Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

==== 1. It started as a preference/critique: Greg said the pinned guide was “10x too many words,” compared it to a NYT Sunday article, and said phone reading was a “NO,” while also praising the first half. ====
# OP responded with nuance + counterpoints about purpose and context: - It’s a pinned guide, not a casual post. - It’s meant as onboarding/context. - Bookmarking exists. - If something is “drowning” the value, specify what to cut.
# Greg did not engage those counterpoints directly. Instead, he shifted to a short tone/motive jab (“Defensive, much?”) and then to incredulity/disengagement (“You gotta be kidding… Block me please.”).
# You added a ruleset + the fact Greg was banned for breaking rules (as part of the thread context you’re working with). Within that framework, the ban is at least consistent with the pattern of derail/tone-policing/dismissal that the rules explicitly discourage.
# A third party (SReflection) came in and: - Re-validated the “too long” critique, - Added “feels AI-generated/unpruned” and “people won’t think it’s worth their time” framing, - Added structure suggestions (separate threads, graphics, organize lists), - And also made a character/tone claim about OP having an issue taking criticism + “gish gallop / mod censure” framing.
# OP responded point-by-point again, denying the AI/low-effort implication, asserting many hours of editing, disputing “flowchart/list spam,” and disputing the tone narrative and “gish gallop” label.

So: the pattern you’re pointing to is real in the conversation structure:
* initial critique → OP offers nuance/counterpoints → critic doesn’t really engage those points → shifts toward dismissal/tone framing → OP frames it as rule-incompatible → then a new person repeats/extends that cluster.