(OLD) Contest Unfair Infractions Here

[Lozjam]

Actually you did clearly break the rules, again as i'd said before, in the Stay clean sub section it states all sexual crap stays in the MD, clearly things have been lacking in that area.

For example, you calling myself someone who would make sexual advances against a minor <=== i won't apologize for that because to be blunt when i saw what you posted that's is indeed what went through my head, the shock that someone i had respected and fairly liked as an individual would say something like that. I don't think you are personally in any situation to go on about appropriateness in that regard.

What i will apologize for is misconstruing your first post, i did go back a read it and i am sorry for not seeing what you intended in that post.

And no i don't think i should've said it but it did need to be gotten across, i won't deny i wasn't angry, mainly dealing with someone who thinks no is right for doing something they should do and then has in the past gone against what the profess. I will admit my temper got the best of me.

The rules clearly forbids posts That are, sexually oriented vulgar, threatening, ect"
Sexual orientated posts are defined as something that is of an enduring pattern of romantic and sexual attraction. This was not a pattern, as it was one and done, nor did it show sexual nor romantic attraction. It was a joke, however in bad taste it may be(I will admit it myself, that it was pretty stupid. However, it was an extremely long day for me).

So in the technical sense. I did not break the rules, and that is what I want to discuss. With the supposed hoards of new members we will get when we merge, the rules will have to be looked at. The question is of banning or punishing someone else when they have done something that is socially unacceptable, but not again against the rules. We need to take a look at how these rules are worded, and what is acceptable and what isn't. I figured a person such as yourself would embrace such a change, but I am apparently wrong.

 

[Jirohnagi]

The rules clearly forbids posts That are, sexually oriented vulgar, threatening, ect"
Sexual orientated posts are defined as something that is of an enduring pattern of romantic and sexual attraction. This was not a pattern, as it was one and done, nor did it show sexual nor romantic attraction. It was a joke, however in bad taste it may be(I will admit it myself, that it was pretty stupid. However, it was an extremely long day for me).

So in the technical sense. I did not break the rules, and that is what I want to discuss. With the supposed hoards of new members we will get when we merge, the rules will have to be looked at. The question is of banning or punishing someone else when they have done something that is socially unacceptable, but not again against the rules. We need to take a look at how these rules are worded, and what is acceptable and what isn't. I figured a person such as yourself would embrace such a change, but I am apparently wrong.

I won't deny that change is difficult for me Loz and somethings i do find abhorrent (see above) but in this i do agree with you, i'm arguing at this point for no reason that i can see. I am glad you see what was wrong though.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

The rules clearly forbids posts That are, sexually oriented vulgar, threatening, ect"
Sexual orientated posts are defined as something that is of an enduring pattern of romantic and sexual attraction. This was not a pattern, as it was one and done, nor did it show sexual nor romantic attraction. It was a joke, however in bad taste it may be(I will admit it myself, that it was pretty stupid. However, it was an extremely long day for me).

So in the technical sense. I did not break the rules, and that is what I want to discuss. With the supposed hoards of new members we will get when we merge, the rules will have to be looked at. The question is of banning or punishing someone else when they have done something that is socially unacceptable, but not again against the rules. We need to take a look at how these rules are worded, and what is acceptable and what isn't. I figured a person such as yourself would embrace such a change, but I am apparently wrong.

Which is why you were only warned and not infracted. You don't need to break a rule to be warned, a warning just means "don't do that again". This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and this discussion never needed to even occur.

 

[Emma]

What i don't support is that you are full of crap in this matter, my point is you claim that myself and the others had no right to report the incident when they had no right to post the comment yet you yourself defended someone for their issue.

You are literally preaching hypocrisy, you are stating right here and now that we shouldn't be defending the mods decision nor should we have reported what you seem to think of as a "harmless" comment yet you were willing to defend someone over the exact same thing. Like i said in this matter out of everyone that was both there and involved you have the least right to do anything

For one last time, I was asked to support last time. And here I am defending the person in question from the unsolicited attacks being subjected by the rest of you. Shaming tactics are not going to change the validity of your argument. The comment is harmless because the target was not offended and it was clearly meant as a joke. That's the end of the story. Anything else is other people butting in their personal agendas. My involvement is a response to the rest of you comin in here on the attack seeking blood. That's it. Protecting someone from gang up bullying is very different from trying to tell someone what YOU think they should be offended about and asking for punishment even though the actual victim is against it.

You say we have no right to do this but then you dived on in here to state we had no right. Again it's you who just dived on in.

It's reason like this why people say they are fine with an issue because they don't want it to become a deal, just because the original person said they were fine with it doesn't mean others are.

If you saw someone being raped do you have a right to report it? Yes you do.

If you saw someone making comments to what amounts to a child and the child went along with it would you say or do anything to prevent it Matt?

That is literally what it boils down to here, you are saying that because we witnessed someone make lewd comments to child about banging them we shouldn't say anything even though that is called accessory to it?

These are all off topic hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the case. It is a very clear attempt to bait me to use that to say "see, now his argement means nothing." No matter how I answer any of those questions, you'd take some issue with it. If I answered your way, you'd accuse me of hypocrisy, if I answered the opposite, you'd call me a child hater who wants kids to be raped. Blatant emotional manipulation. If you want to talk about the evils of pedophillia so badly, make an MD thread. It's certainly not what this thread is for.

I'm not talking about a joke. You're ignoring me. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where someone ACTUALLY makes sexual advances on a 12 year old and they aren't offended by it. You're telling me "well, that's just their sex life." So where do we draw the line? What if they were 8 years old, still okay as long as they aren't offended by it? I'm pretty sure we'd universally agree that's emotionally manipulative.

Furthermore, even if you think it's totally okay to non-jokingly make sexual advances on an 8 year old, this still ISN'T A SEX SITE. It's a ZELDA site, and we have rules against that.

This isn't a hypothetical situation. It's a real situation where that didn't happen how you wanted it. If you want to talk hypoethicals, create an MD thread for it.

Seriously we need to stop derailing this thread with this irrelevant nonsense.

For one last time, I was asked to support last time. And here I am defending the person in question from the unsolicited attacks being subjected by the rest of you.

Which is why you were only warned and not infracted. You don't need to break a rule to be warned, a warning just means "don't do that again". This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and this discussion never needed to even occur.

Actually yes you do. It has to be an actual rule to get any kind of official statement from the staff. The times in the past where we didn't have that limitation, the staff abused it to create false offenses to target people they didn't like.

 

[Kirino]

@Lozjam: Except you did break the rules at they they were stated. By "sexually oriented," it doesn't mean of or relating to a sexual orientation (which makes no sense in the first place), it's referring to comments that are of a sexual nature (or orientation, which are synonyms in this case); poorly worded, perhaps, but the meaning is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension. Even if it didn't technically fit that definition, it's still falls under the category of vulgar, which doesn't necessarily have to involve explicit swear words. You clearly violated the rules, or at least could have been reasonably construed to have done so by a mod, so a warning was entirely justifiable and in order, especially since you could have reasonably been punished even more (which I say loosely, because you weren't ever punished in the first place) and since I hear this behavior is common to you. There's nothing to argue here.

 

[Lozjam]

I won't deny that change is difficult for me Loz and somethings i do find abhorrent (see above) but in this i do agree with you, i'm arguing at this point for no reason that i can see. I am glad you see what was wrong though.

Of course I see what was wrong. Mere posts after I regretted posting that specific message. I deserved a warning within the thread, and having some action taken verbally was the proper way to handle the situation. However, there was nothing I could do about it.

However, I think the extreme over-exaggeration was uncalled for. Socially unacceptable? Yes. Having multiple users calling someone such as myself a paedophile, that I need therapy, and that I should be severely punished and perhaps even banned due to a short stupid uncalled for joke despite not technically breaking the rules? No.

Which is why you were only warned and not infracted. You don't need to break a rule to be warned, a warning just means "don't do that again". This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and this discussion never needed to even occur.

I am not having this discussion for myself. I am having it for the future. A reformation of our rules persay, that clarifies something that is socially unacceptable, and against the rules.

@Lozjam: Except you did break the rules at they they were stated. By "sexually oriented," it doesn't mean of or relating to a sexual orientation (which makes absolutely no sense in the first place); it's referring to comments that are of a sexual nature (or orientation, which are synonyms in this case). Poorly worded, perhaps, but the meaning is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension. Even if it didn't technically fit that definition, it's still falls under the category of vulgar, which doesn't necessarily have to involve explicit swear words. You clearly violated the rules, or at least could have been reasonably construed to have done so by a mod, so a warning was entirely justifiable and in order, especially since you could have reasonably been punished even more (which I say loosely, because you weren't ever punished in the first place) and since I hear this behavior is common to you. There's nothing to argue here.

This behavior is common for me? This is news to me. The whole reason I got this warning was because this behavior is uncommon. I have no idea who you are talking to, however, nearly every person on this thread can testify that this behavior is not common of me in the slightest bit, and that yesterday was a huge misstep.

 

[Mipha]

Of course I see what was wrong. Mere posts after I regretted posting that specific message. I deserved a warning within the thread, and having some action taken verbally was the proper way to handle the situation. However, there was nothing I could do about it.

However, I think the extreme over-exaggeration was uncalled for. Socially unacceptable? Yes. Having multiple users calling someone such as myself a paedophile, that I need therapy, and that I should be severely punished and perhaps even banned due to a short stupid uncalled for joke despite not technically breaking the rules? No.


I am not having this discussion for myself. I am having it for the future. A reformation of our rules persay, that clarifies something that is socially unacceptable, and against the rules.

This behavior is common for me? This is news to me. The whole reason I got this warning was because this behavior is uncommon. I have no idea who you are talking to, however, nearly every person on this thread can testify that this behavior is not common of me in the slightest bit, and that yesterday was a huge misstep.

People in SB kept saying you commonly act like this. I think Kirino heard that and was basing the claim off of that.

 

[Jamie]

This behavior is common for me? This is news to me. The whole reason I got this warning was because this behavior is uncommon. I have no idea who you are talking to, however, nearly every person on this thread can testify that this behavior is not common of me in the slightest bit, and that yesterday was a huge misstep.

Come now, I like you, Lozjam, but you do make sexual comments a lot more than the average user.

 

[Jirohnagi]

Of course I see what was wrong. Mere posts after I regretted posting that specific message. I deserved a warning within the thread, and having some action taken verbally was the proper way to handle the situation. However, there was nothing I could do about it.

However, I think the extreme over-exaggeration was uncalled for. Socially unacceptable? Yes. Having multiple users calling someone such as myself a paedophile, that I need therapy, and that I should be severely punished and perhaps even banned due to a short stupid uncalled for joke despite not technically breaking the rules? No.


I am not having this discussion for myself. I am having it for the future. A reformation of our rules persay, that clarifies something that is socially unacceptable, and against the rules.

This behavior is common for me? This is news to me. The whole reason I got this warning was because this behavior is uncommon. I have no idea who you are talking to, however, nearly every person on this thread can testify that this behavior is not common of me in the slightest bit, and that yesterday was a huge misstep.

I wanna state this clearly, I am sorry for being a asshole towards you Loz, i based my assumption off one comment towards you, and from that i was being a jerk for no apparent reason to you.

Seriously sorry Loz, wasn't fair of me to say it.

 

[Lozjam]

Come now, I like you, Lozjam, but you do make sexual comments a lot more than the average user.

Sexual comments, or mere commentary?
There is a huge difference between the two, and you have even said that they are never taken seriously. It is merely commentary, no more so than Tristan talking about his own views of sex, or of Dan's bicuriosity. There has only been one time where I have actively offended someone. Of which when I found out that, I apologized and stopped said behavior. Is this something I should be punished for, is this something others should be punished for?

Oh and yes. Satire is a form of commentary.

 

[Jamie]

Sexual comments, or mere commentary?
There is a huge difference between the two, and you have even said that they are never taken seriously. It is merely commentary, no more so than Tristan talking about his own views of sex, or of Dan's bicuriosity. There has only been one time where I have actively offended someone. Of which when I found out that, I apologized and stopped said behavior. Is this something I should be punished for, is this something others should be punished for?

Oh and yes. Satire is a form of commentary.

I say you make a lot of sexual jokes, and often times (I know because I've been told by members), it bothers people. I don't think it's intentional at all, though.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

To be fair, sexual remarks and sexual commentary are different things and you do make the former fairly often.

 

[Emma]

People in SB kept saying you commonly act like this. I think Kirino heard that and was basing the claim off of that.

Yeah.... never, ever trust angry statements thrown out in the shoutbox in the middle of a controversy. People tend to... well to put it bluntly... lie about other people to make them seem worse than they are to get people to side against them. It's a common behavior a lot of people take part in in such situations. Emotions will be high and people will jump to conclusions about the smallest things or even simply lie about what has happened before. I have never seen this history myself. But what I have seen is people say there is a history of a problem every time there is a first time for a problem. Whenever someone says that, act with extreme skepticism.

 

[Mipha]

Yeah.... never, ever trust angry statements thrown out in the shoutbox in the middle of a controversy. People tend to... well to put it bluntly... lie about other people to make them seem worse than they are to get people to side against them. It's a common behavior a lot of people take part in in such situations. Emotions will be high and people will jump to conclusions about the smallest things or even simply lie about what has happened before. I have never seen this history myself. But what I have seen is people say there is a history of a problem every time there is a first time for a problem. Whenever someone says that, act with extreme skepticism.

Yeah, I don't believe it, I was just letting Lozjam know.

 

[Lozjam]

To be fair, sexual remarks and sexual commentary are different things and you do make the former fairly often.

I say you make a lot of sexual jokes, and often times (I know because I've been told by members), it bothers people. I don't think it's intentional at all, though.

I make a lot of posts fairly often. Period. I spend a lot of time posting here.

If you would look at my activity on a normal day, you will see that I spend most of my posts within the gaming sections of the forum. Making discussions, answering questions, pondering game design and the psychology behind games. I make a lot of posts here, so of course you will hear a fair few sexual jokes here, but they are minuscule compared to my normal posting activity.

Even so, is this a bad thing? Should there be a tally stating how many harmless sexual jokes a user posts per day? Should someone be banned or punished for making too many harmless sexual jokes or commentary? If so, than a poster such as Dan or would be banned. I think it's safe to say they shouldn't be banned nor punished. Something such as that should not be held against them regarding "repeated affairs". Going to far with my jokes rarely happens that moderators need to intervene and punish is certainly not a "common occurrence".