Hydaelyn Role-Players

(04-30-2015, 09:14 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather have dissenting viewpoints in the clear, where they can be discussed. Even if they may be inflammatory rather than have them be snooty and censored. The anger will still be there either way, and people will just get more and more passive aggressive.

Problem is that they weren't in the clear before either. Response to ANY argument on this forum? Passive-aggressive snipe involving videos, gifs and memes. At best the policy forces people to use words instead. If you think something is stupid, you're welcome to think it and express it.

Also, why do you feel the need to warn about the inflammatory content? Why is it necessary? Seriously I do not get that point at all. Just yolo post, edit it out if you realize that's not what you wanted to say upon reread. Like I just did.

(04-30-2015, 09:24 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2015, 09:14 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather have dissenting viewpoints in the clear, where they can be discussed. Even if they may be inflammatory rather than have them be snooty and censored. The anger will still be there either way, and people will just get more and more passive aggressive.

Problem is that they weren't in the clear before either. I also don't think anyone's getting censored anytime soon.

Also, why do you feel the need to warn about the inflammatory content? Why is it necessary? Seriously I do not get that point at all. Just yolo post, edit it out if you realize that's not what you wanted to say upon reread. Like I just did.

Because editing posts is also punishable <_<

(04-30-2015, 09:21 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, this exactly. I feel like it discourages people from voicing open disagreement, and instead rewards users for being passive aggressive and veiled.

I don't think the mods are going to try to push things heavily of thought policing, I think they're trying to find a balance. But it does take some part from us as well as stopping briefly and just considering what we do post.

Open disagreement is fine but being a person like Mr. Creepy that I mentioned before is problematic.

(04-30-2015, 09:21 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2015, 09:18 PM)Foxberry Wrote: [ -> ]Again it comes down to critique vs. Things like passive agressiveness which have been concerning lately. This comes in all forms, it can be out right smarmy comments directed at a person or using the sensitivity card in an abusive manner.

Critique is being welcomed by the mods, it's been even stated that debates are good. But it does become problematic when it is the "teehee I don't like your point but I'm going to smile daggers and jab at you" like Kellach has said.

I think that the mods are going to try very hard not to thought police but people have to try to meet part ways.

Yes, this exactly. I feel like it discourages people from voicing open disagreement, and instead rewards users for being passive aggressive and veiled.

Except it doesn't.

No one is stopping open disagreement. As long as it is constructive and not a personal attack... as has been stated many times already in this thread.

(04-30-2015, 09:25 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2015, 09:24 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2015, 09:14 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather have dissenting viewpoints in the clear, where they can be discussed. Even if they may be inflammatory rather than have them be snooty and censored. The anger will still be there either way, and people will just get more and more passive aggressive.

Problem is that they weren't in the clear before either. I also don't think anyone's getting censored anytime soon.

Also, why do you feel the need to warn about the inflammatory content? Why is it necessary? Seriously I do not get that point at all. Just yolo post, edit it out if you realize that's not what you wanted to say upon reread. Like I just did.

Because editing posts is also punishable <_<

Freelance stated that it isn't editing in general... but editing to try and claim you never said something, to try and somehow leverage an advantage in an argument/discussion.

(04-30-2015, 09:27 PM)Nakoli Chalahko Wrote: [ -> ]Freelance stated that it isn't editing in general... but editing to try and claim you never said something, to try and somehow leverage an advantage in an argument/discussion.

yeah.... if that were the case I'd be so banNed as of today... so many edits due to mobile.

(04-30-2015, 09:26 PM)Nakoli Chalahko Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2015, 09:21 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2015, 09:18 PM)Foxberry Wrote: [ -> ]Again it comes down to critique vs. Things like passive agressiveness which have been concerning lately. This comes in all forms, it can be out right smarmy comments directed at a person or using the sensitivity card in an abusive manner.

Critique is being welcomed by the mods, it's been even stated that debates are good. But it does become problematic when it is the "teehee I don't like your point but I'm going to smile daggers and jab at you" like Kellach has said.

I think that the mods are going to try very hard not to thought police but people have to try to meet part ways.

Yes, this exactly. I feel like it discourages people from voicing open disagreement, and instead rewards users for being passive aggressive and veiled.

Except it doesn't.

No one is stopping open disagreement. As long as it is constructive and not a personal attack... as has been stated many times already in this thread.

I don't believe he has said that. What he has said that if you make a point, and it's offensive, and you continue to make it, you can be punished. A fact which is irrespective of the quality and pertinence of the point.

If that is indeed the case, then that's fine.

(04-30-2015, 09:25 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]Because editing posts is also punishable <_<

5-0 CAN'T GET ME TOO RAW FOR THE RPC.

But they've also mentioned that editing posts shortly after you post them is fine because that's regular edit behavior. What they don't want is systematic erasing of posting behavior to claim that the posts weren't inflammatory.

E.G : I edit out the entirety of my posting to remove the word fuck so I can't get blasted for excessive swearing, even if that's not really a policy, in order to look better in order to contest a warning.

That is the kinda thing that will be flagged.

(04-30-2015, 09:29 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2015, 09:26 PM)Nako Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2015, 09:21 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-30-2015, 09:18 PM)Foxberry Wrote: [ -> ]Again it comes down to critique vs. Things like passive agressiveness which have been concerning lately. This comes in all forms, it can be out right smarmy comments directed at a person or using the sensitivity card in an abusive manner.

Critique is being welcomed by the mods, it's been even stated that debates are good. But it does become problematic when it is the "teehee I don't like your point but I'm going to smile daggers and jab at you" like Kellach has said.

I think that the mods are going to try very hard not to thought police but people have to try to meet part ways.

Yes, this exactly. I feel like it discourages people from voicing open disagreement, and instead rewards users for being passive aggressive and veiled.

Except it doesn't.

No one is stopping open disagreement. As long as it is constructive and not a personal attack... as has been stated many times already in this thread.

I don't believe he has said that. What he has said that if you make a point, and it's offensive, and you continue to make it, you can be punished. A fact which is irrespective of the quality and pertinence of the point.

If that is indeed the case, then that's fine.

if you can give an example of the sort of point your refering to?

cause I am struggling to think up examples of things that are offensive that a) I would choose to say, and b) continue to say after realising that it is offensive.

For example, let's say back in the days of the housing thread. People wanted more houses.

Now this example has nothing to do with the validity of their argument. However let's say someone came in and said

"I think this is an entitled viewpoint to have, I think it is wrong because X, Y and Z. One can get a house if you put forth the effort, so if someone wants one, put forth the effort."

Now, this offended people back in the day. It made some people /very/ angry. However I think it's a valid point to make in a discussion about the housing rules, and I think one could continue to argue it, (whether true or not) despite the fact it made people angry.

Offended is not the same as offensive. I'm not sure if your being deliberately obtuse or what, but at this point it seems there isn't any reasoning with you.

I edit all the time just to make sure my post is clear, I highly doubt I'll be punished for it. Now you're just looking for arguments.

Pretty sure in this situation you'd get a few peeps who'd say somethin' stupid and they're the ones who'd get the warnbat.

Instigating doesn't seem to get much warnings - I've never gotten any and according to the scenarios you put forth I probably would be in the 8-point range if that were the case.

I think it's pretty easy enough to tell the difference between someone offended by an opinion, and someone offended by thinly-veiled, personal jabs or unnecessary rudeness. I'm pretty sure the moderators here are intelligent to tell the difference, and if anyone here doubts that... well, there's really nothing to be done about it. Ultimately, they're in charge.

(04-30-2015, 09:46 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: [ -> ]I edit all the time just to make sure my post is clear, I highly doubt I'll be punished for it. Now you're just looking for arguments.

A prime example of the sort of passive aggressive personal attacks that these policies will not fix.

(04-30-2015, 09:44 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]For example, let's say back in the days of the housing thread. People wanted more houses.

Now this example has nothing to do with the validity of their argument. However let's say someone came in and said

"I think this is an entitled viewpoint to have, I think it is wrong because X, Y and Z. One can get a house if you put forth the effort, so if someone wants one, put forth the effort."

Now, this offended people back in the day. It made some people /very/ angry. However I think it's a valid point to make in a discussion about the housing rules, and I think one would could continue to argue it, (whether true or not) despite the fact it made people angry.

ok, and in that situation I would say that isn't offensive, and even if people did find it so, and reported it as such, that doesn't garauntee a warning. As all you are doing is voicing an oposing viewpoint. You haven't attacked anyone. And continuing to argue the same point, doesn't make it offensive, and would most likely, still result in no warning.