Thread:The Supreme Argonian/@comment-17809593-20190327055738/@comment-17809593-20190402061957

I tried to post this reply the other day, but for some reason it does not appear to have gone through, at least on my end or in the wiki activity feed. However I saved my draft so I will post it again.

Thank you for finally getting back to me. First off, I did not lie. Why would I lie? To what end? The discussion has date stamps and is itself a transcript. It may have been just one week from the last follow up post, but the entire timeframe from the beginning of the discussion to your locking the post was two weeks. My claim that you came along weeks later is correct, but I suppose we are arguing semantics there. Anyway that's beside the point.

This first comment you've sighted, while you are correct in not holding it to the standard of civil conduct, you are still quoting it out of context as it was a contextual reaction matching the tone of Blind gta's previous comment (the one in which his critisism of the stealth section's premise occured), in which I have already stated that I interpreted as him having a fit, for obvious reasons given the wording and tone of his previous comment being identical to a rage post, which I am sure you have seen plenty of. This was a misunderstanding that me and him cleared up later in the conversation. My exact words, within the context of believing he was having a fit and with the assumption that his condition had skewed his perspective on the topic (the stealth section), were "You know exactly what you are up against, so don't complain. Soldier on and overcome the challenge" This was and is quite plainly not a put down but, for lack of a better term, a pep-talk. I can only assume something is lost in translation given the fact that you are just staring at text on a screen and not actually hearing me say these words, but who puts you down and then encourages you in the next sentence? How is that bullying? Neither Blind gta or Coram sighted this quote as being outright insensitive, they instead challenged my point that his condition was a deciding factor in his opinion of the topic. And I don't believe they would have held back if they did see it as bullying. I remain skeptical of your ability to properly discern the nature of such comments.

Also the notion that I reacted innapropriately to his request for help is entirely invalid. I was the first commenter, I helped him to the best of my ability in the moment, I gave him my input on how to get to the mission start point (admittedly my knowledge of the map was a little rusty at the time and may have been erronious). It was only after that I looked at the user's name and remembered who I was speaking too and that his condition does indeed complicate the issue of getting to the mission start. And after his next comment I reacted to what I thought was a rage post. I've already covered that. My reaction which sparked this controversy was not to his request for help, it was to his reply and was entirely applicable.

As for the second comment you've sighted, you have again misquoted me, this time by adopting tunnel vision on the highlighted sentence and disregarding my post in it's entirety. Furthermore, the fact that I used Blind gta's condition to discredit his criticism in the first place, while it did not have any relation to the topic of the post, it became the subject of a conversation that three entirely willing Fandom users were having while remaining within Fandom's terms of conduct for the entirety of the discussion after the initial misunderstanding had been cleared up. If changing the topic mid-discussion is against Fandom's policies, even when all parties involved are engaged and intent on seeing it through and remain respectfull as they do it, then I feel the system is imperfect and defeats the purpose of what a discuss is, but I will respect that it is against the guidelines in the future and try not to mention anything not directly related to the game. However, I feel that changing the topic mid-discussion, even to something not related to the wiki's subject, is no real offense as having an engaged conversation is what discuss is for.

And the fact that I did use his condition to discredit his opinion on a stealth section is not outside the realm of reason, even if it is difficult to hear. A point that the other users understood, even if they didn't like it. I worded my subsiquent responses to traverse the controversial subject matter as delicately as possible while reiterating my point, and the other users acknowledged this. If anything I said came across as insensitive, the fact that I apologized repeatedly for it throughout the discussion should, at least in my understanding of how human beings speak to eachother, eliminate any trace of braisen insensitivity or hostility. And judging from Blind gta and Coram's responses, I believe it certainly did. Therefore I believe that your own interpretation of each of my comments you've highlighted is unfounded, even if you truly believe you were operating at your fullest capacity.

I no longer consider you to have acted unprofessionally, though I am reluctant to consider this matter closed, as I feel I have just struck down every rebuttle you have made and left the issue of your competency unresolved. Also, I do believe in the last sentence of your reply you have unjustly threatened me again, albeit in a much more passive way. I do not intend to get mixed up in "any more problems", but regardless I should hope you don't go looking for any problems where there are none.