Response Regarding the “Closing” of this CaseRequests 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 tieup some loose ends first. It is believed abruptly shutting the case without any clarity orconclusion is rather unwise. The comments you have made on this account’s response post willagain 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 presentin this account’s posts. This account takes misinformation very seriously. Please point out whereyou believe information is false so it may be corrected. Also, the post you made warning othersabout this account also possesses a few pieces of misinformation (as pointed out in the responsepost). It is unwise to accuse another person of false information whilst also spreading falseinformation 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 falseclaims. If you call out a user for misinformation it is preferred you hold yourself up to the samestandard.“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 toavoid tracing altogether. However this view has very much changed and now this account aims todiscourage users to avoid tracing AND claiming it as their own. It is certainly possible that thischange in view did not translate properly to the posts. Please forgive this account for the lack ofcommunication, English is not the first language of this account. Hopefully in future posts thisview 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 questionwas used because it seemed the most fitting at the time. This account did not want to use wordssuch as “expose” and “tracer” in the title as it came off as rather harsh, and creating a title suchas “Is _____ tracing and also claiming it as their own with no credit” seems rather unoptimised. Toclear up another misunderstanding, the word “tracing” is utilised as a term referring to the act oftracing AND claiming it as one’s own. This is also another valid criticism, and this will be clarifiedin future posts. If you have better suggestions for titles, that would be appreciated (but notneeded if you do not wish to suggest).“Post drawings and actually post GOOD things about people like @r0_yal is such a artist and notposting IS R0YaL TRaCING”From the way this is worded, it can be insinuated the you believe the posts this account makesare bad (pardon this account if this is an incorrect assumption). May you please explain what partof calling people out for claiming other people’s art as their own as bad? It can be argued thatthese posts are good in a sense, as it encourages people to hold themselves accountable for theiractions and discourages what is essentially art theft.Now to address points not mentioned in your comments. Since you have decided to not respondto the response made, it is asked that you clarify whether or not you have read the responsemade, 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 verifiedthrough 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 readingthrough them there does not appear to be an sort of mention of them. May you please statewhere in the community guidelines the section regarding links is? Once you have found the whereit states such rules, the link will be removed. All claims of false information you have stated in your post have been debunked, from theapology to potuc to the numbers of months this account has been active for. Do you still believeyour 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 havecommented 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 haveread (or at least skimmed through all the pages of) this post. Not to mention @potuc has openlyacknowledged the research and evidence presented in the now deleted post calling her out fortracing. It is very unclear what lead you to make this claim. Do you believe not enough evidencewas presented, or that the evidence presented was false?If you are so adamant about preventing bullying, then you would understand that out posts aredevoid of any person bias and simply bring evidence to light. Under the definition of bullying, thebullying victim has to be constantly harassed, however this account has neither commentedanything vile under @urfav4rt1st’s posts, spam them to take down their art or advocate for themto get banned. You yourself have stated that this is not “technically” bullying. This account hassimply 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 agreesthat this should be resolved as quickly as possible. However, simply “closing” such a case with somany misconceptions and miscommunication is definitely a bad idea. Assuming you are going tokeep your posts regarding this account up, others will be more likely to read and believe yourincorrect 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 goesagainst what it stand for. “e” patiently waits and hopes for your response.-e