In the link you posted (id=36816398), never saw it until this, as the entire series of posts were deleted away from the main thread. So was not aware of the situation, and that it was being blamed on me specifically.
If you review those chain of posts, surely the account that first named V directly (not to even go into the list of many other antagonists), initiated and provoked by specifically targeting the V language. Including posting provocative or inflammatory links (which are spammed on most V threads).
I'm concerned that the definition of what constitutes instigating or being found at fault for starting a flamewar, appears directed at those who may respond with or show any support for V.
Those that are clearly instigating, continually snarky, or even directly insulting in their posts seem to go unpunished or ignored. Though, as a user, don't have the greater perspective on this.
Apologies on the rule violation, as often attempt to avoid crossing the line, and was just attempting to provide at least a contrasting point of view to what is continually taking place on the subject. After review, do see which rule was violated, which was not the original intent.
If you would be kind of enough to, can you instruct on how you view this situation?
If you review those chain of posts, surely the account that first named V directly (not to even go into the list of many other antagonists), initiated and provoked by specifically targeting the V language. Including posting provocative or inflammatory links (which are spammed on most V threads).
I'm concerned that the definition of what constitutes instigating or being found at fault for starting a flamewar, appears directed at those who may respond with or show any support for V.
Those that are clearly instigating, continually snarky, or even directly insulting in their posts seem to go unpunished or ignored. Though, as a user, don't have the greater perspective on this.
Apologies on the rule violation, as often attempt to avoid crossing the line, and was just attempting to provide at least a contrasting point of view to what is continually taking place on the subject. After review, do see which rule was violated, which was not the original intent.
If you would be kind of enough to, can you instruct on how you view this situation?