Above Political Correctness

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

Nah, it wasn't so much that you were getting mad/insulting people, so much as it was that the post was easy to use as an example, because you were outlining the process of getting mad, and as such it was the one that sparked the thought. I didn't mean any insult in using yours as the example, and I'm sorry if I did cause any, because it wasn't meant as an example of getting mad, so much as the thought process behind getting mad, which was easier to address than just picking a random post going, "BLARGH I AM ANGRY", and going, "Look at this guy. He's mad! That's silly."

Ehhh.

I sort of agree with you? But I think there's a crucial difference between instigating something and reacting to someone's instigation. I mean this isn't even equivocal to someone responding to a vague comment interpreted by the reader as a slight -- it's not akin to NonCon's response to TDK, even. In this circumstance another forumite directly insulted NonCon, like, point-blank, 100% intended to offend that specific person.

...And if someone directly insults another forumite, point blank, I think it should be entirely and utterly permitted -- by the Moderators and everyone else -- for friends of that person to interject and say "Shut the fuck up."

...If I'm wrong in that assumption and a Mod corrects me I'd honestly be really surprised.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Ehhh.

I sort of agree with you? But I think there's a crucial difference between instigating something and reacting to someone's instigation. I mean this isn't even equivocal to someone responding to a vague comment interpreted by the reader as a slight -- it's not akin to NonCon's response to TDK, even. In this circumstance another forumite directly insulted NonCon, like, point-blank.

...And if someone directly insults another forumite, point blank, I think it should be entirely and utterly permitted -- by the Moderators

I agreed with this post through this word.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Fenris

I agreed with this post through this word.

So we're not allowed to stick up for our friends? :/

[Fenris]

You're not allowed to be a jerk, no.

You can totally stick up for your friends. The best way is to report the post. Alternatively, you can just be polite about it.

But no, you're not allowed to tell somebody to shut the fuck up based on a perceived slight.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Fenris

You're not allowed to be a jerk, no.

...How...
...what...

...we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one I guess.
(I feel as if that position empowers those intending to cause the offense insofar as they only have to worry about warnings from Moderators and not any consternation from anyone else. And if the offender isn't banned but merely warned, it's not much of a deterrent at all from the insulting behavior in the first place. It seems somewhat counterintuitive to expect friends of folks to just keep their mouths shut the moment they read an unprovoked insult, or to blame them for reacting normally to the insult.)

...I'll try to follow this rule because I don't look for any trouble but I just feel like it's going to be impossible, in practice, to actually prevent myself from mouthing off the moment I read an actual insult directed towards someone I care about.

[Fenris]

Sticking up for your friends does not imply being a jerk. There are plenty of non-jerk ways to stick up for your friends. Please use those ways.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Sticking up for your friends does not imply being a jerk. There are plenty of non-jerk ways to stick up for your friends. Please use those ways.

Fair enough.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by shiney

Is this going to be a discussion about our perspectives on what type of speech is acceptable, fifth, or a referendum on decisions you didn't find palatable? At no point am I going to suggest I'm happy to turn a blind eye toward someone being rude or thoughtless and then happily excusing it away by saying "Well I didn't MEAN for it to be that way" if it's clear they didn't, but I'm not the kind of guy who wants to take action as a mod on a complete grey area, particularly when there were no reported posts, particularly particularly when someone took it upon themself to escalate the situation (again) instead of following the clearly established rules.

There's not really any way to discuss this topic without discussing the moderator decisions regarding it because you've made it abundantly and repeatedly clear that your opinions about being PC and who shares those opinions is the basis on which moderation decisions are made.

EDIT: And again, I really can't believe you're continuing to pretend there's anything "grey" about calling people abnormal and telling them "fuck you" for asking them to be treated differently.

Originally Posted by shiney

Bingo @ Kerensky.

BitVyper: ah, admitted.

Arch: you make a good point too, I'm going to discuss this with the other mods at least...nothing cancels out, and I'm sorry if I made things appear that way.

Snake: at this point that is entirely up to you. Fact is Noncon is a repeat offender of doing exactly what happened, exactly, in this instance. You can take the admittedly flippant tone of my post and twist it if you like, or you can research post history and see the instances that resulted in Non getting a temp ban, how they happened, why they happened, and let me know your findings.

Noncon is a repeat offender because it's been repeatedly made clear that people can say whatever they want to Noncon and nobody on the modstaff will do anything about it, assuming they aren't themselves involved in the trolling/flaming, and it's only as soon as Noncon does something that "crosses the line" that it becomes an issue, and it's only ever Noncon's conduct that is an issue.

It's especially ridiculous in the case of this thing with TDK given that, once upon a time, we repeatedly banned, and permabanned, TDK for just the sort of thing he pulled in Noncon's thread. It's just that this time he wrapped his feelings about how un-obligated he is to not be a jerk in the flag of Not Being PC, and he did it to Noncon, and that makes it okay.

Reported posts keep getting brought up as another reason Noncon's at fault here, as if a moderator wasn't actively participating in that thread as of post 18. Right here in this thread Outcast outright called me and everyone else who disagrees with him "idiotic" and of course that isn't even an issue, because hey, it's not like Noncon did it. Are you going to say you can't deal with that post because nobody reported it, in this thread where at least three moderators are actively participating and can, one would hope, be assumed to have actually read it? Are you guys maybe having some trouble with your American English that the rest of us would know about?

You can continue hiding behind reported posts as your excuse but people aren't going to waste time reporting posts when you've repeatedly stated your view that those same kinds of posts aren't a problem, just as Noncon isn't going to waste his time attempting to respect the rules when you've made it clear that you don't respect them either.

[Token]

Originally Posted by Fenris

You're not allowed to be a jerk, no.

Fenny. Bro. I love you and everything, but what. Pretty much everyone on this forum is a jerk. Some more than others NIKOSE, but through the years I've spent on this forum, it's become apparent that we're all essentially douchebags.

As for the whole "oh no Nonsy's offended" thing, he's always had a habit of blowing up and being self-righteous when it's really not necessary. Dunno why people are surprised this time.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Token

As for the whole "oh no Nonsy's offended" thing, he's always had a habit of blowing up and being self-righteous when it's really not necessary.

Y'know what worries me most about this line of reasoning is that it sounds like some people just interpret every conflict NonCon is involved in as "Oh, NonCon has a habit of pulling some self-righteous shit, it's all his fault," regardless of whether the actual facts of the particular situation at hand suggest that it really is his fault.

I'm not sayin' NonCon's always right, don't misinterpret me, I'm just saying that line of reasoning is dangerous because it enables people to "get away" with stuff against NonCon that they wouldn't "get away with" against anyone else because you're construing the events according to a preconceived bias. And sometimes your intuition may be entirely accurate but sometimes it's not.