Board Thread:Policies/@comment-10473115-20170415164119/@comment-16461120-20170420021456

What's "meaningless" to you has varying degrees of importance for literally everyone else. Mrkermit wrote: We came to this discussion to settle a dispute which started when you told that I was "tolerating and/or praising unilateral action from Monolith616". You continued by deeming Monolith's actions as "unnecessary and towards some it was actually quite nasty, sinking to the level of completely uncalled for". That's not when it started, it's been simmering for months, that was merely when it became very public. I still maintain that the specific incident which lead to my comments wasn't necessary, and I stand by that assessment, further bolstered by Monolith616's own admission that it was intentionally escalated specifically to provoke reaction. Mrkermit wrote: What I learned from the discussion considering that particular thing is that there isn't any proof of Monolith's unilateral actions or intentional insults. Because it appears you willfully choose to discount what myself and other people have said, which you’re welcome to do, but ignoring it doesn’t change reality for any of the contributors who disagree with you. Mrkermit wrote: That's the reason I think Monolith's been accused unjustifiable and my assessment that you've lacked necessary good faith. As I stated in my last post, there was plenty of “good faith” involved both before and after. Mrkermit wrote: Like I already proposed, we could seek a help from a mediator if you want. But I have a thick skin, don't have any grievances and if you think my accusation for the lack of good faith is totally unsubstantiated, we can just agree to disagree and move on. I’m 100% positive that I'd already moved on, but you decided to roll the clock on this discussion back four days, and so here we are.