Editing User talk:Edwardkenwayfan31

{{Welcome}}
==Violating community guidelines==
Edwardkenwayfan31, your conduct in [https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/d/p/4400000000000136595 AdmiralZod1's forum thread] yesterday was unacceptable and violates our community guidelines, as listed in Section 1 Cvility and etiquette. After reflection, I have come to the decision that it cannot go unaddressed and should be left on record.

I refer to the following cases:
*In response to my comment, "''Actually the Lisbon earthquake was caused by Shay''", you wrote "'''''under Achilles' orders. Seriously please stop strawmanning and leaving out details that go against your argument.'''''"
::You immediately jumped straight to an accusation about strawmanning over what was a simple factual sentence and not even a fully elaborated argument. I had never interacted with you before and that was the first and only comment I made about this subject, yet you portrayed it like a disgenuous argument in an exhaustive debate ("please stop leaving out details that go against your argunent"). You also bolded for emphasis needlessly. Therefore, this was an inflammatory response and an over-reaction on your part which served no other purpose than to incite conflict.

* Despite this, in response to my moderation, you followed up with this comment:
::<blockquote>"''You are the one who sparked this conversation by retorting Jack's comment with the technicality of Shay having done it which again, is no different than saying 'he didn't do it, the hitman did'.<br>What's bad faith is deleting comments you didn't agree with. You literally proved Flames' point by deleting his well thought out essay, as well as his comment below yours where he criticized you for deleting comments you didn't agree with.''"</blockquote>
:*First, It always takes at least two for there to be an argument and laying the blame on "who started it" is immature. But as illustrated above, your initial comment was far more provocative than mine was and did more to instigate conflict.

:*Second, you accused me of deleting comments just because I disagree with them. This is an ''argumentum ad hominem'', also known as a personal attack. It is also a false accusation.

:*I restored the two comments I deleted, one of Flames and one of mine for transparency. For the record, I had deleted them because I evaluated that the exchange between us (both our comments) could be interpreted as turning to ''ad hominem'', that they were counterproductive to the debate and could derail the community discussion with a hostile argument.

::*Flames had dismissed my clarification and my attempt to disengage and also accused me of bias. In turn, I also countered that I was calling out his bias. As I explained to Flames, I deleted up to my comment where I pointed out that we already had multiple debates about this topic in the past that I do not think we should rehash, so my intention was to nip this in the bud before it escalated. The extra exchange between us was the result of Flames failing to respect my moderation of the thread.
:*You also wrote,
::<blockquote>"''Accusing Flames of bad faith and pinning the blame on him for starting this, is simple put, ridiculous.''"</blockquote>
::*This is a misrepresentation of my comments to Flames, and you need to display greater precision in reading comprehension and response than mere antagonism. I did not "blame him for starting" an argument; I clarified to him in stronger terms—as I had already done so with you—my initial comment that you two were agitated by.

::*Presumption of bad faith, as I had already explained to Flames on his talk page, is defined by failing to give other users' the benefit of the doubt about their intentions (unless they're a repeat offender), so I was in my rights to point this out when Flames rejected what was my third attempt at clarifying my meaning, as well as my desire for the debate not to be rehashed.
*You repeatedly displayed an inability to be receptive. I explained three times, twice to you and once to Flames, that the statement you were agitated by was merely a factual one and not the argument you were construing. Even at the end, after Flames and I were able to reach an understanding, you were still trying to perpetuate the argument with the same points, refusing to accept that the conversation had advanced and ended.
*You wrote, "''It is not bad faith to criticize that position''", which was once again a misrepresentation of my words. I did not refer to criticizing my position as bad faith; I referred to mischaracterizing my position and rejecting my clarification as bad faith.
Our community guidelines are in fact very clear that this behaviour on your part is unacceptable.
<blockquote>
1(a). Be nice and treat people with respect and courtesy. Keep discussions civil and be open-minded about differing opinions. '''Do not comment just to provoke.'''''

1(d). In matters of dispute, you are expected to '''do your best to advance the conversation and properly engage with the other party's arguments.'''

This involves acknowledgement of the other party's arguments and the presumption of good faith even where one disagrees with those arguments.

'''It involves a willingness to believe the other party's attempt to clarify their intended meaning when they have expressed belief that they have been misunderstood.'''

It entails not dismissing, rejecting, and/or mischaracterizing the experiences expressed by the other party, no matter how strongly one disagrees with the position and opinions they have formed on the basis of those experiences. Doing otherwise may constitute posing a strawman argument or worse, a violation of 1(b) regarding non-discrimination.

'''Arguments and counter-arguments should be targeted at the content of arguments and not the character of the individual''', nor should they be repeatedly levelled at the other party’s suspected dishonesty.</blockquote>

While I was initially going to be lenient and let this pass, I realized that even at the end, you have not displayed an understanding or respect for our guidelines. Please adhere to these guidelines in the future. [[User:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 15:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)