Heyo! I'm The Supreme Argonian, or just Supreme. I've been on FANDOM since 2016, and I'm a part of The Elder Scrolls Fandom, the Red Dead Fandom and the Starfield Fandom, which I founded.
I'm a British Catholic homosexual. Herbert must hate me.
I was born and raised in Manchester, in the United Kingdom. I have English, Spanish and Argentine heritage, but consider myself British above all.
I'm a secondary school student studying Drama, French, Music, History and of course everything in the English Baccalaureate. My favourite subjects are History and Drama, but I'm best at French. I'm part of the school debate club, and am also a librarian.
In the future I hope to go into acting on television, but if that doesn't work out I'd also like to become an activist promoting conservative ideas.
I enjoy reading, with my favourite books being the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman and the Chaos Walking trilogy by Patrick Ness. I like gaming, and my favourite games are the Red Dead Redemption games and The Elder Scrolls. I play on PlayStation 4 and Xbox 360. I also absolutely love the Walking Dead telly series. It's just pure fucking gold (also Chandler Riggs is hot uwu).
I haven't been editing a lot recently, but when I do I tend to work on cleaning up articles on The Elder Scrolls Fandom or Red Dead Fandom or doing whatever needs doing, of which there is a lot, on the Starfield Fandom. I love the Discussions community on The Elder Scrolls Fandom, and it's led me to join the wider TES community and make some real friends. That said, I seem to do a good job of annoying the Discussions Moderators on The Elder Scrolls Fandom!
If you'd like to contact me, you can use my talkpage, Kik (The_Supreme_Argonian) or Instagram (@the.supreme.argonian). My Instagram is a TES-themed account, so feel free to check it out! You can also mssage me on Discord: The Supreme Argonian#7765
If you're interested in the upcoming Bethesda game Starfield, you can head on over to the Starfield Fandom and help us get it fully set up for the release of the game. Contact me or Atvelonis for more details, or if you'd like to join the Starfield Discord.
I plan on adding some quotes here in the future, so keep an eye out if you have nothing better to do. I'll also add some links to interesting posts of mine and other people's.
Happy editing and discussing!
The Elder Scrolls Fandom 'Build of the Month' competition:
First off, hello. I believe I've seen you on a few other wikis but we haven't had occasion to speak up until now as far as I remember. Now, in regards to a recent discuss post you just chymed in on and locked, Rescuing Sean... I think you've misunderstood exactly what was going on, so I'll explain it for you as I understand it. A vision impaired user, Blind gta, made a criticism about a certain stealth section leading up to a mission in Red Dead Redemption 2. The way he worded one of his subsiquent replies, at first I interpreted it as him having a fit, which in hindsight seemed very unlike him since I had been following his activity in discuss, though we did clear this misunderstanding up later in the discussion. In response to this, I sighted the impracticality of him, given his condition, being able to competently critic the premise and execution of a stealth section in the first place. In the chain of replies that followed we touched on the subject further. This was not an argument, it was a respectfull and civil discussion about the rationality of my view, and another user Coram's rebuttle that everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless of their perspective. By the end, everyone else in the discussion knew exactly what point I was trying to make and recognized, more or less, that the reasoning behind it was not without merit even if they themselves did not agree with it. Just as I hold Coram's view to be valid aswell and made no attempt to discredit it. I was carefull and always respectfull with my wording, handled the topic as delicately as I could manage, and the other users recognized that I was being as respectfull and civil as possible and we ended the discussion on good terms. I invite you to simply ask Coram and Blind gta if they believe anything I have said here to be contrary to what actually happened. And then you came along quite literally weeks later and accuse me of toxic behavior and threaten to ban me? When I made it quite clear to the other users involved in the discussion that I was not trying to offend and apologized any time what I said could have been interpreted in such a way? When I have never said or done anything with even vaugely toxic leanings over the course of 5 years on the Red Dead wiki, or any other wiki in all of Fandom for that matter? Why? Because you misinterpreted the theme and context of an enlightened and respectfull discussion you were not even apart of? Did you just skim the discussion and draw your own rushed conclussion? Because then I would be able to understand that you must have a stressfull workload moderating several wikis and do not have the time or are too jaded at this point to thoroughly review every discussion. But if you seriously read every line thoroughly, paid any real attention to the tone and context of the discussion we had, and still came to the conclusion that I was being toxic, then with all due respect I have serious concerns about your competency as a moderator, and I may voice my concerns through the according channels depending on your response to this inquiry. I hope to hear back from you soon.
Hello, I'm another one of the moderators on the Discussions. While I appreciate your input, I have to say that I agree with Argo's decision on locking the post. It was escalating into a situation we call a flame war, which we had probable cause to believe so due to the language and tone of the users on that post, which came off as harassing and/or aggressive. It's understandable if you didn't mean it to come off that way, but we act in how it comes off, not how it's meant to come off.
Thank you for indulging me. Yes I dont have any objections towards locking the post, although it was hardly necessary as the conversation had long since ended and all of us had left it on good terms. And I understand how it may have looked from a moderator's point of view and why it was deemed necessary to lock the post. My concern is with The Supreme Argonian's firm response to the matter. I was flat out accused of being toxic when every step of the way all throughout the discussion I personally was being unequivocally civil with no hint at all of any hostility in any of my replies, as far as I can discern, and I purposefully left no room for anything I said to be interpreted as such by carefully drafting my responses before hand, and apologized when something I said could have been interpreted as hostile. If you were to quote any of my replies, where in all of it do you personally with your own set of eyes see anything I said that was without question disrespectfull? I can maybe see how it may have been viewed as harassing from a certain point of view, but only from the standpoint that the conversation dragged on as I continually reiterated my point and attempted to defuse any more misunderstandings, and full disclosure here this was more or less because I have obsessive compulsive disorder and can't leave something that matters to me unfinished, otherwise I wouldn't be here bothering a moderator who just threatened to ban me the other day. But then again the other users also continued to comment and continued pressing their own point. That is what a discussion is and there is nothing inherently harassing about it. I feel there was no room for my comments to be interpreted as negative, especially after we had cleared up the chain of misunderstandings later on in the discussion.
I feel that The Supreme Argonian misinterpreted my comments in spite of their tone and meaning being unmistakably clear, and unjustly accused me of toxic behavior. I feel The Supreme Argonian may lack the necessary comprehension skills to effectively judge when a user is being toxic, save for when the scenario is black and white. And once more in this instance it actually was black and white, as I was constantly voicing my intent to be as respectfull as possible and repeatedly apologized, and the other users involved openly ackowledged my efforts to do so. And yet despite all of that The Supreme Argonian still judged me as being toxic, asserted that I need to watch what I say to people despite clearly meeting the standard of civil conduct throughout the entire discussion, and then he alluded to the possibility of me being banned. I feel that this was unwaranted and there is no excusing such misconduct. I feel The Supreme Argonian may not possess the reasoning skills required to effectively carry out his duty as a moderator if he reacted in such a way despite how crystal clear my attempts to remain civil and respectfull were.
I hope that my appeal here has brought some clarity to the situation, and ask that The Supreme Argonian acknowledge my concerns and give his input on the matter. Otherwise I fully intend to press the issue further still. Again I hope to hear back from you soon.
Thank you for getting in touch with me to discuss this issue. I have read and considered your points and have done my best to address them. Please let me know if you are dissatisfied with any aspect of my response.
Some of the first comments you made were outrageous and I reject any attempt to describe them as 'civil' or 'respectful'. An example is when you said, "Don't shit all over this game because it's not easy for you. You know exactly what you are up against, so don't complain." This was extremely insensitive to Blind gta and his condition, and I am inclined to view this as bullying considering that it was an entirely unnecessary response to a simple request for help.
You then proceeded to say, "if a blind person tries to play a video game then it is absurd for them to complain about the experience." Once again, you were attempting to use Blind gta's condition to essentially shut down his criticisms of a game.
Both these statements were highly inappropriate and unnecessary to the context of the post. You did dial down your tone further into the conversation, for which I commend you, but the fact remains that your behaviour is classed as bullying and the Discussions Moderators see it as such. You are in fact lucky that I did not ban you then and there; had my response been during or immediately after the discussions, I almost certainly would've done.
My other concern with this discussion was that it was entirely unrelated to the post; mentioning Blind gta's condition in passing could perhaps be excused, but to have such an extensive and lengthy discussion about something that has no relation to the post cannot be tolerated. You were not solely responsible for this and I would say the same to anyone else involved if they were to message me. However, you still played a significant role in this subject deviation and you are not free of blame.
It is correct that my response was not as timely as should be expected of a Discussions Moderator (although your claim that my response came 'weeks' later is a blatant lie- it was, in fact, less than one week after the discussion had ended) and for that, I apologise; I had been extremely busy during those few weeks and I only spotted this discussion by chance whilst performing a quick check. However, the timing of my response has little relevance to the actions I took. As a Discussions Moderator, I have to show to the community that violating the guidelines will not be tolerated, regardless of when the violation occurred. I would be failing to do my duty had I simply ignored the incident on the basis that it was over.
I would additionally like to apologise for the manner in which I commented. My tone was more threatening than intended and unfairly targeted you, despite others being involved. Furthermore, it was wrong of me to use the word 'toxic' to describe you, as I do not believe you to be a toxic member of this community. I should have instead used the phrase 'toxic behaviour'; whilst you yourself are not toxic, the way you behaved undeniably was.
To conclude I do not believe that my actions showed a lack of competence for the position of Discussions Moderator or that I acted unprofessionally or outside of my duty, and I resent any such accusations. I hope this matter can now be settled, but if it is taken further I will expect an opportunity to defend myself and my position and justify the actions I took. Furthermore, should any more problems arise with you, I will not hesitate to use any and all means at my disposal to fulfil my duty.
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.
Myself as well as other staff members have reviewed over the post, and we have all see clear evidence of aggression, or at the very least behavior that we would rather not have on the discussions. Argo has already gone over that evidence. While I do understand your point about context, and we are glad that Blind GTA and Coram haven't complained about it yet, we do still feel that we'd rather not have situations like that arise at all. I feel if everyone had toned down and thought about it, the discussion could have gone much better and been a prime example of how to have a civil discussion. I'm not sure whether or not you have read over out discussion guidelines, but we do infact have a rule about deraling threads. While it is allowed to a certain degree, for the most part you must still stay on the topic of the original post, even if all people involved have no problem which switching topics. If you would like to talk about these kind of things we do have a Monthly Off topic Discussion where you may talk about almost anything, Red Dead related or not. I would like to hope that we could end this debate, and leave you off with just a warning that we don't tolerate aggressive behavior, even though you didn't have intent to come off in that tone, staff certainly did see it that way. Argo has apologized for his harsh tone in responding to the post which I appreciate as it was a valid point of yours. I hope this doesn't discourage you from being involved in the wiki and it's Discussions, as you have done all of this in a very professional manner and your have shown a clear amount of effort put into your posts.
Just saw The Supreme leader here get rid of some Troll who was talking about Hitler being in Red Dead redemption 2. Im so glad we got dudes like this making sure all the discussions are kept in order and not just a bunch of junk or lies. So nice job Supreme Argonian...nice job. :)
John strunk01 wrote:
Some one sure pissed you off huh please coment below if you agree
You seem to think I'm going to fly into a rage if you keep soliciting comments. All that's going to happen is you getting blocked for multiple cases of soliciting comments and provocative behaviour. See you in a week :)
This is a message about my post being locked, it didn't seem to violate any guidelines and had enough context without going into spoilers. So I am just asking why it was locked? (Kelis98 (talk) 17:32, November 8, 2018 (UTC))