Thread:ゆーたん/@comment-9693174-20161120063433/@comment-9693174-20161120081345

@Selective Justice: I mean, I did mention that whether you should warn the person for swearing depends on how they use it, right? Swearing itself isn't banned in this wiki, so you should be only warning people using those swears offensively.

@Criteria: I thought that you'd understand the context and didn't derive ino the specifics. Being pointed to someone with ill intent is one thing, being pointed with a jesting attitude is another. This should be obvious.

@Bias: W E W

There are some things that can't be discussed without a bias. A topic about what kind of discussion is appopriate is one of those.

>implying that objective facts are a thing in phylosophical discussions

Brb kms

@thread: You just admitted my initial point of you knowing that we messaged each other before commenting ._.

@wikia criteria: I didn't read Wikia's mission commitment or anything like it, but I'm talking from this wikia's set of "rules". So just because I sweared doesn't mean you're upholding wikia's standards. If we're talking offensive, it doesn't either, since like I stated many times there was no ill intent behind that comment. If you can't tell those differences, you're failing as a Discussions Moderator.

>pay more attention to the content of the conversation

Wait, uh, isn't this the exact thing I was talking about earlier? Didn't you earlier imply that you didn't read through the convo clearly to get the context of it?

@implications: Sure, but you're not in a place to push the way you interpreted my comments onto me, especially when I didn't mean that and the recepient didn't have problems with it either.

@adpting Wikia's position: Why are you trying to be the ideal of objectivity? You're fucking human, and you have biases whether you think you do or not. Implying that you're being obective in a case in where the opposite party disagrees with what you're saying layers you as an egotistic jerk who things his/her opinions are objectiviely right. Plus, I just talked about why you're not actually adapting this wikia's position.

@rules should apply to everyone or none: Rules are fucking subjective. No matter how much you try to make them pbhective, they never are. Even the government takes a case-to-case approach in modt crimes, if not all. If a human made it, it will never be objective. Rules have opinions in them, and the moment they do they stop being objective. If that person X misinterprets what I say, that's not my problem. That person isn't involved in the arguement and has no right to say anything about the way I act. He can still tell me his opinion and how he thinks I should act, but he shouldn't be able to tell me that I'm wrong and this is how I should do it. Again, you're a Discussion Moderator. Your job is to make sure discussions don't get cancerous, not individuals.

If I were you, I would really drop the "I'm objective" attitude. No one is objective in their opinions because that's a contradiction. Everyone will have biases. You saying that Card X is bad is an opinion, and you saying Swearing is bad is also an opinion. Everything you and me are saying are opinions. To me, it looks like you're taking the standpoint of "I'm right in this case", which leads to you saying that what you're saying here is objective. While I also think that I'm the one in right here, I'm open to your ideas and biases. That's how a discussion should go, especially with an admin about problems in the wiki. People will never be objective. They need to include biases in their statements in order to adress them.

If you reply to this point saying people can be objective, you're wrong, because you just stated an opinion. Just stop being an egotistic jerk who thinks that she's objectively right in everything, and I'll be cool with this entire convo.