[FREE][Not Steam][Epic Games] Daily Freebies at 11 AM ET to end 2022 (moving over from old thread)

Trying to pour water, not oil, on the flames here, so hear me out.
Both dohlicious and zulu6x have been suspended to give them time to cool down and come back to the debate in a more civil manner.

Reigifts hasn't. Because they did nothing wrong. They were only qualifying the previous comments. That's not a personal attack.
The mods have intervened. Everyone back to their corner. No need to pour gasoline on the whole thing since you were not involved either.
Suspensions are not fun.

I'm just saying let bygones be bygones and learn to agree to disagree.
Happy Holidays.

A. "How can you say both with a straight face? You just personally attacked him out of the blue and was very, VERY personal."

To say it was out of the blue is like bending reality to fit your views because you can't accept actual reality. What part of it was "out of the blue?". I wouldn't have commented at all if he didn't attack someone in the first place by threatening them and insulting them. To claim I'm attacking them also doesn't add up. I'm not threatening them or harassing them, I just pointed out how the rules are against their behavior. I didn't make the rules, but I do support them. That doesn't make me an attacker. I haven't threatened them with a ban, but pointed out how they're in no position to threaten another with a ban, as they themselves are breaking a rule in the same post, and in a worse way.

Remember, I wouldn't have said a word had their comment not existed, insulting an threatening another user, who I mostly disagree with as well. Just so you don't think I'm taking sides for whatever reason. Just because I disagree doesn't mean it's justified for me to harass that user and threaten them.

To say I've attacked him by showing in his previous post he was insinuating someone might be mentally challenged for having a different opinion also makes no sense. I've mentioned that he couldn't prove that person wrong, so instead resorted to attacks and personal insults. Me mentioning this to him isn't an attack. You can't just claim someone's being attacked for absolutely everything. I've been polite, nice, explained why it's wrong, didn't threaten them. Not an attack. If they feel attacked, maybe it's because they realize that I am right, and what they did was wrong, and they don't like that. That's actually perfect, because that's my entire point. It means by being able to argue regarding the topic with them, they might have been convinced that it isn't the right thing to do. It's the ideal situation in any argument. You can argue without attacking people, and the whole point of arguing is to demonstrate why your opinion is the more valid one. I don't do it for self gratification, again I would have never commented if their comment wasn't about attacking someone else first.

I've mentioned before, I can't force them to do anything, I can't force you to do anything or any other user, nor do I want to, I'd prefer we can have a civil discussion and in this case we can explain to each other why it's good or bad to do this. I have given them the chance to take the stance for pro harassment but they haven't so far. If you'd like to take that stance by all means, I am willing to debate against it. Not an attack, me being willing to discuss the negatives of harassment(even though to me they seem so rudimentary) is something I'm willing to do if I could help someone in the long term.

It's not necessarily about why someone replies, conversation is great and we should carry it along ourselves, it's about HOW we reply. I can read what they reply and deduce whether or not it's insulting, threatening, etc. I don't consider myself gifted, or a god for being able to make the difference between a threat, an insult, compliments, commentary, pettiness, etc. There's a reason why I said above bambi simply elaborated on his first comment after being insulted, only to be insulted again by that same person.

B. " Unless they expressly said, "I'm replying because so and so", then you just don't know their intentions. And there's no arguing against that, no matter how hard you try to."
I don't believe someone always needs to start their sentence with declaring their intention for someone to understand what someone said. There might be specific cases but it will pretty much never apply to conversation. Imagine if we all had to say "I'm replying because you said hi, and I wanted to say hello back to you". Part of language is to compress it and that part is pointless. We can deduce the intention.

When you read something like "stop bullshitting again or you get reported again!" as a reply to "only Death Stranding, Horizon Chase Turbo, Them's Fighting Herds and Severed Steel have the achievements", then it is my belief the overwhelmingly majority of people should be able to deduce the first person insulted someone and threatened someone who just typed out something., and if you follow more for clarification you'll see someone try to explain in better detail what they meant "yes i know, but of those who gave away in this promotion only those which I mentioned have the achievements" only to get replied with "NO ONE CARES except YOU! stop beeing frustrated!". I mean what can we deduce by this, a polite conversation on both parties? No of course not, someone called someone a bs'er and threatened them with a ban, then after a polite reply to them, they told the other person no one cares and to stop being upset. Bambi expressed no frustration, the one insulting did express quite a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong and maybe I'm seeing different words on my screen and maybe these words and phrases mean different things and are generally targeted at polite conversation between two strangers. Always willing to debate language too.

C. "then you finish your looooong post with" and everything you said after that.
I can explain myself in more detail of course but I thought I did it above but I don't mind. When I said "I'm down to disagree with you. I'll be around. Take care." It means that if the person involved, or anyone, would like to disagree with me whether or not it's right to threaten users, harass them and follow them across different posts after they already served a suspension for how they acted before, when they only made simple non insulting comments now, then yes I am definitely willing to debate the right or wrong of that. There's not much to it. Would you or anyone else like to take a stance for pro harassment of our users? I will disagree with you. That's not a threat, I believe I can make a strong argument why we shouldn't promote this behavior.

"Would you describe it as threatening, petty? IMHO yes you sound both.". It is not petty, nor is it a threat. I've explained it in great detail as to why the comments are wrong ways to address someone, it might seem annoying because people should and could deduce it's not the right thing to do, but offering to discuss it more so we can reason the right and wrongs of it, isn't petty, I'm offering to debate this with them if they believe they have a strong enough argument to support why it's a good thing to do to someone, especially after they already served their suspension and didn't do nothing bad after.

It's also not a threat, just because I told them I'm willing to listen and I'll reply to them doesn't mean they should feel threatened, unless of course they feel threatened since I'm not jus willing to let them do this to people, or they plan to simply try to brush me off and not prove their side right, case in which, it simply means my argument can't be proven wrong, and therefore, it would make me right in the discussion.

From that point on, it becomes the duty of a moderator/admin to moderate the people, and my duty to report such incidents. Because if someone doesn't want to treat others with respect, isn't willing to listen to advice like "cool down, take a break", they are a negative presence on the community. If they can't follow the rules, which don't ask for much, just basic decency, then they aren't contributing in any way meaningful. You can't help some people and that's okay. I'd like to at least try and explain why it's not the right approach. We're supposed to learn from each other and help each other. It's part of growth.

As for my reply being different I think that's pretty simple, I didn't threatened or insult them. If they are upset about it, I believe it's time to reflect on it.

If I left anything unanswered let me know. As for me apologizing for anything I've just said, the only thing I would apologize for is my sometimes bad grammar and the people who have been nice enough to endure it and read throughout my entire post. I have nothing else to apologize for because I didn't do anything else wrong. Maybe I'll apologize for not being able to format my text properly, oh well.