to think that we're all capable of the most basic rule of debate, namely separating the arguer from the argument.)