This might be goodbye, friends!

[Rudometkin]

Despite me being a highly thorough and thoughtful member of this community who strives to be logical and encourage healthy discussion, there is talk about me being reported to Anego studios under the pretenses of "harassment, spam, and inciting arguments."

I believe the harassment and spam charges are unfair. Inciting arguments can be a great thing for discussion, if the arguments are healthy. (I have hastily been called some ugly names here and treated quite unfairly, but as one of our more reasonable members have pointed, I don't seem to be attacking other people's characters like that).

If any of you want to defend me before I potentially get banned, here would be a great place to do it. Otherwise, you could potentially sit back and watch a fair member of the community be unfairly excommunicated.

With that said, I have faith in Anego studios that they would handle me fairly.

I love Vintage Story. I just want to say, if I get banned from here simply for being unliked and generating argumentative discussion, then there's nothing I can do about that. I'll still continue to play Vintage Story, and continue to build a community of my own around it.

Love you all, Vintage Story Community.

[Enjen]

This is unfortunate to hear. I can see people reporting you, but once the situations have been reviewed, I'm sure Anego will see you were not harassing and inciting arguments. As for Spam, you replied and created posts just as frequently as any other frequent member of the forum. I can't see this ban passing and despite not knowing you very well, I vouch for your character and good intentions.

[Zane Mordien]

People can report you all they want but I doubt that means much unless you do something nasty. My feedback for you is that no one is reading what you post after you make 2-3 long replies. At that point you are just background noise in every thread that I scroll past to read what other people are talking about, but then the thread is so derailed that no one is talking about the original topic. Sometimes you have to just say your piece and walk away and sometimes you have to apologize because you get caught up in the moment and insult people. I've been there and done that many times. I so hated the new temporal storms that I'm pretty sure I insulated a few people. 

[Enjen]

15 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

People can report you all they want but I doubt that means much unless you do something nasty. My feedback for you is that no one is reading what you post after you make 2-3 long replies. At that point you are just background noise in every thread that I scroll past to read what other people are talking about, but then the thread is so derailed that no one is talking about the original topic. Sometimes you have to just say your piece and walk away and sometimes you have to apologize because you get caught up in the moment and insult people. I've been there and done that many times. I so hated the new temporal storms that I'm pretty sure I insulated a few people. 

Agreed! I don't believe he's done anything nasty at all. There's nothing wrong with being challenged. Sure, it might be annoying for some people, but that's on them if they find long-winded replies annoying to be honest. I wish I had an idea of my own to post so Rudometkin could point stuff out in it, and we can have a thorough discussion about it. 

 I do actually read what he writes haha
It's coherent and the same way I read everyone's replies it's only fair to hear the counter. It just so happens Rudometkin likes to touch on every point mentioned. It's thorough and leaves no box unchecked.
 

19 minutes ago, Zane Mordien said:

I so hated the new temporal storms that I'm pretty sure I insulated a few people. 

That's unfair to you  I'm sorry you had an experience like that. You're allowed to hate/dislike whichever features you like and should be able to talk about it without people being insulted.

[Zane Mordien]

7 minutes ago, Enjen said:

That's unfair to you  I'm sorry you had an experience like that. You're allowed to hate/dislike whichever features you like and should be able to talk about it without people being insulted.

Oh, I can insult people. I'm sure I disparaged someone's opinion who was defending the new storms. 

[Enjen]

1 minute ago, Zane Mordien said:

Oh, I can insult people. I'm sure I disparaged someone's opinion who was defending the new storms. 

Oh  well if you're disparaging(expressing the opinion that something is of little worth; derogatory) someone's opinion then you'll get what's comin' to you lol I thought you were coming from a place of honest critique and open discussion lololol

[7embre]

1 hour ago, Rudometkin said:

reported under the pretenses of "harassment, spam, and inciting arguments."

Well, if you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear then? Plus, I support Zane's take on the fact that one report probably won't change anything.

I can only notice derailing as your grave sin, in a sense that you're not debating over what the composition of words mean (read - opinion), but rather "technically, that's not punishment on player, but on a plant" even tho it is, as the end recipient of consequences doesn't change kind of thing. But I guess that's just how you operate. Some people cannot bear it, and I get it. Plus, you have habbit of ignoring other people's arguments, as if they're losing it's weight when repeated multiple times and by different people. I suppose you're still not conviced that the most precious resource player has in any game, and the game is managing - is player's time, right? Same with forums, people choose not to engage into said discussions as it will only lead to mental frustration.

Personally I have nothing against you, but the way you start arguing about unnecessary (imho) things, such as "how I said it, instead of what it meant", forces me into position of talking to you like a freaking layer, leaving no room for dual interpretation. As if "words you say will be used against you". That's not what I would call "healthy" and "deep" discussion I think, as it's filled with unnecessary debate over things that are not an original topic, but rather - personal perception of what it is and what/how other person said.

[Rudometkin]

3 hours ago, 7embre said:

Well, if you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear then? Plus, I support Zane's take on the fact that one report probably won't change anything.

Sure, but it is an alarming red flag when a community tries to silence people for discussing their comments with precision, in the name of 'harassment' and 'spam'.

You ought to consider the implications of something like that.

 

3 hours ago, 7embre said:

I can only notice derailing as your grave sin, in a sense that you're not debating over what the composition of words mean (read - opinion), but rather "technically, that's not punishment on player, but on a plant" even tho it is, as the end recipient of consequences doesn't change kind of thing.

So you are not considering those different play styles and not respecting precise language and the value of it.

How is it derailing, when I show the relevance of the points I bring up? It isn't. It's relevant.

When traugdor asked a question about whether players should be "punished" for something, I made a point that it would not necessarily be "punishing" them. I even spent the time and careful consideration to go in-depth ahead of time to back the point up to where it is irrefutable (certainly no one has refuted it to date). If anything I should be commended for that, not ridiculed as committing a 'grave sin' (again, I actually provided the work to thoroughly support my point ahead of time, which happens to be a discouraged trait here. You call it a 'sin', on the false premise that it is a 'derailment'). My 'derailment' was demonstrably totally clear, justified and relevant. Frankly you just don't understand relevance when you see it sometimes, nor the importance of precise meaning, sometimes. And that's okay, we're all on different journeys and learning together. I can teach you something today, and you can teach me something tomorrow.

Critiquing technically inaccurate terminology is relevant, not a derailment. It is not my fault when other people don't appreciate the level of detail I do.

 

3 hours ago, 7embre said:

Personally I have nothing against you, but the way you start arguing about unnecessary (imho) things, such as "how I said it, instead of what it meant", forces me into position of talking to you like a freaking layer, leaving no room for dual interpretation. As if "words you say will be used against you". That's not what I would call "healthy" and "deep" discussion I think, as it's filled with unnecessary debate over things that are not an original topic, but rather - personal perception of what it is and what/how other person said.

I have read and considered your point here. Here is my reply to that (note: if this is a new point, then this is relevant to the new point you brought up, not me, therefore if this is a derailment, it is a derailment on your end, not mine):

We all have a responsibility to speak clearly. If you have a differing interpretation, you can give it a voice, and we can discuss it.

I propose we have a responsibility to take people at their words using fair dictionary definitions as a tool to interpret the meanings of their messages, and that it would be a disservice if we shamed other people for doing so. Also, it would be a shame to shy away from critiquing people at all on the basis that "well, there could be some hidden meaning, or a dual interpretation that I don't understand, so therefore I will let this person go on ranting without critiquing them". Instead, go ahead and open a dictionary, and study fair uses of the words people are using, and address people at their words.

It would also be a shame to say, "Well, this person is preaching some wild propaganda, nobody would actually be that extreme, so therefore they must be using their words in a way I don't understand". If something doesn't seem right to you, point it out. You can say hey, what do you mean by this? This doesn't make sense to me. Hey, this is what my dictionary says about this. Is this what you mean by that word? It's fair to take people at their words by common dictionary definitions. And if someone says "Hey, I appreciate your argument, but you based it off a different common meaning of a word I used. I actually meant this other common meaning when I used that word", you can say, "Hey, thanks for clarifying! Fairplay all around! I'll reconsider your argument with your intended definition in mind!"

Also, when people use language in a sloppy manner, they have a responsibility to own up to it when people call them out on their poor use of words.

There's my masterclass of how language works in a healthy community. With that said, I understand not everyone speaks with the same level of precision as I do. But stop demonizing me for addressing people's messages with precision and thoroughness.

 

3 hours ago, 7embre said:

But I guess that's just how you operate. Some people cannot bear it, and I get it. Plus, you have habbit of ignoring other people's arguments, as if they're losing it's weight when repeated multiple times and by different people. I suppose you're still not conviced that the most precious resource player has in any game, and the game is managing - is player's time, right? Same with forums, people choose not to engage into said discussions as it will only lead to mental frustration.

You ask if I am 'still' not convinced that the most precious resource the player has in any game is the player's time, as if it has already been established somewhere that I ever was not convinced that the most precious resource the player has in any game is the player's time.

So I'm curious, are you just imposing that assumption into your argument here? Or, where did you conclude that? Where has it been established that I ever was not convinced that the most precious resource the player has in any game is the player's time?

On that subject (note: if this is a new point, then it is relevant to the new point you brought up, not me, therefore if this is a derailment, it is a derailment on your end, not mine), if indeed the player's time is the most valuable resource, I propose this strictly (technically) answers nothing toward influencing game design in a particular objective direction. Since, the player being forced to stare at a black screen for 6 hours before they can advance to the next level could be a valued part of a game. One could say that would be a ridiculous game, but 'ridiculous' according to whose standards? Perhaps some people could love the challenge, and that is how they could prefer to spend their 'most valuable resource' of 'time'. Therefore, even if we suggest making a game filled with 'grinding' and 'slow' mechanics that offers little reward, it says nothing to whether we value their time. Interacting with those mechanics could be how they value spending their time.

It would be a gross, narrow, inconsiderate oversimplification to other people's play styles if we argued, "Quick item progression = valuing player's time | Slow item progression = not valuing player's time", since some people prefer to spend their valuable time progressing slowly, especially the Vintage Story community in particular.

I'll say it: Mic drop.  

Edited July 2, 2025 by Rudometkin
Refinement

[Teh Pizza Lady]

5 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

I believe the harassment and spam charges are unfair. Inciting arguments can be a great thing for discussion, if the arguments are healthy. (I have hastily been called some ugly names here and treated quite unfairly, but as one of our more reasonable members have pointed, I don't seem to be attacking other people's characters like that).

Personally I think the arguments are too much. There's discussion and then there's arguing to convince the other person that they're wrong. I see no value in that and it derails the discussion. You can disagree on something and respect the other person's opinions without compromising your own integrity or beliefs.

However I will point out that Anego is very forgiving when it comes to handling reports. I've gotten at least one hand-slap that's in my own personal record and yet... I'm still here!

If you want to stay, then find a way to communicate your feelings without

1. making it personal
2. dragging it out into a nauseating argument
3. being abrasive when engaging in healthy discourse.

This will help foster a better community, not kicking out those who don't understand how to communicate well.

That said, if you feel the need to leave then I guess this is goodbye.

[Rudometkin]

1 minute ago, traugdor said:

Personally I think the arguments are too much. There's discussion and then there's arguing to convince the other person that they're wrong. I see no value in that and it derails the discussion. You can disagree on something and respect the other person's opinions without compromising your own integrity or beliefs.

However I will point out that Anego is very forgiving when it comes to handling reports. I've gotten at least one hand-slap that's in my own personal record and yet... I'm still here!

If you want to stay, then find a way to communicate your feelings without

1. making it personal
2. dragging it out into a nauseating argument
3. being abrasive when engaging in healthy discourse.

This will help foster a better community, not kicking out those who don't understand how to communicate well.

That said, if you feel the need to leave then I guess this is goodbye.

Thanks! I appreciate your insight. And while I am not in total agreement with everything you said, I really agree with this:

"You can disagree on something and respect the other person's opinions without compromising your own integrity or beliefs."

And it can be left at that without a debate. Of course it doesn't have to always turn into an indepth discussion based on differences.

Also, I have no desire to leave on my own accord, (though I would consider leaving for the sake of everyone else, if I learned the only value I was providing was hurting feelings, etc.).

[7embre]

4 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

I'll say it: Mic drop.

Almost looks like this was personal to you. You're free to play this mic dropping game, I don't care. Can't understand who you're trying to show-off tho.

4 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

So you are not considering those different play styles and not respecting precise language and the value of it.

That's your words, not mine. I have clearly stated my position in regards to your suggestion in a related topic (hint: it was neutral), and have no intention to deliver it third time. I respect precise language, but not to the point of it becoming a) annoying and b) harmful to the discussion flow. Sure, you may ask what another person meant, but flexing with dictionary will lead you nowhere. We know the meaning of a word, and so we use it to deliver thoughts. If you get the idea, what's the point in arguing about technicality? If you don't understand something - it wouldn't hurt to ask, but assuming for another person - will.

4 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

not ridiculed as committing a 'grave sin' (again, I actually provided the work to thoroughly support my point ahead of time, which happens to be a discouraged trait here. You call it a 'sin', on the false premise that it is a 'derailment')

Sound like you didn't get the joke and the tone I set for the whole message. I wasn't being serious about "grave sin" part, else - I'd choose different way with words. TLDR: You're probably fine on that one, as you only derailed topic; my understanding of reasons of why people may have reported you; my stance in all of it - I don't care. This time tho - It's clear you're trying to defend against attack that has never been there in the first place, I only shared my observations to hopefully help you understand what was the reason for a report (rest assured, it wasn't me).

4 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

You ask if I am 'still' not convinced that the most precious resource the player has in any game is the player's time, as if it has already been established somewhere that I ever was not convinced that the most precious resource the player has in any game is the player's time. So I'm curious, are you just imposing that assumption into your argument here? Or, where did you conclude that? Where has it been established that I ever was not convinced that the most precious resource the player has in any game is the player's time?

Action speak louder than words. Yes, this is an assumption, but you clearly didn't take "time argument" seriously, as it didn't affect your farm-related rhetoric in a slightest. It wasn't a derailment, it is a part of "my understanding of why people are not enjoying to engage into discussion with you".

5 hours ago, Rudometkin said:

It would be a gross, narrow, inconsiderate oversimplification to other people's play styles if we argued, "Quick item progression = valuing player's time | Slow item progression = not valuing player's time", since some people prefer to spend their valuable time progressing slowly, especially the Vintage Story community in particular.

Both extremes are poor game design choices. You're getting into sophistry yet again. Speed of aquiring items does not correlate with "valuing player's time". What correlates tho - is the attitude towards player you have in mind designing anything. And no, I'm not talking about what you assume your attitude is, but rather - real attitude, from your actions. Ask "what will player get from it (both positive and negative)", "what would it cost (punishment, amount of time)", "how fitting and difficult it is" toward any feature. Let's have a little thought experiment: I'll compare your feature to clay/fireclay rework. I don't need you to answer to this part - just listen. It's a derailment you've brought upon yourself (just kidding (I'm not kidding about answering part tho - please don't. I don't want to spend another two hours writing essays on forums)).

Clay: What will player get from it? One more accessible type of clay (red clay) that was only availible via trader. Fireclay will get a bit difficult to come by, as it's tied to coal deposits and to bauxite biome. Utilization of flint in the early, mid and late-game - it was essentially garbage past copper age. Whole new gameplay loop with beehive kiln and tonns of new recepies with ceramics, which covers even previously exclusive brown clay and adds a few whole new variations to fit any aesthetic need. What would it cost? Time investment into beehive kiln, which is superior way of firing anything in terms of resources. Aquiring fireclay will get a bit harder and more precious, plus would require fuel investments for firing flint, in case one would decide to make it instead of looking. How fitting and difficult it is? It will require to study under which conditions each ceramic type is fired. As for the fittingness, it was already in the game, we just got a way to produce it.

Plant diseases: What will player get from it? 10-20% bigger harvest to what we have now, as bigger numbers will be both unrealistic and balance-breaking. Necessity for looking over crops, thus engaging with farming mechanic more often. Probably some unique side resources as well. New mechanic of plants sickening. A bunch of solution to each disease type. What would it cost? A lot more time for checking the crop, adding another task to the list, FOMO for not engaging with it, plus punishment in a form of loosing 10-20% yeld in a form of either extended growth period or plain crop death due to RNG. Plus it would require player to essentially study modern day agriculture in a simplified (for the game's sake) way. This mechanic will create an issue, while offering a solution that would require efforts in the end, at the same time punishing player and emphasizing FOMO in a form of 20-40% difference from not tending to field at all in comparison to engaging with the mechanic that this game isn't even focusing on. Vintage Story is a game about story based on your experience. Sure, planting things and spending time on the field is a part of it, but not the story itself. You may tweak numbers all you want, but in one case it would lead to "it isn't worth the effort" or "this is annoying" in the other, with very rare "I love it!". How difficult and fitting it is? Having to study modern-day science in XIII-XIV century doesn't sound too fitting, plus, it contradicts already established game lore with rusty things. As to the difficulties, you would have to memorize usecases, causes, different diseases and be able to produce big load of fungicides, pesticides, herbicides, bactericides and insecticides. I can only say "that's not for everyone", summing all up.

See? I've been listening to you and have read every message. I'd say my understanding of what you want to implement is pretty solid and may differ only in a few minor details, which won't change the end picture at all. You, on the other hand, failed to understand the message and did exactly the same thing you were doing this whole time on that big post of yours. Cheers mate, and let's end this dispute.

[Thorfinn]

A quick digression, as is my wont: time is not just the most important resource, it's the only resource that matters. Everything else in life, career, hobbies, leisure, even working on your relationship, you trade some amount of your irreplaceable and limited time on this planet for. Today I got about 2 cord stacked and seasoning, probably for late winter. I traded most of my day, but with frequent breaks because, of course, it's one of the hottest days of the year.

When one wastes another's time, he's really wasting a fraction of his life.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Edited July 3, 2025 by Thorfinn

[Rorax]

The user is not being banned nor silenced. They have received a single warning point against them for deliberately and repeatedly critiquing the character of their peers in a disparaging way. They have been informed that if they have issue with others they should instead report them and instead engage in the content relevant to their post.