User blog comment:StrangerThanTad/What happened to Slimebeast's pastas?/@comment-5943448-20170929184631/@comment-29652084-20171002005535

"I also don't like Mods here featuring each other, using their status to promote themselves and each other, the fact they're trying to remove/delete other writers' work for subjective taste reasons, etc."

"The only evidence that could exist regarding a group of people promoting each other would be to see the group of people promoting each other, which they're doing. So naturally there's pretty much nothing else possible to prove it, etc. etc."

"When I found out 5 out of 12 feautred creators are staff above in this thread (with one becoming staff shortly after the feature), it didn't exactly quell my concerns."

Need I point out more of these things? The 5 out of 12 featured creators being staff makes one of the centrepieces of your arguments in this thread, being that either: 1) there's a clique of circlejerkers on the wiki with which the mods are involved or 2) the mods are showing favouritism by featuring each other. No matter which way you go about it, you're targeting mod and administrator behaviour during site activities. For example:

"Based on nearly half of featured authors being staff (selected solely by staff), based on staff members co-promoting each other, based on staff with no edit history reflecting actual mod duties and instead only showing edits to their own work, based on watching staff members repeat the same disinformation that can only spread by telling each other what to think/say, ... Should I continue?"

Yes, please, DO! Do continue. Link the contribution pages to each and every one of the mods who 'only make edits to their own work.' Link the ones that have 'spread disinformation.' As for staff co-promoting each other, where's the conspiracy supposed to lie? If one admin wants to promote another one's book on their own blog, that's their interest. If an admin (or even multiple admins) earn their way to being featured on site, that's still not my concern. Even then, I've seen more self-promotion among admins than I have co-promotion.

But while we're on the subject of assuming the best or worst, objectively it's the assumption of neither that makes a difference. You're assuming the worst out of a neutral situation that could either be entirely coincidental or, since everyone and their mother who disagrees is apparently strawmanning you, completely harmless, causing you to lead people to the wrong idea from the get-go.

Meanwhile, you're ignoring the rest of my argument. You know, the part where I pointed out that these mods are pretty big contributors (ironically, despite all of their 'circlejerking', not being even half as popular as you are). The part where I explicitly told you to hit us with hard evidence and inescapable facts? Are you throwing these things out because it's under you to answer them, or because you don't have the evidence with which to do so? You don't get to make a claim and say it's self-evident.

I mean, you've looked deeper than any of us could possibly imagine, right? You've applied critical thinking and gone through all of the evidence. You're 100% sure you're right. Prove it.