Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
The thing is, this goes both ways, as I told you then.
There is a difference between criticism and defamation. Criticism, whether about ideas, methodology, behavior, etc is neutral language meant to address a conflict or weak point in something. Defamation is heavily opinionated language based on nothing with the intention to harm or belittle someone. If a person is being rude, saying "hey, you're being really rude right now. You're out of line for saying that." Is criticism. "Get your ugly face out of this chatroom you dumb hog." is defamation.

Over the last year, it feels as though conversations have a distorted perspective of what is criticism and what is defamation, where criticism is anything you say to address others you don't agree with and defamation is anything anyone else says to you when they don't agree with you. You only speak in criticisms, everyone else only speaks in defamation, even when the language is identical. I've also used your exact language you've used to me to address something you've said, and you still saw that as defamation--something you were adamant was purely constructive criticism when you spoke it to me. You can, of course, deny that and accuse me of lying and being inflammatory which I'm used to at this point, but why not actually at least consider "what if what he's saying is genuinely how he feels about the way I talk and approach conversations?"

If you want to be the better person in the argument, how come you've never even said something like, "Alright, I'm sorry that's how it came out. This is what my intention was, can we move on?" Even if the person you're speaking to is just as capable of doing the same, how come you've never done that here? Why not be the bigger person regardless of who's right or wrong? You can throw that back at me, sure, but that doesn't mean you aren't capable of that as well.

Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
Anyway, it was then that I gave up on trying that, since I realized there was no way to do it and I couldn't hope for consistency or for you guys to police yourselves the way you were trying to police me, so I just kinda went with that as the new normal/recognized reality.
This also isn't actually true because when we tried having that conversation way back when, my answer was that you should stop responding to a point someone has given and then immediately declaring your stance as objectively correct as if written in stars themselves, and taking everything said to you that counters things you've said or comments trying to correct something you've misunderstood as defamation and gang-like behavior--that "your side" mentality you mentioned. Because shockingly, there have been cordial conversations with other players who do not hold the same views regularly.

For example, like a week ago or so there was someone who didn't fully read a post I made in regards to the auto-battle concept and was making a comment about ways it wouldn't work based on misinformation. Rather than writing a 1200 word response on what a lying and deceitful person she was for not reading my post correctly, I very simply tried to clarify what I thought she didn't read correctly in a few words without any "you're actually wrong and this is why" type language, and the conversation resolved peacefully. Why is it that can happen with other players, but not with you?