(04-30-2015, 02:22 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

(04-30-2015, 06:34 PM)C Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 02:22 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

Nat, did you know that people have managed to have discussions - complete with dissension and conflict - without falling back on petty insults and the like? There are examples stretching waaaaaaaay back in history!

I understand what you're trying to do. You're worried that you'll fail to consider the words you write, and you'll get shut out of this community. But you're going about it all wrong. Dissension is good. On that you and I (and pretty much everyone here) can agree. Conflict is fine. This discussion we're having right now? It's got dissension and conflict. Notice how neither of us has had to resort to insulting one another?

This is not a black and white issue, where there is one side that is filled with free-spirited people tossing around insults in the spirit of free speech and another side filled with 1984-esque thought police. Trying to cast it as such is simply ludicrous.

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

(04-30-2015, 06:34 PM)Ckayah Polaali Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 02:22 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

Nat, did you know that people have managed to have discussions - complete with dissension and conflict - without falling back on petty insults and the like? There are examples stretching waaaaaaaay back in history!

I understand what you're trying to do. You're worried that you'll fail to consider the words you write, and you'll get shut out of this community. But you're going about it all wrong. Dissension is good. On that you and I (and pretty much everyone here) can agree. Conflict is fine. This discussion we're having right now? It's got dissension and conflict. Notice how neither of us has had to resort to insulting one another?

This is not a black and white issue, where there is one side that is filled with free-spirited people tossing around insults in the spirit of free speech and another side filled with 1984-esque thought police. Trying to cast it as such is simply ludicrous.

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

(04-30-2015, 06:51 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 06:34 PM)C Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 02:22 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

Nat, did you know that people have managed to have discussions - complete with dissension and conflict - without falling back on petty insults and the like? There are examples stretching waaaaaaaay back in history!

I understand what you're trying to do. You're worried that you'll fail to consider the words you write, and you'll get shut out of this community. But you're going about it all wrong. Dissension is good. On that you and I (and pretty much everyone here) can agree. Conflict is fine. This discussion we're having right now? It's got dissension and conflict. Notice how neither of us has had to resort to insulting one another?

This is not a black and white issue, where there is one side that is filled with free-spirited people tossing around insults in the spirit of free speech and another side filled with 1984-esque thought police. Trying to cast it as such is simply ludicrous.

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

I understand your viewpoint, and I don't agree with it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

Is that insult? Or just a disagreement? It could be taken either way, depending on how the reader views it.

I personally would take a statement like that as just disagreement.

Anyway it doesn't matter as I'm board with the rules now, I'm sure I'll break them from time to time still, but I don't forsee myself doing it often enough to be permabanned.

(04-30-2015, 07:11 PM)Edda Wrote: I fully agree with Natalie. Especially on a site filled with RPers that tend to be hugboxing carebears, even polite dissension can be interpreted as an insult by the highly sensitive. While I do not disagree with the rules, I have hope that our moderators will not hastily perceive harsh disagreement as intentional nastiness.

(04-30-2015, 07:00 PM)Foxberry Wrote:

Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

That's not an insult. But I'm coming from this as an artist. To critique something is not the same as insulting a person. It's say what you want about the work but don't insult the person.

Ie; saying "that is stupid because..." is different than "you are stupid."

(04-30-2015, 06:34 PM)Ckayah Polaali Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 02:22 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

Nat, did you know that people have managed to have discussions - complete with dissension and conflict - without falling back on petty insults and the like? There are examples stretching waaaaaaaay back in history!

I understand what you're trying to do. You're worried that you'll fail to consider the words you write, and you'll get shut out of this community. But you're going about it all wrong. Dissension is good. On that you and I (and pretty much everyone here) can agree. Conflict is fine. This discussion we're having right now? It's got dissension and conflict. Notice how neither of us has had to resort to insulting one another?

This is not a black and white issue, where there is one side that is filled with free-spirited people tossing around insults in the spirit of free speech and another side filled with 1984-esque thought police. Trying to cast it as such is simply ludicrous.

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

(04-30-2015, 07:31 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 07:00 PM)Foxberry Wrote:

Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

That's not an insult. But I'm coming from this as an artist. To critique something is not the same as insulting a person. It's say what you want about the work but don't insult the person.

Ie; saying "that is stupid because..." is different than "you are stupid."

This is actually a great example of something that would not, I repeat not, get a warning. You can call an argument stupid and explain why you think so. I'm not a fan of that phrasing, but it doesn't rise to the level of being actionable. What you can't do is say that it's stupid because the person making it role-plays something you don't like or because the poster is stupid.

With that said, let's look at another example. Calling a group of people "hugboxing carebears" as a means of dismissing an argument or concern is, in fact, the sort of thing that will get a warning. That's obviously intended to provoke, it doesn't add to the discourse, and it doesn't support any point. You could easily make the exact same point without doing that.

(04-30-2015, 08:21 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 07:31 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote:

(04-30-2015, 07:00 PM)Foxberry Wrote:

Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

That's not an insult. But I'm coming from this as an artist. To critique something is not the same as insulting a person. It's say what you want about the work but don't insult the person.

Ie; saying "that is stupid because..." is different than "you are stupid."

This is actually a great example of something that would not, I repeat not, get a warning. You can call an argument stupid and explain why you think so. I'm not a fan of that phrasing, but it doesn't rise to the level of being actionable. What you can't do is say that it's stupid because the person making it role-plays something you don't like or because the poster is stupid.

With that said, let's look at another example. Calling a group of people "hugboxing carebears" as a means of dismissing an argument or concern is, in fact, the sort of thing that will get a warning. That's obviously intended to provoke, it doesn't add to the discourse, and it doesn't support any point. You could easily make the exact same point without doing that.

What if it is true though.

(04-30-2015, 07:44 PM)K'nahli Wrote: If you're being blunt and perhaps inconsiderate then you likely won't get an official warning.
If you're being rude and perhaps offensive then you likely will get an official warning.

If you're being blunt and inconsiderate on a regular basis, then you run the risk of earning an official warning on the basis that you're being consistently antagonistic and seemingly not learning when to back off from certain topic(s).


We all understand that some people are more lenient toward being brash and don't like sugar-coating their words. So long as it's not outright rude then you almost certainly won't be punished for such behaviour. If you fail to tone it down a bit or back out of a topic when it's clear that you're beginning to offend people rather than simply disagree with them, then you are venturing into punishable territory.