Naive. You're acting as if it was first time. What you're suggesting has been proven pointless dozens, if not hundreds of times in the past. A lot of people attempted debating with Myth at various points in their lives. All of them eventually realized it makes absolutely no sense to ever engage in a discussion with that individual if you hold opposing view to him.
Myth will never address main point. He will keep meandering around it, writing multiple paragraphs full of vague insinuations, passive aggressive remarks and sprinkling strawman all around the place instead of arguing what's important. All while acting high and mighty thinking he's above everyone else, utterly oblivious of his own flaws and usually hypocrisy too. He keeps clamoring for increased moderation, being respectful etc. without realizing that he's among the worst offenders in the entire forum and if things he calls for were truly implemented, he would possibly be the first on the chopping block.
What's more, I don't remember him ever even attempting to change his approach.
Myth does raise good point every now and then and i usually react to those posts positively (for example his post about how aoezone is needed as a platform earlier in the thread) but fact is, majority of what spills out from him is exactly as vince described.
Unfortunately, there are a few distinctions to make here. Unlike other users in this thread, including the user who I was accused of ignoring -- I have never had a post deleted on this board for innaproptiate/abuse of another person. More than one of those involved in this discussion can not say the same.
I do enjoy a good debate, and I do enjoy submitting for positions I at time only loosely (if at all,) believe. I am but a fan of the game in that respect. However, the idea that one is entitled to insult another or harass them simply for lack of agreement on any one or number of ideas crosses a line.
It's also a bridge too far to suggest that I would find myself in hot water should the boards suddenly become (more) moderated. Frankly, even if some wishes were granted the underlying unaddressed forum violations would remain.
You accuse me of not addressing a main point, for example. Sometimes the discussion is more nuanced than "yes," or "no." In moderation, counting this thread you have roughly 6-7 different ideas of what that means in the last few pages alone. I don't feel one should be harassed for exploring the nuance of that discussion or debating the different tenets thrust forth. Simply saying "the forum needs moderated," is lacking on any number of accounts. Many are in agreement but have not discussed very important particulars.
Here you have several pages of examples of posts that could or should be moderated, and -- were they directed at any other user I have a feeling quite a few of you would even agree. Should all names be redacted, I do very much quite believe a few posts would be removed-- but none that I have made.
I also must disagree about your concern for myself. I have somewhat of a "code." I am more than happy to engage just about any and everyone so long as it remains civil. Here you find virtually brigading of a subject and discussion I was quite amicably and productively involved in.
So far I see I am accused of being passive aggressive towards some unnamed people(s), writing long posts, and not satisfactorily conceding discussion points that I do not agree with.
All I can say is that I will try not to make feel people feel they are being passively aggressed.
The length of posts and willingness to debate are unlike the change -- but frankly I make no aplologies given they are not crimes on an internet forum.
Last edited: