Are <5.0 main villain> fanboys also supportive of <6.1-6.5 main villain>? *SPOILERS*

[ZavosEsperian]

Yeah; you don't have a very long post history, so I basically just hit 'View Forum Posts' and scrolled down very slightly. You posted about Meteion mid-ish last year, so I have very little information, but what I do have says 'you finished Endwalker back then at the latest, and had a different broad response. I didn't actually consider that a negative per se--I considered it a green flag of sorts actually, since you clearly don't have an established history and aren't some kind of burner account--it was just a bit curious.

Something you're probably not aware of is that this subforum has a particular problem with 'drive-by trolling' (I think a lot of subforums have it, but it's very noticeable here probably because the subject matter is much looser); someone who turns up exactly once, posts a weirdly argumentative hot take, and then completely vanishes. Sometimes they're there for one day, sometimes it's just a single post. It sucks, because I always like new people joining the conversation with new ideas, despite what some people might think... and then we instead just get an angry, probably deliberately incomplete argument from someone who never comes back. But a slight bit of extra reading can help identify the sort of person we're looking at pretty early, and help inform what conversation there is to have: if they're not coming back, you're not about to get any answers to your questions, but there might still be a conversation worth having about, say, 'all the ways the Empire didn't fix the primal problem and in fact made it worse'.

Maybe because we have had Titanman necro things as is their want and try and troll this subform? Or that other guy who openly called people in here slurs and whatnot begging us to report them so that they would get banned. That and some of those who post here don't frequent the other parts. And it's not like other people in other sections of this forum don't go and look at others post history. Then there are those who when subbed have in the past will talk about a thread's topic only to go "but did you know Venat's a b*tch and a genocidal maniac?" in the middle or the end of their statement knowing full well that it's bait in hopes they'll get round 456 about the sundering.

You both realize neither of the excuses you make justify your behavior on the forums. It is up to you whether you wish to interact with someone, be it a curious new individual to the forums or a troll. Searching through post histories and talking about what you found openly, especially discussing it with the person you were looking into, is most likely going to draw the ire of whoever you have just looked into instead of having a conversation in good faith.

That being said, a poor sense of media literacy would suggest being unable to discern the intentions of the person who authored the post in question. It shouldn't be too difficult to identify a troll from a well to do poster on the forums. It all seems like there is a significant amount of gatekeeping going on here in terms of forums discussion if you instantly go on the offensive against someone who may actually have genuine questions.

In terms of different opinions related to the interpretation of the story, there will be individuals who will have different opinions and people do have the right to back up their claims and reach agreements on disagreeing with their various interpretation of events. Not discussing these various events in full stymies discussion and makes the forums boring. I have witnessed this sort of behavior where both sides of each argument becomes too combative and resorts to ad hominem attacks as well as behavior that would be decried as abhorrent by many people's standards. Don't claim to be a victim when you yourself were taking part in the selfsame behavior.

In short, be willing to hear people out. You may end up learning something new or see a new perspective you never thought of before.