Episode III spoilers forum: Acceptable behavior?

anakin_girl

...you're welcome to present some options to me and ask if I think it's going too far.

Which of the following would not be allowed?

1) The idea you presented is wrong.

2) The idea you presented sucks.

3) Your idea conflicts with the general philosophy of the movies.

4) Your idea is pathetic.

5) Your idea is horrible.

6) "Again, so unbelievably wrong. How on Earth can you guys talk about that which you have no clue about." - very recent 3SA quote from you-know-who.

7) That's an asinine theory.

I would say that if you even think you're going to offend someone, don't say it.

There are some that are so extremely sensitive that the only way for me to do this would be to never post here again. It's too restrictive.

The only reason anyone would have for posting "That's the dumbest theory I've seen yet" is to hurt someone's feelings.

No, the other reason is because it's the dumbest theory I've seen yet and I'm expressing my opinion. There are entire threads in 3SA devoted to the worst (and best) ideas heard so far.

--------

Syntax

Oh, right. So... on page 21 of this thread, when you were asking anakins_girl if she found a specific phrase offensive, you weren't doing it KNOWING it would offend her...? That's rich.

You are openly accusing me of lying. Should I not be offended? Doesn't this violate the very rules you are pushing? By the way, I am not offended. I've never been offended by anything said to me here because none of you know me.

I was not trying to offend her. I wanted her honest opinion on MeBeJedi's statement. Previously, I had asked her about one of his statements and she refused to comment. So this time I tried it without identifying the poster.

If you think something is a bad idea, you could always just ignore it, or keep it to yourself, no?

Astonishing. Now we have someone trying to suppress all criticism whatsoever. How far will this go? 1984, here we come.

Calling the idea "horrible" does not fall under this category.

I am amazed that if someone says Elton John should sing the closing theme song of AOTC, that I can't say it's horrible.

 

You are openly accusing me of lying. Should I not be offended? Doesn't this violate the very rules you are pushing?

Not really.
Besides, the Mods saw your comment for what it was. You got temp-banned, no?

I was not trying to offend her. I wanted her honest opinion on MeBeJedi's statement.

There's better ways to phrase your query than how you did, then. The way it was phrased, it seemed for all intents and purposes to be trolling. And you got banned for it.

Moral: If you think someone could find something offensive, don't say it.

Astonishing. Now we have someone trying to suppress all criticism whatsoever. How far will this go? 1984, here we come.

You did not answer my question. Could you not just ignore the comment or idea presented, instead of offending the person?

There are some that are so extremely sensitive that the only way for me to do this would be to never post here again. It's too restrictive.

Well, at least give your comments some thought - if a Moderator can ban you for what you said, and I daresay the Moderators aren't the most "sensitive" people on this forum, then you're doing something wrong.

Which of the following would not be allowed?

1) The idea you presented is wrong.

2) The idea you presented sucks.

3) Your idea conflicts with the general philosophy of the movies.

4) Your idea is pathetic.

5) Your idea is horrible.

6) "Again, so unbelievably wrong. How on Earth can you guys talk about that which you have no clue about." - very recent 3SA quote from you-know-who.

7) That's an asinine theory.

#1 is not trolling, especially if you qualify it with why you think the idea is wrong. That's called constructive, productive discussion.
#2 is trolling, if for word-choice alone.
#3 is not trolling, for the same reason as #1.
#4 is trolling, again for word-choice.
#5 is not trolling, for the same reason as #1 and #3.
#6 is trolling, because it attacks the author. It claims the author doesn't know what he/she is talking about, which has nothing to do with the argument itself. It's both an ad hominem fallacy, and circular reasoning, because it claims that the argument is wrong because the author doesn't know what he/she is talking about, and the evidence that he/she doesn't know what they are talking about is that the argument is wrong.
#7 is trolling, again, for word-choice.

We can play this game all day. All it takes is a little thought and common sense. All you (or anyone else) needs to do is respect other users' right to hold an opinion. The difference between someone posting their opinion and you not being able to totally slam it is, they didn't herald their opinion as the be-all, end-all of opinions and slam everyone else's when they made it. They merely said, "This is my idea". For you to attack it and call it "pathetic" would be unjustified. To CRITICIZE the idea intelligently and offer a counter-argument while still respecting the opinion and the person who holds it would be merely common human decency. Merely saying an opinion is "wrong" without clarifying WHY you think that is also an affront to the opinion and the person that posted it. If you don't clarify it, why is your word worth more than the other person's, that you can expect to say "That's wrong. The end" and be done with it? That's demeaning, plain and simple.
I'm not saying you have to agree with everyone, nor am I saying you're not allowed to criticize and respond to opinions. I'm saying that all it takes is a little common-sense. You've got over 2,300 posts on this forum, I can only hope that in your experience on this forum (and in real life) you've learned what comments are appropriate and constructive, and what comments aren't. To have to clarify for you what's a no-no and what isn't, aside from taking all of eternity, is a waste of everyone's time. If you don't know how to respect other people's opinions and how to help make this forum a constructive and (semi) pleasant place to discuss various topics, then maybe you sh

 

Interesting how you have a distinction between number 4 and 5.

 

Claiming something is pathetic implies the person who made it is pathetic.
Pathetic and horrible are not synonyms. Something can be horrible without being pathetic. Again, it's simple word-choice.
Horrible is simply a modifier of the word "bad". "Pathetic" is not. If you STRONGLY think something is a bad idea, that idea can be "horrible" in your opinion (and, as stated, you need to clarify your position, otherwise you're disrespecting and demeaning the person who posted it). Calling something pathetic is simply bad word-choice (and probably INTENTIONALLY bad word-choice, in an effort to incite something).

But do I really have to clarify the different connotations between "pathetic" and "horrible"? Come on.

 

Claiming something is pathetic implies the person who made it is pathetic.

This is beyond silly.
Are you saying that if I say someone has put up a pathetic defense of there thesis, or that the purposed theory of a user is pathetic it goes without saying I am also slamming the user? You must be kidding correct?

 

Watch yourself Darthbane Believe it or not that tone could be construed as rude given the examples.

 

Short on time here so if I need to elaborate, I'll do it after work.

Zidious: All the examples you listed are rude except for number 3. Number 3 can be backed up with reasons, the others were only meant to insult.

There are some that are so extremely sensitive that the only way for me to do this would be to never post here again. It's too restrictive.

Not if you're polite and diplomatic about what you post rather than purposely trying to slam other users and purposely being harsh.

 

Syntax

Not really.

Clarification please: "Not really" you weren't saying I was lying or "not really" it's not a violation of your own rules?

Besides, the Mods saw your comment for what it was.

The Mod made an error in judgment.

And you got banned for it.

No, I was banned for "rudeness", something not defined in the TOS. In fact, the mod who banned me then started a mod squad discussion of the topic! So I was banned for rules not yet in place. Apparently I need to anticipate rule changes. And even though I have those "2300 posts" with no previous bannings or warnings, I received no warning. And the ban was public, with the reason given publicly, also something that is not normally done. And, amazingly, the very person who called the mods on me has been rude in this forum and 3SA. Even anakin_girl thinks his comment number (6) is rude. Yikes.

If you think someone could find something offensive, don't say it.

I propose an alternative: If you can't handle criticism of something you say, don't say it.

Could you not just ignore the comment or idea presented, instead of offending the person?

I just want to be able to accurately criticize the idea, something perfectly in line with the TOS.

#6 is trolling, because it attacks the author.

The person who said that is the very same person who called the mods on me!

If you want to draw a distinction between (3) and (4), then the list of "approved" words would have to be published. There is no way people would know what is and isn't allowed.

-------

anakin_girl

All the examples you listed are rude except for number 3.

Don't you think it is somewhat ironic that you consider number (6) to be rude and it is by the very same person who called the mods on me for "rudeness"?

 

I propose an alternative: If you can't handle criticism of something you say, don't say it.

Most people can handle criticism if it's done politely. You don't seem to think people should have to be polite or diplomatic, but rather, they should be able to be as mean and insulting as they want in the name of "free speech".

Don't you think it is somewhat ironic that you consider number (6) to be rude and it is by the very same person who called the mods on me for "rudeness"?

Not really--and what you're doing here reminds me of situations in my classroom when I call out a student for bothering another student, and that student says "But he did X to me!"

No matter what he said, it doesn't give you an excuse to be rude back.

MeBeJedi is not the one coming into this forum defending the right to be rude.

 

...it doesn't give you an excuse to be rude back.

The ban or warning should have been applied equally to everyone being "rude" or to no one. That would have included you.

MeBeJedi is not the one coming into this forum defending the right to be rude.

That has nothing to do with whether bans should be applied without prejudice or not.

The message is quite clear, though. MeBeJedi can say anything he wishes (just like AL), and you won't say a peep. And when a clear "rude" example from him is given, you will change the subject.

 

The message is quite clear, though. MeBeJedi can say anything he wishes (just like AL), and you won't say a peep. And when a clear "rude" example from him is given, you will change the subject.

And you've just shown a clear example of why I don't like 3SA. People in 3SA can't discuss things without getting personal and insulting users, and you can't discuss the topic at hand--rudeness in general, rudeness in 3SA in particular--without taking potshots at me.

 

So I was banned for rules not yet in place. Apparently I need to anticipate rule changes.

Untrue. The TOS is quite clear when it comes to flaming, baiting, harassment or inflammatory posts, or anything a moderator deems as inappropriate.

A Mod Squad discussion was started to discuss and clarify the meaning of "rudeness" in relation to the TOS, not to introduce new rules.

And even though I have those "2300 posts" with no previous bannings or warnings, I received no warning

Warnings are not a certainty.

And the ban was public, with the reason given publicly, also something that is not normally done

Untrue. It happens in various forums and has for a long while.

Rudeness itself is not necessarily against the TOS or bannable. However, if rudeness includes inflammatory posts, flaming, baiting, trolling or anything else that's inappropriate, it may be edited and the poster banned.

 

Rudeness itself is not necessarily against the TOS or bannable.....


That's all I'm getting at.

 

Also, as a general guideline, all users here should respect one another's opinions and beliefs.

How can you be rude and still follow this part of the TOS?

 

without taking potshots at me.

Merriam-Webster defines potshot as "a critical remark made in a random or sporadic manner". My comment is based on observation of your behavior in this thread.

Rudeness itself is not necessarily against the TOS or bannable.

Precisely.

However, if rudeness includes inflammatory posts, flaming, baiting, trolling or anything else that's inappropriate, it may be edited and the poster banned.

- I did none of those.
- The ban only mentioned "rudeness".
- None of my posts were edited.
- My behavior was not unique in this thread, yet I was singled out.

The problem is that some people get special treatment, and can behave any way they wish.

 

Merriam-Webster defines potshot as "a critical remark made in a random or sporadic manner". My comment is based on observation of your behavior in this thread.

Well, since you have to get technical about it, I'll rephrase it:

You can't seem to discuss the topic at hand without insulting me.

 

If someone is constantly rude or antagonistic and inflaming a discussion, thread or forum, action may be taken just on that basis.

It's not a black and white issue, and it depends partly on the circumstances and moderator.

- I did none of those.
- The ban only mentioned "rudeness".
- None of my posts were edited.
- My behavior was not unique in this thread, yet I was singled out.


The fact that your posts weren't edited doesn't mean you weren't inappropriate in some of your comments or posts. It may have been a ban directed as much to the overall comments as any single one.

Your behavior may or may not have been unique, and I can't comment on that, since I wasn't following it closely at the time.

 

Darth_Zidious,
Many of your statements lead me to no other conclusion than the fact that you seem to be ignorant of many of the terms of service of this site that you have agreed to abide by.

Specifically, the following items...
1. "No, I was banned for "rudeness", something not defined in the TOS. In fact, the mod who banned me then started a mod squad discussion of the topic! So I was banned for rules not yet in place."

Please see the following term of service regarding "reasons for being banned"

User acknowledges and agrees that the use of the Jedi Council Forums is a privilege, not a right, and that the administration of the Jedi Council has the right, at its sole discretion, to revoke this privilege at any time without notice should the administration deem it necessary.

The items for which the administration deems it necessary are not and do not have to be "defined" by the administration for it to take action it deems necessary.

"Apparently I need to anticipate rule changes. And even though I have those "2300 posts" with no previous bannings or warnings, I received no warning."

Please see the above term of service, especially the portion which specifically covers this: revoke this privilege at any time without notice

"- None of my posts were edited."

Again, there are several terms which rather directly addresses this point: The Jedi Council Administration is not responsible for messages posted on the Forums or the content therein... and we will make every effort to do so within a reasonable time if we determine that removal is necessary.

"My behavior was not unique in this thread, yet I was singled out."

And finally, yes the Terms of Service also cover this as well to large degree: The Jedi Council Administration has the right but not the obligation to monitor and/or moderate the Forums, and offers no assurances in this regard.

You can find the Terms of Service for use of this site, here. If you read them, you will find that they already cover most of the issues you had questions about.

 

You can find the Terms of Service for use of this site, here. If you read them...

Since I have commented extensively on the TOS in this thread, suggesting that I haven't read it or that I don't know where to find it is quite "rude".

 

Rude or not, if you did read it before, you obviously somehow managed to ignore the sections of it which would have told you everything you needed to know.

 

The same parts of the TOS that you quoted would allow the mods to perm-ban me for being nice and helpful. It would also allow them to play favorites and simply ban people they don't like.

There is a difference between relying on vague legalistic phrases and competent modding.

 

It would also allow them to play favorites and simply ban people they don't like.

In which case they would most likely be called on it visa-vi the mod squad.

There is a difference between relying on vague legalistic phrases and competent modding.

I see nothing vauge about the TOS and I feel that a very large percent of the time the modding is far better than just 'competent'. Indeed, I've found a good majority of the Mods I've delt with on issues of particular users and their post are very willing to listen to all sides of an issue.

As KW and others have pointed out, sometimes it's a jugement call.

 

KW and Raven are probably the two most fair mods on this forum.

I find it interesting, Zidious, that earlier in this thread, you were practically begging me to call the mods "incompetent"--and now you've done so yourself.

 

I see nothing vauge about the TOS...

...the administration of the Jedi Council has the right, at its sole discretion, to revoke this privilege at any time...

This allows the administration to ban for any reason whatsoever. I'm not arguing against that. This kind of vague legalistic catch-all gives them protection, which is why it is there.

But it is ridiculous for Ghengis12 to chime in afterwards and point out that I "should have been aware" when these same phrases could be used to justify a ban for being nice. It could also be used to ban him for "rudely" suggesting that I hadn't read the TOS or didn't know how to find it.

...sometimes it's a jugement call.

Which is why I said the mod made an error in judgment.

I find it interesting, Zidious, that earlier in this thread, you were practically begging me to call the mods "incompetent"--and now you've done so yourself.

Is that a "potshot"? Why do you find this interesting? Unlike others, I have been completely open and honest about my opinions.

 

I find it interesting because it is further indication that you have spent a large part of your time in this thread intentionally trying to piss me off and get me to flame you. It ain't gonna happen--sorry. If I can handle 25 seventh-graders who have just had Kool-Aid at lunch and would rather walk on their lips than learn Spanish--and I can do it with ulcerative colitis--I believe I can handle someone baiting me on a message board.