Random Politics & Religion #00

I was warned to not attack that poster, not that I can never reply to his posts again.

What part of that the other person hate you so much that even reading your quoting his post is enough to make him feel offended you didnt get?

If its exagerated, thats another situation. What i can agree is that he has the right to hate you and be offended by even minimal and harmless (in your opinion, not his) actions.

So, there was a conflict, moderators need to exercise moderation and they come up with an agreement that neither part should mess with the other, and no further action should be taken. But you took the initiative and made an action that was seen as an offense and had to be banned.

Using as an excuse that "he couldnt take the hate of a simple observation" isnt acceptable also because his opinions are being neglected, and there is no discussion without proper respect.

I sugest you (and the other part) to just ignore the other. Its not that hard as there are countless posts done everyday here, you can enjoy without resorting to a person that cant stand you.

After this incident, a line was drawn of what can be considered an offense or not in yours relationship. So, its time to play smart to avoid future troubles/drama/etc.

Are the mods going to admit the double standard that has been plaguing this website for years now, mainly by the one mod who's now in control of this website?

Why do you care?

The traffic on this site is barely a trickle. You've been at loggerheads with a considerable proportion of people here (which I'll bet is at the heart of why you were temporarily banned), so you're not hanging around for the sense of community. You can't be hanging around for the discussion because your predictable and automatic response to anything you even slightly disagree with is to become dismissive and more than a little histrionic.

If this place that has, what, maybe 50 contributors left (and fewer still who are particularly active), has become so hostile to you, why do you stick around? The revolution won't be started here.

I don't see why I should never respond to him, I was told to not attack him. So, I didn't.

Now that I have a chance to respond, let's go over this with everyone.

I got banned for replying to a specific poster (I can't even say his name without him claiming "harassment"). Plain and simple. Hell, even the quoted post above signified that.

Edit: Apparently it's against the forum rules to post PMs between Aelius and myself regarding this matter. Either way, I was warned to not attack that poster, not that I can never reply to his posts again.

Because, according to Aelius, replying to somebody in hopes they respond is a bannable offence. There was no harassment in that post, it was a post that required a response, either positive or negative (depending on the poster in question, but that's their choice, not mine), and that's what everyone here does!

Also, Aelius already broke the rules of this thread:


Until these rules change, what I did is not a bannable offence. I did not call the poster in question out on anything, I responded to his idea and countered it with my own, and hoped to get a reasonable response from him, which obviously I did not, because he couldn't take the heat from a simple observation.

It does not matter what our "history" was. You cannot point to any sentence in that post and claim "harassment" on it. So, banning for banning's sake was the only option. Problem is, Terra upheld the ban, and Rooks did nothing to state the obvious. I guess Nepotism is working as intended on this forum.

So, until we get some actual moderators instead of a child and his two puppets like we currently have, this forum will continue deteriorating down to kindergarten-type discussions.

Also, this post does not deserve a Node 254 either. If you put one on this post, it strengthens my argument that much further.

And if these moderators really wish to have more transparency on this forum, they need to outright tell the truth instead of trying to find a way to twist an action into something that it wasn't. If harassment was done in that post, I challenge them to prove it.

right to feel attacked by simple being quoted/responded? Feeling attacked is a prerrogative of the one receiving the action, not the one who did the action.

So, he has no right to feel attacked by simple being quoted/responded? Feeling attacked is a prerrogative of the one receiving the action, not the one who did the action.

If someone can't handle the thought of a dissenting opinion, the logical conclusion is that they should leave.. not expect the entire forum to bend around them.

Feeling attacked is incredibly subjective, which is why it's a poor criteria for banning. There are people who 'feel attacked' because a certain topic is brought up. Surely they aren't going to ban topics. If someone can't handle the thought of a dissenting opinion, the logical conclusion is that they should leave.. not expect the entire forum to bend around them.

A massive march took place in the streets of Kiev to protest against the policies of the current Ukrainian government, calling for its resignation and economic reforms.

According to TASS news agency, up to 3,000 people took to the streets in Kiev on Saturday to protest against lack of reform and economic instability.

The people carried placards reading “We are hungry,” “Raise pensions” as well as some anti-LGBT slogans as they marched along Khreshchatyk Street to Independence square (Maidan Nezalezhnosty) in central Kiev.

When virtually everyone you interact with feels attacked, it's a pretty good criteria.

Coming from someone who publicly stated that I should be tried for treason for exercising my rights as holding an American passport in the event I voted for a candidate that you disagree with, your argument hold very little weight.

What about if someone hurts your feels cause if I had feels I'd be hurt all the time !

I thought Men in general hurt your feels?

I think you're forgetting that a rule that a mod makes becomes void when said mod is no longer in power.

The updated forum rules were what I based them off of so unless they want to alter the forum rules a bit, which is possible, their validity wasn't exactly voided when I was demodded.

Wait a minute you were a mod ?

Please please please find the post where I said anything remotely close to that.

Same could be said of you. Except for the bans. Hence, the double standard.

Annnnd this is why I said the transparency policy requires its own thread of doom :v