>The difference between us, as far as i can see, is that i didn't accept what you said.

Yes. Eventually when two people disagree they _agree to disagree_ and move on. You don't just keep shouting at someone ad infinitum.

>I don't really see how i was worse though. Like... you kept saying that i was arguing in bad faith but i wasn't. I really wasn't.

When people have a good faith discussion they don't come in with guns loaded super hostile. They don't come in and make demands and call people lazy and imply incompetence. They talk about things and listen to each other and make their points and if they disagree they disagree and move on. It is not arguing in good faith to come into a conversation that was literally already had with sketchy and then make the same points on repeat for hours to the point where Kat, someone with an almost endless supply of patience, decides to quit being an admin.

>I didn't even want an all out argument but i felt attacked.

Disagreeing with you !== attacking you.

>And I'm not the only one who saw it that way.

Appealing to vague and mysterious support is a common way of giving off the illusion that you have more support than you do. There are plenty of people who agree _with your position_, but almost none of them agree _with your behavior_. A breakdown from the people who have messaged me after or chose a side in chat:

Support Kat/me against your behavior:
-Me
-Kat
-Rex
-wrenches
-Emily
-Magnus
-Rex
-mutt
-sketchy
-Rob
-Clerical
-Deing
-Gaywallet
-5 more people who messaged Kat who I don't know about

Supported you/Apple:
-You
-Apple
-Pup

> It seemed like you just weren't having any dissent.

I am obviously open to differing opinions, which is why I have no problem with sketchy making her case for things. What I do have a problem with is not showing any respect to your friends, dismissing all of the work that Kat and I do for the server when you know nothing about what we do behind the scenes to keep things running smoothly, and not accepting a decision that doesn't align with your own views (and then not moving on when you did get what you want after you burnt out Kat and me)

>It was a bit reductionist, I'll admit.

Yes.

>But like... i wanted the server to have a chance to fix itself before we just get decisions pushed on us. Is that unreasonable? Like, i didn't think it was but is that unreasonable?

You have this position because you have no insight into what Kat and I _actually do_. Its not like we just started to have conflict out of nowhere yesterday, we have literally been doing what you wanted the entire time this server has existed. When someone was being a dick we would DM them and talk to them and get them to correct their behavior. When people got too heated in an argument and developed a grudge we would have sitdowns in DM groups with them until the issue was resolved. You don't have insight into this because its not your or public business, it is between us and the people involved. The problem is that I'm too busy with moving to devote the same emotional labor I have been to these things all the time and Kat is literally dying so demanding that she exert 24/7 emotional labor at her expense is absolutely ridiculous.

Additionally, many of the more chronic issues are systemic problems that need to be addressed through experimentation with various approaches until one works well, there is no magic bullet. If your solution to a complex social program is "**just** do X" then you don't understand the complexity and nuance of the issue, which is the whole problem with your argument. "**Just** talk it out", "**Just** remove passive aggressive reactions", "**Just** moderate!", etc etc. We're not playing The Sims here, real life and real people are complicated and we have 30-some people with their own needs and wants and preferences and likes and dislikes for people.

>But i don't know what the limit is for ombudsposting.

Someone who DM'd me said it best: "That's actually why <server> instituted a politer way of saying "back talking admin decisions aggressively in channel gets you a mute"". You can disagree all you want and you can make your case, but eventually a decision is going to get made and if that's in your favor hooray and if its not then deal with it. This is what I mean when I say "you don't get to have everything in life your way". There are policies on CFP that stop me from talking about stuff that I want to (like some folks have incest related trauma so I don't get to talk about some of the crazier Mormon offshoots), but I deal with it because it is best for the community as a whole and because not being able to talk about incest or throw a thumbs down emoji onto a message in A SINGLE CHANNEL isn't the end of the world.

>Why say that? To me, that's really mean. Those are the kind of statements i try to avoid

You say that after spending a good portion of a day calling 7 people who you have no idea what they do lazy, including my girlfriend who is literally a bedridden cripple, and stirring up a bunch of drama over an incredibly minor change so my desire to mince words is pretty much as low as it can go.