Thread:Deathdragon646/@comment-1500935-20200507224932/@comment-1713909-20200514035155

Pff, hoo boy. Here we go. Let's dissect a poorly thought out reply on the internet for fun, I guess.

"I'm not trying to be confrontation[sic](...)"

So you complain about admins being corrupt in your ban message and then try to backpedal out of it by saying "Oh but I'm not trying to be confrontational! :(", not realizing exactly what "confrontational" actually friggin means. If you didn't want to be confrontational, you should have put more thought and effort into your response. Instead, all you did was cry and call the admins all corrupt because they didn't want to recruit more admins to deal with an issue that wouldn't be an issue if people actually followed the rules of the website. That's being confrontational, me chum.

"Frankly your reply was quite insulting and went against this wikis own rules of conduct."

I'm telling you how it is. Nothing in my reply breaks the rules of conduct. I'm telling you straight up how things are. I told you that rules are rules, and if you don't like the rules, then you can leave. If "Basic reality and being admonished for failings" is insulting to you, then frankly, then you have much greater problems to worry about than a wiki's "corruption".

"You have overreacted and actually reinforced a concept of problems with the system. The whole "corrupted admin" thing was used loosely or was meant to."

Oh yes, please, tell me more about how "Corrupted admin" can be interpreted in other ways besides you openly referring to admins as "corrupt" for making rules you don't like. I've been over this. If you didn't want to use the word for its intended meaning, don't friggin use the word.

"what would you class as general communication?"

Do you really classify memes and fanfiction as "general communication"? Would you classify saying "git gud" to a post as "general communication"? You seem to have a very different idea of "general communication" than anyone else here. It says it on the rule blog post what is and isn't allowed. Zigmatism expressed no concerns with the blog post's list of rules in spite of the fact he read it, which is more than I can say for you. Instead you did what most people who broke the rules did; ignore the rules and then complain when "ignoring the rules" doesn't make one exempt from punishment for breaking the ignored rules, before lambasting everyone as being "corrupt" whilst trying to pretend you're not being confrontational when you bloody well are.

I could go on, but it's clear you won't see past your own nose and continue to clutch onto your own viewpoint in this waste of time, so I bid you adieu.