All true enough and sorry for like, calling you out then. The sheer amount of unironic "well them's the rules what'y'need" posting boggles my mind sometimes, but they are, as you say, a fine introduction and guide to posting.
A long time, but councillors still invoke it, if not by name then by intent, from time to time years after it had been removed, and ultimately they're the arbitrators soo...
A long time, but councillors still invoke it, if not by name then by intent, from time to time years after it had been removed, and ultimately they're the arbitrators soo...
You just upset mandemon got hit over a post that is substantively similar to several you have made in the same thread.
This is the second person in a tribunal for the "I don't support genocide, but...." category I was not looking forward to. Each one gonna age more and more poorly as events progress the way everyone with any knowledge of the underlying conflict knows they will.
People in this thread are getting wrapped around a procedural argument for a post that WAS, in fact, minimizing genocide, from a poster who has, in fact, made several similar posts conducting apologia for IDF warcrimes.
She is a she, but the stats would be interesting to see.I mean, "stratigo pretends he can read your mind and decides what he saw in there makes you an asshole" is a show with a recurring timeslot here on SV, it doesn't really mean anything.
I mean, "stratigo pretends she can read your mind and decides what she saw in there makes you an asshole" is a show with a recurring timeslot here on SV, it doesn't really mean anything. Wait for Sweeps, you'll see some shit.
It does beg the question though, are the rules actually easy to follow or do people just run afoul of them infrequently enough due to other circumstances that it doesn't end up mattering? If I recall correctly, someone once posted stats re: comparative infraction rates across fora and what rules they ended up being for. Is that something you can just poil Xenforo for or does it need to be manually gathered? I'd be curious to know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here.
E: Fixed pronoun usage, with apologies.
And of course rule 2 is where I think the least of the confusion excuses, but even there someone raised in a completely different environment could adopt language that would run afoul of it and eat a few infractions before they learn.
Rule 2 isn't as clear cut as some might think. I would argue that other than Rule 4, Rule 2 is one of the more confusing ones only because it's vague and there really isn't a clear definition of exactly what violates it. I think this is a good conversation and want to be a part of it while avoiding my tendency to make things about me so I won't share any examples... they're long since over with anyway... but I do think that different people have different perspectives on what Rule 2 would be, and often times the response is "it was obvious". But... it wasn't? I thought it "obviously" was not. I've quite literally had Rule 2 described as "if it could offended somebody, somewhere, it breaks Rule 2".
what, specifically, is confusing for you about rule 2? What do you want to say that you think will get you in such trouble here that wouldn't in other places. Legit I would love to clear things up for you but I don't understand what is unclear about the summery of "Don't be Hateful" or the example bullet points of
You say you are uncomfortable about discussion past issues or specific examples of your problems with Rule 2 yet you where the first person to raise any issues with rule 2 in this thread (here). But since you said it was the first two points you had issue with lets try and address those. What concerns you about how "Be understanding of other viewpoints and perspectives." and "Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others" could be interprated? Particularly, since you raised the topic in this way, in relation to your own posts?Those points aren't unclear. How they are interpreted could be. The first 2 points are what i'm mostly concerned with, third and fourth are pretty ironclad.
This might be something to take to DM's. I'm not really comfortable going through past issues or bringing up any specific examples here. I'm happy to talk and potentially learn something, but I just don't think the nature of the conversation is appropriate for here.
You say you are uncomfortable about discussion past issues or specific examples of your problems with Rule 2 yet you where the first person to raise any issues with rule 2 in this thread (here). But since you said it was the first two points you had issue with lets try and address those. What concerns you about how "Be understanding of other viewpoints and perspectives." and "Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others" could be interprated? Particularly, since you raised the topic in this way, in relation to your own posts?
What concerns you about how "Be understanding of other viewpoints and perspectives." and "Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others" could be interprated? Particularly, since you raised the topic in this way, in relation to your own posts?
Coming out of semi-retirement to say that if you're worried stating your real views will run you afoul of Rule 2, it might behoove you to examine said views and why you might get you infracted for stating them
Just a thought
Coming out of semi-retirement to say that if you're worried stating your real views will run you afoul of Rule 2, it might behoove you to examine said views and why you might get you infracted for stating them
This is a not atypical response, but Rule 2 is extremely broadly structured and many people's views potentially run afoul of Rule 2. Some political views that potentially run afoul of Rule 2 are "being pro death penalty", "being pro abortion", "being anti abortion", "supporting self-defense", declaring that Republicans are Nazis, arguing in favor of restricting immigration, and saying that democrats are socialists.Coming out of semi-retirement to say that if you're worried stating your real views will run you afoul of Rule 2, it might behoove you to examine said views and why you might get you infracted for stating them
Non-neurotypical users can get hit by the other end too, where statements come across as casually hateful (or uncivil) towards them, and not only do the staff not seem to care (or notice) but they get infracted for calling it out because bringing the offense to people's attention looks disruptive.Maybe you find this task simple and straightforward, but for say, someone not neurotypical you may as well be asking them to shatter a boulder with their bare hands... whenever someone ends up in trouble with it, they're met with acerbic skepticism that this could even be an issue.
I mean, "stratigo pretends she can read your mind and decides what she saw in there makes you an asshole" is a show with a recurring timeslot here on SV, it doesn't really mean anything. Wait for Sweeps, you'll see some shit.
It does beg the question though, are the rules actually easy to follow or do people just run afoul of them infrequently enough due to other circumstances that it doesn't end up mattering? If I recall correctly, someone once posted stats re: comparative infraction rates across fora and what rules they ended up being for. Is that something you can just poil Xenforo for or does it need to be manually gathered? I'd be curious to know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here.
E: Fixed pronoun usage, with apologies.
I think supporting genocide, like poaw and Mandemon are doing in the hamas thread, is bad.
How bout you?
I think supporting genocide, like poaw and Mandemon are doing in the hamas thread, is bad.
How bout you?