Stop: I think I like the one that leaves me with less rules violations
- Location
- Denmark
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Why not? Zoat's covered at least three different mythologies since this fic started.
Mmm...no...I think I like the one that leaves me with less holy people.
Well if they want to go to war with one another over whose god has the bigger dick? Death does usually follow. I'll just sit on the sidelines and answer questions. "So Maxx, what's going on?" "Oh, these guys are fighting over whose imaginary friend is more powerful. I think the side with the better weapons is gonna win though."
i think i like the one that leaves me with less rules violations
Trilobite has done nothing but engage with you civilly, indeed apologizing several times and choosing their words with great care and the responses you give indicate such flagrant disrespect for their arguments that I cannot help but find them violations of the fourth rule of Sufficient Velocity. You are infracted with 25 points for a violation of Rule 4.
In addition, while the stance that God or gods do not exist should be and is a valid stance to express on Sufficient Velocity, to express it in such terminology as you do is frankly disrespectful and repeat behaviour of this sort is generally frowned upon, both by the rules and the moderation team. I have chosen not to infract it and simply fold it into a general post, but I would recommend you change this in the future.
In addition, while the stance that God or gods do not exist should be and is a valid stance to express on Sufficient Velocity, to express it in such terminology as you do is frankly disrespectful and repeat behaviour of this sort is generally frowned upon, both by the rules and the moderation team. I have chosen not to infract it and simply fold it into a general post, but I would recommend you change this in the future.
you're the reason for the following infraction
Calling someone a blight for expressing their opinion in a civil tone as well as deliberately insulting them is a violation of Rule 3. There are no particularly extenuating circumstances and you do not have a history of these kinds of rules violations, however, so I am merely giving you a Staff Notice.
sic semper nefandus
This is an interesting post, because I had never considered whether or not the rules applied to a desire for omnicide out of compassion, but after extensive deliberation, the Staff has come to the conclusion that it violates Rule 2 through the desire for someone's death. In addition, a subclause of Rule 4 applies with regards to being mindful of the controversy of one's opinions. This post arguing complete and total omnicide is wildly off the topic of the thread and quite definitely espouses an opinion contingent on the greatness of the death of someone (everyone) and as such earns a single 25-point infraction under Rule 2 and Rule 4.
