I am aware that this argument is employed in situations such as mine and that the OSRS warns players to be careful with their on-site interactions lest others take it as more sinister than it was intended to be. Despite this, I would like to present the context behind my interaction with the thread OP, which goes back to 2015. The OP has two years in a row had a shoutout to me in their nomination rules, Due to a time I screwed up in the 2015 awards by not scrolling down in the ticket box.
Since then, the OP and I have had dry exchanges during the nomination process where I comment on their shoutout in 2016 and 2017:
The Blaatschapen reported my post citing disbelief that myself and the other poster could be interacting in a friendly manner in this scenario because the poster's identity is not publicly known, and I do not believe this to be a strong argument given the context I am presenting in this appeal. I'm sure that if I added something as silly as a ":P" or a ":^)" I would not have been struck by a casual reader argument, because it would be more likely that a random passerby is going to understand that my reply to the OP was non-serious. Given the context of our previous exchanges, however, which are all conducted in a dry manner, I don't believe it can be construed as flaming.
While I understand the criterion Frisbeeteria used in his ruling, we probably have two different ideas of what a "casual observer" of the Gameplay forum would be thinking of my post's intent. This is the basis I am challenging the ruling on. I can't imagine a reasonable, rational user of the Gameplay forum (does such a mythical person even exist?
) taking offense to this exchange. If I was so intent on hurting the poster's feelings, would I have then immediately followed up with filling out a nomination in accordance with the rules of his/her thread, enthusiastically even, being the first to do so? To me, it doesn't make sense.Thank you. The cookies are in the oven and shall be dished out to the appeal mods upon viewing
