This is incorrect. You decided you were going to do a unilateral implementation of a feature without discussing it at all. It was an anti-collaboration mindset from you.

You were so rude to me and so unwilling to actually discuss things like an adult I eventually resorted to blocking you on Discord. I talk to an incredible amount of people on there and you are one of maybe two people I've ever had to block. I recognise that there was an avenue where I could have placated you, this is after all possible with every human being. That said, what you accused me of and what you apparently continue to accuse me of is just not reasonable and I'm afraid we will never see eye to eye on this.

Edit: To actually respond to what you are saying: I came into your server and asked if someone had already picked up an issue. When it was clear this was not the case, I said I would give it a shot. Because you were the way you were to me, I never felt like I should contribute my patches upstream (which I did end up writing). That is a shame and a loss and all you had to do to avoid it was approach me with a positive and tolerant mindset, like I tried to do with you.

You never came to the TES3MP server at all. You came to an unofficial server for Lua scripters and decided to tell everyone you were changing the C++ code to add combat events as you wanted even though the combat system was being redesigned at the time to use different packets. You had never spoken with a TES3MP developer before and ignored the readme's contribution guidelines, which simply asked you to start with one of many smaller possible issues instead.

If your idea of a "tolerant and positive mindset" is to immediately try to get scripters to follow a derailment of the plans of a project you have never contributed to and then keep complaining much later that you were told not to do this, it's safe to say the project is better off not having to deal with that.

You're rejecting this person without giving them a chance. "You're wrong" "You did something bad" "You have the wrong mindset". There is no room to be correct. There is no room for a bilateral implementation of a feature. There is no room for a collaboration mindset.

I only rejected his out-of-the-blue implementation of something that already had very different plans around it. There is room for whoever doesn't disregard what the readme says:

"For code contributions, it's best to start out with modestly sized fixes and features and work your way up. There are so many different possible implementations of more major features – many of which would cause undesirable code or vision conflicts with OpenMW – that those should be talked over in advance with the existing developers before effort is spent on them."