If you are disregarding the content of the message, then you have nothing but the title to use to say it was an attack. You cannot have it both ways. Either it was an attack because the video was anti-religious, or it was not an attack at all. If you insist that being anti-religious was not the issue, then there cannot be an infraction.
(OLD) Contest Unfair Infractions Here
- Thread starter Emma
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
43 and JuicieJ didn't give you an infraction. To the contrary, Locke confirmed not only that 43's beef with you had nothing to do with the mod action regarding your blog, but that he was dealt with as well:
Someone else breaking the rules in response to your blog has nothing to do with whether or not the blog itself is against the rules; it is not relevant here. Similarly, whether or not the blog's subject pertained to religion has nothing to do with whether or not the blog itself is against the rules; it is also not relevant. You keep bringing these issues up but they have nothing whatsoever to do with why you were infracted or why the infraction has stuck. Locke has said this multiple times.
It being anti-religious has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it was an attack at all, and no one except you and Kitsu have claimed otherwise.
This reminds me of a situation nearly two years ago in which Matt was banned for posting a certain picture in the "Atheists of Zelda Dungeon" Group. A moderator then deleted this group and banned Matt. When Mases was informed of this decision, however, Matt was immediately unbanned.
The current situation is similar except a blog is in question instead of a group. If there was an issue, then the blog could have been removed at a moderator's request, but there was no need to go farther.
The current situation is similar except a blog is in question instead of a group. If there was an issue, then the blog could have been removed at a moderator's request, but there was no need to go farther.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
This is constantly repeated regarding issues like this, but Matt was banned regarding repeat issues with him around that time, only the last of which was him posting the offensive image in a blog. And it also wasn't determined that this wasn't the appropriate action to take, either; a compromise was reached because of extraneous circumstances which aren't relevant here.
Members shouldn't be immediately forgiven for posting rude posts just because they're blogs; blogs are places on the board just like any other and they should be moderated like any other. There's no real reason for this to be considered some kind of edge case with a special ruling.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Gender
- Timecube
That was not my point. You said no one was taking issue with my statements, and that was completely untrue.
What are you even on about? The ONLY reason this is an issue is because the blog was seen as an attack because it criticized religion. No amount of denying it is going to change that fact.
Nice Axle, blatantly lying. Nice.
There was never a warning about that blog issue. There were zero complaints about it that were brought to my attention. It was just done one day without any warning. Without any attempt to discuss it beforehand. And there was never a compromise. you guys were entirely overruled.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
*No one who matters in this discussion, then.
That's not why it was seen as an attack: It was seen as one because it was a criticism of religion aimed at, and in parody of, 43. That's been stated multiple times by Locke himself, so your statement about denial is more applicable to you than me.
I never even had any involvement with this apart from agreeing with Austin and... I think Xinnamin? ...at the time, but you were told you could make the group if you didn't post offensive things in it, and then you guys posted blatantly insulting images that attacked religion. This was deemed not cool and, in lieu of previous issues with you, you were banned. If one of them failed to communicate with you about it to tell you why, then that's an issue, but it has nothing to do with whether the action was justified or not and it is what happened.
Normally I wouldn't share something like this, but...
I nearly got demoted from knighthood for mocking Terminus in what I believe was a harmless fashion. I thought that I knew Terminus well enough at the time that he'd understand the jocular context—heck, I'd have been fine with him jokingly mocking me in retaliation (lol). But apparently, according to the mod who brought the issue up in a thread, Terminus was greatly offended. I am not absolutely certain of the degree to which he was offended, or if he was offended at all; all I have is the mod's word on the issue (which said mod received via PM and personal analysis), and that's kind of the problem here.
You seem to be looking at this from the two parties' perspective (which isn't wrong), when you should also be taking into account the mod's perspective as well (granted, it'd be a lot if easier if we knew who this particular mod was...). The mods have it rough. With everyone complaining and such, it's hard to satisfy everyone without another member feeling as if they're being ignored or attacked or whatever. They can't win. They want what's best for both parties (members A and
, but it's impossible when member A feels satisfied with a mod's judgment or vindicated at the expense of member B feeling wronged. This appears to be worsened by the comedy of errors that seems to derive from the issue of whether or not something's offensive. And when the mod's actions fail to go someone's way, attribution error sets in, and it appears that the mod team is just bad at their job. I swear, I've been a mod on two sites before, but I'd never do it again. Kudos to the mods for being able to endure this day in and day out...
I nearly got demoted from knighthood for mocking Terminus in what I believe was a harmless fashion. I thought that I knew Terminus well enough at the time that he'd understand the jocular context—heck, I'd have been fine with him jokingly mocking me in retaliation (lol). But apparently, according to the mod who brought the issue up in a thread, Terminus was greatly offended. I am not absolutely certain of the degree to which he was offended, or if he was offended at all; all I have is the mod's word on the issue (which said mod received via PM and personal analysis), and that's kind of the problem here.
You seem to be looking at this from the two parties' perspective (which isn't wrong), when you should also be taking into account the mod's perspective as well (granted, it'd be a lot if easier if we knew who this particular mod was...). The mods have it rough. With everyone complaining and such, it's hard to satisfy everyone without another member feeling as if they're being ignored or attacked or whatever. They can't win. They want what's best for both parties (members A and
, but it's impossible when member A feels satisfied with a mod's judgment or vindicated at the expense of member B feeling wronged. This appears to be worsened by the comedy of errors that seems to derive from the issue of whether or not something's offensive. And when the mod's actions fail to go someone's way, attribution error sets in, and it appears that the mod team is just bad at their job. I swear, I've been a mod on two sites before, but I'd never do it again. Kudos to the mods for being able to endure this day in and day out...I was not. I was never told any such thing.
Will you stop repeating that lie? There were no previous issues with me! The ONLY thing on my record, before then, was a signature violation that happened when I wasn't active on the site at all.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
As I said, them failing to message you about it has nothing to do with whether or not it was their reason. I disagreed immensely with countless things Austin and Xinnamin did while moderators and admins, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did fail to do it, but that is what I recall from the discussion in the mod chat at the time.
It's not a lie; I was the one who talked to you about most of the issues personally. There was a period of time where you made unnecessarily inflammatory posts in the Mature Discussion and I did talk to you about them. I don't recall if you were ever directly infracted for many of them -- I know you were for at least one, but it might have only been a warning -- but that's the reality of it. You did stop doing this for the most part after Mases unbanned you so I assume whatever he said to you about the whole thing handled the issue. You haven't really had as bad of tone issues since then from what I've seen.
Anyway, we're getting off-topic here.
Not being communicated with on a supposed problem at all makes it incredibly unfair. I was entirely unaware there was an issue. No one had ever complained to me about them.
No, you did not. I talked to you. About issues like this, on Skype, not on ZD. About YOU, personally being unfair. You got mad, understandably. We argued. We got angry at each other. That was the "issues" you're remembering. I started out being as polite as I could, constantly telling you, for a long while in the beginning, that I valued your friendship and hoped to resolve our issues amicably. And, well we did not agree, suffice to say. There was never a formal issue with my MD posts before this incident. No formal warnings. No infractions. Our issues are our issues. They were personal and took place between us on Skype, off-site and have no relevance here.
No, I wasn't. Any mod can look right now and confirm. I have never gotten any warning. I have two, and only two infractions. One was this one. And the other was a zero-point sig rule violation that I never understood. I presume it was too big, but as I said I was not active much in 2009.
I haven't tried to do it because I fully expected to be censored and attacked again if I tried.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
Some of our conversations went that way, but not most of the earliest ones. You're misremembering. That's really all I can say. If you feel you're not, fine.
Anyway I'm done discussing this. We're way off-topic and this isn't the place to discuss this in the first place. Don't want to make the thread any more convoluted for the mods and Locke than it already is. xP
This is something I touched on in the other thread, and I'll elaborate on it here.
Do we want to positively or negatively reinforce the community? In other rewards, should we reward members or punish them? Over the past few months, something I and a few others have been trying to push for in the Event Staff chat is the revival of competitions and addition of new events to allow people to display their talents and fell good about their accomplishments. This is how we can bring the community together.
Punishment should only be used as a last resort. Yes, I recognize its benefits. A degree of authority has to be maintained for the forum staff to serve a purpose, but the decision to warn or infract should only be used as a last resort because these punishments are permanent additions to a member's infraction tab. Jumping the gun only leads to fear and frustration. You'd be surprised to see how often members manage to resolve issues on their own. When that doesn't work out, a moderator should arrange a conversation between the two disputing party. Only if that fails, should warnings or infractions be considered. Infractions are especially serious offenses currently because they now last nine months so the decision to use them has to be weighed appropriately. The moderators and administrators are the ultimate authority, but when great power is wielded, it needs to be used cautiously.
Do we want to positively or negatively reinforce the community? In other rewards, should we reward members or punish them? Over the past few months, something I and a few others have been trying to push for in the Event Staff chat is the revival of competitions and addition of new events to allow people to display their talents and fell good about their accomplishments. This is how we can bring the community together.
Punishment should only be used as a last resort. Yes, I recognize its benefits. A degree of authority has to be maintained for the forum staff to serve a purpose, but the decision to warn or infract should only be used as a last resort because these punishments are permanent additions to a member's infraction tab. Jumping the gun only leads to fear and frustration. You'd be surprised to see how often members manage to resolve issues on their own. When that doesn't work out, a moderator should arrange a conversation between the two disputing party. Only if that fails, should warnings or infractions be considered. Infractions are especially serious offenses currently because they now last nine months so the decision to use them has to be weighed appropriately. The moderators and administrators are the ultimate authority, but when great power is wielded, it needs to be used cautiously.
MonsterMMORPG
Indie Game Developer
ok so i want to ask it here
i got a warning because i mentioned the word "hell" while discussing religion in the mature section
this is the sentence i have written
although i got 3rd degree warning, now i feel mobbing and afraid of expressing my opinions
if we are not going to mention hell, after life while discussing religion
how can we discuss ? how can we discuss without consequences ?
i got a warning because i mentioned the word "hell" while discussing religion in the mature section
this is the sentence i have written
well it is all your choice to take risk of burning in hell forever
although i got 3rd degree warning, now i feel mobbing and afraid of expressing my opinions
if we are not going to mention hell, after life while discussing religion
how can we discuss ? how can we discuss without consequences ?
ok so i want to ask it here
i got a warning because i mentioned the word "hell" while discussing religion in the mature section
this is the sentence i have written
well it is all your choice to take risk of burning in hell forever
although i got 3rd degree warning, now i feel mobbed and afraid of expressing my opinions
There is a difference between calmly expressing your opinion and saying someone deserves to suffer for all eternity. The passive-aggressive "
" doesn't help, either.- Status