• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

(OLD) Contest Unfair Infractions Here

Status
Not open for further replies.

キラ

Yo!
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Location
Illinois
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.

I thouroughly analyzed it and I thouroughly analyzed this post too and my question is if you haven't even seen the blog in question, how would you know if his blog was disrespectful and intolerant or not?
 

Heroine of Time

Rest in peace, Paris Caper...
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Location
Whiterun
Gender
Take a guess.
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.
There are far better ways to express an opinion without resorting to mockery to do so. And I suppose if it's not his problem, that's why the mods needed to give out an infraction. You SHOULD care about another person's feelings, even on the internet, even if they disagree with you. If the mods allowed everyone to insult others without any repurcussions, ZD would not be nearly as nice of a community as it is now. It's perfectly understandable that at times people get offended for silly reasons, but in this case, from what I can tell, it definitely sounded like Kitsu was aiming the blog toward another member, which makes the person in question rather justified in being insulted.

I thouroughly analyzed it and I thouroughly analyzed this post too and my question is if you haven't even seen the blog in question, how would you know if his blog was disrespectful and intolerant or not?
The points that Thareous brought up can still be valid, even if the post was not seen. Are you saying that there is some kind of misunderstanding about the post? It has been said that the post's title was mimicking the other member's, and M107 had that quote of 43ForceGems' explanation about the situation. Is something in those accounts wrong?
 

Ronin

There you are! You monsters!
Forum Volunteer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Location
Alrest
I thouroughly analyzed it and I thouroughly analyzed this post too

You kept using "he" instead of "his blog", hence why I was unsure.

and my question is if you haven't even seen the blog in question, how would you know if his blog was disrespectful and intolerant or not?

http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47860&p=854822&viewfull=1#post854822

The disrespect comes from the part of "rather becoming a nazi than a Christian".

The intolerance comes from the act of posting an offensive blog without considering how the original poster would react; another way of saying inconsideration.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
The disrespect comes from the part of "rather becoming a nazi than a Christian".
This is an opinion about an opnion and is completely unreasonable to punish for it. If you are offended by an opinion.... too bad. People have a right to it. And an uncomfortable opinion cannot be considered an automatic attempt at insult.

The intolerance comes from the act of posting an offensive blog without considering how the original poster would react; another way of saying inconsideration.
Do you realize how absurd that is? You cannot expect someone to predict what everyone is going to think about something they say. It's an incredibly unfair expectation.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
As I thought, this thread has managed to become home to a single issue that will likely become the life and death of it. I haven't seen the blog in question, nor have I paid that much attention to some of the responses being given here, but I'll throw my thoughts in at this point.

Whether or not a matter is offensive isn't a problem. Offensive topics will be discussed at some points in a public forum and so it's only to be expected, even in places meant to be casual and fun like the blog section. The problem is the intent of the poster. If a member intends to offend another particular member or group of members rather than acting to encourage discussion or activity (of the positive kind of course), that's when actions have to and should be taken by the mods.

I don't know if that's the philosophy that was applied in this instance as that was a moderator descision. But there's a difference between discussing something offensive, and offensively discussing something. The act of making a blog post mimicking anothers of a religious tone to post anti-religious material is a clear attempt to single out a member and mock their thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes. Everyone is entitled to share that opinion should they want to. But you're not entitled to do that in a manner that is clearly intended to cause distress to others. That is just plain trolling.
 

キラ

Yo!
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Location
Illinois
There are far better ways to express an opinion without resorting to mockery to do so. And I suppose if it's not his problem, that's why the mods needed to give out an infraction. You SHOULD care about another person's feelings, even on the internet, even if they disagree with you. If the mods allowed everyone to insult others without any repurcussions, ZD would not be nearly as nice of a community as it is now. It's perfectly understandable that at times people get offended for silly reasons, but in this case, from what I can tell, it definitely sounded like Kitsu was aiming the blog toward another member, which makes the person in question rather justified in being insulted.


The points that Thareous brought up can still be valid, even if the post was not seen. Are you saying that there is some kind of misunderstanding about the post? It has been said that the post's title was mimicking the other member's, and M107 had that quote of 43ForceGems' explanation about the situation. Is something in those accounts wrong?

Why should I have to care about everyone's feelings? I could see it being wrong if he made an insult towards 43, but he did not. Are you saying that I shouldn't say that I'm an Atheist since it would hurt a Christian's feelings? That's not my problem. If their feelings are hurt, it isn't my fault.
The accounts aren't wrong but the way they're being portrayed as an insult is wrong. It's satire. A play-on-words of someone else's blog title to show their opposite view.

EDIT: I mean, of course I should care about people's feelings. But not to where I have to hide my own views so that their feelings aren't hurt. I don't want to come out as a selfish person or anything. Because, when I share my views, my intentions are far from trying to hurt someone's feelings. I care about many people a lot, including 43. He is an awesome dude. I don't want to get misunderstood. Of course, I care about people's feelings. I care about people's feelings a lot.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Gender
Timecube
As I thought, this thread has managed to become home to a single issue that will likely become the life and death of it. I haven't seen the blog in question, nor have I paid that much attention to some of the responses being given here, but I'll throw my thoughts in at this point.

Whether or not a matter is offensive isn't a problem. Offensive topics will be discussed at some points in a public forum and so it's only to be expected, even in places meant to be casual and fun like the blog section. The problem is the intent of the poster. If a member intends to offend another particular member or group of members rather than acting to encourage discussion or activity (of the positive kind of course), that's when actions have to and should be taken by the mods.

I don't know if that's the philosophy that was applied in this instance as that was a moderator descision. But there's a difference between discussing something offensive, and offensively discussing something. The act of making a blog post mimicking anothers of a religious tone to post anti-religious material is a clear attempt to single out a member and mock their thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes. Everyone is entitled to share that opinion should they want to. But you're not entitled to do that in a manner that is clearly intended to cause distress to others. That is just plain trolling.

You're going with the theme thus far; many here are assuming that because the blog criticized Christianity, it automatically equates an attack, or trolling as you put it. This is exclusive to religious topics. If the video was criticizing a band or something, no one would think twice. But because it criticized religion, it's automatically labeled trolling and an attack. This is devoid of logic and reason. It says that every action concerning religion -- in particular, Christian faith -- is by default an attack, which is simply not true. Again, if 43 had posted something about, say, a band he liked, and I posted a video criticizing that band or whatever, this wouldn't be an issue. It's because when it comes to religion, there's this absurd notion that you can never offend anyone or do anything that might possibly critique their faith.
 
As I thought, this thread has managed to become home to a single issue that will likely become the life and death of it. I haven't seen the blog in question, nor have I paid that much attention to some of the responses being given here, but I'll throw my thoughts in at this point.

Whether or not a matter is offensive isn't a problem. Offensive topics will be discussed at some points in a public forum and so it's only to be expected, even in places meant to be casual and fun like the blog section. The problem is the intent of the poster. If a member intends to offend another particular member or group of members rather than acting to encourage discussion or activity (of the positive kind of course), that's when actions have to and should be taken by the mods.

I don't know if that's the philosophy that was applied in this instance as that was a moderator descision. But there's a difference between discussing something offensive, and offensively discussing something. The act of making a blog post mimicking anothers of a religious tone to post anti-religious material is a clear attempt to single out a member and mock their thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes. Everyone is entitled to share that opinion should they want to. But you're not entitled to do that in a manner that is clearly intended to cause distress to others. That is just plain trolling.

I liked your post for its general applications, however, I don't believe it applies to this specific situation.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the people siding for and against Kitsu, it comes down to the lines drawn by the MD religious debates. Kitsu should not be on trial for his beliefs. This case is one big misunderstanding. As I said in the other thread about offending people, we should be more open about these situations and try to see them from the victim's point of view. Yes, Kitsu posted a response blog to the one 43 Gems posted, but was it truly trolling or was it a parody and when is the line between these two blurred?

Now I remember an incident from 2012 involving me, Monkeyfightsquad, and then admin Kybyrian. Basically, Wyatt posted an entry parodying blogs Monkeyfightsquad and I have posted about pepperoni and iPads, respectively (the entries are a little before his if you scroll through blog history). This annoyed me because I recall being warned about my iPad entry even though it's purpose was merely to poke fun of the company Apple for releasing annual versions of the same products with minor tweaks. Knowing this had happened, why did the admin at the time then post a blog entry of his own parodying my parody?

Although the subject matter at hand in this case is different, the situation is similar. Such blog entries are meant to be humorous and do not attack the character of the person whose blog they satire. If this is an issue, the moderators should create a separate infraction for it because as is, the blog entry in question is neither inappropriate use of blogs nor blatant trolling. Regardless, Kitsu would still be acquitted because the rule was incorporated ex post facto.
 

Heroine of Time

Rest in peace, Paris Caper...
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Location
Whiterun
Gender
Take a guess.
Why should I have to care about everyone's feelings? I could see it being wrong if he made an insult towards 43, but he did not. Are you saying that I shouldn't say that I'm an Atheist since it would hurt a Christian's feelings? That's not my problem. If their feelings are hurt, it isn't my fault.
The accounts aren't wrong but the way they're being portrayed as an insult is wrong. It's satire. A play-on-words of someone else's blog title to show their opposite view.

EDIT: I mean, of course I should care about people's feelings. But not to where I have to hide my own views so that their feelings aren't hurt. I don't want to come out as a selfish person or anything. Because, when I share my views, my intentions are far from trying to hurt someone's feelings. I care about many people a lot, including 43. He is an awesome dude. I don't want to get misunderstood. Of course, I care about people's feelings. I care about people's feelings a lot.
You seemed to have missed the point of my post.

I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're claiming I said. You can say your opinion all you want. It's usually when you direct it specifically toward another person that it's not good. You saying "I'm an atheist" is directed toward no one, so there's no issue with that. Kitsu was not punished for saying he was an atheist. If he did say that, and a person was offended, they would have no grounds on which they can claim it was an intentional insult. Here it was not merely expressing an opinion -- it was parodying another's post, thus giving that person the full right to complain about it. As Locke said, if it had come at another time, it would be fine. But here it was a thinly veiled attempt to mock the other person.

If he had posted an entirely separate blog about Christianity being stupid or whatever... Fine. It would upset people, certainly, but would it have really caused such an uproar? Even if he specifically quoted 43ForceGems and pointed out all the issues in the song. That would not have been nearly as insulting as this was. Here he's simply talking about... Nazis and... whatever else the parody song was about. This is showing a complete and utter lack of respect for the other person. He didn't even directly address him. And that's what's being punished.

Additionally, saying it's satire doesn't do much for your argument, in my opinion. Satire can be just as if not MORE hurtful.

To be fully clear: from my perspective, it is not WHAT Kitsu said that's the issue here, it's the WAY that he said it.

Maybe there are other instances of unfair punishment of atheists simple because they criticized religion. But I don't see that here.

You're going with the theme thus far; many here are assuming that because the blog criticized Christianity, it automatically equates an attack, or trolling as you put it. This is exclusive to religious topics. If the video was criticizing a band or something, no one would think twice. But because it criticized religion, it's automatically labeled trolling and an attack. This is devoid of logic and reason. It says that every action concerning religion -- in particular, Christian faith -- is by default an attack, which is simply not true. Again, if 43 had posted something about, say, a band he liked, and I posted a video criticizing that band or whatever, this wouldn't be an issue. It's because when it comes to religion, there's this absurd notion that you can never offend anyone or do anything that might possibly critique their faith.
I hear this every single time someone is punished while criticizing religion. Really, you can't use this excuse to justify every single mistake that you make. Even criticism -- no matter the subject -- can be hurtful and wrong if it gets out of hand. Haven't you ever heard of those teenagers who commit suicide because of criticism of their bodies? Maybe that's not the best analogy and a rather extreme one at that, but it still proves my point: mockery is rarely ever the best way to state an opinion. It's best to address it directly and, if possible, suggest improvements.

Also, how do you know that if you had been criticizing a band rather than religion, then you wouldn't have been punished? If it had been in the same mocking manner as this, and 43ForceGems had expressed the same attachment to the band as he did to his religion, then yes, I think you would have been punished still. If you simply made a video criticizing it in a respectful manner, then few people would have listened to 43ForceGems's complaints, because his reponse would have been an overreaction.

If you feel this way because Christians have gotten away with mocking atheism in a disrespectful manner like this and not been punished in the past, please being it up with a mod. I'm fully willing to defend you on that, because that's not fair.

You're not trying to say that as long as you're criticizing someone's opinions, you should be allowed to do whatever you want, are you? Since you seem to not agree with the mods' decision, where do you draw the line as a criticism being too much? Again, I think you're exaggerating when you say that this method labels EVERY criticism of Christianity as an attack. As I said before, you could have directly responded to 43ForceGems and pointed out everything you disliked in his song. Do you honestly believe you would have still received an infraction? And that's a real question, not lined with sarcasm; I'm genuinely curious if you think that.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Gender
Timecube
You seemed to have missed the point of my post.

I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're claiming I said. You can say your opinion all you want. It's usually when you direct it specifically toward another person that it's not good. You saying "I'm an atheist" is directed toward no one, so there's no issue with that. Kitsu was not punished for saying he was an atheist. If he did say that, and a person was offended, they would have no grounds on which they can claim it was an intentional insult. Here it was not merely expressing an opinion -- it was parodying another's post, thus giving that person the full right to complain about it. As Locke said, if it had come at another time, it would be fine. But here it was a thinly veiled attempt to mock the other person.

No, not an attempt to mock another person. The song criticizes religion in a satiric manner. I used a paraphrasing of 43's blog in order to further the satire, but intentionally did not mention 43 or anyone in particular, because... guess what? I wasn't targeting any one person.

If he had posted an entirely separate blog about Christianity being stupid or whatever... Fine. It would upset people, certainly, but would it have really caused such an uproar? Even if he specifically quoted 43ForceGems and pointed out all the issues in the song. That would not have been nearly as insulting as this was. Here he's simply talking about... Nazis and... whatever else the parody song was about. This is showing a complete and utter lack of respect for the other person. He didn't even directly address him. And that's what's being punished.

The parody song only mentioned the word Nazi once, toward the beginning. The song is a critique of religion, done in a humorous manner. It does not show a "complete and utter lack of respect for the other person", because I never mentioned or directed anything at the other person... as you yourself happened to notice!

The problem remains that many members here are 1) assuming they know exactly what happened and the consequences, largely because religion is involved, and 2) assuming what my intent was, when there is no evidence it was to mock or attack 43. I have clarified that it was not an attack several times, and explained it (including what's written in response to the quotes in this post), yet people are still insisting it was an attack. And again, as A Link In Time pointed out above, similar things have been done (as in the Kybyrian/Monkeyfightsqua case) and such a reaction was not had. It is because of the critique of religion that is involved.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
The problem remains that many members here are 1) assuming they know exactly what happened and the consequences, largely because religion is involved, and 2) assuming what my intent was, when there is no evidence it was to mock or attack 43. I have clarified that it was not an attack several times, and explained it (including what's written in response to the quotes in this post), yet people are still insisting it was an attack. And again, as A Link In Time pointed out above, similar things have been done (as in the Kybyrian/Monkeyfightsqua case) and such a reaction was not had. It is because of the critique of religion that is involved.

Despite the denials to the contrary, the continued insistence that it was an attack despite a completely and total lack of any proof that it is strongly indicates that this is a religiously motivated attempt at censorship. There is no proof of anything was wrong. The non-mods arguing for his punishment, other than 43 himself, were not eye-witnesses and are basing it entirely on their own presumptions and not actual evidence. Given the subject, the religious motivation is undeniable.
 

Heroine of Time

Rest in peace, Paris Caper...
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Location
Whiterun
Gender
Take a guess.
No, not an attempt to mock another person. The song criticizes religion in a satiric manner. I used a paraphrasing of 43's blog in order to further the satire, but intentionally did not mention 43 or anyone in particular, because... guess what? I wasn't targeting any one person.

The parody song only mentioned the word Nazi once, toward the beginning. The song is a critique of religion, done in a humorous manner. It does not show a "complete and utter lack of respect for the other person", because I never mentioned or directed anything at the other person... as you yourself happened to notice!

The problem remains that many members here are 1) assuming they know exactly what happened and the consequences, largely because religion is involved, and 2) assuming what my intent was, when there is no evidence it was to mock or attack 43. I have clarified that it was not an attack several times, and explained it (including what's written in response to the quotes in this post), yet people are still insisting it was an attack. And again, as A Link In Time pointed out above, similar things have been done (as in the Kybyrian/Monkeyfightsqua case) and such a reaction was not had. It is because of the critique of religion that is involved.
Again: timing.

Regardless as to what the intent was, it was mocking another person. You took the same song with a similar title as another person in a similar time frame and twisted the words. I understand that you didn't want to hurt the other person, but you seem to have made an honest mistake in the way you went about criticizing them. It's a lack respect because you were parodying 43ForceGems without even addressing him.

There must have been a reason that you happened to choose the exact same song that 43ForceGems posted about. Why not choose something else if it was not indirectly criticizing or mocking him? Please answer this. And while you're at it, answer the other questions that I posed earlier:

You're not trying to say that as long as you're criticizing someone's opinions, you should be allowed to do whatever you want, are you? Since you seem to not agree with the mods' decision, where do you draw the line as a criticism being too much? Again, I think you're exaggerating when you say that this method labels EVERY criticism of Christianity as an attack. As I said before, you could have directly responded to 43ForceGems and pointed out everything you disliked in his song. Do you honestly believe you would have still received an infraction? And that's a real question, not lined with sarcasm; I'm genuinely curious if you think that.

...And I apologize if at any time I seem to be assuming I know exactly what happened. Please correct me if I assume something incorrectly. I just know that the title was a parody and the song was a parody, and I feel that that's enough to justify what I'm trying to say.

I really should have never gotten involved in this. XD
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
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?
Are those other blogs also offensive towards the people whose blog titles are being referenced? If not, that's not a relevant comparison because the situations aren't the same.


You're going with the theme thus far; many here are assuming that because the blog criticized Christianity, it automatically equates an attack, or trolling as you put it. This is exclusive to religious topics. If the video was criticizing a band or something, no one would think twice. But because it criticized religion, it's automatically labeled trolling and an attack. This is devoid of logic and reason. It says that every action concerning religion -- in particular, Christian faith -- is by default an attack, which is simply not true. Again, if 43 had posted something about, say, a band he liked, and I posted a video criticizing that band or whatever, this wouldn't be an issue. It's because when it comes to religion, there's this absurd notion that you can never offend anyone or do anything that might possibly critique their faith.
Can't speak of the intent of the mod team but what I can speak of is the consistency of moderation -- which the current moderating team isn't really changing -- over the years I've been on this forum. Right around the time I was first made a mod (it was an issue both before and after I was appointed), you might remember a certain member who liked Black Eyed Peas, possibly too much. Forget their username actually. Might have been Zarom? I recall having to deal with them taking their obsession too far and basically shoving the back down other people's throats at a later date, but as I recall, for a while, incidents involving him primarily involved people flaming him for his like of the band or drastically insulting the band at him with the obvious and express interest of trolling or otherwise upsetting him... which wasn't tolerated, and both me and Mr. Mosley in particular were quite busy at times telling people to either be nice to him or block him, but certainly not flame him.

Point being: No, actually, in actual history of moderator actions on the forums, insults towards a band that were aimed at and insulting towards the person who likes them have not been tolerated either.

You posted a video which was insulting towards religion in general, which would have been fine by itself, but actively aimed it in satire at another member's blog. There's seriously zero way that wouldn't have been taken as aimed directly at the person you were parodying. If you didn't actually intend it offensively, you still wrote a post that can only be taken offensively; it was a gross error in tone and presentation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom