Board Thread:The Seven Seas Court/@comment-4266719-20140202231243/@comment-4266719-20140204225821

Hai dis is important k: also this is not written by me in de first person k 

DISCLAIMER: No one is named or called out on this except when giving context to what discussion this occured on, and so you can see the two lines in which my comments were deleted. Some people will call this trivial, but it ends with leading into a much bigger topic.

I recently had a comment deleted.

Since someone deleted this, but it doesn't break any rules, I'm going to add it again. I will translate this into English:  I want (INSERT NAME HERE) who does me more favors.

This was in response to another user who gave some sort of airy, I-don't-have-an-actual-reason sort of response to Bobby's promotion request. It was deleted, God knows why. No warning, no counter-arguments allowed, nothing. Just gone. So I posted it again. It was deleted again. And I'm not going to single out anyone here.

Now let's remember that when we have these message boards, there is a "reply" function, and when you reply to someone, you're responding specifically to their statement. There's is no actual way to single someone out when you have public responses that can be quoted for direct use. I mean, sure, you can just keep saying it, but the undeniable fact of the matter is that it doesn't.

Upon second deletion, I was given a notice that I was not only singling out users (who publicly posted their opinions on a debating forum), but I was making baseless arguments (because deleting baseless arguments against baseless arguments doesn't make it a baseless deletion, right???  RIGHT???).

Rules I supposedly violated:

Do not attempt to provoke users into an argument or disturb the peace.

This took place on an open-discussion forum, where there have been much more hostile and provoking comments from users both in and out of favor of the administration.

Don't make accusations unless you have concrete evidence. If arguments escalate, the comments will be disabled and the fight will be moved.

Now here's the tricky part. I have evidence. I have a lot of evidence. Evidence is everywhere. Because, by definition, "evidence" and "proof" are two very different things. As defined by a Google search of evidence, it is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Now, I can very easily take instances, attitudes, and interactions from the past few years and compile plenty of evidence as to why my belief holds true. But do I have PROOF that my belief holds true? Of course not. Proof, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, is "something which shows that something else is true or correct." Do I have solid proof that shows I'm correct? No, but I have evidence to support it. And if we need to discuss evidence, which is honestly a very generalized term and itself does not require a specific "basis," I will gladly speak with anyone willing to challenge me.

I think the evaluation of what breaks rules, and what simply displeases people, are crossing over a little too much. Yes, I displease people when I state my opinion, and so do others like me. But does a simple unpopular opinion violate policies? Not somewhere where free discussion is encouraged, like a forum.

I have been accused multiple times about singling out other users publicly, and continuing some form of "behavior" that has yet to be disclosed to me as to what it actually is. But the fact of the matter is, almost all of this "singling-out," done by myself and my "comrades," has been previously done by the same people accusing us of doing this! Administrators and users alike have been singling each other out on blogs and comments since this wiki began. All the sudden the crackdown happens, when it's all taking place on the Seven Seas Court, which is open and promotes open discussion.

I think the biggest problem here is this wiki has a twisted understanding of what singling-out is. Creation of some sort of public statement to identify falacy and discuss or debate it is not singling-out. Creation of some sort of public statement with the intent to harm them is singling-out.

The thing about singling-out, is that it only applies when the direct intention is to harm either them, a group they belong to, or their reputation. And even then, it is malicious harm. If I were to public a news article about a politician making anti-Semitic remarks that he actually made, that is not malicious intent, though it will probably harm their public image. Do you see where I am going? Naming someone is not always malicious, and not always singling-out.

I think this wiki needs to work on that. We've developed a lot of buzz-phrases recently that we're just applying to anything we don't like. Am I guilty of this? Of course! We all are! And we're becoming so encompassed in reusal of these buzz words that we've distorted meanings to fit whatever we particularly require it to mean.

All I'm saying is to keep this in mind the next time you accuse someone of singling-out. Is their sole intent to harm? Or are they attempting to achieve a goal like actually pointing out violations of rules and/or making a fair argument? Because often people are identified, but that doesn't specifically mean that the intent is to harm.

Just saying, it needs to be considered. Because it seems that anytime anyone is named in a blog that isn't discussing something positived, they're being "called out," when in actuality... they just fit in to the topic.