[12:37 PM] Wammy: Aite my dude Connie told me to talk to you, so let me know when you can talk. Cause I think she misunderstood what we were trying to say
[2:22 PM] EXistence: Alright lay it on me
[2:25 PM] Wammy: I think y'all misunderstood the point me, Fargas, and Aporia were trying to make. We literally have no demands, we're not making threats. Our literal only issue is that we were told to shut up when we were expressing our opinions in roundtable. We feel like no one takes the organizers or org team in general seriously. We just want ot be able to talk about our opinions in roundtable without being told to shut up. It's really that simple there was no deeper underlying meaning
[2:26 PM] Wammy: Obviously mod business is y'alls business, not ours. And we're not telling you what to do- we don't have the authority to do that. I just think you guys should hear us out on our issues and not get angry with us.
[2:27 PM] Wammy: I don't think every time we say anything we should be shut down with "It's not your department," because it's our server too, we're on the server with y'all so you should welcome conversation and debate.
[2:27 PM] Wammy: It's just about basic respect. We're not coming into mod chat, but we want a voice in roundtable.
[2:28 PM] EXistence: Just keep going, I'm just going to eat really quickly and respond.
[2:38 PM] EXistence: Okay
[2:38 PM] Wammy: I mean there isn't much more to it. I think everything got blown way out of proportion. When I applied for staff, I told Connie I did it because A) I really like hosting events & I'm organized, im good at things like that and B) I want to have a voice. And it's like, neither is happening because working under Connie is hard. She puts the org team through hell and it's impossible to get shit done under her. And every time I try to have a conversation, I get told to shut up. Last time I had an argument w Mr J he told me he'd give me a strike if I kept talking. I mean he apologized for it, but this time no one is apologizng. I think it's a combination of frustration with having to work under Connie + feeling like we don't have a voice at all, that makes being part of staff not that appealing anymore.
[2:38 PM] Wammy: There that's the end
[2:39 PM] Wammy: I mean I'm not asking anyone to grovel for us to stay staff, we're just saying that this is how a lot of us feel.
[2:39 PM] EXistence: So here's my input part by part
[2:40 PM] EXistence: 1) It's not a misunderstanding but rather a very literal reading of the messages you sent to Connie. It virtually gave off the impression (and note this, because this is extremely important as your intent is intuitive to you, not necessarily to the ones reading a message) that you, Fargas and Aporia would step down had your demands not been met. That's what angered us the most.
[2:42 PM] EXistence: 2) In terms of moderating, the approach of having that discussion is round table exasperated the rest of the mods because these are not new complaints. These complaints have persisted since before you were staff. The issue is a conflict of perspectives based on experiences, and since you have not been mod you have not understood the experiences that the mods you had your altercations go through. That's also applicable to them, they have not had the experience of working under Connie and having the discomforts that you have had.
[2:44 PM] EXistence: 3) Majority of the mutes/bans that I have enforced (just allow me here to interject my enforceements because it applies and I will show how) have been my readings and interpretations of how the rules are set. It is virtually like the constitution, as the malleability of the written rules mean that those whoa re in charge of enforcing said rules, i.e. the moderators, have the FINAL say. There is a crucial difference, as you can most certainly voice your complaints and demands in round table and I for one am most certainly not opposed to it. The way it clashes with everyone else, however, is that it perceivable comes out as more of a demand than a plea for discussion. Perception is the most crucial factor in initiating a discussion.
[2:46 PM] EXistence: 4) The differences in the departments are there for a reason. Once again the distinction between A Say vs. FINAL Say is crucial here, because we do take virtually everything into account and we deliberate and discuss every controversial or ambiguous infraction. We get angry when you guys assume that we always have biased mutes/bans simply because it does not correlate with your specific agenda.
[2:48 PM] EXistence: 5) Our anger is historically implicative. There is a reason why the org department has a bad rep. It is because of the constant drama that the org department has historically gottem themselves into and continues to get themselves into. Once that is in the picture, that always operates in the subconscious of everyone whenever there is a judgment to be made due to the perceivable hypocrisy that is present.
[2:53 PM] EXistence: 6) Your claim about bias simply is not rationally applicable here. Bias is literally one of the most inevitable things in jurisdiction of anything, and it is even more apparent in a setting where jurisdiction is made EXCLUSIVELY in the context of perceived injustice. Some infractions are concrete, but the majority is based on perceived injustice. So that claim becomes extremely problematic when presented.
[2:55 PM] Wammy: 1) Well then maybe we could have clarified better. We expressed our issues. And then we said: we are not comfortable there. If we keep getting no respect, we'll be forced to step down because being staff isn't enjoyable when we're just consistently expected to put in all this hard work for the server- fill out schedules, make proposals, host events, fill out post event shit, get bitched at by Connie- rinse repeat And then we don't even get a voice in roundtable when we're literally just trying to have a conversation about our opinions in a server we care about and put in a lot of our time and effort into. That was just us expressing we feel under appreciated.
[2:58 PM] Wammy: 2) Well if they are not new complaints- I did not know that. Instead of ganging up on me, they could have said "We're talking about all this, it's already been brought to our attention, but thank you for your input." I literally wasn't telling the mod team what to do or singaling out the mods in specific. It was an issue with how things are dealt with in general. The issues I talked about in roundtable then aren't even what my argument now is about. Right now, my main issue is the fact that Aporia and I were completely shut down and told to silence ourselves.
[3:01 PM] Wammy: 3) And I apologize if things came out as a demand. I know I'm in no position to make demands and I'm sure neither is Aporia. Even Mani has expressed that she feels like promoters and organizers don't get a voice. We all want to be able to talk about the server in a safe environment. The staff should be a unified team. We just want to be able to join discussions and for all serious matters to not be treated like they are solely mod jurisdiction and if "you're not part of the big dogs, it's not your business." We're all staff, it should be all of our business.
[3:06 PM] Wammy: 4) & 6) I can understand why us calling you biased is frustrating. That's not even an issue I want to touch. Sometimes bias is inevitable, and I can understand why it's hard to moderate bias. Sometimes the issues are just misunderstandings though. For instance, one of our friends Big Black was perma banned because he posted a pictures of credit cards off google in random as a joke as part of a conversation that was happening in vc. Stuff like that is a misunderstanding, it's silly, and nothing has come out of ban appeal forms. Or like Nom2King was permabanned and we filld out appeal forms and asked mods to unban him but nothign happened, so someone said "Only Existence can do it, talk to Existence." I came to talk to  you and explain, and you told me to just fill out a ban appeal when people already have filled out ban appeals for Nom. It's only instances like THIS where I think there's an issue. Me, Dashh, Guapo etc being muted and stuff when we were rioting in lobby ?? I totally understand why y'all did that. We were trolling. I'm not arguing most of the mod bans/mutes at all. I don't think you guys are doing a horrible job. And again, mod business is not my business, I don't want to be part of it. The promoters and orgs, and I speak for a lot of us, just want to be able to join discussion about bigger issues and about the server in general. We have no desire to tell the mods what to do.(edited)
[3:08 PM] EXistence: 1) Resolved already, it's a matter of the reading of the messages, so that's a matter for later that I will address.
[3:08 PM] Wammy: 5) As for the org department history, that's understandable. But I'm a new org, I have nothing to do with it. Neither did Aporia. Not much else I can say about that. None of us approve of Connie's actions either.
[3:11 PM] EXistence: 2) This has persisted since you entered the server and earlier than that as well. The infractions and enforcements have been the same. But there is a reason for why they ganged up on you. The way you approach the discussion is somewhat trolly, but comes off as EXTREMELY passive aggressive, and that constantly frustrates the moderators. It has come to a point where all of the moderators are extremely annoyed at you and your demeanor, and hence gradually have deemed your voice to be notably insignificant. Your demeanor has cost you the impression that you desire in regards to your voice being heard.
[3:12 PM] Wammy: But anyways, the issues I underlied in 4 & 6 aren't what's important right now. Those were examples. I generally am not complaining about your bans/mutes at all, or haven't since I became staff since I've started taking it more seriously.(edited)
[3:12 PM] Wammy: But okay continue.
[3:13 PM] EXistence: 3) For holistic matters, we take everyone's say into account. We consistently have. We just extremely dislike commentary that has perceivable ulterior motives as well as commentary that is the pinnacle of a trigger to initiate an argument rather than a discussion. Much of the nature of your complaints as well as the demands for changed are laced with your mannerism as well as direct passive aggression as well as blatant name calling towards the mods. That does not sit well with us at all.
[3:14 PM] EXistence: 4) Ban appeals are not immediate. I have orders of business that I am executing one after the other, and there is a specifically allocated time that I already have planned for where I will go through every ban appeal and execute accordingly. Simply because the result is not immediate does not mean that it is absent. Ban appeals are not time sensitive, and therefore they are scheduled the way that they are.
[3:15 PM] EXistence: Case and point for #3: https://gyazo.com/43a124b4d2d505bec2010a8d0f83e140
Gyazo
Gyazo

[3:26 PM] Wammy: Aite okay I see your point about me being a lil aggressive.
[3:26 PM] Wammy: But what does that say about Aporia? And the latter part of the conversation where I was talking to them like I'm talking ot you right now- no shade or passive aggression?
[3:27 PM] Wammy: I feel like we're not asking for much.
[3:27 PM] EXistence: Oh I was just talking in context to you
[3:27 PM] EXistence: In context to Aporia is a discussion that is entirely separate
[3:27 PM] Wammy: Yeah, I can respect that. I know I can be rude.
[3:27 PM] EXistence: And I feel that I should address that directly with him since it pertains to him.(edited)
[3:28 PM] EXistence: That demeanor is one of the key reasons why the controversial commentary and conflicts begin.
[3:28 PM] Wammy: I'm speaking for all of us. A lot of us have felt this way for a while but no one but me was willing to speak up because the rest of them feel like they're never heard.
[3:28 PM] EXistence: Right, I get that. The voiceless need a voice to represent therm. Unfortunately if the representative themselves is already taken in a negative light, that's not a safe starting point.
[3:29 PM] EXistence: And I'm once again going to return to myself, I have always explained and talked to anyone that were muted/banned and I explained why.
[3:29 PM] Wammy: I didn't actually realize I was the representative in their defense.
[3:29 PM] Wammy: If I knew at the time I was voicing how everyone felt I would have done it in a more professional way
[3:30 PM] EXistence: Hold on, but you just said that no one spoke up so you felt like you had to. That's definitionally what a representative is. You can't just feign ignorance granted you have that stance.
[3:30 PM] Wammy: I meant about the paragraph
[3:30 PM] Wammy: I made that after I got shut down in roundtable and lots of people told me they also felt like they didn't have a voice
[3:31 PM] Wammy: When I was arguing in roundtable I was just arguing in roundtable, I wasn't trying to stand up for the orgs/promoters
[3:31 PM] Wammy: The attitude was all my bad.
[3:32 PM] Wammy: The mods were pretty fucking rude back but I'm not even stressin bout all that, I'm pretty much just concerned about the fact that Aporia and I were told to stop talking.
[3:32 PM] EXistence: They were rude literally because you initiated that behavior and from then on the playing field was altered to a no holds barred setting absent ad homs.
[3:33 PM] Wammy: Yeah I know, I said I'm not stressin about all that.
[3:33 PM] EXistence: You two were told to stop talking because at the point when those demands were made, it was literally a series of passive aggression with 0 productivity in the complaints made.
[3:33 PM] EXistence: That's why it happened.
[3:33 PM] EXistence: You have to look at the reasoning for WHY the thing you are complaining about happened
[3:33 PM] Wammy: Aporia was not passive aggressive at all.
[3:33 PM] EXistence: I would definitely beg to differ.
[3:35 PM] Wammy: So you're saying if we weren't "passive aggressive" we would not be shut down and all the orgs and promoters who have been telling me they feel like they don't have a voice- actually do have a voice and feel this way for no reason?
[3:40 PM] EXistence: That's part of what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you feel that there clearly are no productive discussions being held with the people you are currently approaching, find different people of authority. I granted you this opportunity to present your stance and I discussed virtually every intricacy in the statements that you made in this issue. Also passive aggression is the tip of the iceberg. You also have to at least try to listen to what the mods are saying, because they aren't just saying the two static things that you are alleging that they are saying, which is a) "Take to Mike or Existence" or b) Yeah we'll discuss this separately. In Aporia's instance, several of the mods provided their stances on how this server is, what the demographic is and why that is not compatible with Aporia's suggestions.
[3:41 PM] EXistence: The passive aggression problem and rudeness almost entirely devalues your unique resistance because of the structurally negative perception people have of you. Out of politeness people hide it because they just want to be friends, but if this is an issue we need to discuss, this behavior is one of the BIGGEST problems we need to address.
[3:42 PM] EXistence: Not only is the demographic that has historically been and continues to be one of the most problematic in the server the people you are friends with, but you are also associated inherently based on past actions. Everyone's voice and stance is based on what perception everyone has of them. I welcome every organizer and every staff member to talk about any grievances they have to directly talk to me instead of being scared of me.
[3:42 PM] EXistence: There's your open door.
[3:43 PM] EXistence: If you want to take it, I am ready to address every grievance along with defending my stance.
[3:48 PM] Wammy: I've already acknowledged I'm aggressive, I can come off rude, the way I talk to people can come off a certain way. I accept all of that, but unless someone is explicitly attacking someone I don't think they should be told to be quiet. Who I assosciate with is a certain demographic that has been problematic sure, and I agree a lot of the times they've been muted/banned with good reason. That doesn't mean they also don't have some good points. They've actually been behaving since I became staff- on my demand, because I actually want people to get along.
[3:49 PM] Wammy: As for their argument with Aporia
[3:49 PM] Wammy: Aporia - Today at 3:40 PM
I was literally writing like I always do, but sure, no friendly smileys in my messages anymore I guess. And the 0 productivity did not came from the way we talked to them, it came from how they reacted to reason. "It has always been this way." "What do you know, you can't read our chats." "You are an org.", over and over again with different wordings.
Their stances weren't based on facts, it was just based on their limited view on the whole picture. They only see what is and not what would be. My suggestions wouldn't change the mentality of the whole server over night, but at least in two-three months the server would be less than half as cancerous.
They didn't argue why my point wasn't valid to them, they just said it doesn't work like that.
[3:49 PM] Wammy: ^^^Which if you re read is actually what happened. Aporia didn't get a chance to finish explaining how he felt about the situation and continue the conversation he was having with them
[3:49 PM] Wammy: Because he was shut down
[3:50 PM] Wammy: If you had let him finish he has some really good points and some great ideas for the server
[3:50 PM] Wammy: What we want is open discussion and to be able to discuss things with everyone in the future.
[3:50 PM] EXistence: "If you had let him finish" I was not part of the conversation Wammy.
[3:50 PM] Wammy: You plural
[3:50 PM] Wammy: Meaning everyone as a whole
[3:50 PM] Wammy: but yeah I'm not blaming you per say
[3:50 PM] Wammy: I'm not really blaming everyone
[3:52 PM] EXistence: Ok back
[3:53 PM] EXistence: I never attempted to discredit your friends. What I am saying is that their allegations is characteristically ridiculous the majority of the time, and their behavior gets amalgamated into the same perceptual line that causes us to punish them in the first place.
[3:56 PM] EXistence: Second, I don't know how many time I have said this or implied it but you were NOT silenced for your attempts to have a discussion but rather you guys' adamant natures to not listen to the complaints that we have with your suggestions. .You have to ascertain the possibilities of both sides. That links back to ideology.
[3:56 PM] EXistence: Now for what Aporia said.
[3:58 PM] EXistence: You guys SEVERELY misread or just flat out ignored the key point made by the mods. You have to understand how implicative a demographic is. Lets take policies as an example. Similar policies can be implemented in different countries, but the implications and practicality have massively different effects on the people who are present in the given country that the policy has been implemented in. The principle follows suit with the server. The "weeding out" tactic does not work here due to the characteristic nature of the way the server has been, and that's not discounting potential improvements in the future but rather saying that directly saying that the functionality of the server is bankrupt is not a way to formulate change. Providing suggestions on how to do it the key way to change it.
[4:00 PM] EXistence: And finally, acceptance is not reformation. If you want the way the server works to change, you have to change your demeanor. If not, this is without a shadow of a doubt, this situation will continue. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE In the mod department or other departments, will ever take you seriously. Your approach is ad hom first, constructive analysis later. You set up the discussion for failure. If you choose to not accept it that is 100% on you.
[4:04 PM] EXistence: Oh and one more thing.
[4:04 PM] EXistence: I revisited the chat for the 5th time, and I realized that apart from Connie, NO ONE else silenced you. She was the one who told you to quiet down whilst everyone else was replying to your complaints.
[4:10 PM] Wammy: 1. Again, what happened in there had nothing to do with my friends. I wasn't arguing in their defense ever.

2. We were not dismissing the mods points?? We were trying to continue the conversation from what the mods said. We acknowledged their points and we had solutions to the issues that the mods brought up but we didn't get a chance to share them. What you're not understanding is that it's the other way around. We are the ones who weren't given a chance to finish talking- you guys don't even fully understand the points we were trying to make or the ideas we had. We were getting to the point of presenting suggestions. If you had let the conversation continue I'm sure a compromise could eventually have been reached. What you're not getting is it's the other way around. Aporia and I were not being stubborn and unwilling to listen. We were willing to listen and continue having a conversation. But we were told to shut down because nobody else wanted to humour a conversation. They made their 2 or 3 points- and didn't want us to keep going even though we had ways around their points and we were able to refute them.

3. I agree my approach was wrong, and while I don't think that some not so serious ad hom in the beginning replaced by actual discussion by the end was enough for me to be shut down. That's something we're going to have to agree to disagree on. As for Aporia, no one should have shut him down at all. He did nothing wrong. And I think you need to acknowledge that if multiple staff members feel their thoughts are being ignored- then there's some kind of issue there.
[4:10 PM] Wammy: 4. And I mean, Connie is the only one who told me to be quiet explicitly but it was pretty obvious nobody wanted to continue the conversation and no one said "Connie she has a right to have a discussion" because at that point I was not attacking anybody, I was arguing points being made with new points/solutions/logical reasoning. Someone said something along the lines of "Aporia we know you have opinions but please be aware that we are deciding on mod apps and this is making you look bad" I think that's pretty much a threatening "shut up stop talking about your opinion if you still want to be a mod"(edited)
[4:11 PM] Wammy: Explicitly saying be quiet is not the only way to silence someone. Saying "This isn't your department, you don't know anything" is basically silencing someone.
[4:15 PM] EXistence: 1) Association has its effects. Revisit the warrants earlier if you still don't understand why I am saying this. Plus, pre-staff behavior isn't something that disappears. It carries over.
[4:15 PM] EXistence: I'm rereading the chat over and over to make sure I don't say anything unjustified
[4:20 PM] EXistence: 2. I just read it over again, and it was a clash of ideologies. No one was willing to understand one another's perspectives. At best, what I saw was a few of the mediators regarding Aporia say that the demographic is different and therefore enforcement is notably different. And the arguments were fundamentally bankrupt in the eyes of those who were arguing against you, hence their stances on it and their explanations. Also Aporia literally shut down when he was asked to DM Mike about it. He's the final say regarding the actual change that is of such drastic nature. That's not on us. Plus, I have yet to see where someone threatened Aporia with bad perceptual stances going into Mod apps.
[4:20 PM] EXistence: 3. We can agree to disagree and that's fine. I am just telling you what will inevitably happen, and why your complaint about silencing will no longer be valid. There's a reason why your voice in particular is disregarded.(edited)
[4:21 PM] EXistence: 4. I beg to differ. Revisiting the chat shows me that at least Danny if not other mods were continuing to respond to your stance, while Connie was the only one who was adamant in trying to get you to stop. Reread the chat.
[4:41 PM] Wammy: 1. That's understandable.
2. We were perfectly willing to understand your perspectives. We understand your perspectives just fine. We think your perspectives warrant further discussion, that's it. Aporia was not shut down by being told to DM Mike, because Mike's dms are turned off. Roundtable is made for this type of discussion so Aporia was doing exactly what he should have been doing- having a serious staff discussion in a channel made for serious staff discussion- that is available toall staff. Also the message tp Aporia was dm'd.
3. I understand why my voice is disregarded, I get that I come with stigma and I have a certain attitude that people don't like. That doesn't mean my opinions should be disregarded. My complaint about being silenced is perfectly valid, because there is no good reason for silencing staff in a staff chat when they are trying to have a discussion. Sure, the way I act warranted them being rude back to me- that's perfectly understandable. It even warrants them not wanting to talk to me. And if my behaviour is really THAT problematic, it would even warrant demoting me. If you guys demote me this instance- I'll take it and not complain. I don't think it warrants closing down an important conversation that could have had a very productive outcome.
4. Existence even if a few kept responding, there was still some who mostly said shit things like "You're out of line/sticking your nose where it doesn't belong" "This isn't your department." L. literally said the whole org team was out of line because Aporia and I started a discussion about staff related issues in a staff chat???
[4:45 PM] EXistence: 2-3) I welcome the discussion. But, such assertions make me believe that you really don't understand the perspectives. Otherwise, the complaint about the variable demographic would not exist, but rather that would have been accounted for in the suggestions made. If the perceptual threat was made to Aporia through DMs, that is out of my control. If you feel it warrants investigation, tell Aporia to send screenshots and I will resolve it accordingly. Round table is made for serious discussion. We are not discounting that.
3 spec.) The arguments that you present and the points that you make can be valid, but when the stance and initiation is bad, not everyone would be inclined to listen to you. If the start is bad no one cares to stay for the remainder and take stances about it before the conversation gets anywhere. That is how damaging perception can be.
[4:47 PM] EXistence: 4) Some, i.e. Lauren, provided their stances because you in particular were ACTUALLY getting out of hand. And her sentiment was about the general demeanor of the staff chat, and it was brought into applicability when you started getting out of hand. Aporia was done as far as I can see it before she made the comment.
[4:48 PM] EXistence: Wammy this is becoming a clash of ideologies. This is far too repetitive. In terms of your voices, we will listen to them and try our best to implement it in the future. Just know that the rest of the department will not listen to you. That is not my perspective, merely my prediction based on how interactions have gone.
[4:49 PM] EXistence: In terms of demotion, that's Connie's discretion to remove you from her department. Just know that after your perspective, I am just going to personally tell you that granted your behavior, you are no longer welcome in mine.
[4:52 PM] Wammy: I agree this isn't going anywhere. Actually, I'm agreeing with a lot of your points and trying to find common ground and trying to compromise but you haven't budged an inch on anything you've initially said you are kind of ignoring the points I'm making. I already told you I completely understand why they're biased towards me speaking up. That's understandable. I understand why I'm not welcome to your department, at the current moment in time I no longer want to be if my opinions would not be respected. My point this entire time has simply been that in the future everyone should be more open to discussion and if the other departments are not given the respect that they deserve they will not want to continue putting in all this effort for the server with no say in what happens to it.
[4:52 PM] Wammy: I think that's fair and I think whatever personal issues the mod team has with me or Connie should not affect how they treat people like Aporia etc.
[4:53 PM] EXistence: That's the exact opposite. I literally just said that any future complaints I will directly deal with myself and take into consideration and attempt to implement them into the changes I want to make.
[4:53 PM] EXistence: I said that countless times.
[4:53 PM] EXistence: I've also attempted to address every key point I see in the arguments you have made.
[4:54 PM] EXistence: Once again this is why I said that this is a clash of ideologies; it is not about understanding specific points but rather cohering to a specific ideology that dictates a set of actions.
[4:54 PM] Wammy: I disagree in you saying that I was actually getting out of hand because re reading everything, I made a few ad hom comments before the actual discussion started and after that I was pretty civil in conversation. Lauren telling me I was sticking my nose where it doesn't belong was wrong because I have acccess to roundtable for a reason. I shouldn't have access to roundtable period if I'm not allowed to talk about staff related shit in there.
[4:54 PM] EXistence: My point was exactly that.
[4:54 PM] EXistence: Initiating a conversation with ad-hom is settitng yourself up for failure.
[4:55 PM] EXistence: I am pretty sure I said something along those lines or that exact phrase but with the exact meaning a few times already.
[4:55 PM] Wammy: That's fine but you said I was getting out of hand
[4:55 PM] Wammy: Key word: getting.
[4:55 PM] Wammy: I agreed with what you said initially but you contradicted yourself in defending L.
[4:55 PM] EXistence: Yes, the term getting is not specifically implicative to one conversation. It was implied to your demeanor and behavior writ large.
[4:56 PM] EXistence: Laur's comment was not specific to the org department getting out of hand in that one specific conversation
[4:56 PM] EXistence: That sentiment is long standing and widespread, and hence it's application here is holistic rather than instantial.
[4:57 PM] Wammy: I think my behavior has actually gotten a lot better than what it was last month and a lot of the staff can agree with that. I don't bring anything up in lobby and only assert my input about issues in staff chat where it is supposed to go and I don't go out of my way to attack people other than a handful of comments here and there- which no one has voiced an issue with me directly about. If I was told that it's that big of an issue I would stop because I actually want to participate in serious conversations about the server.
[4:58 PM] Wammy: but that was the first time the mod team ever expressed their issues with me
[4:58 PM] EXistence: Wammy, once again it's become circular. I am just telling you how it is now. This isn't going to go anywhere else.
[4:58 PM] Wammy: Which they didn't even do directly
[4:58 PM] EXistence: And yes, this is one of the times where they got tired of being shittalked
[4:59 PM] EXistence: Yeah this really is going to go nowhere. If there are any further complaints I will deal with it directly.
[4:59 PM] EXistence: Thanks for bringing the concern to me directly.
[5:00 PM] Wammy: Alright, well thank you for your time.