Perfect site reputation so far!

[MDMAlliance]

Lafiel said:

MDMAlliance said:

Lafiel said:

That is wrong. I don't need to be condescending to have character and be interesting.

And in an argument I trust actual arguments over adhominems, prejudices and insults.

Funny enough, here are the two posts that got me warned
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5165670
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5565816

The first post I personally don't think should have got me warned.
The second post wasn't me insulting him, but insulting his interpretation.  

Though I can see why I got warned on the second post.

Well, the first one is an ad hominem - I don't know what happend in that thread before, but while Deyons post wasn't very "nice", butting into the conversation to basically say "he is a troll" certainly was unneccessary, although I can't claim never to have done similar things. I guess I got away with it with "better" wording, but in hindsight those posts weren't up to my own standards.

The second one looks very clear to me, as I can only really read that as an insult directed at the person and not at the argument.

The first one I wasn't even talking to Deyon.  I was just telling the person to ignore him because he was (earlier in the thread) intentionally making comments to rile people up.  I wasn't calling him a troll, but saying his comments were troll comments (in the instances in the thread).  

The second one was directed at his attitude.  There are differences in all of these things, though either way saying if someone is acting like an idiot or saying they are an idiot they would take offense either way so I can see the reasoning behind the warning.  

There's a difference, though.  I wasn't doing what you were saying I was doing.