Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
He kept on mentioning traditional Christian values or something, so I assumed as much. @Rottweiler, care to elucidate this?
implying that Rottweiler wanted women to be uneducated. Rottweiler has always encouraged me to further my own intellect and education, so I'm kind of shocked and pissed at what Fighteer said.Also, multiple posters on the forum have been condescending and not been banned for it. Karalora and Joseph Bugman are regularly condescending.
Bugman has been in trouble for rudeness in the past. As far as I'm aware, Karalora hasn't, though if I see her making condescending posts in future I'll be sure to warn her. I've probably been too soft on you lot, and that's bad because it leaves people unclear on what is and is not acceptable.
Sadly, diversity of options doesn't guarantee quality debating. CFC OT, the forum I am in, is mostly liberal progressives + a bunch of neocons + a bunch of commies + a bunch of apolitical people who poke fun at everyone else + a secular agnostic philosophical theologian + a drive-by neo-nazi. The actual quality is generally worse then TvTropes forum, though.
> We're taking a break from him for awhile. Seems like he can't get through a
single conversation without calling someone an idiot or causing a fight. We have
better things to do than answer Hollers about this one guy all day long.
Tell him to look us up in a couple of weeks with a plan for how he could
be less of a pain in the ass to be around. We'll talk.
What this indicates to me is that you will not only need to apologize in a way that sounds sincere (I would go for something more plain language than the first one), you also need to acknowledge your responsibility in the past drama and provide assurances that you've come up with a way that you can limit future drama.
@Bradamante: "Others have done it too" is not a valid excuse to avoid banning, because as I mentioned in my previous post many others have been banned for similar behavior. Whether or not any one person gets banned depends a lot on visibility, and repeat offenses. If you truly feel that the behavior of the two you mentioned has been moderation-worthy, I would advise you to report it in the future. The mods can't be everywhere at once, after all.
You're telling me the problem was a particular post, while FE is saying it's that "Seems like he can't get through a single conversation without calling someone an idiot" (I've never had a
So do you understand why annoying him and promising to not cause drama in future by expressing dissent seem like the rational things to apologize for, hence my concern for an apology for that post being received as "not getting it"? It clearly sounds like he demands an apology for causing drama (i.e. getting mobbed and insulted). A person's behavior sounds irrelevant, with a presumption of fault for all attacks against them once they become a popular target.
I keep on having to remind them that it's not helping their case.
No, that post was the straw that broke the camel's back.
>FE is saying it's that "Seems like he can't get through a single conversation without calling someone an idiot" (I've never had a
I suspect that Eddie was exaggerating there, and I'm almost certain that he'll have had that post in mind when he said it.
Eddie is not, and has never been, terribly appreciative of Internet memes, and as far as he was concerned, you'd just called somebody dumb and retarded, and he reacted accordingly. (It's probably also worth remembering that, if Eddie's prior statments are anything to go by, having been thumped just once for something like that makes you potentially fair game for a complete ban on a second offence. With that in mind, the fact that you received only a temp ban can only really be read as an acknowledgement that you have made legitimate contributions to discussions, the way I see it.)
>"or causing a fight" (when people yell at someone, it's the target's fault).
>It clearly sounds like he demands an apology for causing drama (i.e. getting mobbed and insulted). A person's behavior sounds irrelevant, with a presumption of fault for all attacks against them once they become a popular target.
This has never been the principle we've operated under in the past when dealing with other tropers who attracted greater-than-average amounts of negative attention (e.g. Tribune, Tongpu, DLC, Chagen), so I don't believe it can have been what Eddie meant in this instance, either. The issue, to my mind, is that your behaviour is at times causing you to become a popular target, or at least worsening matters.
>So do you understand why annoying him and promising to not cause drama in future by expressing dissent seem like the rational things to apologize for
Rational, maybe, but almost certainly not a good idea if you don't want to remain banned. It looks like you're blaming other people for their responses to your posts, rather than acknowledging that you were in the wrong due to your tone. Furthermore, it also carries the implication that the site staff are biased against your viewpoints. This is... er, quite possibly true, on a personal level, at least, but it's hardly the most tactful thing to say to Eddie, a self-described left-leaning libertarian wielding a ban hammer that can block you from viewing the site altogether, particularly not when Fighteer, blackcat and myself have already stressed that it is not your opinions which are the problem, but the manner in which you are expressing them.
Do you see where I'm coming from here? I'm just trying to help you out here, but I'm not sure you're even aware of the problem.
>other people for their responses
Hmm, isn't that sort of under the discretion of those reading...?
In Rotty's defense, imagine for a second that someone make regularly makes perfectly nice and not at all condescending or insulting remarks, but they ALWAYS cause an enormous shitstorm.
Wouldn't you want that person to be silent, even if they are completely within the rules? Of course, Rott isn't entirely innocent, but the fact remains that it's OTHER PEOPLE who somehow lose control of themselves and start whining because Rott says X, Y, or Z.
Rott didn't deliberately make threads about himself. Other people do that for him (which may very well be an *annoyance* to him, which he would like to do away with). I've seen this happen a good few times with other posters, including myself. What happens is he or some other poster wanders into a thread and disagrees with everyone, and as a result becomes one of the ONLY people representing a different viewpoint. Up until then it may have been people more or less agreeing, but he comes in and represent what might otherwise be a much more significant number of people.
It's not his different opinion that causes trouble, it's that he is basically doing the work of several debaters. He may post something that is contrary to everything else, and as a result everyone has something new to respond to. And lo a dozen people type up long responses to talk down Rott, and then he has to respond back with his fancy and super long post. When this occurs, you have to type like crazy to keep up the pace, and you often have to give up on answering all of the arguments. What's more, it's hard to keep up good form while doing this.
Hence why there is such difficulty. Most of us folk with different viewpoints just stay the hell away from certain debates. If I were more willing to jump into every religion debate, and willing to cease whitewashing myself and playing it neutral to maintain favor, I would be in much the same position as Rott. I find it tiring though, so I just sort of stick around and make comments that are disguised and prettied up so it looks like I'm playing devil's advocate or something, then I get the heck out of there.
Rott is willing to make noise though, and stays very honest about what's on his mind. I'm pretty sure that there will be a bit of wonder at my statement that I remain deliberately ambiguous about my exact beliefs, as many would rather just have me be honest instead of peaceful. However, I really grew weary of that whole "type up a 700 word essay to respond to all of the pissed off misotheists" thing. (Look! A vaguely condescending and insulting statement!)
I suspect that this statement will be greatly disliked by many; but I say nonetheless, if you get pissed off, then it's your own damned fault.
At the same time, though, the problem is not merely offending people, it's being offensive in a particular way, an insulting way.
Uh, BonSequitur, Karalora, rjung, Tomu, and even yours truly have been warned about such behavior. And we're all "orthodox" as far as an "internet hivemind of liberalism" can be concerned.
Khwarizmi > Eddie is not, and has never been, terribly appreciative of Internet memes
Another policy point where he and I differ.
Cygan > I believe the blame falls on the provoker in these situations, not the people who are provoked.
I believe my internet experience has seen both rules against trolling and rules against feeding trolls.
And yes, we do in fact have a bait thump tag for people who feed trolls.
Rjung... I thought he was basically an anti-Republican troll at one point, wasn't he? To his credit, he stopped when asked.
Tomu is orthodox hivemind?
For example, Tongpu might say something like "everyone would be better off dead", but in practice, this stems from a more basic and agreeable principal (reduce suffering), and leads to political beliefs which are acceptable to secular beliefs (abortion is OK, moral guardians are wrong, homosexuality is perfectly fine, etc).
Rott's views, however, stem from different principals and in practice lead to different things, which contrast very heavily with secular views.
And that's why Rott causes more rage than Tongpu&friends.
>implying Tongpu has friendsUh, I mean, you do have a point that for all Tongpu's cynicism and morbidity, he rarely advocates anything that's particularly offensive to the status quo, and when he does it's usually something so phenomenally outrageous that there's no risk of it ever happening.
On the other hand, Rottweiler was not banned solely because he upset people, but because he insulted them.
(I did say "in his defense")
When you have such an audience as Rott often does, you have to take responsibility for that, whether doing so is pleasant or not. As foolish as it may be, many impersonal sarcastic statements are taken as deeply serious and personal, so making such blanket statements is generally a bad idea.
Unfortunately, this means that you may have to fudge the beliefs you put forward, as if you genuinely believe something that insults people to the very core of their being, then you probably should just drop it and let them think you are the bee's knees, or else keep yourself a little more detached.
This can feel dishonest though, but it's better than causing a dozen angry posters to swarm you every time you post in a flame bait thread.
If Rott was in the majority, he might get away with that, but because he wishes to represent a certain viewpoint (alone), he is held to a somewhat higher standard. (I'd think that someone with principals like Rott would understand this form of responsibility, but apparently he doesn't.)