User blog comment:StrangerThanTad/What happened to Slimebeast's pastas?/@comment-5943448-20170929184631/@comment-25947144-20171001202250

"Well, here we go with one of these, again.

"An opinion, and how rational people deal with arguments."

You just followed an opinion with an opinion."

You have to start with no assumptions, AKA giving the benefit of the doubt, and only then based on the evidence you find you can make a hypothesis. But of course you'd use the 'subjective opinion' skit to defend your assertions. Fine, it's subjective whether you give the benefit of the doubt or not, but you're objectively biased for not.

"Critical thinking in that I'm looking at public events critically, instead of just "herp de derp welp I guess I'll just always assume the best like an idiot"

No, smartass, thinking the worse is an assumption. Because it implies things are not working as they should, AKA instead of getting chosen on merit mods are chosen through favoritism, and you'd need evidence for that. Making no assumption would be thinking it could be just a coincidence.

"Based nearly half of features authors being staff"

Which means nothing, especially considering one has a staff role that has been useless for years.

"based on staff members co-promoting each other"

Because regulars here are friends? Ask any regular here, mod or otherwise, if they think the mods featured deserved being featured and promoted. Now, if you mean they've been featured solely on favoritism, you'd need actual fucking evidence for that.

"based on staff with no edit history reflecting actual mod duties and instead only showing edits to their own work"

Shadow has, as mentioned, a now effectively useless role, GreyOwl has been mostly inactive for over an year, Banning is semi-regular in a non-official way and Empy and Chris are active mods. What I don't understand is how do you think that supports your claims. You can see each of their aplications, having been approved by multiple regular users, so you can't say it was nepotism. Also why exactly would they be mods in your perspective if they don't have administrative edits? I know why I think that, they had roles they were previously fulfilling and when they stopped there wasn't really any reason to have them taken back. But why would they want to be mods if they aren't qualified in your view? If they don't have administrative edits it's obviously not for power and having a mod status here doesn't really impact your social status.

"based on watching staff members repeat the same disinformation that can only spread by telling each other what to think/say"

Vague word-salad at best here.

"I started taking note of this after I critiqued one of the featured staff's work, and was attacked for it. The fact you think I haven't read their work - based on NOTHING OTHER THAN YOU ASSUMING THAT - shows you're willing to just say anyything that will support your false narrative."

Which one, dear? Your recent edit history on this site doesn't provide anything useful and I don't follow your every more like you may think should be proper. And your personal perspective doesn't represent everyone's, you thinking a featured staff didn't deserve to be featured isn't enough.

"Again, I've looked deeper into this than you can imagine. You're being pathetic, now, with all of these random nonsense statements."

I'm not a mind reader, dude. And if the level of researching equals the things listed above, the depth you looked into with is equivalent to squinting your eyes and leaning your face forward.

"I like how you think there can be assertions without a prerequisite suspicions. Dumb."

I like how you think saying you had more than suspicions means I'm saying you had no suspicions. I'd say you're grasping straws but you're grasping shadows.

"Pay more attention."

Pay more attention to how you're wrong. You weren't looking for pointless replies? Neither was I.