Smogon Forums

Have you considered not instigating a shitfight by lathering your posts with a thick coating of condescension? I wouldn't be surprised when it escalates from there lol.

Also idk what cowardice has to do with anything, it was just me saying you completely misinterpreted my post in a rather crude way

You were condescending first. You escalated at every opportunity.

"You can't read" is as insulting as it is cliched. If someone doesn't understand your points, you should be making them better.

lol what. Tell me how "your opinion is so thoroughly wrong you're accidentally right about another claim you made. So I suppose you're half right" isn't condescending.

Take a good hard look at that last post of mine. I spend one line of text calling you out. And then what? What would you say the rest of my post is trying to accomplish.

Do you know much about semiotics? I don't mean to be an ass here, I'm just asking since it's not a widely known field of social sciences despite being pretty significant. I've only covered the basic theories, but I tend to agree with those that suggest that the process of decoding a message is equally as important as the process of encoding it. Consequently I think we share equal responsibility for the post being misinterpreted, I could've articulated it better but from my perspective your interpretation of the post makes no sense.

Damn writing a random-ass paragraph on semiotics is oddly therapeutic with respect to the temptation to troll. Who knew?

That's not just semiotics, that's outright lying about what I said. "I disagree with you, but I think you're half right" shouldn't seriously offend anyone who would also go on to accuse others of having a stick up their ass. It was a bit shade at best.

Like I said, I don't care if you were lippy in response, I'm lippy all the time, but I also don't care if you feel justified in the sentence that you singled out for the purpose of insult. You made it a separate and everything, you knew what you were doing. You'd have an infraction right now if the system let me give a 1 point for this sort of thing. I hoped that rounding down to a personal warning would work better. Was I wrong?

I was once presented with an exercise where I had to explain how two given words were alike. This progressed until I had to explain how the words friend and enemy were alike. I was able to give that explanation, but it was such an enormous misrepresentation of both those words' meanings that my answer was blatantly contrary to the reality- those two words are antonyms, it's as simple as that. I think the parallels to this scenario are quite obvious.

So when you say half right it's not the acknowledgement of the merits of my perspective that you seem to think it is. It is instead immensely patronising while also implying that your perspective is objectively superior, and that my experience of the game is therefore invalid. That is why I think your post is incredibly condescending (there was no "think" btw, which changes the tone of the post a lot).

So I'm not lying in my characterisation of your post.

Lastly, imo swearing and crude imagery are some of the least offensive things you can say. You could call me a fucking cunt and I probably wouldn't care. They're almost always superfluous, born of frustration or rage or some other angry emotion, and therefore don't truly convey anything significant, other than shock value I guess. By contrast, something like a condescending tone carries a lot more weight imo, with a lot of nasty things implicit that are more likely to be sincere, and that are more likely to influence other people's perception of oneself.

I don't have to say that I "think" your opinion is wrong. I am not a machine, I will think things before I say them. You're only digging yourself a bigger hole.

According to the official form response "Insulting includes calling names, telling someone to shut the fuck up, saying he sucks, etc." are examples of flaming. As you say, superfluous, frustrated responses don't convey anything meaninful. As such they should be discouraged.

Conversely, according to the rules, you can disagree with people's opinions however you'd damn well like. If you do not personally like condescending arguments, do not participate in them. You did.

Are you fucking serious? You said before that if you get misunderstood you should've expressed your points better, now you're trying to give yourself a free pass for not considering the tone of what you write? Also the idea that I should assume that everything you say is completely thought-out is laughable, people say/post shit that is half-baked all the time.

It's still a form of communication. It's still a form of communication for fuck's sake. Have a ponder on how "for fuck's sake" changed the information conveyed in the sentence, despite not really being meaningful (or offensive, if you prefer).

Have you not dealt with other people before? You said something that I took offense to, so I responded in kind, pretty obvious interaction. The fact that I dislike condescension doesn't mean I want to avoid those types of arguments- the reverse is true since it's more likely to aggravate me.

At this point I feel it's clear you're just interpreting what I say in a manner that facilitates your capacity to issue a "rebuttal". I've tried explaining my position, but it's clear you're looking for nothing more than to feed your already gargantuan ego. I have no wish to continue this conversation, so would you kindly leave me the fuck alone?

This was never an argument. It's was a kindly warning, and you didn't take advantage of it. You're the one who has a (MASSIVE) stick up their ass, as evidence by as far as you've taken this. What I originally said no one should reasonably have taken offence to, and you're churning out long-winded bullshit to dig yourself out of a hole. Have I dealt with other people? Do you use the internet? This is not how to dig yourself out of holes.

Infracted.

It wasn't your discussion to win, I tried to lay out the rules as plain as day. Contemplate your own ego before you respond (and it'd almost certainly be better if you didn't).

What are you going to do then? Infract me more? On what grounds? As it stands I see little more than an abuse of power.

You think this is my idea of digging myself out of a hole? lol. The first comment here I was a little outraged that you'd infract me over that (didn't realise it was just a warning). Then you present an incredibly biased and misconception-riddled perspective of what happened, so I look to discuss a few of those points. At one point I thought to resolve this conflict by explaining my position- I wasn't kissing ass, I was just trying to put this spat behind us. You wouldn't have it. So now it's simple really- I'm not going to stay silent while you presume to take the moral high ground for instigating an argument, playing a part in it escalating, then infracting when the argument you started resulted in someone saying something you didn't like.

Btw your communication has been quite poor, the first pm you sent I didn't realise was just a warning, the second is literally the exact same, so I don't know what the infraction is or what the consequences are. "Plain as day" ok

I gave you a personal warning. YOU turned into an argument. YOU escalated. Again, this is not an argument. You are wrong. You are still trying to preserve your own ego when what you need is a little humility.

Because it was clear, and still is clear, that you would not heed my warning, I infracted you for the original offense, not for anything that you have said here. Since the original offense is infraction worthy, as laid out in the warning PM, which I requoted here, and in the official rules, you have NO ground to dispute it. I was being kind, and you abused that kindness.

Infract you more? If I infract you more at this point, it will result in a ban. I don't want to do that. I have no idea why some people are so stupid as to get one infraction and then immediately earn themselves another. Whether you think you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole or not, that IS what you have been doing, and it's time to drop the shovel.

I suppose it's true enough that THIS latest shitfest is on me. I suppose in that sense you're right, however I stand by my perspective on how things in the thread unfolded, that you are partially responsible for it. THAT is why I found your self-righteousness so intolerable. I find your comments on ego and humility amusing because that's what I was thinking about you lol. Anyway sorry for what was said in this vm convo, it's clear that your initial messages weren't argumentative, it's just that I was still thinking of the thread when I commented

I think a recurring theme here is a failure to communicate. I know things I've said have been misinterpreted by you a number of times, and it's clear that my response to your post in thread and this vm was based on similar miscommunication. As I said in that digression on semiotics this is something I think we both share responsibility for, so idk, it's worth noting. Good that you clarified tho.

Lastly, don't fucking act as if you understand me better than I do, that you understand my motivations better than I do. It's incredibly arrogant and also quite insulting that you think I'm not intelligent enough to be aware that this line of discussion is likely to end with me getting burned, unless I've completely misunderstood what you mean by "hole"

You keep wanting the last word, as if it's gonna help you save face or something.

It's generally not a good idea to respond to an infraction by suggesting that the infractor is self-righteous, egotistical, etc. You are not in an unbiased enough position to make such claims, and by this point I know mods who would have banned you. You shouldn't earn points by apologizing for your behavior when you keep acting the same way.

I would have warned anybody who told another poster that they have a stick up their ass and can't read (and these are two very common insults on the forum). Insulting a mod in this way is just kind of stupid. You don't like that I assume to know you, but you're assuming a lot of things about me too; about why I'd infract someone, or warn them, or act the way I do.