Unfortunately, in this day and age, many issues have become "politicized", or will touch on moral or ethical concerns which may (or may not) be considered of a religious tone. For example - "global warming" a topic that, in and of itself, is environmental - may be considered political. Or, for a more immediate concern - in a thread questioning the right of a society to impose its values upon its citizenry, I was thinking of posting recent news (this morning) about France banning the wearing of Burkas (in public). Are these general discussion, or are they political/religious?
Does this mean I can't post in support of clerics of Vecna overthrowing the king of the neighboring region?
Actually Vecna will probably just sue you or you know send killer robots after you.
Actually Vecna will probably just sue you or you know send killer robots after you.
Damn it, now why did you have to come up with that idea... you ruined the surprise.
Because there is only one way to kill a secret. Let it be known. As we all know Vecna is a god of secrets(and now of robots, perhaps even undead robots).
I, for one, welcome our new undead robot overlords.
What if someone asks about a certain god/government (e.g. Zeus or Socialism, respectively) for a project? They're not trying to offend or convert people...
Does choosing your character's deity count?
Yes. That is not an appropriate topic for the Off Topic Tavern. Try Character Development.
(Or perhapes Char op, one of the roll boards, or the multiclass board respectivly if you are taking the mechanical aspects of diety selection as it involves chanel divinity feats and paragon paths into consideration.)
Oh pfft. OTT is a melting pot of threads. Really.
Like a cotton candy machine, place of sweet, warm, sticky goodness.
I've noticed the upswing in political and religion based threads and have stayed away from the boards because of it. Now, maybe things will get back to normal.
Quick question, if I may - and it is meant solely for clarification. Where exactly would that line be?
Unfortunately, in this day and age, many issues have become "politicized", or will touch on moral or ethical concerns which may (or may not) be considered of a religious tone. For example - "global warming" a topic that, in and of itself, is environmental - may be considered political. Or, for a more immediate concern - in a thread questioning the right of a society to impose its values upon its citizenry, I was thinking of posting recent news (this morning) about France banning the wearing of Burkas (in public). Are these general discussion, or are they political/religious?
Actually, I don't think that knowing exactly where the line should be drawn is really that important.
In most cases, IMO, it is really quite obvious what is or will become a political discussion.
Example 1: Posting about France banning burkas in public
Answer 1: This would be a post about a law and its consequences as it relates to women's rights and freedom of expression. Unless it is merely a thread consisting of "I agree" and "I disagree" (which would be a poll and not a discussion) I have little difficulty in discerning that it will inevitably evolve into a political discussion if the topic is actually discussed. In fact, the phrase you used to introduce in the above paragraph, "the right of a society to impose its values upon its citizenry" is a dead giveaway to the political nature of the topic. I don't see a possibility of this being non-political.
Example 2: Global warming
Answer 2: You state that global warming "may be considered political". You are perfectly aware (before creating such a thread) that many do consider it political and that these posters would be free to post their feelings regarding it in the thread. For it to be a non-political thread, the topic would have to be construed to a narrow range within global warming topics so as to avoid being political. At the same time it would need to be construed so as to not remove the abilty to voice consent which is not only bad for discussion but would itself give the appearance of being political. I won't say the desired non-political outcome is possible but I would have to see it. And, I believe that you answered your own question
Note: Merely linking to a page that can easily be thought of as political and just saying "Discuss" will inevitably lead to members who begin discussing politics. the key is to narrow the topic so as to be apolitical.
PBN rolled a natural 20, I think. We need these kinds of questions answered, or else why bother even having the Off-Topic Tavern in the first place? Everything and Anything can be political or religious these days, and so what's there to talk about when all is said and done? Clarification is appreciated in this instance Chief Webby.
I think that most people already know the answers to the question of what will be discussed when they post a link or a topic but are actually deliberately trying to push the line as far as possible.
Case in point #1: A while back, a poster made a link to an article about something to the effect that the civilian director of the Air Force Academy could be gay but his students could not if I remember correctly and followed the link with "Discuss". So, this involves, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gay rights, and the differences in one's "rights" if one is a civilian working for the military or one is in the military. Laws, policies, rights. Sounds political to me without even thinking about it. Unless it is merely a poll, political discussion is inevitable. Not only was politics discussed in this particular thread but it had a poster referring to the military as homocidal homophobes.
Case in point #2: Not too long afterward I was involved in a discussion argument with a poster in the CB forum where I stated that the political threads (such as the one above) were being started by experienced posters who knew what they were doing. This poster, zombie babies to be precise, argued otherwise and ended up making a thread that got stickied in this forum:
Welcome to the Tavern
I added the emphasis myself:
We also have a Stickied thread (link below) that explains some other topics that are not permitted. Namely, religion and politics. These things have a nasty habit of bringing out extreme viewpoints that turn some OTTers rabid. So, we'd appreciate it if you kept that stuff confined to conversations with your family and friends - you know, so no one important gets hurt. :P
Not too long ago zombie babies linked to a page that was about a California ballot initiative to outlaw divorce. This ballot initiative was made as an attack against those it considered to be hypocrits for voting to pass the California proposition that removed gay marriage. So, you have a ballot initiative which is a counter to a ballot initiative that passed, and the point of it was gay rights and attacking those who opposed gay marriage. Again, ballot initiatives and gay rights. I really don't see how this was somehow on a line that would be difficult to tell it would involve politics.
What if we bring up something that has ties to religion, and not a direct link to it?
What if someone asks about a certain god/government (e.g. Zeus or Socialism, respectively) for a project? They're not trying to offend or convert people...
The best way is to explicitly state what is the topic to be discussed. So, if you are doing a school project about Socialism then perhaps one could ask for some links to sites but be specific about what is being asked for and why or perhaps ask for some general information to be supplied. Yes, it is quite probable that trolls will drop in or just posters with some sort of animosity. The obvious trolls can be easily gotten rid of with reporting. Also, narrowly construing the topic will limit the appropriate responses. Although reporting will often result in closings of political threads, if the thread has a specific non-political topic (information for a report) that people are engaging in the moderation will often clean up the thread in hopes of allowing the discussion to continue.
But, from what I have seen, these problems do not arise because people are trying to not violate the ban on political/religious topics. The problems arise because people deliberately test the waters and do not take the time to define a topic so as to not become political.
Further, explicitly defining the line could hamstring attempts to moderate when people deliberately try to stride the line.
I'm not really bothered by the instant messaging twitter type of posts. For the most part, these people need a community to deal with life. Fine, have at it. Even you psychopaths. (You know who you are.)
I, myself, have TOO much attention paid to me from other people. I actually enjoy leaving the internet for a few months at a time, because well, when on the job...it's a vacation from all the spin and hyperbole at home.
In a way, I think the fantasy builds when the imaginative elements of normalcy, add their 'spice' to life, anyway. (Click your heels, my little pretty's.)
If you want to talk about something with your anonymous friends (for the most part I think), then have at it. Why should I care, even single me out and go to great lengths to explain your judgements and expursions. I can scroll, it's not like the real estate of my thread is worth anything more valuable, than the cyberspace bandwidth it's written on, in essence...
...the paper it's printed on...
So far I haven't been banned or anything, so what the heck? 
Right?! Am I wrong?
Also I agree in principle with the person who said they have a "project".
I'd think the dichotomous D&D forums of TSR/Hasbro should leave at least that one catch-all forum, allowing modern historical facts into a make-believe environment, and as such...
...a social modern context could then indeed, then apply certainly to the "English socio-economic class system, based on feudalistic concepts of high medieval to Renaissance periods" of your favorite RPG.
At least that's how Gary would put it. Although granted, let's also keep the sports type threads down to a minimum, please.
I think if you want to talk politics/religion, then remember some people need to digest their food. That's a good rule to follow. Is this a conversation I would have at dinner...or over the kitchen table later that night?
Nowadays everything is politicized somehow.
But seriously, it is kinda hard to keep politics out of current event discussions...
Quick question, if I may - and it is meant solely for clarification. Where exactly would that line be?
Unfortunately, in this day and age, many issues have become "politicized", or will touch on moral or ethical concerns which may (or may not) be considered of a religious tone. For example - "global warming" a topic that, in and of itself, is environmental - may be considered political. Or, for a more immediate concern - in a thread questioning the right of a society to impose its values upon its citizenry, I was thinking of posting recent news (this morning) about France banning the wearing of Burkas (in public). Are these general discussion, or are they political/religious?
That's an A+ question, and I seriously would like to have a handy answer ready and available. Sadly, as you point out anything can be turned political. It would be nice if I could just post "Here is the line, don't cross it." but there are many shades of "in between".
Kinda bad analogy- Every thread that talks about Red ends in huge flame wars. So, Red threads banned. But then threads about Pink pop up. Then Ruby. "Can we talk about purple, or fuscia?" Then threads pop up about things that are red, like apples or fire engines.
But seriously, it is kinda hard to keep politics out of current event discussions...
True, and I think that's part of the issue. It's the off topic tavern, not a current events board. "Off Topic Tavern" suggests light and breezy stuff, not real world issues.
Indeed, the whole off topic area was created because people wanted to hang out and get to know each other outside the game. Threads about favorite movies and video games were popping up in D&D general. Favorite games when you were a kid. "Hey guys, I just got a new car!" That sort of thing.
I'm not sure a wholesale ban on "real world issues" would be necessary. The ban of D&D in a prison story for example, while D&D related isn't really "about" the game itself, but an issue secondary about D&D. (Yeah, I know that sounds confusing. The D&D board is to talk about the D&D game itself, it's mechanics, character builds and so on whereas stories ABOUT D&D is more meta-D&D than about the game.)
The Off Topic Tavern should be more about kicking back and hanging out, and less about becoming fark.com.
Ha! You can make sense! You just choose not to, most of the time!
Brian makes sense! The fifth seal is broken! The end is nigh!
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
That's an A+ question, and I seriously would like to have a handy answer ready and available. Sadly, as you point out anything can be turned political. It would be nice if I could just post "Here is the line, don't cross it." but there are many shades of "in between".
Believe me, I understand as much. That is the underlying reasoning behind the question. My concern is best illustrated in two recent threads. One, wherein I used the terms sin and virtue. Though not given in a religious context, it was quickly brought there. (though, I have since brought it back from that brink). The second where I explicitly stated that it was a question of demographics and advertising and NOT political. It too, however, ended up briefly (very briefly) straying. To use your red analogy, this becomes a problem of how deep the pink, as some will see red, even if such is not the intent.
True, and I think that's part of the issue. It's the off topic tavern, not a current events board. "Off Topic Tavern" suggests light and breezy stuff, not real world issues.
Indeed, the whole off topic area was created because people wanted to hang out and get to know each other outside the game. Threads about favorite movies and video games were popping up in D&D general. Favorite games when you were a kid. "Hey guys, I just got a new car!" That sort of thing.
I would posit, however, that it is such real world issues that truly allow us to get to know each other. I find (for myself, at least) that is such "gray area" threads that give me the best insight to those that frequent this board. In such a case, the best tool is the one we are being asked not to wield.
The Off Topic Tavern should be more about kicking back and hanging out, and less about becoming fark.com.
Well, I'm unfamiliar with the site - should I bother investigating?
This.
This is about the only reason I come here. This is why I either love ya, or love to hate ya.
And I wouldn't want it any other way.
Can you imagine how boring it is going to get 'round here....?
"I would posit, however, that it is such real world issues that truly allow us to get to know each other. I find (for myself, at least) that is such "gray area" threads that give me the best insight to those that frequent this board. In such a case, the best tool is the one we are being asked not to wield."- PBN
This.
This is about the only reason I come here. This is why I either love ya, or love to hate ya.
And I wouldn't want it any other way.
Can you imagine how boring it is going to get 'round here....?
Agreed
Not too long ago zombie babies linked to a page that was about a California ballot initiative to outlaw divorce. This ballot initiative was made as an attack against those it considered to be hypocrits for voting to pass the California proposition that removed gay marriage. So, you have a ballot initiative which is a counter to a ballot initiative that passed, and the point of it was gay rights and attacking those who opposed gay marriage. Again, ballot initiatives and gay rights. I really don't see how this was somehow on a line that would be difficult to tell it would involve politics.
I just wanted to point out that I was in no way attempting to straddle some imaginary, nebulous line when I created that thread. What happened was that I came across an article that I found interesting - specifically because of the commercial it contained as an example of the campaign. I found it humorous and felt like sharing. In retrospect, it was also a potentially politically charged posting and, IIRC (I ain't lookin' it up), I did make some sort of politcal commentary in it as well (not in the OP, but likely later). Anyhoo, I don't object that it was political, I object to the implied reasons behind my posting of it. Cuz they ain't true.
For quite a while - twice now since I've been a member - we've been given some slack with these sorts of topics. And we've been able to discuss them, for the most part, civilly. The last time the reigns were tightened was due to trolls that posted material in rebuttal offensive enough to earn them a permanent (suspected IP) ban. Yeah, that bad. This time is nothing like the last, but things have gotten to a point that Webster felt he needed to step in. That should tell us somethin'. Cuz he usually lets us play. ;)
What we sometimes seem to forget is that we're a pretty tight group of people here in the OTT - and that's fantastic. We have BS'd enough to know, for the most part, when we're all jokin' an' playin' and we also know that - no matter what's said - we're never really totally angry with each other. This has led to the Tavern growing, IMO, into a place where a tight knit group of friends can post about just about anything - and it's an easy enough group to become a part of, too. This is by far my favorite place to visit on the D&D boards. But, as I said in the opening line, we forget that we're this pretty close crew. That's an issue when newer people come along or people that may not feel as though they're totally a part of the crew. They may not get what we're about. We have sticky threads that try to explain things, but not everyone reads 'em and you're not gonna get the whole idea from 'em anyway. In threads that are obviously goofy, it's easy enough to see when a barb isn't packin' all the sting it may be or when a joke's a joke. In more serious threads, heated conversation can look exactly like an argument. And, occasionally, our comfort helps us forget where we're at and slide into posting things that are CoC violations. For this reason, the political and religional stuffs are a danger not only to members new and old, but to the Tavern itself. We are as subject to the CoC here just as we are everywhere else. Things certainly are different here and I'd like to see that stay the same. But if we keep getting involved in topics that can easily spawn arguments and CoC violations, we may be subject to harsher crackdowns. It's in our best interest to kinda cool it with that stuff. That's the way I see it, at least.
All that said, I'd also like to point out that I personally have no issue with political and religious topics. I feel that some of our best conversations have happened because of threads of those types. Unfortunately, I also recognize that some of our worst behavior have been on display in those threads as well. And, as much as I may like to post about those topics, I ain't the only one here. Also remember, the CoC applies here, too. And that's enough blabbin' for now.
I enjoy the Showtime Series "Dexter" (this past season rocked) and while I could come in here and start a thread about all things "Dexter" I don't because the show has its own forums at sho.com. It is a better place to talk about the show because the whole board is dedicated to the show.
There are websites out there where you can discuss the subjects you wish to discuss. When you link to a website that talks about those subjects they usually have a place at the bottom of the page where you can leave a comment and discuss the subject with people that decided to find and read the article themselves, in essence giving you a place to discuss the article.
But instead of discussing the subject there, where it belongs, you bring the discussion here. If you want to discuss the subject with someone on this site, you know there is such thing as PMing so I and those like me don't have to come here and weed through the daily garbage that is today's news.
Most times the subject turns into a debate with clearly deliniated groups who will never change their mind and so the same things get repeated or it devolves into a discussion of definitions.
This used to be a pretty cool place to hang out and talk about some pretty cool things or make some pretty fun games but now it is a place for hot button topics that don't belong on a D&D site whether this is the Off Topic Tavern or not.
Idolis has been banned
Reason: For not elaborating on how awesome Dexter is
Date to be Lifted: When he makes me a sandwich
Reason: If I elaborate on this season, I could spoil it for people who haven't seen it. To sum it up though. The season finale has sparked a lot of debate on the direction of the show but I think most people agree that it was pretty cool ending. I recommend watching the previous seasons before watching Season 4.
Date to be lifted: When Robot Chicken makes a fart joke.
We need some new ideas for fun threads
I think that most people already know the answers to the question of what will be discussed when they post a link or a topic but are actually deliberately trying to push the line as far as possible.
Well, you keep thinking then, 'cause that's all your doing. Labeling everyone like you just did was in very poor taste, not to mention insulting to anyone who would not be doing what you suggest they are doing, and are in fact merely discussing something relevant or interesting.
Note: I added emphasis to point a few things out:
Not too long ago zombie babies linked to a page that was about a California ballot initiative to outlaw divorce. This ballot initiative was made as an attack against those it considered to be hypocrits for voting to pass the California proposition that removed gay marriage. So, you have a ballot initiative which is a counter to a ballot initiative that passed, and the point of it was gay rights and attacking those who opposed gay marriage. Again, ballot initiatives and gay rights. I really don't see how this was somehow on a line that would be difficult to tell it would involve politics.
I just wanted to point out that I was in no way attempting to straddle some imaginary, nebulous line when I created that thread. What happened was that I came across an article that I found interesting - specifically because of the commercial it contained as an example of the campaign. I found it humorous and felt like sharing. In retrospect, it was also a potentially politically charged posting and, IIRC (I ain't lookin' it up), I did make some sort of politcal commentary in it as well (not in the OP, but likely later). Anyhoo, I don't object that it was political, I object to the implied reasons behind my posting of it. Cuz they ain't true.
I feel the need to respond to this response because it is not being straightforward and I believe the record should be set straight. The thread in question can be found here:
The article to which it linked is apparently no longer accessible but here is another link with a short description:
Movement under way in California to ban divorce
The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce
.
I will start with this phrase: " What happened was that I came across an article that I found interesting - specifically because of the commercial it contained as an example of the campaign. I found it humorous and felt like sharing." That statement leaves out some important information about the OP:
I like this idea. It makes too much sense to reach any of the people it's targeting, however.
The idea of the article happens to be discussing is political. The OP states that the people this political idea is targeting (those who voted against gay marriage in California) are too stupid to understand it. The OP itself is an insulting political statement about a group of people: those who passed the proposition.
So, when this was stated: " In retrospect, it was also a potentially politically charged posting and, IIRC (I ain't lookin' it up), I did make some sort of politcal commentary in it as well (not in the OP, but likely later).", it is factually incorrect.
The topic of the article was completely political: a ballot initiative brought forward as a demonstration against a second ballot initiative in order to paint the proponents of the second initiative as hypocrits.
The OP which linked to the article was completely political: it both expressed agreement with the political concept and in its own words voiced words of derision against the proponents of the second initiative. That is all political banter.
The topic was political all on its own and the OP presented it as a political discussion. Also, the OP presented it as validation to ridicule those of an opposing viewpoint.
So, there is no implication in the reasons given by me for the posting. The reasons are plain to see and shown above: Low brow political discourse in the form of ridiculing those who hold an opposing position. This is the truth.
I think that most people already know the answers to the question of what will be discussed when they post a link or a topic but are actually deliberately trying to push the line as far as possible.
Well, you keep thinking then, 'cause that's all your doing. Labeling everyone like you just did was in very poor taste, not to mention insulting to anyone who would not be doing what you suggest they are doing, and are in fact merely discussing something relevant or interesting.
It appears that my thinking is correct after looking back at the OP in question.
The pont is very simple: Be an adult. Political and religious topics are not allowed. when making a topic, ask yourself in what ways it is political or religious. Word your topic so as to exclude those political things that may come up so that you can have your non-political discussion.
With respect to PBN, I merely pointed out that he did not need to have a line drawn because he was quite capable of succeeding in his idea without it.
Further, the main point is that if narrowing the topic so as to not be political leaves a topic that you no longer wish to discuss then I think it is pretty safe tosay that what you wanted to discuss was really political after all.
The only reason to need a line to be drawn is so that you can come as close to it as possible with a topic. If you come that close with a topic there is certainty that the thread will straddle the line. I cede that the reason you wish to come as close as possible to this line is that the posters wish to discuss something relevant or interesting but that does not change that making a topic as close to the line as possible will create a thread that straddles the line. Willful ignorance is not a good excuse, IMO. It is especially not a good excuse when it has been pointed out and those making an excuse are not ignorant of what their actions will bring about.
aren't you violating the CoC by reposting banned stuff and openly talking about moderation?
And you all know I don't mind talking about anything...
Would you mind settling this in the Private Messaging System? This is way too much testosterone for one thread, and really {ultimately} has nothing to do with the thread itself. If you {anyone} feel the need to do this kinda stuff, then start up a separate thread so that you can post your retorts there. Comments like this {from anybody} is just spam, and violates the CoC, just in case you {anyone} were wondering.
I have no intention of settling anything with PMs. I explicitly pointed out the truth of what occurred. Further, you felt compelled to call me out in the thread so do not complain if I continue to post in response to being called out.
Try actually addressing my points being made.
rumplestix...
aren't you violating the CoC by reposting banned stuff and openly talking about moderation?
Exactly. Fella is going to get him/herself banned if s/he keeps going on like this. I'd rather not see someone get banned just for voicing an opinion, but when that conduct clearly goes against CoC, their taking a risk at their own expense. I'd highly suggest you stop while you can, Rumple, otherwise you might not be looked down on fairly when the Ban Hammer comes a hittin'.
Save yourself while you still can!
rumplestix...
aren't you violating the CoC by reposting banned stuff and openly talking about moderation?
And you all know I don't mind talking about anything...
I'm not complaining about violation.
A point was explicitly brought up by me: posters would deliberately straddle the line and I gave an example. That example was attacked as incorrect. The topic that was closed (the banning divorce article) is not being debated but what is being debated is whether or not it was "accidentally" political.
It was not "accidentally" political and I do not appreciate being called a liar for stating that it was political from the beginning.
rumplestix...
aren't you violating the CoC by reposting banned stuff and openly talking about moderation?
Exactly. Fella is going to get him/herself banned if s/he keeps going on like this. I'd rather not see someone get banned just for voicing an opinion, but when that conduct clearly goes against CoC, their taking a risk at their own expense. I'd highly suggest you stop while you can, Rumple, otherwise you might not be looked down on fairly when the Ban Hammer comes a hittin'.
Save yourself while you still can!
I'm not violating the CoC. I do not appreciate you calling me out as violating the Coc either.
"Son, everybody in life digs their own holes, and sooner or latter life is going to make you fill them. So, remember that when you open your mouth, people will remember. Life will remember. Be prepared to fill those holes of yours, and don't act surprised or complain when it happens. Take it, and do it. And next time, should you want to avoid filling those holes, think before you act."
Best piece of advice I've ever gotten. Well, that and "Don't eat the yellow snow!"
not trying to ruffle your feathers, and everyone knows I'm not the reportin' type of guy, and you may do as you please, but...
a former persona of mine got banned for doing what you are doing.
i'm just sayin'...
I see no violation here.
But I have no reason to doubt Z_B. I'm sure he wasn't purposefully "pushing the line".
That's not his style... or schtick.
I guess he is. I don't know if it is ZB's MO to try to get threads closed. It isn't usually his MO to post about politics at all unless someone asks for his opinions. So if he misjudged the link as non political, it is possible he could have used the wrong wording when writing the OP and it came off as more political than he was aiming for.
Aiming for a joke and missing is something I could see ZB doing.
I could be wrong though... but my reading comprehension shouldn't be that bad already...
I'm old.
Wait, all this is about ZB. Are you sure he isn't talking about someone else?
I gave one of ZB's threads as an example of deliberately straddling the fence. Perhaps this one deliberately crossed it entirely instead of deliberately straddling it. Either way it would support that the problem has nothing to do with not knowing whbere the line is which was my point.
Were you also aware that back when someone's previous incarnations (who shall not be named) began posting OPs that inevitably led to political discussion that was allowed to carry on because it was not reported or noticed (due to thread titles...) that ZB and EE discussed in the original WDYWTTA thread that it was occurring and were wondering if they could get away with it?
This resulted in EE posting various gay rights links that led to flaming. Afterward, ZB argued with me in CB that these "political" threads were accidents and not the result of experienced posters who knew that their topics were off limits. This ended with ZB making the welcome thread telling everyone the topic (politics) was off limits. Then he made the OP about banning divorce which was clearly from the beginning a gay rights discussion from the OP. Not singling gay rights out as "bad" but pointing out that its recurring theme (with me previously pointing out its political nature explicitly to ZB) leaves no doubt as to knowledge of its political nature.
Rumple is right,
Z_B was wrong,
Rumple pointed this out,
Z_ B got upset,
Rumple got upset,
Z_B slighted Rumple,
Rumple feels attacked,
Z_B didn't say "Sorry",
Rumple went on a rant,
Rumple demands apology,
Rumple demands to be acknowledged,
Rumple is the victim,
Z_B should apologize and admit mistake
Am I following this pretty good so far? You're sure you fellas just can't take this to the Private Message System? The more and more of this I see {CoC violation aside, and it is a CoC violation, look it up}, the more and more flames I see starting to spill out everywhere. Heck, I'll be surprised if everyone involved in this thread isn't banned, just for being associated with the content therein.
On another note, I'm pretty sure I just crossed the line twice. And THAT was deliberate.
Edit: Though actually, I expect he'll just edit that to be nice and clean, now that it's not locked anymore. He's done it before, going back and editing posts to clean up his more... unruly... outbursts. So I think I'll get a screen cap, just to be on the safe side.
Quite a few of those threads stayed up for long periods of time and because they were allowed to stay open one could assume that rule wasn't as literal as it appeared.
I saw some pretty bad threads with some OP's that did nothing but make me angry and when ZB found one that he thought might lighten the mood a little he posted it.
Like I said, I'm only guessing. It was pretty boneheaded to start the topic without realizing its political subject.
could we talk about whatever we like in a group?
maybe we should talk in a group thing, so people who can't handle the conversation don't have to be victimized?
No really, I'm serious!
Okay, so far as I can tell, this is what all this ranting is about:
Rumple is right,
Z_B was wrong,
Rumple pointed this out,
Z_ B got upset,
Rumple got upset,
Z_B slighted Rumple,
Rumple feels attacked,
Z_B didn't say "Sorry",
Rumple went on a rant,
Rumple demands apology,
Rumple demands to be acknowledged,
Rumple is the victim,
Z_B should apologize and admit mistake
Am I following this pretty good so far? You're sure you fellas just can't take this to the Private Message System? The more and more of this I see {CoC violation aside, and it is a CoC violation, look it up}, the more and more flames I see starting to spill out everywhere. Heck, I'll be surprised if everyone involved in this thread isn't banned, just for being associated with the content therein.
Look, I'm sorry I got a little confused but apparently Stix was just clarifying he wasn't lying, and he wasn't. You replied to him and he came back at you and so I made the mistake of thinking you were the one this was about and not ZB. You know, since you said, "Do you mind if we settle this PM?"
[You know, sense you said, "Do you mind if we settle this PM?"
Oh, that. I said that for Rumples benefit, not my own. He has some personal issue with Z_B, and is posting about it all over this thread. Using the threads for personal grudge matches {and this is what all this ranting is about, regardless of who}, is in direct violation of CoC. I was just trying to help Rumple save face, but sometimes people just don't want your help, no matter how beneficial it may be. {shrug} I've got nothing against him/her, so I don't have a personal interest in all this, but I don't like seeing grudge matches anywhere, so I probably got carried away. That was my own fault, and no one Else's. I'll take responsibility for whatever reprecussions come my way for trying to help moderate the situation.
Hey Rump, remember when you made this post? Oh, the fun times we used to have.
On another note, I'm pretty sure I just crossed the line twice. And THAT was deliberate.
Edit: Though actually, I expect he'll just edit that to be nice and clean, now that it's not locked anymore. He's done it before, going back and editing posts to clean up his more... unruly... outbursts. So I think I'll get a screen cap, just to be on the safe side.
I don't think you crossed the political/religious line deliberately in this case, just a certain CoC line. ;)
But, when removing an unruly outburst, I would explain my edit in the old style edit line that doesn't exist anymore.
I am wondering...
could we talk about whatever we like in a group?
maybe we should talk in a group thing, so people who can't handle the conversation don't have to be victimized?
No really, I'm serious!
'cause Rumplestix would start another thread to complain about it in CM, get into another tussle with Wrecan, and I'd have to explain, again, that there's a difference between feeling something is important, and thinking something applies in a legal sense. [link]
Group therapy? Are you serious? ...
Are you?
There are groups people can form, and I believe it is self moderating. Also, only certain people can be allowed to join I believe, so we could eliminate the reportin' types.
I think it is a decent idea.
Something to think about anyway...
[You know, sense you said, "Do you mind if we settle this PM?"
Oh, that. I said that for Rumples benefit, not my own. He has some personal issue with Z_B, and is posting about it all over this thread. Using the threads for personal grudge matches {and this is what all this ranting is about, regardless of who}, is in direct violation of CoC. I was just trying to help Rumple save face, but sometimes people just don't want your help, no matter how beneficial it may be. {shrug} I've got nothing against him/her, so I don't have a personal interest in all this, but I don't like seeing grudge matches anywhere, so I probably got carried away. That was my own fault, and no one Else's. I'll take responsibility for whatever reprecussions come my way for trying to help moderate the situation.
No, I am not using it for a personal grudge match.
I made a point.
It was challenged.
I set the record straight. The listing of the past is not a grudge match but simply mounting the evidence that I am not making something up.
I don't think you crossed the political/religious line deliberately in this case, just a certain CoC line. ;)
Yes, that would be what I was talking about. I'm not sure how you could entertain notions there was any other. But then, you've often impressed me with your ability of... creative... conclusions.
I am wondering...
could we talk about whatever we like in a group?
maybe we should talk in a group thing, so people who can't handle the conversation don't have to be victimized?
No really, I'm serious!
'cause Rumplestix would start another thread to complain about it in CM, get into another tussle with Wrecan, and I'd have to explain, again, that there's a difference between feeling something is important, and thinking something applies in a legal sense. [link]
The difference with this is that the thread was complaiing about CoC violating conduct hidden within groups. Political and religious discussion is not CoC violating conduct. it leads to forum disruption and that is CoC violating conduct. Within a closed group there is no forum disruption.
Further, this thread is not about me so I would appreciate not being the topic of discussion.
Note: I do consider the possibility this is good natured referincing but have nothing to point me in that direction.
Okay, so far as I can tell, this is what all this ranting is about:
Rumple is right,
Z_B was wrong
etc.
How can rumble be right and Z_B wrong about what Z_B intended
I don't think rumble is a liar, I think he's sharing his opinion about how aware Z_B was of the political aspect in his thread. However, I also don't believe Z_B is a liar, I believe he didn't intend for his thread to be political, he just thought it funny. Since Z_B is the ultimate authority on what Z_B has been thinking, I think taking his word for it is the reasonable thing to do. Nobody called rumble a liar, they just chose, like me, to take Z_B's word of what Z_B intended, over rumble's theories.
what Erato said.
Okay, so far as I can tell, this is what all this ranting is about:
Rumple is right,
Z_B was wrong
etc.
How can rumble be right and Z_B wrong about what Z_B intended
I don't think rumble is a liar, I think he's sharing his opinion about how aware Z_B was of the political aspect in his thread. However, I also don't believe Z_B is a liar, I believe he didn't intend for his thread to be political, he just thought it funny. Since Z_B is the ultimate authority on what Z_B has been thinking, I think taking his word for it is the reasonable thing to do. Nobody called rumble a liar, they just chose, like me, to take Z_B's word of what Z_B intended, over rumble's theories.
That's what I've been trying to say.
Note: I do consider the possibility this is good natured referincing but have nothing to point me in that direction.
Consider that possiblity killed.
Yeah...
what Erato said.
I'm not quite sure if this is encouraging or disturbing....
That's what I've been trying to say.
I thought so, but there's no harm in clarifying
Okay, so far as I can tell, this is what all this ranting is about:
Rumple is right,
Z_B was wrong
etc.
How can rumble be right and Z_B wrong about what Z_B intended
I don't think rumble is a liar, I think he's sharing his opinion about how aware Z_B was of the political aspect in his thread. However, I also don't believe Z_B is a liar, I believe he didn't intend for his thread to be political, he just thought it funny. Since Z_B is the ultimate authority on what Z_B has been thinking, I think taking his word for it is the reasonable thing to do. Nobody called rumble a liar, they just chose, like me, to take Z_B's word of what Z_B intended, over rumble's theories.
I kinda agree with this lass. Although it seems that Z_B did create a political thread that was basically politicaly charged from the start it would also seem that he did not conciously post it to be as such from the start. Or at all. I don't think I was in that thread or read it, or looked at it but his motivation was likely more of a hey look at this with a bit of opinion added. Ya know the bit of opinion that we tend to add to everything and stuff.
Okay, so far as I can tell, this is what all this ranting is about:
Rumple is right,
Z_B was wrong
etc.
How can rumble be right and Z_B wrong about what Z_B intended
I don't think rumble is a liar, I think he's sharing his opinion about how aware Z_B was of the political aspect in his thread. However, I also don't believe Z_B is a liar, I believe he didn't intend for his thread to be political, he just thought it funny. Since Z_B is the ultimate authority on what Z_B has been thinking, I think taking his word for it is the reasonable thing to do. Nobody called rumble a liar, they just chose, like me, to take Z_B's word of what Z_B intended, over rumble's theories.
I think you may have skipped the part where in the past I explicitly argued with ZB and EE in CB about how people knew these types of threads were political in nature (specifically the gay rights threads) and that posting them would inevitably lead to political discussion before the thread was posted.
Further, how is a post not political in nature when you (in general) both explicitly state agreement with a political initiative and ridicule as stupid those who disagree with it?
It would be ridiculous to believe I thought it was not political.
I think you may have skipped the part where in the past I explicitly argued with ZB and EE in CB about how people knew these types of threads were political in nature (specifically the gay rights threads) and that posting them would inevitably lead to political discussion before the thread was posted.
And if you couldn't convince me or ZB then, why should we have acted as though you had?
I think you may have skipped the part where in the past I explicitly argued with ZB and EE in CB about how people knew these types of threads were political in nature (specifically the gay rights threads) and that posting them would inevitably lead to political discussion before the thread was posted.
And if you couldn't convince me or ZB then, why should we have acted as though you had?
What I did not "convince" you guys of was that the people making the political threads really were familiar with the fact that political topics were not allowed. Seeing as how ZB put the welcome thread up there is little argument that he knew such threads were not allowed.
So, if I made a post that stated "I think people who voted for Obama are stupid" and I actually meant it. How could it be argued that this post is not political in nature? Especially if I linked it to an article that called such people stupid?
It would be ridiculous to believe I thought it was not political.
Well that's just fact. Nothing to discuss there. No thinking to be done. nope. none.
See even though what ZB posted was political, and he more than likely knew it, I am thinking that he didn't post it as to be a political discussion but rather to be more of a "the more you know" informing kinda thread.
What I did not "convince" you guys of was that the people making the political threads really were familiar with the fact that political topics were not allowed.
I remember things differently.
So, if I made a post that stated "I think people who voted for Obama are stupid" and I actually meant it. How could it be argued that this post is not political in nature? Especially if I linked it to an article that called such people stupid?
It would be ridiculous to believe I thought it was not political.
Well that's just fact. Nothing to discuss there. No thinking to be done. nope. none.
See even though what ZB posted was political, and he more than likely knew it, I am thinking that he didn't post it as to be a political discussion but rather to be more of a "the more you know" informing kinda thread.
You define a thread's topic with the OP. If it is to be a thread it will be discussed. there is no way around this discussion being political.
Further, ZB explicitly proclaimed in his response to my post that he posted nothing political in the OP. So, if he knew that what he posted in the OP was political...
I did make some sort of politcal commentary in it as well (not in the OP, but likely later).
What I did not "convince" you guys of was that the people making the political threads really were familiar with the fact that political topics were not allowed.
I remember things differently.
You conveniently are remembering things incorrectly.
You conveniently are remembering things incorrectly.
So you believe. Now, unless you intend to keep talking about what you THINK other people MEANT, and how you FEEL they should BEHAVE?
You conveniently are remembering things incorrectly.
So you believe. Now, unless you intend to keep talking about what you THINK other people MEANT, and how you FEEL they should BEHAVE?
"Conveniently" in this case is calling it the ruse that it is. Everyone was perfectly aware that posting a political topic and saying "discuss" was making a political thread then and everyone still knows that now. Pretending not to know is not very believable. Especially considering that it has happened again and again and again without fail. it is called "willful ignorance". Only, there is no "ignorance" of the fact at all and there never has been.
link
"Conveniently" in this case is calling it the ruse that it is.
Nope, it's you believing I'm talking about one thing when, in fact I was talking about something else.
What I did not "convince" you guys of was that the people making the political threads really were familiar with the fact that political topics were not allowed.
This, here? This is you being wrong. What you "did not convince" us of, was something else. THAT is what I remember differently.
Note: I'm not telling people how to behave. I am just accurately describing it.
Nah, you're pretty bad at that, actually. Anytime you "accurately" describe someone's behavior, it's by chance.
"Conveniently" in this case is calling it the ruse that it is.
Nope, it's you believing I'm talking about one thing when, in fact I was talking about something else.What I did not "convince" you guys of was that the people making the political threads really were familiar with the fact that political topics were not allowed.
This, here? This is you being wrong. What you "did not convince" us of, was something else. THAT is what I remember differently.
Put simply, you are playing a stupid game. Point out what you are hinting out instead of this stupid nonsense. Otherwise it is blatantly obvious that you are just trying to be a pain rather than prove a point.
Note: I'm not telling people how to behave. I am just accurately describing it.
Nah, you're pretty bad at that, actually. Anytime you "accurately" describe someone's behavior, it's by chance.
Compleltely incorrect.
Just a quick thanks to everyone for helping illustrate the point why such threads are a Bad Idea.
Grudges and arguments carry over to other threads. Old fights get rehashed and brought back. It never ends, and the intent of the forum when it was created gets lost.
Just a quick thanks to everyone for helping illustrate the point why such threads are a Bad Idea.
Grudges and arguments carry over to other threads. Old fights get rehashed and brought back. It never ends, and the intent of the forum when it was created gets lost.
Much obliged.
Just a quick thanks to everyone for helping illustrate the point why such threads are a Bad Idea.
Ah...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That was hilarious webster!
So, if I made a post that stated "I think people who voted for Obama are stupid" and I actually meant it. How could it be argued that this post is not political in nature? Especially if I linked it to an article that called such people stupid?
It would be ridiculous to believe I thought it was not political.
Well that's just fact. Nothing to discuss there. No thinking to be done. nope. none.
See even though what ZB posted was political, and he more than likely knew it, I am thinking that he didn't post it as to be a political discussion but rather to be more of a "the more you know" informing kinda thread.
You define a thread's topic with the OP. If it is to be a thread it will be discussed. there is no way around this discussion being political.
Further, ZB explicitly proclaimed in his response to my post that he posted nothing political in the OP. So, if he knew that what he posted in the OP was political...
This has many meanings. One such meaning being that he didn't consciously post something political or at least expect for there to be political discussion following the OP (which I am understanding to be more of a "hey look what is in the news" than a "this is my political views and you that don't agree are wrong". so giving info not starting a political discussion thread). In this sense if this was his intent and what happened then yes he is correct. he posted nothing political. Now how you seem to be interpreting it as that he's lying because something he posted was political and a poster in the thread decided to make a political response to political stuff in the OP. in this since you are correct. he did post something that is political. We can sit here and argue all day long. in this sense both of you guys are right but kinda on different points. Part of that point being intent or knowledge when posting. It is quite possible that he never intended or expected for it to become a discussion thread. it could very well have just been a here is some news thread. yes there was political stuff in it BUT it seems that his motivation was not to bring political discussion but rather just awareness or knowledge of the event. this means not trying to be political. trying to be informative (about a political event). It could be said that he is at fault for posting something that has political content but if his thread was meant to be for informing, and not a debate, then he was not the one that brought the banned discussion into the thread.
The ban is on political and religious discussions and debates, and not on the awareness or informing of such events. yes informing others about such events can result in discussion or debating in said areas but a thread started to inform on such topics is not violating the ban. Any poster that wishes to debate the issue is violating the ban. Not the OP unless it was designed as a discussion type thread.
Just a quick thanks to everyone for helping illustrate the point why such threads are a Bad Idea.
Grudges and arguments carry over to other threads. Old fights get rehashed and brought back. It never ends, and the intent of the forum when it was created gets lost.
Yes some posters carry grudges and arguments from thread to thread. Yes some rehash old fights. Yes some posters make sure to keep this continuous. Many of those posting in this thread, from my experience, don't have this problem. They can vehemently disagree with you in on thread and at the same time kick back and chat with you in another thread as if the discussion was never happening. There are however a few posters that stick around, or even disappear from a subforum or two until, for example, this thread is started and just out of the blue show up out of nowhere and start arguments and rehash old grudges. It is posters like these that seem to cause problems like the ed wars in 4e or that lead to bans on things like politics and religion.
I do feel that many of us here can handle the poltical and religious threads around here fine but I have witnessed how one bad apple in many can bring many a civil discussion crashing down. I'd hate to see the bans reformed or strengthened cuz a person or two couldn't control themselves. I however do understand what you guys are doing so as to help make the boards more civil overall. I also do understand your reasoning for the ban (these forums aren't really a place for a lot of these talks) and will respect and honor the restrengthening of the ban, to the best of my conscious ability, even though I do not quite agree with such.
I hate how one bad apple can ruin things for a whole group. 
Put simply, you are playing a stupid game. Point out what you are hinting out instead of this stupid nonsense. Otherwise it is blatantly obvious that you are just trying to be a pain rather than prove a point.
Why should I? I honestly believe that there is nothing I could say at this point that would shake your faith in your own infallibility, so why should I waste my time attempting to do so?
Really, the only point I have is that I feel no compelling reason to let you state, unequivocally, that you have the right of things when I believe you don't. In short: I think you're wrong, and will state as such, but I have no interest in debate, as debate with you is pointless.
Just a quick thanks to everyone for helping illustrate the point why such threads are a Bad Idea.Grudges and arguments carry over to other threads. Old fights get rehashed and brought back. It never ends, and the intent of the forum when it was created gets lost.
Cute, but it has so much more to do with the players then the topic. Someone with a grudge will act on it regardless of topic.
Someone with a grudge will act on it regardless of topic.
Agreed.
So, if I made a post that stated "I think people who voted for Obama are stupid" and I actually meant it. How could it be argued that this post is not political in nature? Especially if I linked it to an article that called such people stupid?
It would be ridiculous to believe I thought it was not political.
Well that's just fact. Nothing to discuss there. No thinking to be done. nope. none.
See even though what ZB posted was political, and he more than likely knew it, I am thinking that he didn't post it as to be a political discussion but rather to be more of a "the more you know" informing kinda thread.
You define a thread's topic with the OP. If it is to be a thread it will be discussed. there is no way around this discussion being political.
Further, ZB explicitly proclaimed in his response to my post that he posted nothing political in the OP. So, if he knew that what he posted in the OP was political...
This has many meanings. One such meaning being that he didn't consciously post something political or at least expect for there to be political discussion following the OP (which I am understanding to be more of a "hey look what is in the news" than a "this is my political views and you that don't agree are wrong". so giving info not starting a political discussion thread). In this sense if this was his intent and what happened then yes he is correct. he posted nothing political. Now how you seem to be interpreting it as that he's lying because something he posted was political and a poster in the thread decided to make a political response to political stuff in the OP. in this since you are correct. he did post something that is political. We can sit here and argue all day long. in this sense both of you guys are right but kinda on different points. Part of that point being intent or knowledge when posting. It is quite possible that he never intended or expected for it to become a discussion thread. it could very well have just been a here is some news thread. yes there was political stuff in it BUT it seems that his motivation was not to bring political discussion but rather just awareness or knowledge of the event. this means not trying to be political. trying to be informative (about a political event). It could be said that he is at fault for posting something that has political content but if his thread was meant to be for informing, and not a debate, then he was not the one that brought the banned discussion into the thread.
The ban is on political and religious discussions and debates, and not on the awareness or informing of such events. yes informing others about such events can result in discussion or debating in said areas but a thread started to inform on such topics is not violating the ban. Any poster that wishes to debate the issue is violating the ban. Not the OP unless it was designed as a discussion type thread.
let me parse this out...
This has many meanings.
No, it does not.
One such meaning being that he didn't consciously post something political or at least expect for there to be political discussion following the OP (which I am understanding to be more of a "hey look what is in the news" than a "this is my political views and you that don't agree are wrong".
No it is not one such meaning. The topic is political. A discussion of a political topic will be political unless there is some restrictions put in place to prevent it such as explicitly describing what the non-political topic is. There is no way around this.
So, this OP was not a "this is my political views and you that don't agree are wrong" statement? But, the OP explicitly states otherwise. The OP stated: "I like this idea. It makes too much sense to reach any of the people it's targeting, however." So, I like this idea shows agreement with the idea. Saying that it makes too much sense to reach any of the people it is targeting is explicitly stating that those who disagree with it are both wrong and too stupid to know it.
There is no way around this.
...so giving info not starting a political discussion thread
Except that the info given was political and the wording of the OP explicitly stated agreement with it and proclaimed those who disagreed to be stupid. Yes, it obviously would start a political discussion thread. See again, the link. It is blatantly obvious what would be discussed.
We can sit here and argue all day long. in this sense both of you guys are right but kinda on different points. Part of that point being intent or knowledge when posting. It is quite possible that he never intended or expected for it to become a discussion thread.
This line of argument is laughable. It is the heart of willful ignorance in its greatest incarnation. Your argument is basically that he posted a link in a thread and had no idea that it would become the discussion of the thread because he had no idea that there would be posts in response. The thing about willful ignorance is that there really is no ignorance as to what is or will be occurring.
yes there was political stuff in it BUT it seems that his motivation was not to bring political discussion but rather just awareness or knowledge of the event. this means not trying to be political. trying to be informative (about a political event).
It means no such thing at all. Complete handwaving argument. Again, you fail to recognize that he made political comments in the form of agreement and casting dispersions upon those who do not. That is not merely informing of an event.
The ban is on political and religious discussions and debates, and not on the awareness or informing of such events. yes informing others about such events can result in discussion or debating in said areas but a thread started to inform on such topics is not violating the ban. Any poster that wishes to debate the issue is violating the ban. Not the OP unless it was designed as a discussion type thread.
Great conclusion except that it does not bear a resemblance to what was actually posted. The OP contained personal political commentary in the form of agreement as well as in the form of dispersions against those who disagreed. That is not "merely" informative.
Just a quick thanks to everyone for helping illustrate the point why such threads are a Bad Idea.Grudges and arguments carry over to other threads. Old fights get rehashed and brought back. It never ends, and the intent of the forum when it was created gets lost.
Cute, but it has so much more to do with the players then the topic. Someone with a grudge will act on it regardless of topic.
Correct. I have been addressing the topic. You have continually addressed me. It appears someone other than me is holding some sort of grudge.
If you don't think a statement or sentence can have multiple meanings or interpretations then I suggest you take some philosophy classes or research it quite a bit.
What is banned is the discussion of political or religious things, and not the mentioning or informing of things that fall under those headings. Under that ban it would be OK for one to just mention/inform about something of political or religious nature. It would however be a violation of the ban for people to discuss or debate upon that topic and well if a thread was to only inform about said topic then such discussion could even be seen as off topic to thread. In such a case it is not brought by the OP of a thread but by a thread responder.
Now if you think that such should not be allowed or think it is us worming around what was explicitly stated about the ban then go cry to webster or whomever to yell about the ban being extended to even mentioning of anything that can be construed as being political or religious. As of now all that I'm reading is that only the discussion of such topics is out of line. The informing of such, as the ban taken to word, is not under banned territory.
If your over zealous paladin defending of the ban rule need be used then use it to attack to point out those that started the discussion in the threads (ya know the ones that went into ban territory first) and not the OP (of which the one being discussed is someone you've seemed to have harassed in the past) whom just posted something to inform about a situation which seems to be OK by the ban wording.
I think I'm done with this thread. I see no reason to keep feeding the grudges that you hold for several posters here that you never wish to ever drop.
Correct. I have been addressing the topic. You have continually addressed me. It appears someone other than me is holding some sort of grudge.
Please, you came into this post swinging, drudging up as much tangentally related bits of history as you could, and then kept right at it, even yelling at someone who dared suggest you take your grudge to PMs (speaking of which, what does it say if a complete stranger can see that giant chip on your shoulder within three posts?)
See with something like language one sentence can have many meanings. You are choosing to ignore all possible meanings in order to choose your own so that you can build up a false position for the other person so that it is easier to knock it down.
If you don't think a statement or sentence can have multiple meanings or interpretations then I suggest you take some philosophy classes or research it quite a bit.
What is banned is the discussion of political or religious things, and not the mentioning or informing of things that fall under those headings. Under that ban it would be OK for one to just mention/inform about something of political or religious nature. It would however be a violation of the ban for people to discuss or debate upon that topic and well if a thread was to only inform about said topic then such discussion could even be seen as off topic to thread. In such a case it is not brought by the OP of a thread but by a thread responder.
Now if you think that such should not be allowed or think it is us worming around what was explicitly stated about the ban then go cry to webster or whomever to yell about the ban being extended to even mentioning of anything that can be construed as being political or religious. As of now all that I'm reading is that only the discussion of such topics is out of line. The informing of such, as the ban taken to word, is not under banned territory.
If your over zealous paladin defending of the ban rule need be used then use it to attack to point out those that started the discussion in the threads (ya know the ones that went into ban territory first) and not the OP (of which the one being discussed is someone you've seemed to have harassed in the past) whom just posted something to inform about a situation which seems to be OK by the ban wording.
I think I'm done with this thread. I see no reason to keep feeding the grudges that you hold for several posters here that you never wish to ever drop.
Cut, the bull.
Your whole logic was that it was merely informative of the event.
Adding your own personal ideas is stepping beyond that. It was no longer merely an informative thread and there was no expectation for it to not have discussion. I explained this again and again and yet you still ignore it because there is no answert to it. It had nothing to do with merely informing. The OP itself explicitly cast dispersions upon a large group of people and yet you ignore it as if it didn't exist.
If you don't think a statement or sentence can have multiple meanings or interpretations then I suggest you take some philosophy classes or research it quite a bit.
You are ignoring the fact that this OP was very specific about what it meant. It was in agreement with the political idea. Those who disagreed were idiots. I don't need a philosophy class to know what was meant. This is merely another attempt to attack the poster rather than the argument being made.
If your over zealous paladin defending of the ban rule need be used
What the hell are you talking about? I have not defended the ban rule in this thread. I have simply stated that people do know what they are doing while refraining from saying whether or not such things should be banned. Another personal attack.
(ya know the ones that went into ban territory first)
The OP did so first when it called any who disagreed with it a hypocrit without enough sense to realize being a hypocrit. Second, the discussion brought up was that clarification was needed for topic posting. That is why the references were made to the OP being clearly political. It was related directly to the topic of the thread.
and not the OP (of which the one being discussed is someone you've seemed to have harassed in the past)
I did no such thing. More personal attacks. Tallying the most personal attacks does not make your case stronger.
What is banned is the discussion of political or religious things, and not the mentioning or informing of things that fall under those headings. Under that ban it would be OK for one to just mention/inform about something of political or religious nature. It would however be a violation of the ban for people to discuss or debate upon that topic and well if a thread was to only inform about said topic then such discussion could even be seen as off topic to thread. In such a case it is not brought by the OP of a thread but by a thread responder.
Nice and flowery but it still ignores the most blatantly obvious point. The OP discussed it. The OP agreed with the premise and called out as not having enoughsense to realize they are hypocrits those who disagreed with it.
I think I'm done with this thread. I see no reason to keep feeding the grudges that you hold for several posters here that you never wish to ever drop.
Again, more personal attacks. No such thing has happened. I mentioned ZBs post as a case in point and its connection to the welcome sticky made it difficult to not mention his name. He called me a liar. I avoided EE and even thought that the attention I received might have been good natured until I was informed otherwise. I have done nothing but respond to your posts and yet you have attacked me again and again.
I'm not the one holding a grudge. I am arguing the case that experienced posters actually know what they are doing. My responders, OTOH, have referred to me as a liar, acting in poor taste, holding grudges, harassing people, etc., etc.
I guess I should expect that when arguing the stronger case here.
Correct. I have been addressing the topic. You have continually addressed me. It appears someone other than me is holding some sort of grudge.
Please, you came into this post swinging, drudging up as much tangentally related bits of history as you could, and then kept right at it, even yelling at someone who dared suggest you take your grudge to PMs (speaking of which, what does it say if a complete stranger can see that giant chip on your shoulder within three posts?)
Factually incorrect.
I point by point stated that people did not need to know exactly where the line is.The information was not tangential. Things only became tangential when you began posting links to things that had nothing to do with the topic. The poster who suggested I take it to PMs is the one who said that I was acting in poor taste and completely ignored my points ro criticize me before saying I should take it to PMs. I am not too fond of people bringing out public ridicule against me and then telling me to take it to PM. His resonse was not nice from his first post before I ever addressed him.
I like how according to Rumple, I can't talk about my day without willfully and deliberately starting a political discussion. Ever.
Talking about your day is fine. Deliberately bringing up gay rights is starting a political discussion. I know the difference and I am sure that you do. This speaking in hyperbole to try and minimize my arguments is not strong material.
Cut, the bull.
Your whole logic was that it was merely informative of the event.
Adding your own personal ideas is stepping beyond that. It was no longer merely an informative thread and there was no expectation for it to not have discussion. I explained this again and again and yet you still ignore it because there is no answert to it. It had nothing to do with merely informing. The OP itself explicitly cast dispersions upon a large group of people and yet you ignore it as if it didn't exist.
Let me clarify just once before I leave this thread entirely for I think I can help your lack of reading comprehension. I have stated that I've not read that thread and choose not to. I have decided to give ZB the benefit of the doubt. I do not ignore it but rather I am completely ignorant of such if it is true. Now if I go off of what ZB said, and his supporting cast (I'll go off of them cuz well you seem to pick and choose things as they suit you rather than well the truth of fact cuz it is easier for you to bait, flame and harass other posters that way) are telling the truth about things, of which I have little reason as to doubt them, then you are wrong.
You however will continue to change things to what they are not so as to better suit your argument, attacks and harassment of other posters and there is nothing we can do to stop you. So since the only thing that one can do is not feed people that thrive at partaking in such acts is to not respond to them I shall be gone from this thread. I've explained myself, even though I did ahead of time, and you seemed to ignore it. Hopefully this does clarify it although I'm sure it will be ignored like it just was a bit before.
Good bye.
Just a quick thanks to everyone for helping illustrate the point why such threads are a Bad Idea.
Grudges and arguments carry over to other threads. Old fights get rehashed and brought back. It never ends, and the intent of the forum when it was created gets lost.
See - I see this differently. To me, this seems more a personality issue, one that could have been sparked by any source. Heck - some of my most heated arguments have been with other posters in this thread, and to my knowledge, no grudges of this nature have come about. Meanwhile, even the heat you see in some of the topics doesn't even compare to the "official" boards. Go check out any of the GD discussions on alignment one day. This forum (and Astrid's) do tend to blur or even cross the line, but, for the most part, people realize what they are doing, and remain somewhat civil in it. Those that don't - well, truth be told, they tend to lose civility regardless of the topic (in my experience here, thus far)
Cut, the bull.
Your whole logic was that it was merely informative of the event.
Adding your own personal ideas is stepping beyond that. It was no longer merely an informative thread and there was no expectation for it to not have discussion. I explained this again and again and yet you still ignore it because there is no answert to it. It had nothing to do with merely informing. The OP itself explicitly cast dispersions upon a large group of people and yet you ignore it as if it didn't exist.
Let me clarify just once before I leave this thread entirely for I think I can help your lack of reading comprehension. I have stated that I've not read that thread and choose not to. I have decided to give ZB the benefit of the doubt. I do not ignore it but rather I am completely ignorant of such if it is true. Now if I go off of what ZB said, and his supporting cast (I'll go off of them cuz well you seem to pick and choose things as they suit you rather than well the truth of fact cuz it is easier for you to bait, flame and harass other posters that way) are telling the truth about things, of which I have little reason as to doubt them, then you are wrong.
You however will continue to change things to what they are not so as to better suit your argument, attacks and harassment of other posters and there is nothing we can do to stop you. So since the only thing that one can do is not feed people that thrive at partaking in such acts is to not respond to them I shall be gone from this thread. I've explained myself, even though I did ahead of time, and you seemed to ignore it. Hopefully this does clarify it although I'm sure it will be ignored like it just was a bit before.
Good bye.
You choose to give ZB the benefit of the doubt because you ignore the facts in this case.
1. The topic was political.
2. The OP made political commentary in contrast to ZB's claim earlier in this thread.
3. That commentary not only made it a political discussion thread but specifically ridiculed those who disagreed with both him and the premise of the article.
4. It doesn't matter if you have or have not read the thread because I have not been discussing the thread.
5. I have changed nothing. I am baiting no one. I am harassing no one. In this case I am being harassed over and over again. It is quite ridiculous.
6. If you actually go off what he said in the OP it is obvious. I find it humorous that you say you will simply not bother looking at the thread and continue to make judgements about it.
Talking about your day is fine. Deliberately bringing up gay rights is starting a political discussion.
Since discussing my day can (and has) lead to political discussion, I would be willfully ignorant to think I can speak of my day and not expect such, correct?
Now I'm here, urgh.
I should say something interesting. Uhhhh...I don't have a real profile, except this one. It's accurate.
Hey, I thought about MySpace, for like a minute.
Okay. Relevance?
Now I'm here, urgh.
Great. Relevance? And "urgh" usually indicates some displeasure. Why come here if you don't like it?
I should say something interesting. Uhhhh...I don't have a real profile, except this one. It's accurate.
Why should you say something interesting? This is not your blog. You do not need to post here. When you realized you had nothing to say, as indicated by the start of this last paragraph, the reasonable thing to do would have been to delete it and not post anything.
I'm pretty sure nobody really cares about your bizarre stream of consciousness ramblings. If you think people do, get a blog. Put a link to it in your sig and contribute to conversations instead of posting non-sequiters and nonsense.
Now to clear up a couple of things. One, I was mistaken when I said I didn't make a political post in the OP - but considering I also admitted I didn't go back and check the thread, that shouldn't be much of a surprise. And considering I have nearly 12,000 posts, it shouldn't be a surprise that I didn't accurately remember that one. Take that as you will. Or don't. I will not apologize as I never called anyone a liar. I will not explain my thinking behind posting that (which I do recall) as it's been demonstrated that whatever I say will be interpreted in whatever way the reader thinks anyway - regardless of the reality of the situation. Want to talk about any post I've made? Send me a PM and I'll do my best to recall the situation and explain what it was all about. I have no problem addressing private concerns privately. I'd also like to take the time to remind everyone participating in this thread - more for future situations as I hope participation here ends and this thread is locked - that we are supposed to discuss the post - not the person that posted it.
Personally, after glancing over the four pages or so that popped up after I last checked this, I found it quite disconcerting that so many people - regardless of which 'side' they were on - presumed to speak for me and my thoughts on the situation in question. I know that everyone was simply trying to state their case and that some were trying to defend me, but this is how things get out of hand. No person here can know what another meant when they wrote what they did. Assuming you do can cause some major problems and that's something I think we all got to see here. And, of course, this isn't to say it's something I've never done or will never do again. This is for everyone - including me. Anyhoo, that's about it. I think I done said what I done needed to and hopefully I didn't bug anyone with it. Now let's all stop the pointless bickering and move on, k? Thanks for wastin' some time with me. I do appreciate it.
I wasn't taking sides with anybody, or anyone. My point-step diagram was made directly from piecing together Rumples ranting and raving, not from my own personal opinion. That diagram reflects how Rumple feels about the whole situation {from what I managed to piece together}, not a personal representation of my own thoughts on the matter. Saavy?
Excellent!