LoTC's Next Top Model

good plugin, badass

gold vip lmao

the problem with the void is that it requires constant moderation for freeform shit to exist, and noone actually wants to do that moderation, so shit gets blanket denied. back in the old days when you could make 'discoveries' and make new magic things, each new discovery was functionally a new aspect of lore added to the server. this would compound onto itself until it hit a breaking point, which in game was around when people were combining dozens of features in order to make functional star-trek esque space/airships with holographic assistants (everyone ******* had one of these back in the day), functioning computer screens (everyone had voidal horror powered cell phones back then, too), functional levitation and flight capabilities, organic sensing automatic opening doors, and etc. it actually really went this far.

the problem with void magic to me, largely, is how people perceive it rather than how it actually is. the only times void magic gets nerfs is when it's outwardly crazy massively overpowered, in recent memory namely translocation which let you pull the classic "i channeled for one emote therefore on my second emote i can melee hit someone with a bomb and warp on top of a nearby roof and escape instantly!", which was a real occurence that happened more often than you'd think. for a while, each time this happened the weapon the translocater used was nerfed instead of translocation, and then translocation, being the actual problem, was finally nerfed... and nothing else got buffed again in compensation. translocation successfully brought a ton of things down with it, and is still arguably the strongest voidal magic.

on the flipside, conjuration (: )) has recieved numerous buffs in the relatively recent era, reducing casting time, increasing spell capabilities, etc.

so it's not just random nerfs everywhere becuase "grr lt hate void magic!", and they're really not that imposing in general.

these two outlier magics, notably, are the non-elemental magics. the elemental magics, alternatively, are basically the same they've ever been, and colour a lot of peoples perception of the magic. two thirds of the magics in voidery are elemental evocations, which are just kinda... boring? you can't do much with them which hasn't already been done (without venturing into whacky territory, which people seldom do). which is why not much really happens with them, buffs or nerfs. in contrast, translocation gets edits because it's a power magic mim-maxers take and therefore the squeakiest wheel in the void wagon. conjuration has a much more active dedicated userbase of people who are invested in it/based characters around it, so people write more stuff for it. on the downslope, transfiguration is the centerpiece magic that's basically a requirement to do anything, and therefore is very dangerous to change, so it rarely is. noone knows illusion so noone cares, so noone touches it.

this isn't to say any of the magics that are untouched are bad, nor are they perfect. it's a lack of interest, or lack of ideas, that keeps cool rewrites from actually happening more than anything.

so, what's my solution?

/new/ magics. voidal magics right now are a very strong core for a magic system, but there is plenty of new ground to tread with the idea of "pulling shit from infinity" that just isn't tread. people who arn't interested in being an elemancer just don't have much to look forward to when it comes to voidal magic, so there's a natural block to the kinds of characters it attracts. one or two new voidal magics could re-invogorate the entire community, even if they're low-key well balanced non-insane magics. just having more options in an archetype that strongly encourages remaining within it's borders (through things like high compatability and interactivity between magics, and the capstone feats available to those who stack void).

if i could make one change, it'd be making transfig one slot and making enchanting just a base part of voidal magic. transfig as it stands is basically just two slots because enchanting is part of it, as a magic it's fundamentally just a reskin of doing whatever task you're doing with it without magic. it's almost 100% flavour... and yet is /two slots/, because one of the main features of voidal magic is haphazardly stapled to it. it can be argued this is a power tax because enchanting is super op or it limits magic combinations, but this falls apart because co-enchanting exists. you can choose to forgo it completely, and just have a friend who knows it, and your ability to enchant is not affected whatsoever. (you may notice i have not mentioned warding once; this is because warding is insanely weak. spend three emotes casting a spell that can cancel another spell as long as you also know the same magic being cast... or spend three emotes casting your own spell and hitting them, therefore interupting their connection. or spend those emotes shooting a bow. or closing the gap and stabbing them. or doing literally anything else.)

other than that, i think the archetype is healthy, if lacking for new magics.
 

dead magic

i like it

On 4/4/2023 at 10:43 PM, High_On_Math said:

When you pay extra to get an orc strength limb that you think is really cool and people decide that your atronach limb should now have no combat special effects because they want you to die apparently

currently, it is purely optimal to have all four of your limbs removed and replaced with tk atronach limbs. there are no downsides. there is no reason to use any other arm, including organics.

this change is desperately needed.

3 hours ago, VictoriaMinaj said:

People tweaking like the whole concept of Atronach isn't CTRL + C and then CTRL + V... There's nothing original about this specific lore (referring to atronachs as a whole). You can't possibly accuse someone of plagiariasm (directly or subtly so) about something that they've written because it is similar or alike to what you had in mind and what you publicly divulged in a discord without defined mechanics; meaning that no, your abilities were not stolen because you had ideas about how they could work. They were unfinished products that somebody else is free to take inspiration from (and so they have) because this is not real life. You don't own the rights to your intellectual property to the same degree that you may do outside of the server, and if you think you do, please change that mindset ASAP. 

It's just baffling to think that an atronach submission, out of everything, has been plagiarized from (once again) ideas that were hardly formulated with any overly descriptive detail, mechanics, or redlines. This lore is literally the same thing but with a different font and a different aesthetic based on the magic used; there is little room to the imagination, so obviously endproducts are going to be rather congruent and similar with one another. 

 

Overall just start using common sense, thanks @LoTC's Next Top Model

i disagree with virtually all of this. atronachs are decently varied; earth atronachs are based largely around shifting their mass like changeling from dota 2, while sand atronachs (from the same evocation) are area of effect based casters. i think this mindset is as reductive to tree and the og writer of atronachs as it is to me, and even moreso than i was in making my original comment. i do not really understand the point you are making here, as if i'm supposed to go "oh, so tree ACTUALLY ripped off og conjurations! there's still nothing original here! sorry tree, actually, you just ctrl-c ctrl-v'd atronach lore! you didn't do anything of value!", because i wouldn't say that either, and i don't believe that. very, very bizarre. i really don't understand what you're trying to convince me of.

Quote

This lore is literally the same thing but with a different font and a different aesthetic based on the magic used;

apparently i think higher of this lore post tree has made than you do, if you think it's just a blatant copy-paste job with a 'new aesthetic'. no other atronach has animal shapeshifting or a hyper grapple. these abilities are unique to this. in combat, they would have completely different capabilities to, say, a /fire/ atronach, which is able to hunker down and become artillery. there is definite creativity and artistic writing on display here, regardless of other thoughts i may have, and even if i still thought tree had blindly stolen these ideas from me (i do not, any longer. i had a moment of frustration, and i am sorry.), i would never go so far as to say it was a post completely lacking of original content.

i find this more insulting than i find the post from werew0lf directly mocking me, and it's not even directed towards me. be wary of friendly fire.

furthermore... i never said i "own" conjuration. i don't go around threatening people not to make lore posts. check the ban report to see screenshots of this : ). i find what you're saying bizarre, though. "actually, it's not real life, so we shouldn't show each other respect! credits and inspiration have no reason to be listed or asked permission for!". i don't even think it's a requirement, i just think it's good form. i think we should encourage people to be respectful and collaborative. i think we should encourage freely talking with each other. i think these are things that can really open up the server and bring more people into writing, to be seen and respected as a fellow contributer of the server, an equal.

saying "but it's not real life" is a bad excuse to discourage respecting people.

46 minutes ago, NightcastorKitty said:

I'll address this to both of you since there seems to be some tension and I'll be clarifying this topic and future ones. 

 

Writing lore on the server and having it accepted does not give the writer(s) sole reign over it and the community it's based around. No individual can control who writes a rewrite, additions, amendments, etc. You can be considerate and come to the creator(s) and asked their thoughts and suggestions. This is fine and generally can soothe tensions and not create splits generally. But no one is obligated too and you certainly don't have to work with them either.  Because lore in and of itself is made for the community it wishes to maintain and/or create. Not a sole individual or faction of a group within it. 

 

Be respectful at those that have made the lore possible, but also be humble by those that wish to continue the work or wish to add in making it better for the community overall. 

 

Most importantly, Have fun writing and remain civil. 

i never claimed reign over anything, nor do i go out of my way to block people from writing things. i openly welcome colloboration. meteor_dragon and SRI, two people who have written/contributed greatly to previous amendments, are people i have next to no interaction with outside of conj lore related discussions. they are not part of my inner circle, or people i 'allow' to do things at expense of others. they wrote changes, i agreed with them, i gave them thumbs up/integrated their feedback. i want only for conj to be the best state it can be. i will argue against this misrepresentation of myself as some psycho lore tyrant to the death.

that aside, tree has been nothing but cordial outside of that, related to this situation, going so far as to alter their report to address me as something i'd prefer. i regret not broaching this to them privately, as this misunderstanding could've easily been defused.

all that aside, i do not feel this is the proper place to have these discussions (on a lore post). i'd request anyone with jeers or arguements to have with me please deposit them in my lotc inbox, rather than flooding this thread. thank you in advance.

3 hours ago, ibraheemc2000 said:

Helloo, sorry I'm not keeping track with lotc stuff as of Ramadan rn. But I do have a question, as your last remark confused me, as don't they counter one another. Not witch hunting people for past long ago mistakes, but also doing it because that mistake is still bad.

 

Are we witch hunting or no??

 

I'm not like countering or supporting either or, I am just hoping for a clarification.

 

Anyone mind giving me a nice little short explanation of what's going on and what's the new rules that would be great <3

if you just said some edgy shit in the past that's fine, but if you were a down and out pedophile or serial sexual harrasser there's no statute of limitations and you still get banned, is more or less the point of this.

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.

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.

i find it interesting that i mentioned writing conjuration atronachs in a discussion with you a few weeks back, and you have now posted a lore with the same abilities i had described.

15 minutes ago, Pito444 said:

Well.. Well.. Well.. As a roleplayer for 10 years (haha..) all I can say is keep shit off the server, off the server. If you have some type of drama of beef with someone over how they may roleplay or act towards you, get the **** over it. Its a Minecraft server at the end of the day and you bitching about some "ooc bullying" or some texts in a private discord or private chat isn't going to make you feel better. Sure you got some messages about how someone feels about you, if you seen what half these discords contain from both sides you'd probably call the police or maybe another googledoc on those players to right? Anyone taking things said outside of LOTC seriously, deserves a vacation away from their computer. So in my humble opinion get over yourself. You made an entire document about a guy who you say should be permanently banned because of his "toxicity" when all LOTC has ever been is TOXIC both sides and from the Admins not just now but in its entire history, so cut the crying and ******* roleplay. 

 

*Delete this if you want but it just proves my point* 

so if you send someone rape threats directly the administration should do nothing?

2 minutes ago, marimbamonk said:

I believe it's possible for someone like Charlemagne to change, while also suffering the consequences of their past actions.

 

We should prioritize the safety and comfortability of our members and anyone who has been victimized in the past, over allowing someone back on the server after such behavior because "they've changed." Great, you've changed. Move on with your life. Take your changed self and help people elsewhere; in another online community. You lost the privilege to be a member in this community the moment you took those actions.

 

A Minecraft server isn't real life; the language used, threats made, and their effects are real life. So what exactly are we prioritizing here by allowing him to come back? Those of you who still want to hang out with him can do so on your own time, in your own space. Not here, where the shadow of what was done will always linger.

 

For God's sake, this internet Minecraft server is a privilege, not a right. Keep him banned, and let's all move on as best we can.

 

Just my two cents, given what I was able to understand about this situation

you're my favourite member of this community. i'd die for you.

6 minutes ago, AnonymousAlexa said:

 

I think it's deranged that you're conflating wearing a Minecraft skin with trying to genocide an entire group. By making comments like this, you're actually diminishing some of the most horrific crimes in human history. 

yeah, he just really likes the swastika, he's not racist. he's just a really funny guy who said some bad things. he only covers himself in swastikas, acts really racist and transphobic and threatens women with rape ironically. it's a meme these other guys just don't understand. you're one of the good ones.

46 minutes ago, itdontmatta said:

Hi everyone, we would like to address the recent discussions regarding Charlemagne's unban and the evidence of his past behavior. We understand the seriousness of this matter and would like to share our perspective and the steps we have taken.

 

First and foremost, we want to make it clear that we do not condone any hostility towards individuals sharing their concerns on this matter. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and empathy and we will not tolerate any behavior that violates this principle.

 

In evaluating Charlemagne's ban appeal, we did not have access to the screenshots shared in this thread. His initial ban was for no-RP killing, resulting in an indefinite admin ban. After Charlemagne served nearly five years and submitted a public ban appeal addressing his past actions, we decided to lift his ban without any additional evidence presented at that time.

 

Upon learning about the new evidence from Muna, we immediately reopened discussions about our decision. Although we did not classify this as a safety issue per our Safety Policy guidelines, we seriously considered permanently rebanning Charlemagne under other policies. We considered factors such as the length of time he was banned, his conduct since his unban, and the server culture at the time he was banned. However, we could not conclude that he should be re-banned permanently.

 

Following our decision I reached out to Muna to discuss our reasoning and encouraged him to hold Charlemagne accountable. I deeply respect the courage it took for you to come forward with this. While we chose not to reban Charlemagne, we believe it is important for us to hold him accountable for his words – he is not immune to this. You deserve an apology, though that does not mean he deserves your forgiveness.

 

We understand that some community members may be upset with our decision, and we empathize with those feelings. We encourage open and respectful discussions about this matter and are available for any further concerns or questions you may have.

 

Thank you for your understanding and for helping us maintain a safe and welcoming environment for our community.

 

Sincerely,

Alex and the Administration

okay, genuine real question
 

how do you justify keeping this player banned for saying mean things to a trans person, while you also act as a bulwark for not banning this player who threatened to rape a trans person, threatened to abuse them with various means until they were straight and "normal", and then also threatened to rape people who dared speak out against him?

if charlamagne is allowed to be unbanned because "lmao, the culture was different at the time!" (whatever that means), we should let this dude be unbanned, because the admin culture /now/ clearly doesn't give a shit about what charlamagne did.

(i obviously think both of these people should remain banned, but this is a flagrant case of admin bias in favour of one rapist transphobe over a non-rapist transphobe.).

 

1 minute ago, satinkira said:

 

wrong ammunition, wrong target

i don't believe in having a dedicated one wrong person to spend my life chasing. i think people that say wild or bad shit should have that criticized, regardless of my personal relation to them. i actually don't mind spoons as a person, but these were just bad posts he made.

Just now, ronin_champloo said:

 

It's not that deep, I don't know any of the people here. I just looked at the post and wanted to put my own thoughts in it.

i'm sorry i took your shallow thoughts on a post regarding rape threats as having content or context you believed in or supported.

10 minutes ago, ronin_champloo said:

 

Never did I state in what I said that being toxic is comparable to what he said to the aforementioned people, that was a passing comment in the introduction of my thoughts on the situation. I'm not sympathizing with his situation at all, I'm saying that having seen toxicity, albeit on a much more smaller and less severe scale, I can somewhat understand the perspectives of both sides -- the person and the people that they've affected -- as I tend to be friendly and talk to a bunch of people. That's all. It isn't that deep.

 

Like I've stated and shown numerous times now, I do not condone his actions. I do not expect the people and the community to forgive him at all. I'm not telling the community to give him a second chance, I'm saying that it's reasonable for people to give him a second chance to earn that forgiveness should they wish to offer it, something that is their choice, and theirs only.

 

I do not forgive him at all, and I cannot even say that I can forgive him if I wanted to as I'm separated from the situation. While I acknowledge that he's been remorseful and apologetic on the post, like I've said, I'm wary from seeing the arguments and debates from both sides.

sympathizing is comparing someone's experiences to your own and feeling empathy, which...

However, recognizing the potential for change is important in this instance. We were all horrible once, as when we're younger, our morals and attitudes to things are still developing. More-so when we're surrounded by people and an audience that clamors and cheers for negativity. Obviously, this doesn't excuse what he did but I'm sure we could all remember the things and actions that we've done to antagonize others -- mistakes and beliefs made when our thoughts on topics weren't set in stone, or when we were surrounded in a toxic and bad environment. Such things, I've repeated, need to be remember as are people's capacity to learn and grow.

Holding people accountable doesn't mean that they're forever condemned to their mistakes and deeds, but rather ensuring that they take responsibility for their actions, and continue to grow and learn from them.

If the guy's apologized, and truly feels guilt and shame for what he had done before, then I find that it's reasonable to consider giving them a second chance -- not forgiveness, but rather acknowledgement. Acknowledge that people can learn and grow beyond the crude person that they were once before. I don't even expect the guy to be forgiven by the community or the people that he's affected from what I've seen and the responses, but rather what I'd hope to see is for people to see that the attempt for amends is there. Be wary by all means, but hopeful.

is what this is. i find it hard to read this and not think you're trying to say that he deserves a second chance and should be allowed back on the server, without explicitly saying that.

you didn't state these things were equal, but that we should remember what we did and consider that when we judge what he did... which is called "sympathizing".

you're trying to hold a neutral fencesitting position on a very extreme situation, and it reflects poorly on you. trying to go "we all do bad things, learn, and grow, and maybe he deserves a second chance!" (which was the content of your first post that i listed above), it makes you look like you're trying to morally grandstand the fact you don't instantly throw away the possibility of allowing someone throwing rape threats around on the server.

you also didn't say the people involved should be allowed to give him a second chance, you said the /community/ should.

maybe you didn't write exactly what you meant, maybe it's not actually that deep, but what your post comes across as is really unaware, really haughty, and like you're trying to prune yourself as looking good. not to say any of those things are stains on your person, it could just be a really bad post, but it made me baulk to see someone go "oh, but we /all/ did bad things when we were young, who are we to judge? perhaps they deserve a second chance!".

it's bad optics, mate.

15 minutes ago, ChefDeuce said:

I have never seen someone take a honest, valid, and reasonable statement, and completely shred, and turn it 180, to match their point to such a degree as you have just done.

The victims agree on that, but have also stated that they did not let them come forward to try and fix anything. It's put perfectly by Summer. How do you expect them to come forward, especially after 4 years, when they are refused to even speak to them.

what 180 did i take? "oh, you admit you said some bad stuff as a teenager, therefore you have no grounds to say you shouldn't threaten to rape people?"

 

16 minutes ago, Twodiks said:

not saying that the comments still weren't horrible but that was not what was said in those screenshots. It's not even a paraphrase either.

sorry, you're right, the "i will rape you" comment was seperate from the "i will beat you until you're not a f- anymore" comment.

3 minutes ago, ronin_champloo said:

 

I don't think assuming the worst out of me when I was just giving my thoughts on the topic is the best move here. By edgy, I just swore at people and was toxic to be around when I first joined the server, and joined up with the Snow Elves.

 

Like I said before, I'm not saying that people should forgive Charlemagne for what he's done. Not at all. I don't even know the guy, this is my perspective reading through everything here. I'm saying that I hope that his attempts of amending stuff is sincere and truthful should the community give him a chance.

 

Expressing my thoughts on a forum-post and discussion, and immediately being accused of throwing out rape threats is something I truly did not expect.

i didn't threaten, i asked. i was making the point that your "i was edgy" is NOWHERE NEAR what he said. what i said was "unless you threatened to rape people, you were not this edgy". i was saying that you're trying to draw equivocation between just being an edgy kid and threatening to rape people, hurt people, etc, and that these things just are not the same. my arguements literally don't work if you also did this.

what you did was... just be unpleasant to people? that's... fine. that's perfectly forgivable. but it's nothing like what they did. if you think people who threaten to rape people straight should be allowed back on the server, what don't you think should be allowed?

"but he really really sowwy! T_T" isn't a defense of threatening to rape people. "but i swore at some people when i was 14 and i'm different now!" is so out of the league of threatening to rape people that your point is invalid. that's the entire point of what i was saying. there is NO equivelance between what you did, what i did, and what HE did. "we were all terrible once" vastly understates and undervalues the actual harm of what he did. it's just like saying "boys will be boys".

"i understand where he's coming from, i ran with snow elves", and openly sympathizing with his situation, is a horrible look for you and makes it seem like you just don't understand the absolute scale of what he did.

it's okay, i forgive you for what you did as a kid if you were just a young no-nothing being rude and mean to people for no reason, swearing at people, etc. i think that that doesn't define you.

i do not forgive charlamagne. i think threatening to rape people when you're young does define you to some degree. i think he is perfectly capable of changing. but lotc need not be the metric for him to change, nor should he explicitly be allowed back because "we were all edgy at one point!", because even as edgy and crude as we may have been when we were young, we didn't go as far as he did. he went to an exceptional degree that resulted in his longtime ban. he, by that nature alone, is not "just an edgy kid".

Just now, ronin_champloo said:

 

Not at all. 

 

Refer to this:

 

 

your response was "i was edgy when i joined the server too!", which unless you were EXPLICITLY THREATENING TO RAPE PEOPLE, wasn't as edgy as he was. i don't think "man, i said some insensitive stuff four years ago" should make you immediately sympathize with the guy. sure, we all said some bad stuff, but that doesn't mean anything.

there's a huge difference between "i was rude several years ago and i'm different now so maybe it's different now!" and "ALL OF US ARE TERRIBLE AND SHOULD FORGIVE!". i said some bad stuff in my youth, and i NEVER did any of this shit! i never even came CLOSE!

not all of use were this bad. most of us wern't, which is why most of us didn't take a four year ban. you're trying to play defense for a dude you never met by saying "hey, cmon guys, people change!", when that doesn't even matter. there is a limit beyond which you've crossed a line and shouldn't be allowed back. i'm not saying he should never be able to find a job or find happiness again or he should lose everything, but he for sure should not be allowed back on the server. you do not have a right to lotc. "i'm sorry i threatened to rape you to death" isn't enough (and he apparently never even went so far as to say that to the affected party). who is to judge he's changed, if the victims all agree he hasn't and never came forward to try and fix anything?

i hope he does grow and change. i just also hope he does it elsewhere, because i won't welcome him here.

5 minutes ago, satinkira said:

 

Out of interest, how would you have the accused party prove their changed nature?

i wouldn't because i wouldn't let them back because i am firm anti-rapist.

1 minute ago, Pancho said:

It’s almost as if you didn’t even read what Spoon said, he said he doesn’t condone any of their actions. He says that people grow up and change, which is not defending Charl’s prior actions whatsoever.

sure, people grow up and change. where is the proof of said change? and, even if he has changed, does that matter? should you be given golden laurels and praised as a champion solely because you /don't/ threaten to rape people anymore? is that the bar of acceptance for which people are measured to, now?

"i don't do that now" doesn't mean anything. it doesn't mean you're a good person, and it doesn't mean you should explicitly be forgiven.

i'm going to take a stance now as anti-raping minors, anti-raping trans people, anti-pedophilia, and so on. i will gladly die on the hill that such people should never be around this server, and that "you don't understand, i'm different now!" isn't enough.

Just now, Capace said:

You are cancelled and shut out. I feel it happens just as much to young people as it does to adults. There is no room for error, especially online. We have all made mistakes in our past that were never acknowledged (or were), which is why we are better people.

i get what you're trying to say, but he threatened to rape a trans person until they wern't trans anymore. i don't think you can give out the "cancel culture has gone too far" excuse, mate.

9 minutes ago, ronin_champloo said:

As someone who used to be in his own 'edgy' phase when I joined the server, I can understand and see both sides of the conversation. Obviously, people should be held accountable for their actions, and the stuff they've said -- along with the effect and community that they may give, though the capacity for change is prevalent as we grow up. Keep in mind that I'm not condoning Charlemagne and Co. for anything that he had done, I'm just providing my own thoughts on the topic. Hell, I've never even talked to the guy.

are you admitting to throwing out rape threats when you joined the server because that's what you're defending right now