"Wall of text" is the refrain of those who hate evidence and reasonable discussion. A very brief post can raise many related issues, and sometimes a direct lie can take a few words, and covering and showing the truth can take many more.
Here, Kumioko shows his alliance in reality with the enemies of open critique and rational discussion. He essentially agrees with Vigilant on his snark about length -- that is very important to discussion fora.
Beginning over twenty years ago, I identified the problem and wrote about it. So, yes, I have something to say, but to ignore what I say takes no time at all. It is not like we are in a space where only one person can talk at a time.
The trolls and haters capitalize on a common reaction to "walls of text," which has a very specific meaning, ignored here. That was not a wall of text, it was formatted to keep it from being that, and it was far from a "novel." Again, exaggerated polemic is characteristic of trolls . . . and whiners as well.
Because these people are critics in at least one sense, they have been tolerated. Those who are skilled at creating flame wars that are entertaining have even been protected, because they create more page views and activity.
The critical community has no unifying purpose. I used to call Wikipedia Review the neighborhood pub, where parties went to get drunk and rail at each other. But these sites did and still do have utility aside from that.
However, most people hate whining
. In fact, that is why children whine! Parents really want it to stop, so, and especially if they are unskilled as parents -- and most start out with no experience! -- they will give in, so kids learn to whine to get what they want. It works with parents, sometimes, and it even works in some other contexts, later in life. And humans often don't notice when behaviors stop working and will continue them long after it has become visible as ineffective.
This site had come to be dominated by Crow and Graaf Statler, the former generating content of some value, mixed with liberal doses of hatred and flames. Graaf was mostly incoherent, and prolific with it. And Kumioko, under attack from Crow, refused to moderate his responses, to be patient with site moderation and he attacked the active moderator.
It is a reality that the number of people participating here has declined with the bans of Crow and Statler; those bans were made absolutely necessary by the open defiance of moderators and site administration. That's rule number one on any site: respect the owner and the owner's appointees, or your account is likely to be toast, unless they want to keep you around for target practice, to feed the dogs, and please the screaming mob.
If warned that you will be blocked if you continue an activity, expect that you will be blocked if you continue, and take responsibility for the result. At the present time, Kumioko is not under a warning. If he floods the site with what I consider harmful to it, I will warn him, and discussion will be possible.
I have committed, as a mod, not to block anyone without a violated warning, other than from gross and obvious necessity.
I am also privately accessible on the Wiki Tree House Discord Server (Invitation
), and if anyone believes that someone has been unfairly treated here, PM here if you have an account, PM on the Server if not -- or blocked, I'm happy to read complaints. Kumioko will not be warned -- or at least not by me -- merely for criticizing me or for defending himself from critique or attack (even if he seems to have difficulty distinguishing between the two).
Both Crow and Statler increased their defiance when warned, and so were banned. They could still be unbanned, but it might involve some, ah, reprogramming.
Kumioko was short-blocked and did not continue the behavior. From what I see of him on the Discord Server, though, that's not because he has decided to be cooperative and useful, it is because he has given up, as he gave up on Wikipediocracy. There are much more powerful responses possible, but I see no sign that he's interested. He prefers to be a victim forever, it appears. (Unless, of course, the 'pedians straighten out and fly right, and, of course, unban the incredibly valuable contributor, Kumioko/Reguyla.)
Defining one's own life and purposes and activities based on others, so that you can blame them for wasting your own time, is a very Bad Idea.
Some people will burn out appeal channels. We create our life and we also create how the world responds to us.