Regarding the “closing” of the case
Response Regarding the “Closing” of this Case
Requests of a response and explanation have been highlighted for an easier reading experience,
thank you for taking the time to read this.
Hello, it is good to see you want to close this case to close. However, it is requested that you tie
up some loose ends first. It is believed abruptly shutting the case without any clarity or
conclusion is rather unwise. The comments you have made on this account’s response post will
again be broken down in order.
“I see what your trying to say but u still said false information about people.”
After the claims of false information were debunked you still insist false information was present
in this account’s posts. This account takes misinformation very seriously. Please point out where
you believe information is false so it may be corrected. Also, the post you made warning others
about this account also possesses a few pieces of misinformation (as pointed out in the response
post). It is unwise to accuse another person of false information whilst also spreading false
information yourself. Your account as considerably larger, so users will most likely see your post
first. It would be appreciative if you simply added a note in the description correcting said false
claims. If you call out a user for misinformation it is preferred you hold yourself up to the same
standard.
“And by what I'm seeing you WANT people not to trace.”
The first point is valid criticism. This account admits that this account originally wanted users to
avoid tracing altogether. However this view has very much changed and now this account aims to
discourage users to avoid tracing AND claiming it as their own. It is certainly possible that this
change in view did not translate properly to the posts. Please forgive this account for the lack of
communication, English is not the first language of this account. Hopefully in future posts this
view is presented more clearly.
“Your saying u don't discourage people, then why make a note asking if someone's tracing”
It is assumed that you are referring to the title “is @urfav4rt1st tracing?” This rhetorical question
was used because it seemed the most fitting at the time. This account did not want to use words
such as “expose” and “tracer” in the title as it came off as rather harsh, and creating a title such
as “Is _____ tracing and also claiming it as their own with no credit” seems rather unoptimised. To
clear up another misunderstanding, the word “tracing” is utilised as a term referring to the act of
tracing AND claiming it as one’s own. This is also another valid criticism, and this will be clarified
in future posts. If you have better suggestions for titles, that would be appreciated (but not
needed if you do not wish to suggest).
“Post drawings and actually post GOOD things about people like @r0_yal is such a artist and not
posting IS R0YaL TRaCING”
From the way this is worded, it can be insinuated the you believe the posts this account makes
are bad (pardon this account if this is an incorrect assumption). May you please explain what part
of calling people out for claiming other people’s art as their own as bad? It can be argued that
these posts are good in a sense, as it encourages people to hold themselves accountable for their
actions and discourages what is essentially art theft.
Now to address points not mentioned in your comments. Since you have decided to not respond
to the response made, it is asked that you clarify whether or not you have read the response
made, and whether or not you believe the what is being said.
The link you are accusing of being suspicious is in fact not dangerous, and can be easily verified
through asking others about the contents of the website. Do you still think the link is dangerous?
Also, you claim that “suspicious links” are against the community guidelines, but after reading
through them there does not appear to be an sort of mention of them. May you please state
where in the community guidelines the section regarding links is? Once you have found the where
it states such rules, the link will be removed.
All claims of false information you have stated in your post have been debunked, from the
apology to potuc to the numbers of months this account has been active for. Do you still believe
your claims, and are there any other instances of false information present in the account’s posts?
You claim this account has no evidence to back up the claims of tracing made. However you have
commented on a post which contains roughly 2 pages of evidence supporting the tracing claims
(please refer to the post: “Is @urfav4rt1st tracing?”), which leads this account to believe you have
read (or at least skimmed through all the pages of) this post. Not to mention @potuc has openly
acknowledged the research and evidence presented in the now deleted post calling her out for
tracing. It is very unclear what lead you to make this claim. Do you believe not enough evidence
was presented, or that the evidence presented was false?
If you are so adamant about preventing bullying, then you would understand that out posts are
devoid of any person bias and simply bring evidence to light. Under the definition of bullying, the
bullying victim has to be constantly harassed, however this account has neither commented
anything vile under @urfav4rt1st’s posts, spam them to take down their art or advocate for them
to get banned. You yourself have stated that this is not “technically” bullying. This account has
simply called out a wrongdoing and suggest they fix said error. So tell this account, what is so
“mean” about these posts?
Hopefully you read this post and reply to the points brought up in this post. “e” certainly agrees
that this should be resolved as quickly as possible. However, simply “closing” such a case with so
many misconceptions and miscommunication is definitely a bad idea. Assuming you are going to
keep your posts regarding this account up, others will be more likely to read and believe your
incorrect claims and may ignore the debunks from this account due to the length of the response.
Although spreading misinformation is not against the notability peacemakers rules, surely it goes
against what it stand for. “e” patiently waits and hopes for your response.
-e