[split] Chippy vs the World
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(08-11-2013 10:57 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 10:16 AM)Ferdinand Wrote:  Why is it that more popular members, such as Chas, have gotten away with such actions in the past?

... and earmuffs?
... and Bucky?

:shitstirringicon:

Adding more veggies to the soup. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 12:13 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(08-11-2013 11:55 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 08:34 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Chippy needs to start a "Post to be Roasted" Roast thread (with a ban immunity), his insults crack me up.
too many people here have thin skins, and Chippy needs an angry place to go.
I find his name calling, personal attacks rather dull and dreary, I would think after a few weeks of it most people would find it extremely dull and dreary. (but maybe some people never grow tired of juvenile insults IDK)
What he was doing to Mark was just way over the top and uncalled for IMO.

I think anyone that can tell another person to get cancer is abhorrent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
08-11-2013, 12:21 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(08-11-2013 10:16 AM)Ferdinand Wrote:  Why is it that more popular members, such as Chas, have gotten away with such actions in the past?

You know the answer as well as I do. Because people wanna apply this stuff selectively, not universally.

Let's for a minute do a thought experiment that involves actually trialling Chas stated approach rather than masturbating to it without thinking it through.

Chas stated in another thread (he tried to avoid it but I pressed him enough to get an answer to my question), that he thought others should be banned for abusive comments but he shouldn't because the comments he aimed at people were deserved.

Now let's imagine we implement a rule; "no abusive comment may be made unless the person making it feels it is deserved". This would not work as almost everyone making an abusive comment feels it is deserved, and even if they didn't they will claim they did.

Now let's imagine we implement a rule; "no abusive comment may be made unless the person receiving it feels it is deserved". This would not work as almost everyone receiving an abusive comment feels it is undeserved (even if most people think it was deserved), and even if they know they deserved it they can claim otherwise to try and get someone they don't like banned.

This leaves us with what Chas actually wants; "no abusive comment may be made unless Chas feels it is deserved". This is what he's really thinking (not just him, everyone who wants similar stuff to him though they replace his name with their own). Obviously this is unworkable as it means everything is down to one person to decide and no guarantee of it being applied fairly or justly. It will most likely vary depending on how much our decider likes the abused person.

Taking that into consideration we have two final options. Either abusive comments are OK, or they aren't. If they are OK then Chippy and other controversial people can say what they please. If not then Chas, Bucky, Girly, earmuffs (and probably half the forum come to think of it) will be warned or banned within a week.

Now let's wait for the inevitable queue of people to tell me I'm wrong but refuse to elaborate as to why. Smile

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
08-11-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(08-11-2013 12:21 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 10:16 AM)Ferdinand Wrote:  Why is it that more popular members, such as Chas, have gotten away with such actions in the past?

You know the answer as well as I do. Because people wanna apply this stuff selectively, not universally.

Let's for a minute do a thought experiment that involves actually trialling Chas stated approach rather than masturbating to it without thinking it through.

Chas stated in another thread (he tried to avoid it but I pressed him enough to get an answer to my question), that he thought others should be banned for abusive comments but he shouldn't because the comments he aimed at people were deserved.

Now let's imagine we implement a rule; "no abusive comment may be made unless the person making it feels it is deserved". This would not work as almost everyone making an abusive comment feels it is deserved, and even if they didn't they will claim they did.

Now let's imagine we implement a rule; "no abusive comment may be made unless the person receiving it feels it is deserved". This would not work as almost everyone receiving an abusive comment feels it is undeserved (even if most people think it was deserved), and even if they know they deserved it they can claim otherwise to try and get someone they don't like banned.

This leaves us with what Chas actually wants; "no abusive comment may be made unless Chas feels it is deserved". This is what he's really thinking (not just him, everyone who wants similar stuff to him though they replace his name with their own). Obviously this is unworkable as it means everything is down to one person to decide and no guarantee of it being applied fairly or justly. It will most likely vary depending on how much our decider likes the abused person.

Taking that into consideration we have two final options. Either abusive comments are OK, or they aren't. If they are OK then Chippy and other controversial people can say what they please. If not then Chas, Bucky, Girly, earmuffs (and probably half the forum come to think of it) will be warned or banned within a week.

Now let's wait for the inevitable queue of people to tell me I'm wrong but refuse to elaborate as to why. Smile

Again, you misrepresent what I said. I did not say people should be banned for abusive comments.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 12:49 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(08-11-2013 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Again, you misrepresent what I said. I did not say people should be banned for abusive comments.

You think people should be allowed to make them?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(08-11-2013 12:49 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Again, you misrepresent what I said. I did not say people should be banned for abusive comments.

You think people should be allowed to make them?

People here have always made them.

Why did Christsays get banned? For his behavior.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
Quote:Because people wanna apply this stuff selectively, not universally.
And you are also one of those people, just needs to be said.

Quote:Now let's wait for the inevitable queue of people to tell me I'm wrong but refuse to elaborate as to why.
I'll elaborate.

From my perspective obviously.

I don't care if somebody calls me a cunt or worse, and I don't have a problem telling somebody that he's a cunt. I am comfortable arguing on any level, from simple name calling to a respectable disagreement. That's why I usually let the other person set the tone.

As I already stated in that other full retard thread. Calling somebody a cunt isn't a problem, being a cunt is.
If someones only purpose on the forum is to hate and call names , or to spam or cause disturbance and disrupt , belittle or abuse other members than he is most likely a cunt, and that is where you mods should come in with a banhammer if necessary. And you should weigh one's overall contribution.
Yes, older and contributing members should get perks and get a pass if they occasionally overstep the lines, imo.


You people make the rules, but making rules without the will to enforce them is pointless.
I am assuming that you and other mods got to be mods because somebody thought that you are reasonable enough to know when rues must be enforced and when you need to be more pragmatic.

/rambling

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
08-11-2013, 12:59 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(08-11-2013 12:13 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I think anyone that can tell another person to get cancer is abhorrent.
I'd like to know who thought it was funny when Chippy made that comment.
Any takers?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:01 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(08-11-2013 12:21 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Taking that into consideration we have two final options. Either abusive comments are OK, or they aren't. If they are OK then Chippy and other controversial people can say what they please. If not then Chas, Bucky, Girly, earmuffs (and probably half the forum come to think of it) will be warned or banned within a week.

Now let's wait for the inevitable queue of people to tell me I'm wrong but refuse to elaborate as to why. Smile

That's a superficial false dilemma, Hughsie. And you should know that. You're not that fatuous Tongue.

The primary objection being that behaviour is not binary. There is a matter of degrees - to be reductive myself, though not nearly to the extent you are, we might say a spectrum exists between one who is never "controversial and/or abusive" (those things being perceived subjectively, mind) and one who is exclusively "controversial and/or abusive" towards others.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
08-11-2013, 01:07 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(08-11-2013 12:58 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  And you are also one of those people, just needs to be said.

I feel I'm pretty fair with how I think stuff should be applied.

(08-11-2013 12:58 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  I'll elaborate.

From my perspective obviously.

I don't care if somebody calls me a cunt or worse, and I don't have a problem telling somebody that he's a cunt. I am comfortable arguing on any level, from simple name calling to a respectable disagreement. That's why I usually let the other person set the tone.

As I already stated in that other full retard thread. Calling somebody a cunt isn't a problem, being a cunt is.
If someones only purpose on the forum is to hate and call names , or to spam or cause disturbance and disrupt , belittle or abuse other members than he is most likely a cunt, and that is where you mods should come in with a banhammer if necessary. And you should weigh one's overall contribution.
Yes, older and contributing members should get perks and get a pass if they occasionally overstep the lines, imo.


You people make the rules, but making rules without the will to enforce them is pointless.
I am assuming that you and other mods got to be mods because somebody thought that you are reasonable enough to know when rues must be enforced and when you need to be more pragmatic.

/rambling

This is where the problem is. Christsays was just here to troll, he lasted about two days and was banned. Chippy's different, he's not a troll, he can just be an ass sometimes. That's where the problem is. We currently have no rule against being an ass, it fact it's practically specifically stated to be allowed.

And it's not a matter of occasionally overstepping the lines some people want drawn with certain long-term member. They pretty much exclusively stay past the line. People would expect that to be allowed while new members who crossed it once got stung. That would in no way be fair.

Thanks for the response though, it's nice to have someone tell me why they disagree rather than just saying they do. Smile

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: