We’re also obliged to say that (a) it isn’t against our rules as currently stated, but (b) it should be.
(emphasis added).
How do you officially sanction someone for not violating the rules?
Like this,
Accordingly, split_p_j, you’re hereby warned to make no further posts on this board suggesting that a person who becomes inebriated thereby consents to, or is deserving of, assault or other crime. This is a ludicrous and offensive notion. Any further comments along these lines will result in revocation of your posting privileges, as will any attempt to argue with us or otherwise prolong this absurd controversy.
This warning is directed at split_p_j , but anyone else making a similar argument will get a similar warning and face similar consequences.
~Max
Ahhh, the old “good men destroyed by false accusations of rape” argument.
I highly doubt that - got any examples to confirm you aren’t misremembering?
I interpreted that like @Oredigger77. It’s not an official warning where your parents get sent a note home, but a future directive.
Not even close, and really repugnant. Having been a victim of sexual assault myself, I’m disgusted by this.
Are you saying I’m lying? I can’t point to the examples. They’re not allowed here.
Coming to the thread late but I just read this post and honestly agree with it 100%, I think just avoiding the Pit is the right track. The way it is ran is truly Orwellian, and I think you have the exact right idea to just stay out of it.
FWIW I don’t much think the pit adds anything to this forum, and I’d have just banned someone for attacking a rape victim if I was running a message board.
I do. The Pit has been letting comments like go on for years, same with the racist comment also reported by the same poster (who oddly does not seem to like the way the Pit is run but still likes the Pit?). Miller clearly does not want to do a warning and didn’t want to do so in that other thread. Giving someone a warning by popular acclaim is not the way we work here. Sometimes a warning is reversed by popular acclaim, but that is rare. If we are going to have a Pit like that, then let Miller do his thing, he does it well there.
This is not to say that the comment wasn’t totally reprehensible, and in any other forum a Warning, maybe even more, a Topic ban, etc…
But here, you can’t go from “anything goes” to warnings overnight. No matter how much I would like to see that post modded, it simply isn’t fair to come at him out of the blue.
Issue a Note, let him- and others- know that that sort of thing is no longer acceptable, even in the Pit. I don’t think that will solve the bigger issue, but for this issue right here right now, that is what should be done.
Covered, I would think, by the registration agreement.
Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. We recognize that this rule cannot be strictly applied in discussions of war, capital punishment and the like but urge users to express themselves in moderate terms nonetheless.
What you’re describing would be a discussion already involving capital punishment; so I’d think that saying one thought the sentence appropriate seems like it would be OK, but going into gruesome details about how somebody hoped it would go might violate the ‘moderate terms’ clause.
Also, of course, to the best of my knowledge Bundy doesn’t post on this board.
You do understand that this is a private message board that can ban you for any reason or no reason at all, right?
(Technically if you could show that they banned you for being a member of a protected class they’d be in trouble, but otherwise Ed could ban you because he doesn’t like your avatar or because he felt like it.)
Either the post was acceptable, in which case you should make that case, or it was unacceptable, in which case it should be sanctioned and the rules updated to make it clear it was unacceptable (which is what happened).
Nope, I’m saying you’re mistaken. I’m not aware of any rule that would forbid linking examples of situations you claim would make a rule a bad idea, but alright.
I agree, it is repugnant, but it also sounds a whole lot like this:
The Pit has never been anything goes, and comments at that level have resulted in warnings before. Every example you’ve pointed to thus far has been FAR less repugnant than the post under discussion
Why do you believe my claim of sexual assault but think I’m mistaken about my claim of having experienced something else? Both are etched in my memory.
Again, not even close. The thing is that not everyone wants to share their traumas and tragedies online. And then it becomes a believability issue. Certain things and certain people are believed and others are disbelieved, as you’ve shown. Everyone has stuff going on in their lives, whether they share it or not. People shouldn’t have to share their stuff to get protected. Conversely, sharing stuff shouldn’t become a shield.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lots of people get sexually assaulted, and I have no reason to think you aren’t being truthful. On the other hand your claim that people make up stories to win arguments then get people banned when they question these stories is exceedingly farfetched.
Guys, we are on the same side here, be nice please.
No one here thinks his posts are acceptable.
Lying on the internet is an extraordinary claim to you. Welcome to the internet.
Lots of people are sexually assaulted but not a lot of people lie on the internet? lol
I’m not even saying they’re lying. I’m saying they’re making up stories, meaning possible embellishment or just the fact they bring that aspect up at all. Again, not everyone likes to post about their personal traumas and tragedies on the internet. Some people revel in it. That shouldn’t make a difference in making an argument.
Okay, cool. I’m not sure what you expect us to do with that, then. I’m not even entirely clear on what you think would happen, or how someone who’d be gaming the system so obviously would get away with it, or how you think it’s relevant to the thread at hand or to what I said. Ambiguity may be required by the rules, if you say so, but it renders your post pretty opaque.
You didn’t say “people lie on the internet”. You said “people lie about being sexually assaulted in order to win arguments and/or get anyone who disagrees with them banned”.
No, I didn’t. Be clear on this. As a victim of sexual assault, that’s NOT what I’m saying. I wouldn’t say such a thing, which is why I shared that piece of information. But the new rule doesn’t just apply to sexual assault.
So… your point is that people will make up OTHER personal trauma, that ISN’T sexual assault related, in order to win arguments?
And how would saying “your personal experience is harrowing, but I don’t think it is relevant to your larger point because X, Y, and Z” not get around any potential “problem” anyways?
Sorry Roo, you lost me (too)…
~Max
Yeah, I’ve got no idea what this is about.
Me: Cops who post racist shit on the Internet should be fired.
Hyposter: I was a cop who posted racist shit on the Internet and got fired, you can’t say that shit around me, it’s traumatic!
Somehow I’m not seeing this as the danger that Roo sees it as.
(If that’s not what you’re imagining, maybe you can give us a hypothetical)