Joshua Ajala - Submissions - Cut-Out Player Faces Megapack
2000260912
Background and Stadium Packs
Timeline
@Chaz9W The community appreciates your willingness to contribute, yet all of your submissions in the West Ham Player pack do not meet the requirements.
You should distinguish reckless enthusiasm from controlled, disciplined enthusiasm — which in this case of yours, is the former.
There is a wide array of aspects as to what went amiss with your cuts. I suggest you reflect on it by yourself.
@sortilover, cut these kind of comments out; I have no time for your mischief-making. Either be constructive and guide new cutters on what they need to do, and how, or post nothing at all. Keep it up and I'll ban your account, again, and keep doing so until you eventually get the hint. If you want to contribute positively, cut new images. Leave the comments up to me and other civil-minded community members.
@sortilover, cut these kind of comments out. Keep it up and I'll ban your account, again, and keep doing so until you eventually get the hint.
@mons I take your reasonable criticism of being more considerate to contributors to the same extent I gave the reasonable criticism to @Chaz9w with moderate tone, but I don't take your overreactive threat of banning me.
I must remind you that you are not only in the position to foster inclusiveness so that contributors can thrive and all the community members can benefit, but also in the position to uphold the integrity of the pack.
You gave me the reasonable criticism — with the exception of your unrestrained, substanceless threat — so I'm giving you the feedback in the reciprocal manner.
@mons You have edited your comment several times, and as to that, I will keep my final response brief.
Please be coherent in your writing, as yours is a mixed bag of disproportionate emotional responses with constructive criticism.
Such dissonance only makes your words lose its weight and credibility, and even more so when your action suggests otherwise.
@mons I take your reasonable criticism of being more considerate to contributors to the same extent I gave the reasonable criticism to @Chaz9w with moderate tone, but I don't take your overreactive threat of banning me.
I must remind you that you are not only in the position to foster inclusiveness so that contributors can thrive and all the community members can benefit, but also in the position to uphold the integrity of the pack.
You gave me the reasonable criticism — with the exception of your unrestrained, substanceless threat — so I'm giving you the feedback in the reciprocal manner.
Cut the crap, do me a favour. Please make sure to refrain from addressing cutters in the ill-spirited manner in which you're doing so thus far.
It's clear you're a disgruntled former member of the community. I have no interest in which your previous account(s) were and why you decided not to use them any more, or even if you were banned. If you contribute positively to the community, you're more than happy to stay. If this is what you intend to give us, you won't last here long. I don't intend to waste my time replying to you ever again. Persist in this behaviour and I'll ban your account again, with no explanation provided.
@mons You have edited your comment several times, and as to that, I will keep my final response brief.
Please be coherent in your writing, as yours is a mixed bag of disproportionate emotional responses with constructive criticism.
Such dissonance only makes your words lose its weight and credibility, and even more so when your action suggests otherwise.
I edited it once, a few minutes after I posted it, and certainly earlier than you replied, for the sake of clarification. The context and content clearly remains the same, and this is typical of the bad faith arguments you intend to engage with.
@mons This is my final feedback on you.
- You are pointing at the messenger instead of the message.
- You are entitled to make assumptions, but that does not make them true.
- You have a psych profile of a feminine teacher marked by tolerance and high neuroticism — traits required for a great educator and nurturer — and you are excelling on that aspect, and I encourage you to continue to do so.
- Foremost, I discourage you from lying. It works only against your credibility, and you will end up having to make another lies just to cover up your last lies.
@Chaz9W The community appreciates your willingness to contribute, yet all of your submissions in the West Ham Player pack do not meet the requirements.
You should distinguish reckless enthusiasm from controlled, disciplined enthusiasm — which in this case of yours, is the former.
There is a wide array of aspects as to what went amiss with your cuts. I suggest you reflect on it by yourself.