Justac00lguy
BooBoo
Alit has spoken!A Link in Time said:so it's high time to lay down the law for blog entries.
Alit has spoken!A Link in Time said:so it's high time to lay down the law for blog entries.
Jokes are fine, even satire's fine. But not at the expense of another member. If you had made that blog at any other time, or given it a more original title, there wouldn't be a problem. But the way you framed it devalued 43's blog and 43 himself, whether you intended it to or not. We value all members and we want to encourage healthy communication. Your blog negated both those goals and I think it received an appropriate response.
Locke said:What 43 did is completely irrelevant to your case.
I think this specific case can also be used to assess current blog policies in general. Right now it's pretty vague when a supposed joke blog should be considered trolling instead. Is it trolling when a specific person is mentioned in a parodying matter? There was a lot of dissent about this issue with the "Why is Dan Banned?" blog and the issue is popping up here again so it's high time to lay down the law for blog entries.
You're right, it's not, and it has been dealt with accordingly, separately from your case. Retaliation doesn't justify your actions, in the same way that instigation doesn't justify retaliation. They're two separate behaviors that must be judged in regard to how they affect the community, not just each other.[ilquote=Locke]We value all members and we want to encourage healthy communication.[/ilquote] Then why do you say 43 yelling and cussing at me is irrelevant? 43 was hostile towards me in the shoutbox, and JuicieJ repeatedly called for banning me. That is not "healthy communication".
But if the issue is religious it apparently justifies mod retaliation.You're right, it's not, and it has been dealt with accordingly, separately from your case. Retaliation doesn't justify your actions, in the same way that instigation doesn't justify retaliation. They're two separate behaviors that must be judged in regard to how they affect the community, not just each other.
Please consider that there's a difference between not listening and not doing what you want me to do. I think that confusion has contributed a lot to the assumptions that mods ignore people.I see I'm going to have to say this publicly since you're refusing to listen.
I was personally offended by the video in the blog (I didn't even want to watch it, I looked up lyrics instead). It wasn't removed because I was offended by it. That's my issue, not Kitsu's. It was removed because it was an affront to another member's blog. There's a difference between "I am offended by ___" and "___ is offensive toward me." The first describes the state of mind of the person being offended, and no one is at fault. The second describes the nature of the offensive material as being directed at an individual. I know Kitsu wasn't specifically "aiming" it at 43, but it was pointed in his direction which produces the same results.I still cannot believe how many times we have to go over this and it still isn't being understood. YOU CANNOT BE PUNISHING PEOPLE FOR OFFENDING SOMEONE ELSE. Someone is offended by something.... so what? Religious views really offend me. I don't go around demanding they all be punished for hurting my feelings. Anything can be offensive to someone else. This is not a logical or sane path to go down. It causes huge problems and doesn't fix anything. It only encourages people to get very angry if someone offends them and retaliate if they do so.
Who is being offended is irrelevant. If the mod was offended and removed it because of that offense, they'd be acting on their own. If another user is offended and complains about it and then a mod removes it because of that, whether or not they were personally offended, it is still being removed because someone felt offended. In this case, by proxy. It might not have been in the best taste. But you cannot prove intent simply by the timing and title. The intentions could have been entirely innocent. Such as: "hey, they're expressing their beliefs, I want to do that too." And using a spoofed title in their own is not a big deal and in of itself cannot be used to construe ill intent.I was personally offended by the video in the blog (I didn't even want to watch it, I looked up lyrics instead). It wasn't removed because I was offended by it. That's my issue, not Kitsu's. It was removed because it was an affront to another member's blog. There's a difference between "I am offended by ___" and "___ is offensive toward me." The first describes the state of mind of the person being offended, and no one is at fault. The second describes the nature of the offensive material as being directed at an individual. I know Kitsu wasn't specifically "aiming" it at 43, but it was pointed in his direction which produces the same results.
What I'm trying to say is that it wasn't removed because someone felt offended.Who is being offended is irrelevant. If the mod was offended and removed it because of that offense, they'd be acting on their own. If another user is offended and complains about it and then a mod removes it because of that, whether or not they were personally offended, it is still being removed because someone felt offended. In this case, by proxy.
As I said, I understand that Kitsu didn't mean any offense.It might not have been in the best taste. But you cannot prove intent simply by the timing and title. The intentions could have been entirely innocent. Such as: "hey, they're expressing their beliefs, I want to do that too." And using a spoofed title in their own is not a big deal and in of itself cannot be used to construe ill intent.
What I'm trying to say is that it wasn't removed because someone felt offended.
As I said, I understand that Kitsu didn't mean any offense.
Who is being offended is irrelevant.
What I'm trying to say is that it wasn't removed because someone felt offended.
You're right; in Kitsu's case--the one that is currently being argued--it's clearly the offender who was at fault. And no, they aren't in the wrong because the offended ["naturally"] found their actions offensive, but because the offender's post was disrespectful and intolerant. Satire or not, there's a reason that rules are in place for situations like this, which calls for everyone to be considerate of another person's beliefs and not post things that seemingly undermine them. Kitsu reported that he received a third degree infraction for flaming/insulting, which is an appropriate ramification considering that his blog post did anything but treat the offended equally. The difference between somebody being offended and somebody being offensive is that the offender is automatically culpable for insulting actions which do not represent parity. Thusly the mod's response was sufficient and not overreaching.
He was not being disrespectful nor intolerant, he was speaking his mind. Does he not have the right to do so? He wasn't undermining anyone's beliefs, just stating his own with a bit of satire. If YOU were offended, that's not his problem.