The Glade 4.0

A key difference, in terms of moderation, as far as I am concerned, is the introduction of personal information (place of employment, state of residency, and serious accusations of criminal behavior that could potentially cause damaging results - in other words libel) outside the realm of 1s and 0s.

Personal attacks are one thing when you're attacking an online personality - attacking a person's life is something entirely different. Khross crossed this line, Riov did not.

I don't think this sort of behavior should be tolerated by anyone for a second.

^
This.

TheRiov has been creepily baiting people for years. Khross has intervened repeatedly when it was aimed at other people (many of whom refuse to post here any more.) This time he was the victim of the pattern of bullying and taunting.

This is like blaming a kid for knocking their long term tormentor down.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

I think it's important to note that Khross did not alege anything about TheRiov. Rather, he pointed out how ludicrous it would be to conflate correlation and causality in a way that would end up accusing TheRiov of something he didn't do.

There's a difference between a personal attack and making something personal to drive a point home.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Khross has done just as much bullying around here as anyone else.

This may be true. It might not. What you are describing does sound like something Khross would say.

Problem is, the post is gone, so I can't agree with you or disagree. I didn't read it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

And...I am watching TheRiov circumvent his ban by logging on to an RP alt.

:-p

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

I removed the specific portion of text that was asked to be removed and returned the rest of the posts. If you need the removed portion of text, sorry, it's gone now.

_________________

Apparently Riov is still logging using an alt account?

I see Baethia in the 'Who is Online' section below as I type this.

Two things:
1. The ban is against posting, not reading. The forum software cannot lock out a banned person from even reading the forum; even if the account is locked out, the person can just log out and read. I know Khross is still reading, this thread at least. To block from reading, I'd need to block the IP at the system level. I do know how to do this but it's a pain in the butt.
2. I allowed Rynar to continue playing his pbp game as long as he did not post in the main forums. As long as neither person posts in the main forum w/ an alt account, it's fine.

_________________

So the rest has been redacted, but lets take the first two paragraphs of the post:



In the first, he's railing against a generalization that turns correlation between a few pieces of folklore and dogs into a generalized statement.

In the second, he's making similar argument to personalize it to TheRiov. Basically, saying that the correlation between (a bunch of incorrect facts) and (someone from a similar area posting here) has to imply that TheRiov is indeed the person those facts are about. And then he sarcastically implies that it has to be the same person.

TheRiov even says that the facts aren't true- and from what Khross wrote, that was the obvious intent, hence his bit about conflating correlation (two unrelated people with some similarities) and causation (due to those similarities, TheRiov must be that individual.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I agree, now that I read it. This is not an attack. It was a logical argument using direct comparison.

(I'm not saying Khross never flames or trolls...or that he hasn't deserved a suspension in the past. Just not for this specific example.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

oh really .... I'm calling bullshit.








Very lame excuse. You didn't know she is a nurse? Yes, yes. You tried to apologize. ****.

By your own words above, you should have had your own suspension.

_________________
“The person who tries to live alone will not succeed as a human being. His heart withers if it does not answer another heart. His mind shrinks away if he hears only the echoes of his own thoughts and finds no other inspiration.” - Pearl S. Buck

^
This²

_________________
“The person who tries to live alone will not succeed as a human being. His heart withers if it does not answer another heart. His mind shrinks away if he hears only the echoes of his own thoughts and finds no other inspiration.” - Pearl S. Buck

Looks like you guys did to Khross what you did to me about three years ago.

I am not offering a rebuttal, but consider the content of Khross's post. It's akin to using the word nigger in Harlem. Regardless of the context or the meaning behind the post Khross made, the audience is a group of middle-aged white people who spend all of their time on the internet, and frankly, are all sort of creepy. So our natural reaction is that we were all personally called child molesters. For that reason, I motion that we replace "sex offender" or "child molester" with "the m-word" in order to be more sensitive to everyone's feelings.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Anybody remember half the glade freaking out on Aizle when he made a comparison to LK about the emotional cost of losing a child? I got crap for defending him, but he didn't attack her, and he didn't say anything out of place or wrong. He didn't even say anything offensive. She opened herself up to the comment though by posting a lot of personal information here on the glade, then posting in a discussion where the comparison was warranted.

I don't see this as any different. If you're going to make posts here and play hardball with your arguments, you have to be prepared that ANY argument will be used back at you.

I'm as much against an unmoderated, anything goes Hellfire as I ever was. However, I'd personally reserve such moderation for actual flames and ad hominems, rather than "metaphorical reasoning which I find offensive."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Sure, standing alone, that's all Khross' post does. But taken in the context of previous posts, it's pretty obvious that Khross' choice of example was intended to refer back to some repugnant suggestions that have been made about TheRiov before. The implication was not subtle.

That's rather the point. He's comparing TheRiov's complaints to those same repugnant suggestions.

Making ones metaphors highly personal and emotionally jarring is generally a good idea if you think the other person is not getting the point. They act as a figurative slap across the face; a bucket of ice-water to douse perceived irrationality. Best-case scenario, the person actually gets a point they weren't getting previously because of the personal nature of them. Worst case scenario, the target ends up going off the deep end in a frothing rant, which, in a logical debate, is a major win for the person who remained calm.

TheRiov tells me the post was problematic for various personal reasons. This may be so.

Hellfire is not a nice place. It's not intended to be, even if direct personal attacks are policed. Any type of argument goes here, any example is acceptable. If you don't want to deal with that, you probably should stay the **** out.

Which is why I usually do.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Again, absent context one could maybe argue that Khross was just trying to use a jarring personal example to better communicate his point to TheRiov, but we all know that's not the case. Khross has repeatedly expressed intense feelings of animosity toward TheRiov, and I find it implausible that he was merely trying to communicate rather than cut. I'm not saying the suspension was warranted; nor am I saying it wasn't. I'm not really arguing about the standards of Hellfire one way or the other. I'm just saying, let's not play the "I'm not touching you...I'm not touching you...I'm not touching you..." game and pretend that we aren't aware of the context surrounding Khross' comment and the clear intent behind it.

This issue is the Trayvon Martin case of the Glade.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Don't all what Khross said but if it was some sexual example used toward Riov, it was probably apt. The guy is creepy and has made many questionable sexual comments in the past.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

yeah, see...that would be direct flaming.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I think Taly covered it pretty well in her post, but I'm not arguing that he was solely and purely trying to communicate. Rather, I'm making the distinction between the comment as a "personal attack" and a comment that makes uncomfortable suggestions on the way to making a point. And in fact, in light of the past threads, I'd say the point he was trying to make was especially valid, as they are cases of correlation bridging into causation that TheRiov is distinctly uncomfortable with when made against him.

It's not nice, but as Taly pointed out, communication here doesn't have to be "nice". It just has to not cross the huge and far placed lines surrounding "don't be an *******". And since Arathain is pushing for a permanent ban based on over-the-line personal attacks, that's what I'm responding to.

I don't feel Khross's comments were "nice". But I don't think they were libelous personal attacks and accusations, either.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Psssst you didn't. Khross has a post with it imbedded in quotes.

Huh what? I think she said in the thread she was a nurse? Don't remember for sure. I'm not seeing how that matters? As for apologizing - yes and no. I didn't "try", I did. But not for making a crack, for being unclear about my crack, such that she took it for serious (as well as my follow up sarcastic "hilarious" shot at my own dumb sense of humor). I certainly didn't apologize for not knowing she was sensitive about certain issues, and explained why.

Never once did I make an excuse, I said I do not hold myself to the responsibility of knowing everyone's personalities.



I have to be honest, I am at a complete loss at how these two "incidents" can remotely be compared.

I have corrected it. Sorry.

_________________