Why haven't you hanged yourself? He is a splinter admin while I'm a mere outraged intellectual.
Just because we're having a civil discussion doesn't mean we're sametrooning.
Froot's financial stability has nothing to do with whether the site lives. If jannies continue to ban people for "avatarfagging" because they posted an image of brown hands typing multiple times, the userbase will bleed away. And Soot is different to Froot, who is unlikely to change according to the wants of the community.
"I think its kinda funny how I can do like this thing where I ban anyone I dont like, its like my own private discord!" <= what frQQt ximself said, xe literally larps as a dictator retard
Several unsupported claims I see. As we know, Froot’s site depends on his income to maintain its hosting, security, and features. If Froot faces financial difficulties, he may not be able to afford the costs of running the site, which could affect its existence. Which we have seen happen inthe past.
Though I agree that it is unclear what the criteria for “using avatars” are, and how posting an image of brown hands typing constitutes a violation of this rule.
Then you claim Froot is unlikely to adapt to the preferences of the sommunity, but does not provide any examples to support this assertion. It has always been unclear, to Soot, Kuz, Doll and Froot alike what the preferences of the community are.
It is also possible that Froot is open to feedback and suggestions from the community, and that he makes changes and improvements to the site based on their input if we just press the right buttons and earn his trust.
Finally, the text quotes Froot as saying “I find it curious how I can do something like this where I exclude anyone I don’t like, it’s like my own private discord!”, however, that was likely a shitpost. Obviously it's a tough pill to swallow though, and claiming it's a shitpost is no excuse, but you do not explain how it relates to the rest of the argument. I believe he does not actually exclude anyone he does not like.
Several unsupported claims I see. As we know, Froot’s site depends on his income to maintain its hosting, security, and features. If Froot faces financial difficulties, he may not be able to afford the costs of running the site, which could affect its existence. Which we have seen happen inthe past.
Though I agree that it is unclear what the criteria for “using avatars” are, and how posting an image of brown hands typing constitutes a violation of this rule.
Then you claim Froot is unlikely to adapt to the preferences of the sommunity, but does not provide any examples to support this assertion. It has always been unclear, to Soot, Kuz, Doll and Froot alike what the preferences of the community are.
It is also possible that Froot is open to feedback and suggestions from the community, and that he makes changes and improvements to the site based on their input if we just press the right buttons and earn his trust.
Finally, the text quotes Froot as saying “I find it curious how I can do something like this where I exclude anyone I don’t like, it’s like my own private discord!”, however, that was likely a shitpost. Obviously it's a tough pill to swallow though, and claiming it's a shitpost is no excuse, but you do not explain how it relates to the rest of the argument. I believe he does not actually exclude anyone he does not like.
You argue that Froot’s financial situation influences the existence of the site, but then contradict yourself by saying that you've seen the site exist in the past despite financial difficulties. You also don't explain how the site overcame its financial difficulties in the past.
Then, you claim that Froot can in fact adapt to the preferences of the community, but then admits that he does not know what the preferences of the community are. This is a circular argument. You do consider the possibility that the community conflicting preferences, but not that Froot may have to balance them with his own vision and goals for the site.
You provide no examples that Froot is open to feedback or evidence that he listens to the community. You also do not explain how the community can "press the right buttons and earn his trust", or what the criteria or indicators for doing so are. The text also does not address the potential risks of relying on Froot’s trust and goodwill, such as inconsistency, unpredictability, or manipulation.
Finally, you dismisses Froot’s quote as a shitpost, but then acknowledges that it is a tough pill to swallow and that claiming it is a shitpost is no excuse. This is a contradictory and weak argument, as it does not refute Froot’s quote, but rather tries to rationalize it.
You argue that Froot’s financial situation influences the existence of the site, but then contradict yourself by saying that you've seen the site exist in the past despite financial difficulties. You also don't explain how the site overcame its financial difficulties in the past.
Then, you claim that Froot can in fact adapt to the preferences of the community, but then admits that he does not know what the preferences of the community are. This is a circular argument. You do consider the possibility that the community conflicting preferences, but not that Froot may have to balance them with his own vision and goals for the site.
You provide no examples that Froot is open to feedback or evidence that he listens to the community. You also do not explain how the community can "press the right buttons and earn his trust", or what the criteria or indicators for doing so are. The text also does not address the potential risks of relying on Froot’s trust and goodwill, such as inconsistency, unpredictability, or manipulation.
Finally, you dismisses Froot’s quote as a shitpost, but then acknowledges that it is a tough pill to swallow and that claiming it is a shitpost is no excuse. This is a contradictory and weak argument, as it does not refute Froot’s quote, but rather tries to rationalize it.
Holy tsmt so much tsmt. I don’t find the anti-frootist stance to be unclear, and find the arguments to be concise, and well-written. The arguments have some supporting evidence, and I believe the writer has taken a balanced and fair approach to the issues raised. The arguments have been logically sequenced and organized, with each argument building upon the previous one: The arguments are strong, logical, and well-structured.
You provide no examples that Froot is open to feedback or evidence that he listens to the community.
This is probably the strongest argument I have ever heard. No joke. I feel like it could make a case on its own without the other arguments. This, in and of itself, I think, makes it a very strong argument. However, I think this point is weaker than the others, simply because it does not address all of the concerns of the community. It is true that sommumebers should be more clear about what they want, however.
While it does raise some concerns, I believe that it is generally fair and reasonable. I also believe that the conclusions drawn from the argument are logical.
