Report (TreeSmoothie, AnythingGoes)

[TreeSmoothie 4903]

Player(s) Involved

TreeSmoothie, AnythingGoes

 

Explanation

 

I have been working on Conjuration Atronach lore since December 20th, simply because I was bored and a friend of mine had recently started writing their own Atronach addition (Sand atros). Note: Slots had never, ever, mentioned the idea of Conjuration Atronachs to me prior to the date of the screenshots, March 11.

 

As shown in the document history, I wrote all of it in one day and even was going to post it that day - however, from a few chats in Lurin discord, I figured it'd be better to get feedback beforehand.

 

Cut to March 11th and we're talking about Atronachs, when the topic of conjuration atronachs comes up. I said "cool, I'm also writing that". I linked the lore I was writing, the abilities, and the idea of how their form works whilst Slots stated they wanted "Witcher esque leshons and watery tumor constructs". None of which is anything like the lore I wrote and have now posted.

 

Initially, to avoid the risk of us both posting Conjuration Atronach lore at the same time, I did step back and shelf the lore since Slots said he was writing something similar: but it's been 3 or 4 months of no word or update, so I went through with it. As of today, they commented on my lore page nothing related to the submission itself, but an accusation of completely ripping their lore (that they've never shown me or mentioned but in that single passing conversation) off, copying their ideas, and that I was being malicious. 

 

Had this not happened before, I wouldn't have minded it much- however, we have had disputes in the past. Slots has told me I cannot write additions or amendments for Conjuration without asking him beforehand for permission, which, after checking with a story member, is a blatant lie. Thus I have tried to stray away from it (and going as far to drop the magic to avoid any further arguments), but I also have multiple students and a coven who enjoy the lore and want to build on it.

 

 

Relevant Material

Evidence

Evidence of document history:
Start date-


What was written day of creation-


What was written after we spoke (members of the guild saw the document and wanted to give feedback- which you can see, amounted to grammar and clarification)

 

Forums & Discord

04/05/23

 

Evidence of uncooperative conduct.

Evidence

Previous discussions were had to clear the argument we had in the past: refusal to compromise includes their recent accusation.

Blip of the previous conversation (if the entire thing is needed, I can provide screenshots over DMs to the appropriate staff. Was a very long conversation):

 

 

---

 

Before posting on this thread, please review the Report Rules.

[LoTC's Next Top Model 713]

1 hour ago, TreeSmoothie said:

i am baffled you choose to include this as evidence that i harrass you. this was a response to you, on the forums, saying i "openly and repeatedly harrass you", and then didn't include the phrase /you/ sent immediately after.


 

where you admit that... i never harrassed you.

 

or, the conversation we had previously, where i supposedly deeply harrassed you.

 

this is absolutely how a harrassing conversation ends.

 

1 hour ago, TreeSmoothie said:

Slots has told me I cannot write additions or amendments for Conjuration without asking him beforehand for permission

i have never said this. what i said was this;



"write whatever you want, but talk to people first" is not "you may not under any circumstances do this unless i say so." i make sure to contact people if i'm going to do stuff with their lore to make sure i'm not ruffling anything all the time. it's not required, it's just good practice.

if i may be a bit cheeky, i'd say this also counts as misrepresenting me drastically.

this ban report also contradicts itself. for example;

 

1 hour ago, TreeSmoothie said:

Cut to March 11th and we're talking about Atronachs,

 

1 hour ago, TreeSmoothie said:

but it's been 3 or 4 months of no word or update, so I went through with it.

it has not even been one month since march 11th, which doesn't matter because the screenshots clearly say it's february 11th and not march 11th, and it's also not been three months since february. i dont even think any of this is significant regardless.

now, i will admit this one thing; i did say one thing to you that i felt was rude and non-constructive, and i apologized for it later the same day because i kept thinking about how outright rude it was.

most of this doesn't need to be seen by the public, if mods request i'll gladly share the full conversation logs between me and tree.

oh also, at the end, if you could just call me anythinggoes instead of slots, i'd appreciate it. i am not my character. that is all.

Edited April 6, 2023 by LoTC's Next Top Model

[TreeSmoothie 4903]

33 minutes ago, LoTC's Next Top Model said:

i am baffled you choose to include this as evidence that i harrass you. this was a response to you, on the forums, saying i "openly and repeatedly harrass you", and then didn't include the phrase /you/ sent immediately after.



or, the conversation we had previously, where i supposedly deeply harrassed you.

 

this is absolutely how a harrassing conversation ends.

 

i have never said this. what i said was this;



"write whatever you want, but talk to people first" is not "you may not under any circumstances do this unless i say so."

if i may be a bit cheeky, i'd say this also counts as misrepresenting me drastically.

this ban report also contradicts itself. for example;

 

 

it has not even been one month since march 11th, which doesn't matter because the screenshots clearly say it's february 11th and not march 11th, and it's also not been three months since february.

now, i will admit this one thing; i did say one thing to you that i felt was rude and non-constructive, and i apologized for it later the same day because i kept thinking about how outright rude it was.

most of this doesn't need to be seen by the public, if mods request i'll gladly share the full conversation logs between me and tree.

 

This report is not about the previous argument we had (I only included the quoted area as evidence that we have, indeed, had issues in the past)- only the fact that you've consistently misconstrued lore rules (such as lore holders still existing and holding say whether or not the lore can be edited)- you do comment on every conjuration lore addition/amendment anyone writes to nitpick it extremely, glaringly so on my own to the extent of saying I'm copying your lore I've never seen just because they have the same very broad concept, of conjuration atronachs.

 

That is non-constructive. I've told you I don't find it constructive, either, to say 'you shouldn't write this or else it'll get denied. You risk getting my lore removed by ST by doing this'. It's just really frustrating, between writing lore and being told I'm copying off my own idea, to every single piece of writing I've submitted to this server being relentlessly scrutinized and picked apart like it's a college essay because you don't want changes done to your lore. I get fearing something you've worked on going to the bin because of someone else (see: all of my own lore submissions), but it shouldn't go to the extent of putting others down to prevent that. The server changes.

 

abt the month thing, that's my bad- dates got jumbled in my head up until you pointed that out: however, people are allowed to write the same lore as eachother. People have done it in the past, people do it now, and I was just trying to give you more time to work on it since I assumed it'd be published sooner and I didn't want to be rude and publish my own take on conj atros if you were about to, as well.

 

edit: Sorry! I thought your nickname was slots, I can change it if you'd like

[LoTC's Next Top Model 713]

5 hours ago, TreeSmoothie said:

This report is not about the previous argument we had (I only included the quoted area as evidence that we have, indeed, had issues in the past)

 

issues that, by all accounts, have been resolved. to date, my only issue with you in the past has been the claim you made on your own lore post that i continuously harrass you, which is just not true, by your own admission. the extent of our communications thus far have been you coming to ask me a conj question, us having a long discussion about the state of magic on the server past and present, some months passing, me commenting on your addition regarding things i found to be severely overpowered or otherwise unacceptable (three emote full heal of any injury is pretty strong and shouldn't be accepted imo), you calling me a serial harrasser, us resolving that, some months later the two of us talking about atronachs with some other people in a public chat, and then some months later me leaving an (admittedly bitchy) comment on your recent addition, given the similarities (which go beyond "they're both conj atronachs" as you claim, with overlapping abilities). we have had under ten entire interactions ever, including this ban report and the one-off comment i made on your atro submission as two seperate interactions. we barely interact.

 

5 hours ago, TreeSmoothie said:

you do comment on every conjuration lore addition/amendment anyone writes to nitpick it extremely, glaringly so on my own to the extent of saying I'm copying your lore I've never seen just because they have the same very broad concept, of conjuration atronachs.

i comment on plenty of void magic stuff. i am often critical. i often nitpick. because i want to see things improved. see the celestialism rewrite, where me and the creator had a long discussion about the balance of spells over several days. i do not single you out, if that is what you are implying. i have a vested interest in, and if i may toot my own horn, i'd say i have a very good grasp on conjuration lore. therefore, i make sure to comment on conjuration additions with my thoughts.
 

5 hours ago, TreeSmoothie said:

That is non-constructive. I've told you I don't find it constructive, either, to say 'you shouldn't write this or else it'll get denied. You risk getting my lore removed by ST by doing this'.

this is misrepresentative of what i've said. i'll discuss it with gms if they request. i do not care to spill more of my dms on the public forums.

 

5 hours ago, TreeSmoothie said:

It's just really frustrating, between writing lore and being told I'm copying off my own idea, to every single piece of writing I've submitted to this server being relentlessly scrutinized and picked apart like it's a college essay because you don't want changes done to your lore.

i'll admit, maybe it's parallel thinking. i don't know what's going on in your brain. on the flip side, it's frustrating to see someone post lore corresponding to things you've told them about being in the process of writing.

edit3: on having additional time to think about this, i was absolutely needlessly reductive in posting that comment on your lore, and we probably just came up with these things on our own coincidentally. i apologize for my kneejerk response, i shouldn't have insinuated that, and i gave you too little credit.

That being said, i stand by what i say elsewhere in this post, regarding scrutiny not being criticism, and much of what i've said in our dms being highly misrepresented or otherwise not being things i've ever said.

end of edit

on the second point... that's the entire point of lore judgement? to scrutinize it? if something is blatantly overpowered or clearly unacceptable for whatever reason, it's not harrassment to point that out, or whatever you're trying to imply here. it's not like i spammed your dms, stalked you, followed you on the server, spammed slurs. i listed reasons things were overpowered, comparisons to other spells of the same tier/emote count, and reasons that it was almost certainly going to be denied by the lt. this is also not something i do exclusively to you, if that's something you're implying. again, see; celestialism lore post, where my balance criticisms were nearly as long as the lore itself.

5 hours ago, TreeSmoothie said:

I get fearing something you've worked on going to the bin because of someone else (see: all of my own lore submissions), but it shouldn't go to the extent of putting others down to prevent that. The server changes.

 

i also just don't do this. i openly ask for criticism, concerns, feedback all the time. i've asked *you* for feedback, several times. almost no feedback i ever get amounts to more than "it's too complicated" or "there's nothing you can do with this magic!", with no elaborations on what in particular is problematic or needs to be changed or examples of changes to make or anything of this accord. i am fine with conj changing. the first time you ever submitted a new spell for conj, i offered some fixes i would've done to the spell to make it more interesting/usable/fit better into the identity, and give it a better shot and being accepted. i didn't say "THIS SPELL SHOULD NEVER BE ADDED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!". somewhat recently, the beastmelding emote count reduction and jing non-et sign require amendment i gave two thumbs up to, because those were some specific, genuine problems being fixed, even if it wasn't by me. when i rewrote how perennial conjuration works in the last major update, i did almost exactly what meteordragon suggested and then credited him as such. i have absolutely no problem with other people adding to conj. i do not request an unchanging monolith, but by that same token i'm not going to blow smoke up your ass. if i see problems i am going to mention them, in the proper channels (forum replies to lore posts). i do this because i want to see the best state the lore can be in, not because i'm out to get you.

 

5 hours ago, TreeSmoothie said:

however, people are allowed to write the same lore as eachother.

 

i have never claimed otherwise.

edit:

 

5 hours ago, TreeSmoothie said:

such as lore holders still existing and holding say whether or not the lore can be edited)

 

i've also just never said this. i said that you should ask people if you're going to copy their stuff, in particular regarding you posting a rewrite of conjuration that was just the entire conjuration lore with two spells changed and the majority of the magic untouched from what i wrote, and not giving credit to me, and making no indication that you didn't write the entirety of it. i took great umbrage to this, i'll admit, but if i posted something you wrote wholesale, changed one ability, and then posted it without crediting you beyond "former lore writer", i can't imagine you wouldn't be a bit steamed.

i have absolutely no say on whether people write things for conj, or if those things get accepted. i'm just the go-to person a lot of people ask about conj. that's all being a "lore-holder" means these days, that i'm the only person gauranteed to understand the lore.

 

 edit2:

5 hours ago, TreeSmoothie said:

edit: Sorry! I thought your nickname was slots, I can change it if you'd like

 

i would appreciate this, thank you.

Edited April 6, 2023 by LoTC's Next Top Model
serial editor

[TreeSmoothie 4903]

we hugged it out (solved through dms, apologies have been recieved) 

 

us fr!?!

 

[IsaaKc 1225]

33 minutes ago, TreeSmoothie said:

we hugged it out (solved through dms, apologies have been recieved)

this is the most quickly resolved altercation i've ever seen on the server

[TreeSmoothie 4903]

3 minutes ago, IsaaKc said:

this is the most quickly resolved altercation i've ever seen on the server

got an apology and an explanation on why, heartfelt discussion, good nuff for me (I hate arguments and lotc will make me have a stress heartattack by the time I'm 17)

[Zolla_ 947]

this has to be the most unnecessary report i've ever seen

Edited April 6, 2023 by Zolla_

[Ibn Khaldun 7729]

Completed. Both parties have worked out the issue.