We can talk about ourselves all we want. All I'm concerned with are other forums. And this includes the Nexon forums as well.
We can talk about ourselves all we want. All I'm concerned with are other forums. And this includes the Nexon forums as well.
fk dis forumz is ghey homosexters
"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
-George Orwell
Outlawing all discussion of other forums =/= outlawing mocking of other forumsOriginally Posted by Fumni
^
Yeah, seriously. And one of the forums that comes to mind with this new rule doesn't even allow forum bashing too, so I don't see the big deal.
Did you even read Animal Farm? It started out with rules meant to have good intentions too, but then they kept adding more and more, until they essentially became the very things they were trying to be different from.
Yes. What I stated was that the new rule is nothing like completely outlawing discussion of another forum. We can't say bad things about other sites. Other sites won't allow SP to even be mentioned, and have filters blocking our name, even those we won't allow people to forum bash. There is a HUGE difference between the 2.
Yes, I read it, not that it matters if you look at that motive of this rule. Also, what MasPan said.
The problem with one certain forum is that it is very difficult to make an objective and complete analysis of it in such a way that does not sound like mocking. While Nazi Germany is a more extreme example, how do you outline its broad list of transgressions and curtailment of rights without it sounding like "mocking?" You have an admin that appoints women as mods in exchange for naked pictures of themselves and attempts to thought-police people, you have warnings that sound like authority pissing down on the people, special treatment of certain users, arbitrary punishment of other users, banning for mentioning other forums or even names of individuals, and more recently you even have admin-condoned intellectual property theft. How in God's name do you talk about that in a way that does not sound pejorative?
Last edited by Derimed; 2009-07-21 at 03:44 PM.
OK since the metaphor in that quote obviously went over your heads, I only blame myself. It was meant to say that the site should watch how many rules it adds, because it could lead to a slippery slope to the site becoming like the very sites it was trying to be different from in the first place.
For example, wouldn't it be easier to amend...
...to include forum bashing as well? The other forums have a trend of making arbitrary rules all the time designed to clean up their sites, and like a tech. tree, they all start at one point. Remember, a lot of bad rules started with good intentions.A. No Flaming - 1 point
Definition: “Any post that, whether intentional or unintentional, implied or direct, insults or causes a hostile action to another user or group of users.”
Be that as it may, the site's rules are entirely up to its owner, and my words are merely a word of caution, and not to be extracted as anything more than that.
You would talk about it the same way hundreds of historians have done - from an objective point of view. I can easily write 100 pages about Nazi Germany in a non-mocking or condescending tone. I could write about some of the positive things that Nazi Germany did (it wasn't all bad).
The point of all this is that we're better than talking down to other forums and insulting them. There is no point in doing it. There is a strong difference between talking about something and flaming it.
As far as the word of caution, I do understand what you're saying. This is not a new rule to clean up the site. This stand that I have about forum bashing has been around for as long as I can remember. It's only now that I'm deciding to attribute infraction points to it rather than just locking/deleting topics.
Even an objective historian will have feelings and opinions, and it DOES sometimes get into personal attacks. If you're discussing a person like Heydrich, Himmler, Eichmann, Goerring or Hitler, in order to be objective (and concise) you need to use words such as "scum," "scoundrel," "murderer," and "inhuman." Historians are not devoid of humanity, and as a historian I can tell you that 100%. In the Japanese occupied territories, you regularly stuff happening like a Japanese soldier puncturing a pregnant Chinese woman's belly with his bayonet and waving the fetus around. To be objective around such things, you have to note the perpetrator's inhumanity.
While the admin in question is not a mass-murderer, he IS a tyrant, he is dishonest, and he is DANGEROUS. He will not extend any sort of courtesy to you or any of us, and while blatant ad hominems should not be tolerated towards anyone, the admin in question IS scum and his forum IS a $hithole, and I do not know how to objectively describe it without mentioning that, even if I make a 10 paragraph OP thread detailing everything I know about the forum, (I've been there since Dec 06.)
Instead of being insulting and telling us that "the quote went over our heads", you could look at it as people interpreting the quote in a different fashion considering BOTH interpretations work.
But yes, perhaps it could have been integrated into the old rule.
v
...what are you talking about.
Last edited by Bomberman; 2009-07-21 at 05:52 PM.
You're selectively reading things. I wrote "since the metaphor in that quote obviously went over your heads, I only blame myself."
It was the metaphor that you didn't empathize with, not your understanding of the quote, which you obviously have a grasp on. I already went with your line of thinking when writing the previous response.
Honestly, I don't see the difference between having this as a separate rule or making a prior rule more encompassing. Aren't you just arguing semantics? The end result is the same. Either way there's a rule that doesn't allow forum bashing, whether its explicitly stated to be its own rule or if its merely a subsection of a preexisting rule.For example, wouldn't it be easier to amend...
Rule about flaming goes here
...to include forum bashing as well? The other forums have a trend of making arbitrary rules all the time designed to clean up their sites, and like a tech. tree, they all start at one point. Remember, a lot of bad rules started with good intentions.
Unless your point is that Forum Bashing seems to be worth more based on those rules, which it's not. Both infractions incur 2 points.
Which reminds me, flaming needs to be edited in the rules.
I completely understood what you were saying about adding more rules. As Fiel/Zaotsu said, however, this is NOT a new rule. This rule has been around in one fashion or another since day one, so what you were trying to say is completely irrelevant. No new rules were created. When the rules being added are in no way limiting our free speech beyond anything already frowned upon, then there is no slippery slope, beyond that in your own argument. You are looking for a problem here that doesn't exist, and in doing so are insulting the people explaining things to you. Saying something went "over [our] heads" is the same as saying "oh, I guess you're not smart enough to understand." Your condescending tone is really not appreciated.
The site's leadership knows what they are doing (in this case, hardly anything, as stated, considering nothing is being changed here beyond taking what was before simply policy and making it rule. Either way, it's enforced the same way) and don't need "words of caution." As with above, that tone is condescending and implies you think you know more than the people you are talking to.
The title of the thread is called "New infraction: forum bashing." It is a new rule.
I could think your tone to my last response "Outlawing all discussion of other forums =/= outlawing mocking of other forums" was condescending, but I know you didn't mean it in that way, nor did I think you were attempting to insult me in that response. It was just a response, and should be handled as such.
You believe the forum moderators are doing a good job. So do I. You feel the mods are right to enact this policy. I am warning them to be careful not to enact too many policies and end up like the very people that compeled them to make this site in the first place.
I am already in agreement that the mods can enact any policy they want. And it is clear the rule will stand.
And zaotsu, you're right, and I was arguing semantics (and failed).
i hated that book because i always thought it was rude to allude Russians to pigs or any other ANIMAL
So I should be insulted that I am alluded to a dragon because I am in a Chinese family and therefore have to follow the Chinese Zodiac? I should be insulted because my universal zodiac sign is Leo the Lion?
Remind me to keep Charlotte's web and Babe away from you, then
Posting Permissions
|
|
Bookmarks