Is calling someone a coward a ban worthy offense

Author: Outplayz

Posts

Total: 229
#91
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The point is that it is the bully who should be forced to walk away from their screen or punished, not the victim. Thanks for quoting one of the single worst rappers of the last decade, it's very intriguing he'd be the one to make such a tasteless quote.
#92
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
The other reason is probably bc he calls ideas he disagrees with stupid and other names.

I have had two warning about referring to someone as "stupid" and I have had a warning about letting someone know  that I will be reporting them, and letting someone know I have reported them. 

Personally I cannot see a problem with any of the above. "Stupid"  is an oft word to use when some does actually act or say something that is stupid, It is probably the mildest of all insults.  I have been called a lot worse on this forum and never complained before my warnings about these " breeches in my conduct",  but I do know.

 I cannot see how a friendly forewarning to someone that I will be reporting them, should warrant a warning given to me.
I also cannot see how telling someone that I have reported them, should warrant a warning given to me. 

This is, to me undercover hush hush censorship. There is possibly every chance I will now get a warning about about revealing things about my warnings..   All very silly and very unnecessary. 
#93
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
There is possibly every chance I will now get a warning about about revealing things about my warnings.
Actually revealing person-specific moderation process was explicitly allowed due to the second-most-recent update on CoC. So you don't have to worry about doing what you just did. :)

It is actually the user who has the right to reveal it, not the mod, unless the user is banned then the mod holds the right.
#94
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
"your deluded", you're "mentally ill" you believe in fairy tales?
In the right context they may all three be valid. It seems to me there are far too many snowflakes who simply go after the person instead of tackling the argument. 

#95
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Stephen
I have had two warning about referring to someone as "stupid"
That was more than a month ago. Moderation has been making an effort to be more permissive lately, so the comment in question would not have resulted in a warning under current practices.

As for your other comments, they're not quite right. You were warned for threatening other members with reports and/or moderator action. It was explained to you, in both cases, why your comments constituted threats and were therefore unacceptable. That is not permitted, per site policy, and was also not permitted on DDO.

As for the notion that moderation is "hush hush," that's a bit silly. It's no more hush hush than it was on DDO, and is in fact quite open to criticism and communicating with the site, as this and other threads demonstrate.

#96
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
Everything is allowed on DDO of that sort now as Airmax can't be bothered with those types of rules being enforced etc so he's been used to a different environment than DDO's actual policy.
#97
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@bsh1
As for your other comments, they're not quite right. You were warned for threatening other members with reports and/or moderator action.
 
Not true. First Instance I simply warned I WOULD report IF  the “offender" continued derailing my thread with his nonsense. I  DID NOT mention “moderator action,” simply because I wouldn’t know about that end of any reporting, what happens, where the report goes, who handles it, what the outcome would be? No Only stated I would report if he persisted.

That is hardly threatening behaviour that constitutes a personal attack or insult, now is it. And it didn't bother the offender at all DID IT? , this is proven by the fact that he carried on derailing my threads regardless.
 
The Second instance is when nothing seemed to have deterred the “offender” so the I simply told him that “ I HAD reported him”and I got a warning over that. But even then as I have already stated I  don’t  know about that end of any reporting, what happened,where the report goes, who handles it, what the outcome would be. No I only stated that I HAD reported him in the second instance.
I have the PM’s if you can't recall them yourself. Shall I put them up for you on the open forum?
 
As for the notion that moderation is "hush hush," that's a bit silly. 
Is it? This is why a whole new thread has been started on why someone has been banned and no reason given. It is open now of course only because the question was raised.
 



I

#98
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Bullying is important, especially when done early and often. It checks people's egos, stops them from developing sociopathic tendencies early in life. GoldTop was performing a public service, so this really is a travesty. You know you can't be a fly nigga if you raise your hand.

#99
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@bsh1
That was more than a month ago. Moderation has been making an effort to be more permissive lately, so the comment in question would not have resulted in a warning under current practices.
But will this/these warnings still stand against me should any disciplinary action be brought against me in future?  As I have notice at  post 41 above you state:>  

Given the myriad warnings he received, including the notification that further COC violations were likely to lead to a temp ban. 

What I am asking is, if using the word "stupid" which I have been warned for twice now would  "not have resulted in a warning under current practices",   then are these warnings still on my record or have they been scrubbed, or will they still be held against me in the future?
#100
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Bullies are sociopaths, I fail to understand your point.
#101
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Only a narcissist sees anyone who bullies them as a sociopath, because they assume that no sane person could find grievous fault with them. In reality, most bullies are just normal people who have a very different idea of what is appropriate, and attempt to rectify what they see as errors in your behavior. The amount of 'bullies' that someone has is usually commensurate to the amount of character flaws that they put on display, and their hysterical refusal to correct any of them just attracts more bullies, like moths to a flame. Far from being 'sociopathic', bullying in any social economy is a way of fixing bad behaviour. It's only seen as bad in itself by people who are immature, or just lack the ability to accept criticism. Of course, you can argue that a specific bully is off the mark, but the act itself is very healthy.
#102
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
You can find fault with a person without bullying them. I am not going to address the rest of your BS. Yes, that's right I'm calling your whole post bull fucking shit and if you report this and cry to bsh1 you're not even reporting bullying, you're reporting the softest kind of harsh truth-telling there could be beyond politeness into the realm of what you're describing.

You see, there is a huge abyss between constructive criticism, neutral criticism, destructive but polite-enough criticism and taunting and malignant ego-crushing. You're not wrong though, it is least likely that the ego-lacking end of the spectrum ever would report or concern themselves with bullies. They'd cower 'around' them and dance elegantly such that they don't clash even if that means taking a good fingering against their will from their boss. That's bullying, buddy, and it gets worse than that IRL but let's stick to online. You need to understand something, many bullies are narcissists, many narcissists are sociopaths. A non-narcissistic non-sociopath never ever is a bully but you can get bullies who are one without being the other. There is another variant, one I call an inverted narcissist sociopath. This kind is prone to see themselves as unabashedly average and as all humans should be and any and all other humans as either normal or subhuman for not conforming to the standard said inverted narcissist sees as correct to be.

You will also find that if you study the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths that all bullies are part-sociopath but that the most efficient ones are disciplined psychopaths and in many ways I displayed psychopathic behaviour and strategy in order to defeat the sociopath who I won't name so as to not violate CoC.

You need to comprehend just what this being is; they thrive as others are in agony emotionally. They adore the lack of control and power the other has to prevent their abuse. They flow with what the norm consider 'okay enough' and push it to the maximal edge of bending hoping they don't snap it so that they can do it again and again and if their victim ever snaps in response they can point and say 'angry freak, danger to us get them banned'. I have met many like them IRL and online. ASPD and NPD are not at all as rare as the stats make out. You need to realise that they're also (both) the most capable of all disorders at actively masking that they have it. I would know, I definitely have narcissism but psychopathy/sociopathy is either something I never really had strong enough or something that simply I lack and 'wish I had' at times. I comprehend it, how they work and the way to defeat both kinds of emotionless brute but neither the sociopath nor the psychopath fits me well. I'm definitely more psychopath than sociopath though, that's changed with age (was the other way around when I was banned on DDO and most of my teen-life post-14 I'd say).

I don't give a single shit if it is the narcissists who end up being the ones who have most issue with bullies and are the ones to stop them. I adore that I am one because it makes me a hero even if I am a villain to the bully and that's a great thing to be.

#103
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@bsh1
That was more than a month ago.

Just to add. You are wrong there too. the time stamp for my second warning is:


11.11.2018 08:25 AM and among other things states :

By noting that you have reported the comment, you clearly intimate that the user being reported may be subject to moderator reprisals or punishment. For the purposes of the site's COC, this is not tolerated. 

#104
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, I was not actually making fun of her or even laughing at her. What I meant by it was I was surprised she had forgotten Goldtops behavior so soon.
#105
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Outplayz
That's cool. I'll ease up on the "lol's". 
#106
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
I'm not really surprised.

Sounds like the major reason for his ban involves evidence I do not, and should not, have. I'll respect that I'm never gonna know everything about this. While the ban wasn't a big surprise, the sexual harassment actually was.
#107
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Bigots supporting bigots. Nothing to see here.
Topic's author
#108
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
No problem dude. I know you and that you're not trying to be offensive. Don't even worry about it with me. 
Topic's author
#109
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Yeah Stephen, that is mainly what i am disliking about moderation on this site... everything you just said and your concerns. And it doesn't seem like moderation has an ounce of humility so they will make excuses for their behavior whatever you point out. "It's new now" "it's a threat" etc. etc. Even if you tell them otherwise. I completely understand what you are saying and nothing you have done is warning worthy. This site is giving power to the 'mass reporters' ... the snowflakes that get offended at every corner and report people left and right. That is who this site is giving power to and i find that to be disgusting and sickening. Since i've known Gold for so long... i know exactly how he acts. And yes... it's annoying being someone spiritual myself going against him. But what i have always noticed about Gold is he seem to consciously not go overboard into being malicious, just annoying. That's why i just don't understand. You are even more perfect an example bc from the stuff you said... you shouldn't have any warning to begin with. Like i said, this site is giving power to the snowflakes bc i imagine mods themselves are snowflakes. It is really annoying. I can't wait for the day someone complains about my avatar that it's triggering and they tell me to take it down... it's just a matter of time and i wouldn't put it past them to do so. The mods are killing this site and Mike isn't seeing it. In this case, Gold may have gone overboard if he was warned to stop talking to someone... but even then... we are on forums to criticize other people's views and debate them. If everyone said tell Outplayz not to talk to me... so what then? I can only talk to people that agree with me? That's just laughable and these mods don't get it. 
#110
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Stephen
The warning about you using the word "stupid" was more than a month ago, and it doesn't seem like you're disputing that, since what you quoted had to do with a second kind of offense: making threats. As I told you in private, it is not appropriate to use reports or intimations of moderator action as threats in the forums. Simply report the offense comments and allow moderation to respond to the problem. It was also explained to you in-depth why your actions constituted threats and were inappropriate. 
#111
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Outplayz
Well... definitely one of the reasons we need to have a discussion on. Harassment. If i dislike someone or think what they are saying is poisonous, i will likely reply to them the most often. As weird as that is... but, i would want them to know they are wrong. Now, i don't care as much as goldy does, but we can't fault him for being who he is. So i don't understand how something can be harassment. We are all on forums and if someone is on a forum that i frequent and i vehemently disagree with them... i will let them know. Why in the world would that be harassment? To me harassment would be not answer whatever the person said or posing any questions. Gold always asks questions even if those questions are smart ass ones. So i am not understanding this harassment rule. 

The other reason is probably bc he calls ideas he disagrees with stupid and other names. I don't think he should be faulted for being who he is... i haven't seen him be malicious. I could be wrong since i haven't read everything... but i did read all the recent posts on science and religion and he was just being mean... typical way he acts. 
It sounds like you're saying that we should accept bad behavior as long as the bad behaver is being who they are.

It also strikes me as strange to define harassment as ignoring someone. Or did you mean harassment is when they aggressively respond to your posts without acknowledging any of your points or providing any counterarguments?
Topic's author
#112
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
It sounds like you're saying that we should accept bad behavior as long as the bad behaver is being who they are.
No, if they are just jerks or mean spirited... i don't think that warrants punishment. If they are being malicious then yes they should be warned and go through further consequences if they don't stop. I can give examples, but i don't want to through people under the bus. Mean spirited would just be someone unsympathetic to your views and think they're stupid. Malicious would be intended to harm you. Not just that the idea is stupid, but that you are intellectually handicapped extra to just your idea being stupid. It's attacking the person vs. attacking the substance of whatever they disagree with. When attacking the person you can get malicious. When attacking the substance you can only be mean-spirited. It's that's a delusional idea vs. you are delusional get help. And still then it only requires warning not to attack the person but if it continues, then i would think appropriate moderation is necessary. 

But we most certainly shouldn't ban people just bc they are bitter people. Many times people fail empathy back. It's all me, me, i got offended b.s. But no one thinks maybe this person is in a personal hell and that's why they are bitter. Usually bitter people have their own problems. In any case, i don't think if someone is a jerk, that makes them worthy of getting banned. Of course with the top mentioned being considered. 

It also strikes me as strange to define harassment as ignoring someone. Or did you mean harassment is when they aggressively respond to your posts without acknowledging any of your points or providing any counterarguments?
Your second sentence is correct and what i mean. Harassment should mean someone that goes around and literally harasses you without any substance to their responses. Now, i got a little up and arms about Gold bc i wouldn't be able to confidently say he didn't break this rule.. but the thing i've noticed about him is that he tries not to go overboard and it's usually the result of arguments or insults slung back at him. But, enough about him... i'm really done defending him which is sad... just bc he isn't one of my favorite people i'll just give up on it. Plus, from what it sounds like... he knew he was doing wrong. 

In regards to what you are saying... i don't think it is harassment if someone decides to reply to you the most. Yeah... it could be bc they don't like you and your ideas. But so what? We're on here to be rebuked unless someone is delusional enough to think everyone is going to agree with them. Someone may like me less... and target my ideas. Good. The harder someone disagrees with me the more creative i have to get in explaining myself. I mean, people like Gold have actually made me better .. i can't think of anyone i agree with making me better. Etrnl kinda... but we both believe the same stuff... i don't learn that way. 

And last point, when they said they told him not to talk to people on this forum... i just don't get that. What are people like him suppose to do? People that are generally skeptics and harsher in their rebuke... what are they suppose to do when the mods tell them they can't talk to anyone? You can't talk to A, b, c, d, e, f, user... you can only talk to Outplayz bc everyone else doesn't like you... i mean common, really? As long as the conversation is minimally substantive and it isn't just random rude remarks... we are all on a public forum and are choosing to put ideas, sometimes radical, on these forums... You're going to be criticized. I just see very little empathy for the side that is being reported on. It seems like mob rule to me right now. The crybabies all getting their way... that just makes zero sense to me. Life is hard, there are mean people in this world... stop hiding and step up and justify yourself and be confident in your ideas ...if it gets no where... instead of being offended, know it's the other person problem. Or, rework and grow yourself. You learn very little from agreeable people.    
#113
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Someone on an internet forum who doesn't know what words mean. Nothing to see here.
#114
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Castin
Considering that, by bsh's definition, it's sexual harassment to call someone ugly, I can't say that the accusation really carries much weight.
#115
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The violation was considered severe. Calling someone ugly is not severe.
Topic's author
#116
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
You know what i am thinking... this is actually a gold mine study of what happens when you give certain people the power to define hate speech. It really doesn't get any more gold then this. 
#117
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Outplayz
Goldtop was not for hate speech of any kind. Hate speech did not factor into the decision at all.

#118
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Outplayz
You can gain so much from your allies and those that agree with you. Goldtop did exactly what you said he didn't do. You're blaming victims for the abuse they received and wondering why they were furious. Goldtop deserves mercy and empathy but we don't? Double-standard.
Topic's author
#119
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@bsh1
Goldtop was not for hate speech of any kind. Hate speech did not factor into the decision at all.
That remark didn't have anything to do with Gold. I'm done defending him. I think i've made myself clear on what i don't think is right to moderate in the definitions of what he got in trouble for. I can only hope you saw it the same way. You said i don't know all of it... and, i will concede that i don't. I just hope 1) that it wasn't influenced and 2) that you heeded and thought through the implications of what i laid out to Castin in the comment above. If you saw malicious activity from him... i agree with your decision.

In regards to the hate speech thing... this site is starting to shape up as a perfect example. I personally don't think you can handle policing people's speech bc i don't think anyone can without bias. People can call me stupid all day and i'll just laugh bc i find it funny... You can call someone stupid once and they're devastated. Who do you side with? 
Topic's author
#120
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
I've already conceded i don't know what he did... read my last response to BSh and other places... even to you i think. I trust they made a good decision and that he was being malicious. I've laid out what i also don't think is right.... in the things he got in trouble for but not specifically him... in those definitions, what i wouldn't find justified for punishment.