OK - to begin with, yes, the idea put forth by tamtam is agreeable to me. As I have referenced, I am not a dictator, I don't wish to instruct everyone in their behaviour - just to control who I interact with. (ie - if I can keep certain behaviours out of my games, that is enough for me, that is all I have wanted from the outset).
DoomsdayDragonfire wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:00 pm
To begin, both of us aren't on his match, I'm pretty sure that is more suitable for you and let me tell you why, on every story, there are 3 or more sides, side A, side B and what really happened, you choose to believe side A with phoenix version, i choose to not take sides with the fact is that skips happened and none of us will know the sides of the other 5 players and their reasons to skip or not.
@DoomsdayDragonfire - this, and a few other comments/implications I do not like! If you wish to play devil's advocate or speak for all points of view, then do so WITHOUT calling into question my honesty! You are implying I am putting forth a version of events to suit my agenda - I am not. I am telling everyone exactly what happened! Please, DO NOT accuse me of lying, fabrication, fudging, exaggeration or false reporting, even by implication. This is not me being insulted by hypotheses, but by your repeated refusal to believe that what I have said is true, despite my offer to provide evidence.
DoomsdayDragonfire wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:13 pm
Little would be changed. As he would be complementing his side of the history. What i would like to hear is the version of the other players aswell.
But you disregard my evidence out of hand before it is shown because it would only serve to corroborate my story!?! Again, your logic is backwards. You would dismiss my evidence because it proves a version of events you disagree with, rather than accept that, by definition, evidence is proof! I can count to six! EVERYONE agreed!
DoomsdayDragonfire wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:08 am
But man you were really wrong, if you were meant to say that, you could had avoided a lot of this mess if you just had writen ~ "even though you are clearly too far gone to
BE convince
D" ~ , "to convince" contradicts your said intentions from above as the person of reference in the context is the one you were talking (me).
No, sorry. Although either version is grammatically correct in English, the way Squirrel worded it first time is the generally accepted and used way, and means exactly what he says it means. I appreciate that English isn't your first language, (same with Squirrel) but your argument on this point is based on a misunderstanding.
Re other points...
As to why I am the only person out of six complaining...well, you told me to consider other variables and explanations earlier...perhaps I am the only one of the six who is on the forum. I have seen no sign of the other five on here.
You say anonymity isn't the problem, but people are... you miss the point entirely. Anonymity gives "problem" people a cloak to hide behind and carry out their actions. It is just as correct to say "no anonymity, no problem" as it is to say "no people, no problem "
You give the example of a firearm, which is a weapon, a tool to do harm. A person without said weapon cannot use it do to do harm...neither can a person without anonymity use it to hide from the consequences of their actions. I agree, the gun or the anonymity is not the root problem, it is the choice to use it that causes the problem, but it is the gun or anonymity that enables the harm. Remove the "enabler", or the tool, and you remove the problem.
I'm not sure if the opinion of a suspected liar counts for anything when talking about an accused bully or harasser, but Squirrel is not the type to go giving aggro to anyone and everyone . Admittedly, I only know him from this game, but from our interactions, I would trust him more than most people I know in real life. I really don't see how you can claim that it is necessary to maintain anonymity for protection of reputation, whilst at the same time repeatedly making insinuations and implications against the reputation of two known persons, accusing them of dishonesty, lack of integrity, desire to harass and bully, or a lack of intelligence, just because we happen to have different opinions to you.