Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

They are but it's not visible on profiles.

Of course, any mod would tell you that, but why exactly won't they show it? The answer should be pretty fucking obvious.

I'm either blind or ignorant.

If the answer to the latter half of your post is sitting right in front of my face, I don't see it.

[small]I received a warning in this thread for merely making a small joke, so I'm a bit afraid to say much more for fear of mod wrath.[/small]

It saddens me that people are going to have to start posting little exclaimers like that after every joke just so they don't receive mod wrath (which warnings now are). That kills so much good jokes and wit.

Well, it all depends on whether someone reports it or not, right? But still... This paranoia is not unusual. It happened during the last rule change after all.

[sub]I think I've dwelt on these rules enough tonight.[/sub]

 

[powell86]

Basically, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. A child molester is a pedophile, but a pedophile is not a child molester.

That is actually incorrect. Very few of them are actually Pedophiles. :/

Ok, I'm actually confused by that. Pedophilia is just the attraction to children. How are they not attracted?

I think we may be veering off topic as this is a thread to discuss about forum rules. The discussion of sexual preference/ motivation of child molestation etc perhaps could be best explored in another thread.


I'll instead repost what I have mentioned previously in case some of you missed it:

We as a society (e.g. the world) has certain biases, certain likes and dislikes and certain ways of talking. There has been more or less a societal acceptable standards on how people converse which in this case I have clearly demonstrated that MOST PEOPLE uses pedos and child molestation interchangeably. Now whether that's right or not it's not my call. And when the Mods has started to decide that it is discriminatory the mods has hence started to impose a higher moral standard than what society has called for. This to me is unnecessary. So whats next then? Set a new standard for "dickishness"? Or deem sarcasm as detrimental? This is totally above board. You can disagree with the world, and the people ard it, but to penalize someone for having a view similar to most others in the world even though that may or may not be correct, I think that's too much.

Have a good day sirs.

 

[Seraj]

well, as long as they dont impose a super injunction on the new rules we're good to go

 

[Leg End]

Basically, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. A child molester is a pedophile, but a pedophile is not a child molester.

That is actually incorrect. Very few of them are actually Pedophiles. :/

Ok, I'm actually confused by that. Pedophilia is just the attraction to children. How are they not attracted?

Ok, this is where it can get really complicated, depending on how far into this you are actually going. I will keep it at the top though.

Pedophilia is a Primary emotional(this can include romantic, and usually does) and sexual attraction to prepubescent children. In other words, you can also be attracted to adults yet be primarily attracted to prepubescents.

Since much of the time, those who have raped another do it for the lust for the power over someone, the target in many cases can be someone(or thing, in rare cases) that the person is not truly attracted to. Take a guess which group is small and easy to overpower? >.>

Also, cases of say... a husband, not "getting any" from his wife, may choose to use another person close to them... someone possibly similar to the mother to use as a sexual outlet. I trust I do not need to go further.

The majority of child molesters are not Pedophiles, and the majority of Pedophiles are not child molesters. :L

I could go into greater detail, but I may already be breaking da rules.

>mfw I am looking at my Gamecube copy of Fairly Oddparents: Breakin Da Rules.
>mfw I have no face.

 

[Alfador_VII]

Somewhat pointless thread. As you can't post without agreeing with the rules, you can't really vote for anything other than first 3 options without lying.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

They are but it's not visible on profiles.

Of course, any mod would tell you that, but why exactly won't they show it? The answer should be pretty fucking obvious.

I'm either blind or ignorant.

If the answer to the latter half of your post is sitting right in front of my face, I don't see it.

[small]I received a warning in this thread for merely making a small joke, so I'm a bit afraid to say much more for fear of mod wrath.[/small]

It saddens me that people are going to have to start posting little exclaimers like that after every joke just so they don't receive mod wrath (which warnings now are). That kills so much good jokes and wit.

Well, it all depends on whether someone reports it or not, right? But still... This paranoia is not unusual. It happened during the last rule change after all.

[sub]I think I've dwelt on these rules enough tonight.[/sub]

See that's the problem, all it takes if for enough people to take it at face value and not try to understand the actual meaning the poster was trying to get across and BAM you have another permanent mark against you. I've already had this happen to me and I feel like I would be risking too much to make a satirical or joke post on the off-chance someone doesn't catch that and report me. And I'm damn well not posting "I was only joking" after each joke, because I feel that tarnishes the whole thing.

 

[IronicBeet]

No. It. Isn't. Pedophiles =/= child molesters. There are plenty of pedophiles who are good, normal people who would never harm children because they know better. It's the child molesters that give them a bad name. I for one thing the AVs might already be having an effect, as that escaped mod wrath for a whole long time.

Pedophiles are people too, you know. It is actually akin to saying the same thing about homosexuals.

Erm... yes granted i agree that there are normal adults who are sexually attracted to children but are decent human beings who do not prey on children. pedophiles =/= definite child molesters.

However, the general public consensus:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Paedophiles (check the thesaurus)
http://www.google.com.sg/search?q=catch+a+paedophile&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a


This to me is leaning towards political correctness gone wrong.
Shouldn't benefit of the doubt be given to him considering that most people do mean pedophiles = sexual predators? I honestly question how many so called "decent pedophiles" are hurt by his statement on this site? Alternatively, what are the chances of a pedophile advocacy group suing Escapist forum for allowing such "misguided" use of the word to take place? Next thing I noe we cannot use the word fag or ****** as part of a sentence anymore becuz homosexuals will be upset even though there are colloquial usages of such terms in our day to day conversation. And even when that happens, I'll feel less aggravated as LGBT groups ARE getting more and more mainstream and gaining in numbers.

That's not the problem. He can not like them. I nobody cares about that. However, he's forcing people to stay silent because he doesn't like them due to a bullshit stereotype. That's a civil rights issue.

I didn't know that saying something bad about a group of individuals was "forcing them to stay silent". If I say that Neo-Nazis are jerks, am I going to get suspended for "forcing them to stay silent"? Will I get in trouble if I make a joke that pokes fun at a group of people's views because it might hurt someone's feelings?

And no, I'm not directly comparing Nazis to pedophiles.

That's different, as they actively harm people. Pedophiles are harming nobody. Child molesters are, but they didn't only target them. They targeted pedophiles in general. Basically, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. A child molester is a pedophile, but a pedophile is not a child molester.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. If I say something bad about ANY group of people, whether it be Nazis, pedophiles, terrorists, gays, straights, Atheists, Agnostics, Creationists, or some obscure group of people that like to wrap themselves in toilet paper and throw fistfuls of honey at each other, no matter what the majority thinks of them, am I going to get a suspension for something that minor just because a LONG time ago I got in trouble for occasionally making jokes that apparently crossed the line? That just seems lazy on the mods' part. Instead of looking the post over and saying "Hey, this guy said something that he shouldn't have, but it wasn't that bad so I'll give him a week-long probation." what's happening is "This guy said something that offended people and/or I find this guy's post offensive myself, so judging by his FHM I'm just going to suspend him for two weeks rather than give him the warning/probation he deserves.".

And that whole "Forcing them to stay silent" thing still doesn't make sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. Spinwhiz himself said that the rule means that you're not allowed to admit you're a pedophile under risk of banhammer. It's not offensive, he just doesn't like it.

I don't think just because one member confuses the rules that it means that everybody who fits the group he's describing is going to think "Dear god, his post! It's paralyzed my fragile mind with fear! I can never post again, oh the horror!".

Besides, judging by the stigma that comes with it, why would anybody openly admit to being a pedophile anyway? It's not like those people are dying to admit their attraction to children.

 

[Leg End]

honestly, the escapist forum's have kinda bored me for a while now anyway. Seems most of the people posting are still tithonking retards, but it has the added tense rule environment with the overuse of the banhammer. thank god I got over forums a while ago. Den of scum and villiany and all that.

Hi 4fromK,

sorry to quote you for my argument which has nothing to do with whatever you have said.

@HG131, RedEyesBlackGamer, and Small Waves

Look at this post, will you think it is warning worthy? he has used the phrase "tithonking" retards. Oh noes, RETARDS? Thats discriminatory isn't it too?

Check out Tropic Thunder's "retard" controversy.

So why am I certain that Mods won't give him a warning? Oh? Cuz using retard as a colloquial term is ok now? Just like how everybody uses the word retard?

The two aren't even a fair comparison. I'm not continuing this. Partly because it could get ugly and I don't want a mark.

What, so you're saying that the mentally disabled aren't as worthy of defending as pedophiles? Because that's what I'm getting out of this.

Depending on who you ask, they are one and the same. >.>

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

Nearly every objection I'm hearing about this neutering debate on the forums or this being 'teh worst ruels evar' I've saw last time they changed the rules. Nothing really changed last time. I doubt there will be another major shift in moderation. The only major difference now is that we have a FHM/FHB. All that means is that if you've had an infraction in the past, everyone can see it and is aware of it. I think it could become a very effective way of point out who on the forum is just trying to get a rise out of you when they argue.

In all fairness though, all the comments about 'not being a jerk' ruining debate are pretty baseless when you look at how this was handled last time. I mean, I've gone into arguments and been a moderate jerkass about my points, but presented them in a polite way. Doing so, I've never gotten an infraction. If you really are tied to being a jerkass and presenting your jerkassedness to the world it the rudest way possible, then you should expect moderation.

I have no problem with the system. It's not a big yay, or nay for me. It's a big moving on.

This, basically.
First off, the part I changed to bold text. New rules does not a "fascist website" make.
I'd safely bet that it just means they're trying to better define the rules, since the fact that the previous rules "were too vague" was constantly being brought up by disgruntled users.

To a lot of the other points brought up in here, I must bring this up. It's the same example I use in every one of these threads... You can disagree with other posts. You've always been able to, and you always will be able to. What so many people keep forgetting is to disagree with the post, not the person.
(I can elaborate/better define what I mean if people need me to, but really, that should be all I need to say. I've disagreed with plenty of people over my time here, but because I've disagreed with what they've said, remained civil, and not resorted to yelling-over-text and other such styles of writing, it's been absolutely fine.)
This also applies to the rules, by the way. Stop arguing against the mods, and present your case against the rules. Luckily, that only needs to be said to a select few of you, the small minority, but keep it in mind anyway.
EDIT: If you really think you've been good in your response you've recieved repercussions for, and think you haven't done anything wrong, then PM the/a mod. Ask why you recieved the negative action against you, and explain your case. If you've truly been the nice person you think you've been, then the warning/probation/etc. can be removed.

Finally, if someone's made a post so bad, so infuriating, that it seems like it's made merely to aggravate others, and you don't think that you can respond in a civil manner? Then don't. "Report and move on" is a common phrase around these parts for a reason.

The one and only thing I'd possibly agree on is not making the health bar permanent. Even just re-gaining one bar every 9 months to a year is plenty of time to still catch the trolls, but allow those who are willing to become a long-time member the chance to regain their "health".
Even then, though, I really don't mind. I've always loved these forums, and I always will.

 

[Leg End]

Besides, judging by the stigma that comes with it, why would anybody openly admit to being a pedophile anyway? It's not like those people are dying to admit their attraction to children.

You would be surprised my meaty friend, you would be surprised. :L

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

honestly, the escapist forum's have kinda bored me for a while now anyway. Seems most of the people posting are still tithonking retards, but it has the added tense rule environment with the overuse of the banhammer. thank god I got over forums a while ago. Den of scum and villiany and all that.

Hi 4fromK,

sorry to quote you for my argument which has nothing to do with whatever you have said.

@HG131, RedEyesBlackGamer, and Small Waves

Look at this post, will you think it is warning worthy? he has used the phrase "tithonking" retards. Oh noes, RETARDS? Thats discriminatory isn't it too?

Check out Tropic Thunder's "retard" controversy.

So why am I certain that Mods won't give him a warning? Oh? Cuz using retard as a colloquial term is ok now? Just like how everybody uses the word retard?

The two aren't even a fair comparison. I'm not continuing this. Partly because it could get ugly and I don't want a mark.

What, so you're saying that the mentally disabled aren't as worthy of defending as pedophiles? Because that's what I'm getting out of this.

I put an edit in. It is a misunderstanding. I meant the words themselves.

 

[Leg End]

Basically, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. A child molester is a pedophile, but a pedophile is not a child molester.

That is actually incorrect. Very few of them are actually Pedophiles. :/

Ok, I'm actually confused by that. Pedophilia is just the attraction to children. How are they not attracted?

Ok, this is where it can get really complicated, depending on how far into this you are actually going. I will keep it at the top though.

Pedophilia is a Primary emotional(this can include romantic, and usually does) and sexual attraction to prepubescent children. In other words, you can also be attracted to adults yet be primarily attracted to prepubescents.

Since much of the time, those who have raped another do it for the lust for the power over someone, the target in many cases can be someone(or thing, in rare cases) that the person is not truly attracted to. Take a guess which group is small and easy to overpower? >.>

Also, cases of say... a husband, not "getting any" from his wife, may choose to use another person close to them... someone possibly similar to the mother to use as a sexual outlet. I trust I do not need to go further.

The majority of child molesters are not Pedophiles, and the majority of Pedophiles are not child molesters. :L

I could go into greater detail, but I may already be breaking da rules.

>mfw I am looking at my Gamecube copy of Fairly Oddparents: Breakin Da Rules.
>mfw I have no face.

I knew that first part, but I hadn't even thought of the second part. God I'm stupid.

EDIT: And Legendary, I'm pretty sure your avatar, interests list and Youtube profile are breaking the rules now

No you are not.

Also, FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

 

[IronicBeet]

No. It. Isn't. Pedophiles =/= child molesters. There are plenty of pedophiles who are good, normal people who would never harm children because they know better. It's the child molesters that give them a bad name. I for one thing the AVs might already be having an effect, as that escaped mod wrath for a whole long time.

Pedophiles are people too, you know. It is actually akin to saying the same thing about homosexuals.

Erm... yes granted i agree that there are normal adults who are sexually attracted to children but are decent human beings who do not prey on children. pedophiles =/= definite child molesters.

However, the general public consensus:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Paedophiles (check the thesaurus)
http://www.google.com.sg/search?q=catch+a+paedophile&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a


This to me is leaning towards political correctness gone wrong.
Shouldn't benefit of the doubt be given to him considering that most people do mean pedophiles = sexual predators? I honestly question how many so called "decent pedophiles" are hurt by his statement on this site? Alternatively, what are the chances of a pedophile advocacy group suing Escapist forum for allowing such "misguided" use of the word to take place? Next thing I noe we cannot use the word fag or ****** as part of a sentence anymore becuz homosexuals will be upset even though there are colloquial usages of such terms in our day to day conversation. And even when that happens, I'll feel less aggravated as LGBT groups ARE getting more and more mainstream and gaining in numbers.

That's not the problem. He can not like them. I nobody cares about that. However, he's forcing people to stay silent because he doesn't like them due to a bullshit stereotype. That's a civil rights issue.

I didn't know that saying something bad about a group of individuals was "forcing them to stay silent". If I say that Neo-Nazis are jerks, am I going to get suspended for "forcing them to stay silent"? Will I get in trouble if I make a joke that pokes fun at a group of people's views because it might hurt someone's feelings?

And no, I'm not directly comparing Nazis to pedophiles.

That's different, as they actively harm people. Pedophiles are harming nobody. Child molesters are, but they didn't only target them. They targeted pedophiles in general. Basically, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. A child molester is a pedophile, but a pedophile is not a child molester.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. If I say something bad about ANY group of people, whether it be Nazis, pedophiles, terrorists, gays, straights, Atheists, Agnostics, Creationists, or some obscure group of people that like to wrap themselves in toilet paper and throw fistfuls of honey at each other, no matter what the majority thinks of them, am I going to get a suspension for something that minor just because a LONG time ago I got in trouble for occasionally making jokes that apparently crossed the line? That just seems lazy on the mods' part. Instead of looking the post over and saying "Hey, this guy said something that he shouldn't have, but it wasn't that bad so I'll give him a week-long probation." what's happening is "This guy said something that offended people and/or I find this guy's post offensive myself, so judging by his FHM I'm just going to suspend him for two weeks rather than give him the warning/probation he deserves.".

And that whole "Forcing them to stay silent" thing still doesn't make sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. Spinwhiz himself said that the rule means that you're not allowed to admit you're a pedophile under risk of banhammer. It's not offensive, he just doesn't like it.

I don't think just because one member confuses the rules that it means that everybody who fits the group he's describing is going to think "Dear god, his post! It's paralyzed my fragile mind with fear! I can never post again, oh the horror!".

Besides, judging by the stigma that comes with it, why would anybody openly admit to being a pedophile anyway? It's not like those people are dying to admit their attraction to children.

Because if you can't respect someone for who they are, you shouldn't get respect yourself. It's nice for them to be able to say it and be treated like human beings.

Okay, fine. He doesn't respect pedophiles for who they are. Why are you treating him like some subhuman just because he doesn't like a certain group of people? I mean, come on. It's not exactly like openly being a pedophile is socially accepted anyway. You don't think that maybe someone could have a skewed view on a group of people because of what they've been taught growing up? A lot of old people still hate gays, can you honestly blame them for that? For most of their lives they were being taught that gay=evil, sick freak who wants to turn you gay too. If it's hard for them to adjust to something that's socially accepted (at least for the most part) nowadays, how hard would it be for someone to completely change their view on a group of people when all their lives they've been taught that said group is terrible and they're STILL being taught that way? You can't cut him any slack at all?

 

[Leg End]

Basically, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. A child molester is a pedophile, but a pedophile is not a child molester.

That is actually incorrect. Very few of them are actually Pedophiles. :/

Ok, I'm actually confused by that. Pedophilia is just the attraction to children. How are they not attracted?

Ok, this is where it can get really complicated, depending on how far into this you are actually going. I will keep it at the top though.

Pedophilia is a Primary emotional(this can include romantic, and usually does) and sexual attraction to prepubescent children. In other words, you can also be attracted to adults yet be primarily attracted to prepubescents.

Since much of the time, those who have raped another do it for the lust for the power over someone, the target in many cases can be someone(or thing, in rare cases) that the person is not truly attracted to. Take a guess which group is small and easy to overpower? >.>

Also, cases of say... a husband, not "getting any" from his wife, may choose to use another person close to them... someone possibly similar to the mother to use as a sexual outlet. I trust I do not need to go further.

The majority of child molesters are not Pedophiles, and the majority of Pedophiles are not child molesters. :L

I could go into greater detail, but I may already be breaking da rules.

>mfw I am looking at my Gamecube copy of Fairly Oddparents: Breakin Da Rules.
>mfw I have no face.

I knew that first part, but I hadn't even thought of the second part. God I'm stupid.

EDIT: And Legendary, I'm pretty sure your avatar, interests list and Youtube profile are breaking the rules now

No you are not.

Also, FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Thanks for that. I'd suggest switching over to the I Have No Mouth AV for now and editing your interests. They likely won't care about the youtube profile. It's not like anyone's going to go hunting in your posts, or mine for that matter, to find a breakage of that rule in the past.

I will hopefully be editing it into my avatar. Or into another. I must never leave Sakura's side. :L

Ehh, my interests probably don't break the rules. :/