(OLD) Contest Unfair Infractions Here

[Justac00lguy]

so it's high time to lay down the law for blog entries.

Alit has spoken!

 

[(◕‿◕✿)]

Jokes are fine, even satire's fine. But not at the expense of another member. If you had made that blog at any other time, or given it a more original title, there wouldn't be a problem. But the way you framed it devalued 43's blog and 43 himself, whether you intended it to or not. We value all members and we want to encourage healthy communication. Your blog negated both those goals and I think it received an appropriate response.

It was satire, and it did not devalue 43 himself. The blog title was a play on his blog title. That's the way I framed it. As simple satire of a blog title.

Furthermore,

What 43 did is completely irrelevant to your case.

[ilquote=Locke]We value all members and we want to encourage healthy communication.[/ilquote] Then why do you say 43 yelling and cussing at me is irrelevant? 43 was hostile towards me in the shoutbox, and JuicieJ repeatedly called for banning me. That is not "healthy communication".

 

[Terminus]

I think this specific case can also be used to assess current blog policies in general. Right now it's pretty vague when a supposed joke blog should be considered trolling instead. Is it trolling when a specific person is mentioned in a parodying matter? There was a lot of dissent about this issue with the "Why is Dan Banned?" blog and the issue is popping up here again so it's high time to lay down the law for blog entries.

Rule one: Readable themes.

 

[Sydney]

I understand both sides here.

Kitsu, I never read your blog, but poking fun and/or copying another user's blog is not unheard of on the forums. In fact, it's pretty common. Most of the time we're just having fun, but not all members can see the fun in that. It could have been a simple misunderstanding, but that's not the case here, apparently. On the other hand, if Kitsu was making fun of Gem's religious beliefs, then we have a problem and the infraction is justified.

Also, what Gem did in the SB was not right. I've been SB banned before just because I've used profanity, and I don't always direct my profanity towards other users (unless I'm joking, of which you'll be able to tell; if there's a situation where I've used profanity directed towards you and you found it uncomfortable, please PM me). He should either receive a warning, SB ban, or an infraction, but that's for Mods to decide.

Two wrongs don't make a right, or at least that's what I believe.

 

[Locke]

[ilquote=Locke]We value all members and we want to encourage healthy communication.[/ilquote] Then why do you say 43 yelling and cussing at me is irrelevant? 43 was hostile towards me in the shoutbox, and JuicieJ repeatedly called for banning me. That is not "healthy communication".

You're right, it's not, and it has been dealt with accordingly, separately from your case. Retaliation doesn't justify your actions, in the same way that instigation doesn't justify retaliation. They're two separate behaviors that must be judged in regard to how they affect the community, not just each other.

 

[Emma]

You're right, it's not, and it has been dealt with accordingly, separately from your case. Retaliation doesn't justify your actions, in the same way that instigation doesn't justify retaliation. They're two separate behaviors that must be judged in regard to how they affect the community, not just each other.

But if the issue is religious it apparently justifies mod retaliation.

I see I'm going to have to say this publicly since you're refusing to listen. I still cannot believe how many times we have to go over this and it still isn't being understood. YOU CANNOT BE PUNISHING PEOPLE FOR OFFENDING SOMEONE ELSE. Someone is offended by something.... so what? Religious views really offend me. I don't go around demanding they all be punished for hurting my feelings. Anything can be offensive to someone else. This is not a logical or sane path to go down. It causes huge problems and doesn't fix anything. It only encourages people to get very angry if someone offends them and retaliate if they do so. And no, dealing with it separately doesn't undo the damage of punishing for offending someone.

 

[Locke]

I see I'm going to have to say this publicly since you're refusing to listen.

Please consider that there's a difference between not listening and not doing what you want me to do. I think that confusion has contributed a lot to the assumptions that mods ignore people.

I still cannot believe how many times we have to go over this and it still isn't being understood. YOU CANNOT BE PUNISHING PEOPLE FOR OFFENDING SOMEONE ELSE. Someone is offended by something.... so what? Religious views really offend me. I don't go around demanding they all be punished for hurting my feelings. Anything can be offensive to someone else. This is not a logical or sane path to go down. It causes huge problems and doesn't fix anything. It only encourages people to get very angry if someone offends them and retaliate if they do so.

I was personally offended by the video in the blog (I didn't even want to watch it, I looked up lyrics instead). It wasn't removed because I was offended by it. That's my issue, not Kitsu's. It was removed because it was an affront to another member's blog. There's a difference between "I am offended by ___" and "___ is offensive toward me." The first describes the state of mind of the person being offended, and no one is at fault. The second describes the nature of the offensive material as being directed at an individual. I know Kitsu wasn't specifically "aiming" it at 43, but it was pointed in his direction which produces the same results.

I have no problem with offensive views and opinions. If I did, MD wouldn't exist. The line is drawn when there's a target involved and that target is a member of this forum.

Again, if Kitsu had posted that blog at a different time with a different title, this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Emma]

I was personally offended by the video in the blog (I didn't even want to watch it, I looked up lyrics instead). It wasn't removed because I was offended by it. That's my issue, not Kitsu's. It was removed because it was an affront to another member's blog. There's a difference between "I am offended by ___" and "___ is offensive toward me." The first describes the state of mind of the person being offended, and no one is at fault. The second describes the nature of the offensive material as being directed at an individual. I know Kitsu wasn't specifically "aiming" it at 43, but it was pointed in his direction which produces the same results.

Who is being offended is irrelevant. If the mod was offended and removed it because of that offense, they'd be acting on their own. If another user is offended and complains about it and then a mod removes it because of that, whether or not they were personally offended, it is still being removed because someone felt offended. In this case, by proxy. It might not have been in the best taste. But you cannot prove intent simply by the timing and title. The intentions could have been entirely innocent. Such as: "hey, they're expressing their beliefs, I want to do that too." And using a spoofed title in their own is not a big deal and in of itself cannot be used to construe ill intent.

 

[キラ]

You know, if people get offended, that is their problem. People have the right to express their beliefs. I agree with Matt.

 

[Locke]

Who is being offended is irrelevant. If the mod was offended and removed it because of that offense, they'd be acting on their own. If another user is offended and complains about it and then a mod removes it because of that, whether or not they were personally offended, it is still being removed because someone felt offended. In this case, by proxy.

What I'm trying to say is that it wasn't removed because someone felt offended.

It might not have been in the best taste. But you cannot prove intent simply by the timing and title. The intentions could have been entirely innocent. Such as: "hey, they're expressing their beliefs, I want to do that too." And using a spoofed title in their own is not a big deal and in of itself cannot be used to construe ill intent.

As I said, I understand that Kitsu didn't mean any offense.

 

[キラ]

What I'm trying to say is that it wasn't removed because someone felt offended.

As I said, I understand that Kitsu didn't mean any offense.

Why was it removed?

 

[Ronin]

Who is being offended is irrelevant.

You're right; in Kitsu's case--the one that is currently being argued--it's clearly the offender who was at fault. And no, they aren't in the wrong because the offended ["naturally"] found their actions offensive, but because the offender's post was disrespectful and intolerant. Satire or not, there's a reason that rules are in place for situations like this, which calls for everyone to be considerate of another person's beliefs and not post things that seemingly undermine them. Kitsu reported that he received a third degree infraction for flaming/insulting, which is an appropriate ramification considering that his blog post did anything but treat the offended equally. The difference between somebody being offended and somebody being offensive is that the offender is automatically culpable for insulting actions which do not represent parity. Thusly the mod's response was sufficient and not overreaching.

 

[(◕‿◕✿)]

What I'm trying to say is that it wasn't removed because someone felt offended.

So, it was removed solely because the title was a play on another members blog? If that's the case... that's even worse, because that is a very common theme on these forums. People do that all the time. Look back through the blog section; you'll see lots of joke blogs similar to mine that are plays on other member's blogs, and yet none of those were removed. So then Ghost's question is valid: Why was it removed, then?

 

[キラ]

You're right; in Kitsu's case--the one that is currently being argued--it's clearly the offender who was at fault. And no, they aren't in the wrong because the offended ["naturally"] found their actions offensive, but because the offender's post was disrespectful and intolerant. Satire or not, there's a reason that rules are in place for situations like this, which calls for everyone to be considerate of another person's beliefs and not post things that seemingly undermine them. Kitsu reported that he received a third degree infraction for flaming/insulting, which is an appropriate ramification considering that his blog post did anything but treat the offended equally. The difference between somebody being offended and somebody being offensive is that the offender is automatically culpable for insulting actions which do not represent parity. Thusly the mod's response was sufficient and not overreaching.

He was not being disrespectful nor intolerant, he was speaking his mind. Does he not have the right to do so? He wasn't undermining anyone's beliefs, just stating his own with a bit of satire. If YOU were offended, that's not his problem.

 

[Ronin]

He was not being disrespectful nor intolerant, he was speaking his mind. Does he not have the right to do so? He wasn't undermining anyone's beliefs, just stating his own with a bit of satire. If YOU were offended, that's not his problem.

My response was not directed at Kitsu; that would be an ad hominem. Firstly, I clearly stated that his blog post was disrespectful and intolerant, which in no way reflects Kitsu's intentions, but rather the nature of his post. Secondly, I was making an extension of the rules and tied his post in as an analogy, hence the inclusion of "seemingly". And thirdly, I haven't even seen the blog post in question so there's no reason for me to be "offended"; the only information I have is what M107 posted on the first page, and that's enough to determine the offensive nature of the blog.

Ghost, I respect you for sticking up for him, but whenever you quote another response, thoroughly analyze its context before reciprocating. If you don't, then there will be misunderstandings, followed by accusations, followed by an unnecessary argument, and so forth... Just be mindful of that.