Nytem4re

In Defense Of The Genre [Part II]

It’s not a negative term, just a neutral descriptor for those criticizing or opposed to actions of the staff which I have denoted as the “authority”. It’s easier to discuss things than writing some convoluted sentence, lol.

As for why critique (unconstructive or constructive) is problematic for the scope of the site, I’ve explained that above in my ‘domino effect’ point. But to sum it up, actions have reactions and despite the intent of ones critique the dialogue presents a challenging issue when its effect could be diminutive to the site’s integrity. Sowing dissent, discrediting staff, and creating a narrative that the staff have made questionable or unjustified decisions can be dangerous. See my talking point for a larger reason for my perspective as a user of the site regarding this.

@Inkarnate

I'd argue this is a fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy in fact. Offering actual criticism, constructive criticism like this thread will not harm the guild in any irreplaceable or major way.

You're attempting to dissuade any dialogue about moderation policies out of a misguided belief that it will lead to community damage.

i.e. a domino effect, which honestly...

isn't true.

Exhibit A, Grim's banned post that went wayyyy out of line and was actually somewhat malicious. Where is the downfall of the guild community after that thread? And note this was an extremely toxic post, one that actually had intent of harming the community somewhat.

Nothing... ever really happened.

Not to mention the fact that domino theory in real life doesn't really pan out that way.

i.e. the communist countries that fell never really spread communism that far.

If anything it's fear mongering and a poor excuse to shut down actual meaningful conversation.

In Defense Of The Genre [Part II]

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
I imagine few people are completely objective on this issue. There is a fence for all involved parties – opposition or authority. It’s a nice sentiment to think one can be absolutely unbiased, but I don’t think I or even yourself are. I am trying to be rational and objective despite my bias, however. If you wish to discuss the issues about Valhalla then we can talk about that separate issue privately if you so desire.

@Inkarnate

Why do I have to be inherently against authority? There was little to suggest I was against authority until I merely criticized babycrib. Even then it was more about authority doing their job rather than outright "opposition", I'm not here to say fuck the polis fuck the guild.

Never claimed I was objective.

I had little to do with Valhalla since I wasn't even in there at the time of the screencap incident, and my mentioning it was due to it being eerily similar to what you claimed this thread was doing.

Why is criticism of moderators seen as a "threat" to the site? Furthermore, why is it that I'm somehow undermining authority by doing so? Or anyone else?

It's this kind of thinking that got us here in the first place.

Seems rather counterproductive.

In Defense Of The Genre [Part II]

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
There are less information provided than the leaks I provided one member of the staff who happens to run the site. I also made a disclaimer regarding the issues in an objective manner, but it’s easy to pick straws. But no, it isn’t a case of what you suggest though I don’t blame you for coming to that conclusion based on the information you have.

@Inkarnate

There's little evidence to suggest otherwise than your word, which I honestly don't trust because you're not really an objective party. But alright, suit yourself.

I'd rather see hard evidence rather than "take my word for it", as there's little to suggest you didn't cherrypick those screencaps either.

In Defense Of The Genre [Part II]

<Snipped quote by Nytem4re>
Those were large screencaps that showed significant issues to the administration at the time with as much context as I could show. But yes, I leaked information I thought was diminutive to the site to Mahz privately. I don’t think it’s very much the same thing though I can see why it could be comparable given the circumstances and context.

@Inkarnate

And one could not argue that these screencaps were made with the assumption that those taking it showed significant issues to the administration at the time? If anything, there were several screencaps of those chat logs, so one could assume one attempted to show context here as well.

It's quite practically going "when you do it it's wrong, but if I do it, I'm right."

The methods and reasoning behind both screencap incidents were the same, so yes, you would be hypocritical.

In Defense Of The Genre [Part II]

Also, if we want to talk about misunderstandings – what about cherry-picking Discord conversations to create a narrative of incompetence or totalitarian administration using out of context quotes?

@Inkarnate

Aren't you the one who took several screencaps in Valhalla? I mean, if you wanna talk about cherry picking, you did the same yourself. Very hypocritical if you ask me.

In Defense Of The Genre [Part II]

@Hank

I'm going to break my silence about this issue since this thread seems to be more about an actual dialogue.

Sure, you're not obligated to reveal details of bans. I'll give you that one.

However, it seems only strange that someone who advocates killing Muslims on the discord, Sven namely, hasn't been given a warning or any disciplinary action (as far as I know) When j8cob was banned for merely calling Mahz a deadbeat on the now non-existent "babycrib". Why is one worth an nearly automatic ban (j8cob was banned mere minutes after he used that "insult") yet calling for the deaths of Muslims a non-issue? Can't really say "He's allowed to say that" When j8cob didn't even get a warning. In this case, it only seems like he was banned because he harshly criticized Mahz. In theory, the application of the rules would have meant an automatic ban for Sven, which clearly didn't happen.

Not to mention the fact that Mahz had been perpetuating drama in babycrib. Yes, you're probably going to tell me that I shouldn't have posted my shortcomings about babycrib in babycrib itself, but Chai literally did the same thing.

Yet only I was targeted. Which is strange really, if it really was about "not causing drama" why didn't mahz get angry at Chai as well?

It just doesn't seem the rules are applied uniformly.

You ask me to DM the mods, but I don't really see the point as one believes I have a "LUST FOR POWER". (you can see this in some of the screens in the evidence locker and in cyn's post) Yet, I never asked for power, and just asked for babycrib to be deleted, and the use of the warn first, then ban policy. Nor did I ever claim that I was angry at official, which I'm not. In fact, I was the one on GCS who attempted to rein in some of the more toxic/vocal parts of GCS who were harassing Ruby,(under the threat of permaban) so I gave nothing but support honestly, and I was repaid as being labeled as toxic myself, and a concern troll by mahz.

Despite the fact I didn't contribute to any of the screens given here, nor grims deleted post, but I'm a concern troll (apparently) Despite the fact that I was a pretty active member of the community at one point, as evidenced by my post count alone.

In fact, I was banned on discord when I tried to tell mahz/nutts to take his thinly veiled insults towards grim and j8cob to DMs. (again, you can see nutts reference it in a screencap) Sure, you don't have to like anyone, but seeing as you have a rule about not "discussing" drama publicly, I don't see why you'd make fun of banned users in public when they literally cannot defend themselves. Insult them in private all you want, but I'm sure if I made a thread on off topic/spam rejoicing that a user was banned, insulting them as well, it would be closed/deleted p fast.

Yeah, I think some of the mods have personal vendettas against me. That's fine. But when the admin has it out for me, it doesn't really make me want to DM the mods I might even consider willing to listen to me really for help or a ban repeal (not that I really care about getting unbanned from discord). But I can see why other people may not WANT to DM the mods, as they have similar reasons to me.

I honestly want to ask how I blew things out of proportion since I'm pretty sure you're referring to me in that post of yours, since both mine and j8cobs ban weren't really clear cut. If you want I'd be happy to take it to DM if you so wish, I really would genuinely like to know.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Keyguyperson

Firstly, the constitution is more of a law of the land, and was only really used in the argument as an explanation why undesirable people have the right to speak, as those writing the constitution had their reasons why which are very similar to mine.
Being that the constitution is the law of the land, the atheist does not have to follow the Bible, they sure as hell have to follow the law whether they like it or not.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

When will the mods come lmao

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Would you worship the god you do or do not had you been born in India? Would you believe that violence is inherently bad and that all views must be respected if you were a slave in the American South? No, you probably wouldn't. You hold the values you do because of what culture you were born into, what ideology is in power where that culture exists, and the other socioeconomic conditions you were born into. If I was born to some well-off family in the suburbs of California I'd probably be making the exact opposite argument that I am now.

The American constitution is not the tablets brought down by Moses.

@Keyguyperson

Didn't really reply much to this, but I'd also like to add that Moral Relativism can "excuse" the immoral behavior of other countries simply because of a cultural difference.

Moral Relativism has some use, don't get me wrong. But claiming you can't compare and contrast is really a moot point.

Nearly everyone in the world can say killing innocent people is wrong, it's a shared value, most people are repulsed by murder.

Let's look at the events in Chechnya. There are literally concentration camps killing LGBT people there, and the police reportedly are telling their parents to kill their children if they are gay.

Are we going to say, morality is relative, homosexuality is seen as taboo there, so don't judge them for killing gay people?

I really hope the answer is no.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>

MR GORBACHEV

@Nytem4re what is your argument then

@Ace of Hearts

Well, I mean, if it wasn't plainly obvious I'm just going to back out. No point in arguing with someone who doesn't put much effort into making a thoughtful response.

have a good day.