Night
Widow Null
- Location
- Hoff
Ironically I don't think we've ever had a direct second-order Tribunal as such, only "that escalated quickly" when additional rulebreaking was noted as part of a first-order tribunal.
2025-AT-01: Staff and ChineseDrone Upheld
- Thread starter picklepikkl
- Start date
Ironically I don't think we've ever had a direct second-order Tribunal as such, only "that escalated quickly" when additional rulebreaking was noted as part of a first-order tribunal.
- Location
- Sydney
This is overall the most minor part of the tribunal but IMHO people are broadly allowed to respond to pretty much any argument you make. You can't simultaneously be making an argument AND not want someone to respond to it, that's just dishonest (and implicitly not allowed by the rules). So if you post a big reply and stick 'don't reply to me further' at the end then I'm replying to that shit basically no questions asked, I don't care and I personally would never consider that uncivil.
Once.
Repeatedly tagging someone is very different to quoting them once to reply. If you want to end a conversation then the onus is on the person who wishes to disengage to... disengage. They get one alert saying they've been quoted and can then move on with their life never reading the thread/posts again. You can always just stop posting if things aren't going in a way you feel comfortable with, not everything is a blood sport match to first infraction.
The reason for this has nothing to do with 'the last word' btw, it's simply because SV is a venue of public discussion and our posts are going to end up displayed for at least the next several years. I'm pretty rarely quoting something on SV to respond to that person as an individual because I honestly don't know who most of you are. What I'm responding to is the idea in your post, which for whatever reason I feel I have an interest in articulating a reaction to. If there's an idea I want to engage with then I'm going to engage with it, that's the whole point of a forum. You can't just arbitrarily cut things off and say 'now this idea gets to stand with no challenging replies.' Like I said, the onus is on you to not post the idea to begin with if you're not willing to have it challenged - which you can do very simply by bowing out of the conversation thread rather than trying to nuke it on your way out.
The standards are different inside the creative sections where people post their own work and deserve to set comfort levels for feedback and participation, but this wasn't in a creative section.
Once.
Repeatedly tagging someone is very different to quoting them once to reply. If you want to end a conversation then the onus is on the person who wishes to disengage to... disengage. They get one alert saying they've been quoted and can then move on with their life never reading the thread/posts again. You can always just stop posting if things aren't going in a way you feel comfortable with, not everything is a blood sport match to first infraction.
The reason for this has nothing to do with 'the last word' btw, it's simply because SV is a venue of public discussion and our posts are going to end up displayed for at least the next several years. I'm pretty rarely quoting something on SV to respond to that person as an individual because I honestly don't know who most of you are. What I'm responding to is the idea in your post, which for whatever reason I feel I have an interest in articulating a reaction to. If there's an idea I want to engage with then I'm going to engage with it, that's the whole point of a forum. You can't just arbitrarily cut things off and say 'now this idea gets to stand with no challenging replies.' Like I said, the onus is on you to not post the idea to begin with if you're not willing to have it challenged - which you can do very simply by bowing out of the conversation thread rather than trying to nuke it on your way out.
The standards are different inside the creative sections where people post their own work and deserve to set comfort levels for feedback and participation, but this wasn't in a creative section.
Kingcrusader
The King of the Crusades
- Location
- Tennessee
Two days late, but that is pretty much what some of the councilors will do anyway. You can accuse anyone of anything by saying they "implied" something. It sucks, but that is the way it is.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Could you at least say who you think is lying?
I think that's a fair ask.
DoobleDeeDooble
Please read me again sometime.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Kingcrusader went to Tribunal once over a post which was read to imply something that broke rule 2 even though that was not what he meant by it. He has been pretty constantly talking about it since because he thinks he was unfairly lied about and then punished over that lie. I think he's just talking about that again, rather than anything in this Tribunal. He can correct me if I'm wrong, though.
Kingcrusader
The King of the Crusades
- Location
- Tennessee
Not that I can name of, no, but I will say it is on the idea that i support war crimes, despite never actually supporting it. I got hit with 25 points due to that. It was ridiculous.
Oh no, not that. I'm actually over that. Though, i never really talked about that at all afterwards.
ChineseDrone
Totally depraved
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/They
For the record, though like I said the context was significantly more complicated and I wasn't exactly advocating for the thing in question, I absolutely did say what @Estro brought up on a couple of different discords and I don't think she's engaging in any dishonesty or duplicity here in bringing them up
Kingcrusader
The King of the Crusades
- Location
- Tennessee
Oh okay.
I was just talking in a general sense though. I just don't like people using the "implication" excuse for anything on here.
"I am in no obligation to save that bigot over there."
"Ah, so you support murder of innocent people?"
".....What?"
This is very silly.
I'm sorry but being an ass to someone and then demanding no more interaction is ridiculous. It's a petty attempt to get the last word, to 'win' the argument. And should not just not be respected, it should be disrespected. Don't do this. It's literally one of the least civil things you can do.
SV has an ignore button, you don't want to see someone's replies to you, use it. If you don't want to continue an argument, stop posting. Don't flame someone and then declare they are not allowed to respond.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
It's very uncivil, sure. But even still, replying to anyone's post after they ask you not to reply to them is also uncivil. Just because one person is being rude doesn't mean you can't make things even worse by being rude right back to them.
Nemesis_Scar
Y Herlidwyth.
- Location
- Alabama.
- Pronouns
- She/They
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Rather than uncivil (also it is also that), I'd say this behaviour is disruptive. "Respect the arguments" part of rule 4 explicitely mentions expecting users to be willing to engage with others, and going out of your way to tell others to not engage with the argument that you are making is the opposite of that.
A request to not engage with the argument someone is making is problematic. A request to not engage with the poster further is not, as long as the poster making the request does actually disengage. The problem here is a request to allow disengagement that was not followed by actually disengaging, as I understand it. Which, yes, is arguably both uncivil and disruptive, since it does not allow engagement on an equitable footing.
Replying doesn't rise to the point of 'uncivil' merely by replying. People can and will shut down every subject by demanding no one ever speak again at that point.
Sorry but if you make a point and then demand I let that point stand because you don't want to be talked to any more, imma address your point. And quote you to do so.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Sometimes, someone will make a parting shot and then maliciously try to shut down the conversation. Other times, someone's having a bad day and lashed out online, and they're trying to disengage. Or any number of other scenarios. You don't know what the person on the other side of the screen is going through. And if you assume you do know, but you're wrong, it's very easy to push on people's pain points.
There are easy ways to disengage. I do it all the time.
It's called stop posting
poaw
The opposite of Doja Cat
The correct procedure to disengage is to just stop posting. Not get in their last piece then declare the discussion over.
It's not uncivil to respond to someone. If they don't want to be responded to, then they can just say nothing at all. While obviously this comes across as rude or callous, most people are aware that 85% - 90% of the time the person isn't actually troubled by the discussion, or interacting with a particular person and will circle back after awhile and start interacting again. You could say that the other party should still hold to the request the other person is acting irrationally in a moment, they have issues that make fully disengaging difficult or impossible, etc), but no one is obligated to act as the guardrails for another person.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I myself have often told people that one of the best ways to deal with a contentious argument is to walk away from it. But that's not because it's easy. It's hard. It's not natural to let go of something you're emotionally engaged with, to walk away when someone has directly said something to you that you object to. If it's easy for you, I envy you, because it's never been easy for me.
But this is getting away from the issue. Bluntly, if I see someone reply to a person who asked them not to, I'm going to report them. Because it is rude, regardless of if the other person was rude or not. You are not entitled to Hammurabi-style rudeness retaliation. If someone asks you to stop replying to them, the best and most correct move is to do exactly that.
DoobleDeeDooble
Please read me again sometime.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The thing about "If they don't want to be responded to, then they can just say nothing at all" is that people can and will reply to you well after you actually made whatever post because the post is still there. Not every thread moves at lightning speed, and even when they do people can reply to a thing that catches their eye late. So a post can tell people "Oh I shouldn't quote this in my response" and thus lead to less quoting, and thus is an effective strategy in disengaging. Also, there's a thing where addressing someone's points after the fact or ideas that they brought up is one thing, but people will reply to a post that says "Please leave me out of this" with something addressed to them personally. Whatever you think about last words or whatever else, that doesn't meaningfully extend to cover a personal response.
One time I was the second person to reply in a thread only to realize that actually I really did not want to continue being involved in that thread because people were saying very upsetting things, so I made a post where I explicitly backed out. Because otherwise as post number three I think there would have been a fair amount of engagement, which I didn't want. The wonderful thing is that this worked and, as far as I can tell, nobody cared? If people wanted to respond to my ideas, they could and presumably did, just without trying to talk to me.
I don't know why people are so firm about categorically rejecting an onus to accommodate other people as not, like, your job. What do you all think "Be courteous and decorous to everyone you deal with." means other than assume more responsibility for other people's wellbeing and comfort in your actions than you have to? What the fuck is civility if not that? You understand, it's not about whether there's a moral imperative, it's is it civil? And it's clearly not. Like, continuing to talk to somebody who has asked you to leave them alone in any real life context is clearly being disrespectful and like an annoying little kid. The fact we're writing it down, doesn't change that. This is stupid. This is so obviously stupid, I legitimately do not understand how people can think that it's civil, except by replacing "Be civil" with some other conception of like Proper Debate Etiquette. But that's not what it is. It's civility. It's courtesy, it is literally going out of your way to be nice and respectful of other people. That's, that's the thing that it is. It's extra obligation to everyone else that the forum is saying that you have. Obviously.
Again, if you want to talk about something somebody brought up after they've left the conversation and asked not to be responded to, you just talk about the thing they brought up? You don't need to talk to them. So in no way does "Don't respond to people asking you not to" curtail a discussion, because it doesn't give them carte blanche to stop conversation dead. But neither is it a meaningless silly thing only babies do that nobody should care about. You just keep talking, but you don't address what you say to them. It's the easiest thing in the world.
I cannot stress enough, I'm having a genuine cognitive empathy failure moment here, I cannot fathom how it is anyone disagrees with this.
Like, people make disengaging posts to say "Please don't respond to me", because getting responses can be upsetting, or frustrating, or simply tempt the person to respond again when they would rather stay out of the conversation. Because when someone responds to you there is often a very strong and natural desire to respond back. So they may go "Hey, I'm gonna drop out now" because they've realized continuing this conversation is not what they want to do and announcing that makes it easier for them to stick to such. Or they may do it simply to provide an air of finality to it so that they are more likely to stop. And these are completely rational actions, because people have emotional responses and acting to better help your future self make the choices that current you knows are best means you'll be more likely to make good choices, which is in your self-interest, which is thus rational to do.
Describing what is basic etiquette children learn as being guardrails in case other people are irrational is something that I think really speaks to people losing sight of what the whole point of the rule is: You are talking to people. Real people whose feelings matter and matter much more than whatever forum argument you're in. Just... What mindset is this? Even if 90% of the time people disengaging aren't bothered, which is a figure you made up, because you don't know that people coming back to an argument means they weren't upset in the interim—even if that's the case, you realize "This behavior is only problematic ten percent of the time" is not a ringing endorsement, right? Like... Right? Am I crazy?
One time I was the second person to reply in a thread only to realize that actually I really did not want to continue being involved in that thread because people were saying very upsetting things, so I made a post where I explicitly backed out. Because otherwise as post number three I think there would have been a fair amount of engagement, which I didn't want. The wonderful thing is that this worked and, as far as I can tell, nobody cared? If people wanted to respond to my ideas, they could and presumably did, just without trying to talk to me.
I don't know why people are so firm about categorically rejecting an onus to accommodate other people as not, like, your job. What do you all think "Be courteous and decorous to everyone you deal with." means other than assume more responsibility for other people's wellbeing and comfort in your actions than you have to? What the fuck is civility if not that? You understand, it's not about whether there's a moral imperative, it's is it civil? And it's clearly not. Like, continuing to talk to somebody who has asked you to leave them alone in any real life context is clearly being disrespectful and like an annoying little kid. The fact we're writing it down, doesn't change that. This is stupid. This is so obviously stupid, I legitimately do not understand how people can think that it's civil, except by replacing "Be civil" with some other conception of like Proper Debate Etiquette. But that's not what it is. It's civility. It's courtesy, it is literally going out of your way to be nice and respectful of other people. That's, that's the thing that it is. It's extra obligation to everyone else that the forum is saying that you have. Obviously.
Again, if you want to talk about something somebody brought up after they've left the conversation and asked not to be responded to, you just talk about the thing they brought up? You don't need to talk to them. So in no way does "Don't respond to people asking you not to" curtail a discussion, because it doesn't give them carte blanche to stop conversation dead. But neither is it a meaningless silly thing only babies do that nobody should care about. You just keep talking, but you don't address what you say to them. It's the easiest thing in the world.
I cannot stress enough, I'm having a genuine cognitive empathy failure moment here, I cannot fathom how it is anyone disagrees with this.
Like, people make disengaging posts to say "Please don't respond to me", because getting responses can be upsetting, or frustrating, or simply tempt the person to respond again when they would rather stay out of the conversation. Because when someone responds to you there is often a very strong and natural desire to respond back. So they may go "Hey, I'm gonna drop out now" because they've realized continuing this conversation is not what they want to do and announcing that makes it easier for them to stick to such. Or they may do it simply to provide an air of finality to it so that they are more likely to stop. And these are completely rational actions, because people have emotional responses and acting to better help your future self make the choices that current you knows are best means you'll be more likely to make good choices, which is in your self-interest, which is thus rational to do.
Describing what is basic etiquette children learn as being guardrails in case other people are irrational is something that I think really speaks to people losing sight of what the whole point of the rule is: You are talking to people. Real people whose feelings matter and matter much more than whatever forum argument you're in. Just... What mindset is this? Even if 90% of the time people disengaging aren't bothered, which is a figure you made up, because you don't know that people coming back to an argument means they weren't upset in the interim—even if that's the case, you realize "This behavior is only problematic ten percent of the time" is not a ringing endorsement, right? Like... Right? Am I crazy?
Last edited:
- Location
- Bay Area, California
My stance is that if someone is involved in an argument, then makes a post saying, like, "I still hold my previous position, but I don't want to keep arguing, I'm out", then yeah, continuing to quote them is probably rude, but if they do the "I'm right because [standard argument post], I don't want to argue, stop quoting me" thing ... no I won't in fact feel bound not to quote that post.
But then, I also often don't bother quoting at all if I don't feel like it's required. 🤷♂️
But then, I also often don't bother quoting at all if I don't feel like it's required. 🤷♂️
You are framing this in a really weird way. Because putting 'please don't respond to me' in a post isn't writing a disengaging post. Not when the rest of that post is quoting people and putting forth an argument. That's just engaging and then trying to say that you get the last word because you said so. And, being told 'no I absolutely get the last word because I said I do' can also be incredibly frustrating or upsetting, and makes a pretty strong temptation to respond because no one likes being told that. So it shouldn't be surprising that people often do reply, at least going by how you framed such 'disengaging' posts.
Frankly, trying to put the person writing "I'm done, please don't quote me" at the end of some effort post in some special ethical category is just weird.
DoobleDeeDooble
Please read me again sometime.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Again, you can reply to the points someone makes and the ideas they're positing without directly replying to them? That's what you do in such a situation. Bam, kapow, you have remained civil and they haven't secured the last word or otherwise shut down the discussion. And by "directly replying to them" I mean like, addressing the reply to them, as opposed to addressing the reply to the thread.
I have no idea what you mean with the "special ethical category" bit, I just think when somebody asks you not to talk to them, you should generally stop talking to them?
Also, considering that I wrote a post about disengaging posts, in response to someone saying that the correct way to disengage is to not post anything at all, I am not sure why you are under the impression I'm specifically talking about whatever specific edge case of bad faith faux-disengagement you seem to be taking up arms against? But uh, I'm not specifically talking about that. My post feeling just weird to you is because you are reading it wrong, it seems?
I have no idea what you mean with the "special ethical category" bit, I just think when somebody asks you not to talk to them, you should generally stop talking to them?
Also, considering that I wrote a post about disengaging posts, in response to someone saying that the correct way to disengage is to not post anything at all, I am not sure why you are under the impression I'm specifically talking about whatever specific edge case of bad faith faux-disengagement you seem to be taking up arms against? But uh, I'm not specifically talking about that. My post feeling just weird to you is because you are reading it wrong, it seems?
