Enriador:

Some users of this community use their replies to belittle people they disagree with. For instance, YCHTT resorts to personal assaults frequently in arguments. To his loss, he undermines his often valid points so that his listeners choose to ignore him. To his credit though, he is not shy in pointing out things that often should be pointed out. This kind of approach is calculated to elicit an emotional response (to various ends, to which I won't claim to know YCHTTs), and that emotion often clouds the opponent's judgement. I don't care for such an approach and find it distasteful. As such, let me rationally and respectfully point out something that you might not be seeing and attempt to explain myself further:

">validate your bias as having greater validity that any opposing viewpoint.<

This is a false statement @Leif. I believe both viewpoints are equally valid, and you can see the proof of it with your own eyes (I made icons for both viewpoints). Not sure why you ignored this fact."

You selectively picked out a portion of my comment. I began with "It almost sounds to me as if you wish to.." Because I am expressing an impression I have when I read your statement, it is not possible to categorize what I said as true or false, it is subjective, my viewpoint.

Let me explain further why I have that impression. How many times have you stated that you disagree with people who have different aesthetic tastes than you do in this thread? I also observe that you make an express effort to publicly thank those who support your aesthetic preferences. Why do you feel the need to do so? To clarify, it appears to me by these repeat assertions, that you feel threatened if someone disagrees with your aesthetic tastes and you are compelled to assert your belief in your own tastes. You have no need to feel threatened. They are your tastes.

"I have the right to disagree that the abstract icons are aesthetically "acceptable" - I think they do look great. Sorry, that's my (subjective) opinion and you won't change it. =)"

No one is trying to change your opinion that you find it aesthetically "acceptable". Again, the appearance is that you are feeling threatened because vocal opponents have a different aesthetic taste than you. The counsel given to you by those who hold a different viewpoint than you (again whether respectfully or disrespectfully) is that you think about whether people actually like what you are proposing the community at large adopt for icons rather than argue over agreeing or disagreeing about who does and doesn't find something aesthetically "acceptable" and then take offense (at real insults, or perceived) to justify writing off opposing viewpoints. The community has been responding rather negatively to this approach, and that is why I sought to counsel you about why you have received the negative responses.

"I don't have to accept anyone's advice."

Keep in mind, it is generally a good idea if to accept advice if one is proposing changing something subjective within a community. The perception of the community when you use defensive language as "I don't have to accept anyone's advice," and "I have the right to disagree," for a topic that is clearly subject to opinion and on a subject about changing what the community uses, is that you are trying to influence public opinion to your aesthetic preference, and those who disagree are naturally going to respond negatively. If someone proposes change in spite of individuals who disagree with them AND they are actively silencing opposing arguments (again regardless of whether such arguments are respectful or disrespectful) they become the aggressor.

When you have been called you out, you tend to play the victim card as a weapon to silence opposition. You have done that (rightly or wrongly) to those who choose to disrespect you while they call you out, but you also seem to tend that way even those who try to respectfully call you on it, and that is where I take issue with your approach and shift my my own attention away from your intended purpose of discussing and changing map and unit historical inaccuracies.

I bring this final thought to your attention and to the community's attention. Our American political system (both sides), and American media (again both sides) are driving a wedge between people by featuring the extremes of opposing viewpoints and polarizing issues through use the victim card and personal attacks. I don't believe this is limited to America, but what is happening here is prominent on the world stage. Those tactics have unfortunately become a staple of American (and world?) culture as recent (and not-so-recent) generations have consciously or subconsciously copied their examples, and that saddens me deeply. We are doing this over an aesthetic argument about a game. Rise above the petty as Martin Luther King Jr. did in his approach to the racial injustice, elevate your discourse to find the common ground, and then approach the issue, whether it be this stupid one about what is my longest standing hobby, and for which I am spending my time diving into this topic because I care about this game (probably too much), or whether it be issues of greater import in our world today.