2023-AT-18: Staff and hghwolf - Reduced

Fey'lya said:
The way I tend to think of it is sort of like being in a D&D group that meets at a McDonald's or something. The bonds you make, the memories you share, all of the good life stuff that happens to you during those times are excellent and vital and real.

And absolutely none of it will ever matter to McDonald's, who are there to sweep the floors, sling burgers, and generally keep their restaurant running. It actually can't matter, because McDonald's has to try and serve everyone. The goings-on between you and your friends and the way they run their restaurant are entirely different things. They're happy to have you as regular customers but they are not obliged to provide you a space. It's not your space, it's one you happen to be using and find yourself under the auspices of.

Nobody's out here trying to say that the magic of friendship is unimportant. We're saying that forums governance can't treat it as such.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...when you say "nothing here is real", that kinda is saying that it's unimportant.

And your analogy is flawed - it's more like a D&D group meeting in a coffeeshop which specifically has tables set up for gaming. They sell coffee, and maybe donuts, and other stuff, and they provide a space for people to hang out, and they have a sign on the wall saying "no shouting" with a few other rules too, which they have to tap every so often.
Because the rules of the forum are designed to, at least to some degree, try to ensure that people don't fuck with other peoples' enjoyment of the experience. And that's part of why we stick around, which is why the forum keeps running.
 
Lightwhispers said:
I suspect that sdwood wasn't trying to give the implication that it's a binary, but they did not phrase it well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is exactly the case. I'd... had a few shots of vodka, and, well....

Basically it boils down to acknowledging that yes, in fact, this is real, and banning someone can have significant effects on their life.

But, and this is also important, not banning someone can have significant effects on someone else's life.

Just... don't pretend this is all My Little Pony.
 
Lightwhispers said:
And your analogy is flawed - it's more like a D&D group meeting in a coffeeshop which specifically has tables set up for gaming. They sell coffee, and maybe donuts, and other stuff, and they provide a space for people to hang out, and they have a sign on the wall saying "no shouting" with a few other rules too, which they have to tap every so often.
Because the rules of the forum are designed to, at least to some degree, try to ensure that people don't fuck with other peoples' enjoyment of the experience. And that's part of why we stick around, which is why the forum keeps running.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's probably a better fit to the actual situation, but I don't think it materially affects the point we're trying to make. Your (general you) individual goings-on are unimportant to the coffee shop management or the other patrons in this metaphor, except where they run afoul of the rules or exist as a class of behavior they want to promote.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I kinda just think it's the wrong call. It's a bit of a caustic tone, and singling out an individual even as a subtle form of it, is... it feels wrong.
 
Arthur Frayn said:
you desperately need to touch grass.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I feel like this specific phrase has been used increasingly often to trivialize mental health matters.

Like: As someone who's autistic, this phrase is really starting to bug me. Yes, under certain circumstances stimming can help center autistic people, but the act of stimming is often represented as shameful such as the more infamous 'hug box' that's largely been replaced by weighted blankets or is seen as a symptom to be treated, such as handflapping.

Anyway, yes, touching interesting textures can help autisim, but the command 'touch grass' metaphorically sounds a lot like 'fuck off'.

Where did the popular meme come from anyway? Two years ago I'd never heard someone say 'touch grass'
 
Tithed_Verse said:
Anyway, yes, touching interesting textures can help autisim, but the command 'touch grass' metaphorically sounds a lot like 'fuck off'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly? That is how I often see it used. "Touch grass" is more often than not, in online discourse at least, used as "Fuck off with your opinion" with implication that the person is basement dweller who has never been outside.
 
Winged_One² said:
I'm pretty sure it's meant as "you need to go outside and get some perspective".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That metaphorically rhymes with "go somewhere else that isn't here, and stop bothering me" which is often shortened to "fuck off".

It's basically a 'not very subtly imply that the recipient is mentally ill' flavored 'fuck off'. It's even two words.

Honestly I think it's ruder than fuck off because it's used less often.
 
Last edited:
Tithed_Verse said:
I'm complaining about the way it's actually used in conversation, which is as a mental health flavored substitute for 'fuck off'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not, though.
It's more 'you are getting way too worked up over this online thing, stop overreacting.'
It's not very friendly, true, but it isn't implying the recipient is mentally ill, just making a mountain out of an online molehill.
 
Tithed_Verse said:
Anyway, yes, touching interesting textures can help autisim, but the command 'touch grass' metaphorically sounds a lot like 'fuck off'.

Where did the popular meme come from anyway? Two years ago I'd never heard someone say 'touch grass'
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

it just means go outside lmao
thats all
seriously

It is a response based on the perception that someone's interests, perspective, experiences, behavior, or reasoning comes from them being primarily (or, in the way it is popularly described, "terminally") online. IE that if the person it was directed towards spent more time outside (and having social interactions with other people IRL instead of on the internet), those interests, perspectives, experiences, behavior, or reasoning would either change or the person would at least know not to say them out loud.

There are plenty of contexts where it is used, from someone who cares way too much about computer games or media fandoms, to the people who really don't understand that most people don't actually care all that much (or think) about something they care about a lot, or the individuals who don't realize that they sound completely insane to most people.

The concept isn't new, the specific meme is just the repackaged form of telling someone to get off the internet.
 
The thing which weird me out the most in this tribunal is how Jemnite is doing the same thing as hghwolf is being judged for : sniping Mandemon from a place he can't answer. At least, hghwolf has the excuse he was thinking that Mandemon was present in the topic. In the case of Jemnite, it's is worst because he knows that Mandemon can't answer, and there is a non-negligible probability that the tribunal will not be made public. So, ti's like a free sniping which didn't bring anything worth.

Worst bis, as he considers the statement from hghwolf as "factually true", he uses this argument to mitigate the infraction committed by hghwolf. I want to point it out that, in this case, Mandemon is the victim here. Mandemon has probably blood feud with some users, but, in this case, his attitude is not the subject of this trial. As it has been said before, if you have a problem with someone, report them and move on. I mean, a bunch of tribunals before, have regularly pointing out the fact that the argument "the other poster was BAD !" is a useless and no-good strategy, so it's kinda weird to see a councilor to go mostly this way to justify to not uphold.

Worst ter, it's the fact it has happened in a tribunal. Mostly from the point 1, because, if a random user is infracted for something and a councilor is not infracted from the same thing when doing the tribunal, it just gives a bad vibe. Like, there is something a little bit rigged. But maybe it's because councilors have a freedom of speech I don't know when in tribunal ? At the end of the day, I think it can give a bad feeling. I can bypass it because I am here from some months, but if I was a newcomer or have some self-esteem issues, I think it will probably impact my exchanges with councilors, in different ways. Like acting nicer to them all the time to bring their good side and less punishment in case I made an infraction one day. Or putting them on a pedestal they don't want to be. Oh well, maybe I am projecting too much.



So, in short, Jemnite has pulled the worst argument ever to reduce a infraction in this post and that's it.

And it's probably what I will remember from this tribunal.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top