[quote=Miss Gallagher]Eh, people, let's keep egos in check. Agree to disagree, please. Peace in the thread.[/quote]

As you wish. I'll just leave a final, clarified statement then, as to what I had intended to say, but which was obviously lost in translation... Somewhere.

[b]2)[/b] To give someone a piece of criticism on their sheet at random--and no, this isn't impossible, no sheet is perfect--then asking them to repair it. Then don't check back for a couple days. If they handle the criticism well (ex: defend it in a civil manner, change it, etc,) then they pass. If they don't, then they can find another RP that will better accommodate their needs and you can find a role player to better accommodate yours.

That is all I really ever meant to convey.

Also, I suppose a quick correction to Jorick and Ruby about the textbook definition of manipulation: [i]"Exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage; "his manipulation of his friends was scandalous""[/i]. It has inherently negative connotations--that I'm using someone for my own advantage--instead of what it truthfully is: That I'm giving them a test and seeing how they react to it. That's not manipulative: I'm not using shrewd or devious influence, I'm committing to an act that is not based within a slander (you can reject someone for no reason, or for reasons you find otherwise minor--that's not slanderous), the nature of the act is not devious, nor is it shrewd. Therefore, it's [i]not[/i] the textbook definition of manipulation. :hehe

I suppose, in hindsight, the confusion could have come from the line "bullshit reasoning", wherein some might interpret that to mean non-existent errors, that would be slanderous, but bullshit reasoning to me was simply any reasoning at all: Slanderous or not. So hopefully the cleaned statement makes it clearer that I'm not manipulating people.

Oh, and one final thing before I do agree to the amicable "agree to disagree" just to help Dervish and Ruby in the future with their communication skills: When you question a person's methods, [i]you are questioning the person's character[/i]. When you call my methods cruel, or disturbing, you are in turn by extension calling [i]me[/i] cruel, or disturbing, versus if I were to critique a fictional character: A person who does not exist, a physical work, an object, a thing, the result [i]of[/i] a method, not the method itself.

Your intentions were not malicious, ergo why I didn't react with maliciousness in turn and instead using sarcasm and dry wit, but to claim that it wasn't offensive is nonsense. It was offensive: It was unavoidable attacking me as a person, but my being offended by no stretch of the imagination means that you were in the wrong to call me out, or wrong to point out how you felt about my methods.

tl;dr: Sometimes it's okay to be offensive if your intent is to try and point out something that is wrong to you, just don't then claim that you were, somehow, [i]not[/i] offensive. It actually doesn't help things. :hehe

EDIT

Anyway if either of you would like the closing word, it's all yours, I'll read it and keep it in mind but otherwise not continue the discussion as the thread creator requested. I just felt this final response might be useful to clarify a potential error of mine and see if the repaired statement does not improve upon what I had meant to convey. Also to clarify a couple other things, like what manipulation means. :sun