# Specific person issue



## S'mon

One particular person seems to be a troll.  Personally he doesn't bother me, but it seems a bit unfair to let him post as being technically just on the right side of the line, then give bans to whoever he successfully sucks in & riles up.    I've seen that sort of mechanistic moderating a lot on rpgnet, and I think it falls below enw's usual high standard.

*Mod Edit:* This counts very much as "getting personal" - if you want to discuss particular people, and how they may or may not be moderated, please take it to e-mail/PM with the mods or admins.  Thanks.   ~Umbran


----------



## RangerWickett

Tempted to make an account named "One Particular Person." Sounds like a character in Piratecat's storyhour.


----------



## S'mon

Re mod red text above - I'm more concerned about the principle than the Particular Person, yup.  I know it can be tricky when person B has clearly made a rules violating post, but if you repeatedly see rules-violating posts in response to the posts of Person A, it's worth considering whether Person A is really the primary instigator and the one more at fault.

In general ENW moderators do a notably good job; I'm always reminded of that when I read a few threads on rpgnet and see what mods *not* doing a notably good job looks like! >  But you know, Internet trolls these days are often very tricky.  Maybe they're evolving... *eek*


----------



## Scott DeWar

Internet troll

immunity: banhammer


----------



## renau1g

He was talking about you Scott.... you and your edition warring


----------



## Thanee

There is a report button, which can be used to point out problematic posts to the mods.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dice4Hire

Glad they got m.... a particular person's name off before more people saw it.


----------



## DumbPaladin

Thanee said:


> There is a report button, which can be used to point out problematic posts to the mods.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




  All the reports in the world are meaningless, if the troll either doesn't tick off any of the moderators, or doesn't do enough, in their opinion, to warrant any action.

I'm sure "one particular person" has had several reports filed against him already, and is still able to post at will.


----------



## Bullgrit

Poster A: "What do you think about how some games really support only violent ways of resolving conflicts? Does this affect the players outside the game, like how Shadowrun players are known to beat their wives? And do games that are most likely handled without violent encounters train players to think outside the box? Like how Call of Cthulhu players adopt more orphan children?"

Poster B: "What the hell? You are full of crap! Troll STFU!"

Mod: "Now, B, you're breaking the civility rules. If someone says something you don't agree with, you don't attack them. Flamewars won't start if you just don't respond to what you think is a troll." <threadban B>

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran

"Troll" is easy to throw around as an accusation.  

A "troll" is someone who posts specifically to get a rise out of people, to make them angry, frustrated, or upset.  That's his purpose in posting, his _raison d'etre_, so to speak. 

There's another kind of person, who posts unpopular opinions, who is kind of abrasive, and is generally unlikeable - but for whom getting an angry or emotional rise out of other people is not the actual purpose of posting.  Sometimes, such a person turns out to be more trouble than they are worth to the site, and they are asked to leave.  But more frequently, this person learns from experience, and grows into a valuable member of the community.

The state of Internet Mind Reading being what it is, it is often difficult to tell the difference between these two.  The moderators of EN World tend to err on the side of caution.  We typically require a lot of data that a person's a detriment to the site, and that they are unlikely to change their ways, before we ask them to leave.

We also expect you to be able to control yourself.  Short of someone who is outright breaking our rules, we expect you to choose to walk away from people and threads that get a rise out of you.

We provide our users with an Ignore List* to support your decisions.  If you have a major problem with an individual poster, we suggest you use it. 



*You may edit your Ignore List in your account Settings.


----------



## Scott DeWar

how long has the ignore list been active? I have utilized it over at Circus Maximus .


----------



## Umbran

Scott DeWar said:


> how long has the ignore list been active?




We've had the feature for years.  I think since as far back as 2003 or 2004, maybe?


----------



## renau1g

It's a fantastic tool.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

Did the two-way ignore functionality ever happen (ie, when A ignores B, then B also can't see A)?  
I recall that was being discussed some time ago.


----------



## Umbran

Theo R Cwithin said:


> Did the two-way ignore functionality ever happen (ie, when A ignores B, then B also can't see A)?




Nope.  That sort of functionality makes sense for a private blog, but not so much for a public forum.  If you post here, you don't get to control who sees it.


----------



## Dice4Hire

renau1g said:


> It's a fantastic tool.




I agree, and more people should use it. I used to have a bunch on my list, but purged it recently, and have only added one person back on. Not bad at all. The list was getting a bit long for my taste.


----------



## S'mon

DumbPaladin said:


> All the reports in the world are meaningless, if the troll either doesn't tick off any of the moderators, or doesn't do enough, in their opinion, to warrant any action.
> 
> I'm sure "one particular person" has had several reports filed against him already, and is still able to post at will.




The issue arises where the trollish poster is careful to stay on the right side of the line in any particular post.  It's the same IRL; I'm a Neighbourhood Watch Coordinator, and some people are careful that their antisocial behaviour falls just short of criminality so when I talk to the police Safer Neighbourhoods Team they just shrug.  Yet those people are often doing more actual harm than 'real' criminals, eg here in the UK squatters can break in, occupy someone's house, trash the place, and inflict much more suffering than a burglar who just breaks in to steal, but they get off scott free while the burglar goes to jail.


----------



## pawsplay

When I was new to the site, someone said something to me that was incredibly offensive. I responded in what I thought was a measured way. However, I exercised insufficient restraint in describing the other person's shortcomings. I got a three day ban (one day of which I missed sulking away from the forums), I believe my only one to date. Lesson learned.


----------



## pawsplay

Umbran said:


> There's another kind of person, who posts unpopular opinions, who is kind of abrasive, and is generally unlikeable - but for whom getting an angry or emotional rise out of other people is not the actual purpose of posting.  Sometimes, such a person turns out to be more trouble than they are worth to the site, and they are asked to leave.  But more frequently, this person learns from experience, and grows into a valuable member of the community.




There's a third kind of person that I think also deserves the reserve of the moderator. Some people simply hold unpopular opinions. Naturally, this means they come across as abrasive when expressing them to people who hold popular opinions, and unlikeable to those who do not like hearing the opinions. Consider, though, that from the standpoint of this person, they are posting to a site where _75% of the other posters have opinions they do not like, and they deal with it_. If they can manage to avoid breaking site rules, I think you can, too.


----------



## S'mon

I wasn't thinking of pawsplay or his expression of unpopular opinions, though.  The poster I mentioned seems apolitical but enjoys making outrageous statements and getting a rise out of people for the sake of it.  In such cases I think it behooves the mod to read back over the past few pages of a thread before taking action on the basis of a single response post that has been reported to them.


----------



## Umbran

S'mon said:


> In such cases I think it behooves the mod to read back over the past few pages of a thread before taking action on the basis of a single response post that has been reported to them.




And, in general, we do.  That doesn't mean we will agree with your assessment, and act as you would.


----------



## S'mon

Umbran said:


> And, in general, we do.  That doesn't mean we will agree with your assessment, and act as you would.




Well, that's good.  Your first sentence obviously, not your second.  You should always act as I would.


----------



## pawsplay

S'mon said:


> Well, that's good.  Your first sentence obviously, not your second.  You should always act as I would.




All beings should strive to achieve the apotheos'mon.


----------



## pawsplay

S'mon said:


> IThe poster I mentioned seems apolitical but enjoys making outrageous statements and getting a rise out of people for the sake of it.




More seriously, outrageous statements are often the product of an immature, and perhaps inconsistent viewpoint. Asking such a person to behave may be asking them to adopt a viewpoint they don't understand. As Umbran said, sometimes it takes time and experience for some people to learn to get along with others. Not only do we gain the benefit from their inclusion, but by seeking understanding and compassion for others, we benefit through our own transformation. 

Human beings react to emotional annoyance as though it were physical pain. It's how we have managed to adapt and adapt in complex social situations over the millenia. But it is important to recognize that this sensation is an illusion. When we are annoyed with someone, it is really more accurate to say we make ourselves annoyed in response to their behavior. By recognizing that the annoyance resides within ourselves, we achieve greater control of our emotions and our inner world. 

In the words of Kahlil Gibran:


> I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from those unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.


----------



## aurance

pawsplay said:


> [snip]




Can't give you more xp yet so I'll just say you rule.


----------



## Bullgrit

> When we are annoyed with someone, it is really more accurate to say we make ourselves annoyed in response to their behavior. By recognizing that the annoyance resides within ourselves, we achieve greater control of our emotions and our inner world.



I'm sorry, but this is baloney. A person's annoying behavior is annoying *behavior*, not someone else's emotion. 

If you are at a cocktail party, having enjoyable conversations, and there's this one guy who just keeps blowing cigar smoke in your face, it is not your internal lack of emotion control that is the problem. It is the jackhole who's performing the annoying *action*.

If you are participating in an online discussion forum about a game, and someone keeps making little comments to insult your game preference, it is not your internal lack of emotion control that is the problem. It is the jackhole who's making the unnecessary comments.

Bullgrit


----------



## El Mahdi

Bullgrit said:


> I'm sorry, but this is baloney. A person's annoying behavior is annoying *behavior*, not someone else's emotion.
> 
> If you are at a cocktail party, having enjoyable conversations, and there's this one guy who just keeps blowing cigar smoke in your face, it is not your internal lack of emotion control that is the problem. It is the jackhole who's performing the annoying *action*.
> 
> If you are participating in an online discussion forum about a game, and someone keeps making little comments to insult your game preference, it is not your internal lack of emotion control that is the problem. It is the jackhole who's making the unnecessary comments.
> 
> Bullgrit




I understand what you're saying, but I agree with Pawsplay.  (That's been happening a lot lately..._Damn you Paws!_)

In the first example (the Cigar Smoke), you're not talking about percieved or self-generated pain/discomfort - you're talking about very real, physical pain/discomfort triggered by a very real and physical, external irritant.

Someone on the internet posting in an annoying way is not an external physical irritant, it's mental.  That's not to say that it isn't also "real", but it can be ignored.  In most cases a physical external irritant can't.  Reacting to the bad behavior (the internet jerk) is normal and instinctive (and as Pawsplay said, our mind and bodies reaction to it is as if it was physical, even though it isn't), but unlike a physical reaction to a physical irritant, a mental one can be controlled and ignored.

I'm not saying that if one doesn't control it, they are somehow less than or inferior to someone who does - but someone who has learned to control it definitely has advantages.  They are able to respond rationally rather than emotionally - more effectively and efficiently.  They are better able to judge whether a response is even worthwhile in the first place.  In a face to face encounter (rather than the internet), one is better able to deal with a real threat if emotions are kept in check.  In a fight, an emotional mind is a hammer - a rational mind is a laser.

As much as I understand what Pawsplay was saying though, I find that I am far from the maturity needed to put it into regular practice.

Maybe someday...


----------



## pawsplay

Bullgrit said:


> I'm sorry, but this is baloney. A person's annoying behavior is annoying *behavior*, not someone else's emotion.




Albert Ellis says you're wrong.

Think of it this way: if it were the behavior that were annoying, wouldn't everyone get annoyed at the same things?


----------



## Bullgrit

You are saying, then, that there is no way a person can be intentionally annoying. Didn't have a brother or sister when you were growing up? Don't have two or more children now?

You are absolving trolls of all responsibility for riling up a message board.



> Think of it this way: if it were the behavior that were annoying, wouldn't everyone get annoyed at the same things?



Even viruses and bacteria don't make everyone equally sick.

Bullgrit


----------



## Scott DeWar

pawsplay said:


> Think of it this way: if it were the behavior that were annoying, wouldn't everyone get annoyed at the same things?




Just as twins will find different things to be found annoying. So wil lno two people who are not twins find things not the same level of annoyance. Sorry for all the negatives there, but i was not sure how else to discuss a negative.


----------



## 1_particular_person

S'mon said:


> One particular person seems to be a troll.






RangerWickett said:


> Tempted to make an account named "One Particular Person." Sounds like a character in Piratecat's storyhour.




I didn't do it! Really! I have been framed! I was busy playing pathfinder on a table top game at that time!


----------



## Scott DeWar

RangerWickett, what did you do?


----------



## renau1g

1_particular_person said:


> I didn't do it! Really! I have been framed! I was busy playing pathfinder on a table top game at that time!




It wasn't me, it was the one post man


----------



## Scott DeWar

well, at least the one post man is talking d and d, so there for not a spammer.


----------



## IronWolf

1_particular_person said:


> I didn't do it! Really! I have been framed! I was busy playing pathfinder on a table top game at that time!




Really?  Was One_Particular_Person already taken?


----------



## jonesy

IronWolf said:


> Really?  Was One_Particular_Person already taken?



That was my first thought too, but surprisingly no. It's still available.


----------



## El Mahdi

Bullgrit said:


> You are saying, then, that there is no way a person can be intentionally annoying.




I don't think he's saying that. Abslolutely somebody can be intentionally annoying. But we can choose whether or not to let it annoy us.

Trust me though, I'm not trying to preach that or anything, especially in a way that says one should do this because I do...since I do let such idiots annoy me far too often. Fortunately I mostly don't respond to them. Now if I could just control my annoyance in the first place, I'd probably be a lot happier...



Bullgrit said:


> You are absolving trolls of all responsibility for riling up a message board.




They certainly aren't absolved. I don't think he's trying to say that either. Just because we can and should control our own responses and choose not to be annoyed, doesn't mean that their behavior is okay or should go unchecked by mods.

Recognize that the "pain" response one is feeling isn't "real" pain. Then evaluate the post/situation/behavior from a rational perspective. If it's something that one feels needs to be dealt with, report it, explain in a rational manner, and let the mods decide what to do about it. Then move along...cus' it ain't worth the headache.


----------



## Umbran

El Mahdi said:


> IBut we can choose whether or not to let it annoy us.




Whether or not we can choose to let it annoy us - we most certainly can choose how (or if) we publicly express that annoyance.


----------



## Bullgrit

> Human beings react to emotional annoyance as though it were physical pain.





> Recognize that the "pain" response one is feeling isn't "real" pain. Then evaluate the post/situation/behavior from a rational perspective.



I have never felt annoyance as anything like physical pain. This is psychobabble.

Here on message boards, things that I find most annoying are intellectual dishonesty or logical fallacy, not some emotional tweak.

Bullgrit


----------



## TarionzCousin

The problem with putting people on your ignore list is that you have to read some posts you don't like to determine who goes on it. An easier way is to just find a thread full of opinions you don't like and ignore everyone in that thread.

...like this one, for example.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

TarionzCousin said:


> The problem with putting people on your ignore list is that you have to read some posts you don't like to determine who goes on it.



Naw, the _real_ problem with putting people on your ignore list is that it doesn't involve clocking them over the head then  binding and gagging them.

'Tis far too civilized solution for a far too barbaric int3rwebz.


----------



## Dice4Hire

TarionzCousin said:


> The problem with putting people on your ignore list is that you have to read some posts you don't like to determine who goes on it. An easier way is to just find a thread full of opinions you don't like and ignore everyone in that thread.
> 
> ...like this one, for example.




Interesting post. I wonder what it said.....


----------



## TarionzCousin

Dice4Hire said:


> Interesting post. I wonder what it said.....






TarionzCousin said:


> The problem with putting people on your ignore list is that you have to read some posts you don't like to determine who goes on it. An easier way is to just find a thread full of opinions you don't like and ignore everyone in that thread.
> 
> ...like this one, for example.



Quoted for Dice4Hire.


----------



## Scott DeWar

Theo R Cwithin said:


> Naw, the _real_ problem with putting people on your ignore list is that it doesn't involve clocking them over the head then  binding and gagging them.
> 
> 'Tis far too civilized solution for a far too barbaric int3rwebz.




"You must pass some beer around before buying another round for theo r. cwithin." or something like that.


----------



## El Mahdi

Bullgrit said:


> ...This is psychobabble...




Nah. It's Zen, Man!



This is Psychobabble:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDXa4FkAw-4"]YouTube - ‪Alan Parsons Project - Psychobabble‬‏[/ame]


----------



## pawsplay

Bullgrit said:


> You are saying, then, that there is no way a person can be intentionally annoying.




People can be intentionally anything. And as you may have observed on occasion, people's intentions do not always match how they come across.



> Didn't have a brother or sister when you were growing up? Don't have two or more children now?




Three brothers, two sisters. Five kids.



> You are absolving trolls of all responsibility for riling up a message board.




No, I am not. I wonder if, perhaps, it could be considered absolving other people of responsibility, though, if they refuse to acknowledge responsibility for their own emotions.

I have run message boards and mailing lists in the past; my views in this arena are based substantially on experience.




> Even viruses and bacteria don't make everyone equally sick.
> 
> Bullgrit




And they are not intrinsically... anything. Leave some bubonic plague sitting around long enough, and it just gets eaten by other microorganisms. E. coli is a productive member of society in your intestines; put it in your stomach and bad things happen.


----------



## Lanefan

Theo R Cwithin said:


> Naw, the _real_ problem with putting people on your ignore list is that it doesn't involve clocking them over the head then  binding and gagging them.



A fine start, but a true gamer would also TAKE THEIR STUFF!

Hm? 

Lan-"unbound, ungagged, still has stuff"-efan


----------



## Scott DeWar

Scott DeWar said:


> "You must pass some beer around before buying another round for theo r. cwithin." or something like that.




hmmmmm, as I have just sold 15 lbs of copper scrap today, i have bear money- i feel suddenly thirst for 99 bottles of beer!!


----------



## Rel

Look at it this way:  You can be rid of Specific Person's influence by the simple expedient of putting them on Ignore.  Meanwhile Specific Person is burdened by going through every day of their life being them!


----------



## Lanefan

Rel said:


> Meanwhile Specific Person is burdened by going through every day of their life being them!



Reminds me of a line from one of my songs:

"Ive got one thing you'll never have, and that's that I'm not you"

Lan-"referring, of course, to Specific Person and not Rel"-efan


----------



## El Mahdi

Lanefan said:


> Lan-"referring, of course, to Specific Person and not Rel"-efan




Of course not!  Everyone wants to be Rel...or Piratecat.


----------



## Rel

El Mahdi said:


> Of course not!  Everyone wants to be Rel...or Piratecat.




As of yesterday, I have a hot tub.


----------



## Relique du Madde

Rel said:


> As of yesterday, I have a hot tub.




Hot tub bribes don't work unless beautiful scantily clad women are involved.


----------



## Rel

Relique du Madde said:


> Hot tub bribes don't work unless beautiful scantily clad women are involved.




I wasn't looking to bribe anybody.  Just inspire envy.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Rel said:


> I wasn't looking to bribe anybody.  Just inspire envy.




Epic Fail then.

Sorry.


----------



## Relique du Madde

Rel said:


> I wasn't looking to bribe anybody.  Just inspire envy.




That is assuming you weren't trying to make a proposition  which still would have been a failure.


----------



## Scott DeWar

Relique du Madde said:


> Hot tub bribes don't work unless beautiful scantily clad women are involved.




I don't know for sure, but his wife may not like that.


----------



## Rel

Scott DeWar said:


> I don't know for sure, but his wife may not like that.




Actually she'd probably like that just fine!

Envy yet?


----------



## Bullgrit

If that was Rel's wife I saw at the game day several weeks ago, she'd be the only scantily clad woman needed in that hot tub. Schwing!

Bullgrit


----------



## Scott DeWar

care there, speaking of another man's wife may get more trouble then it is worth!


----------



## Rel

Scott DeWar said:


> care there, speaking of another man's wife may get more trouble then it is worth!




Bah!  If I were take umbrage at that it would make me the biggest hypocrite in the world!


----------



## Scott DeWar

I know that you have a regular answer in the word assn game in CM, but over here you _usually_ are quite civil.


----------



## Rel

Scott DeWar said:


> I know that you have a regular answer in the word assn game in CM, but over here you _usually_ are quite civil.




There's quite a difference between incivility and vulgarity.  Hell, sometimes I'm both!


----------



## Scott DeWar

over there most people are. Oh well.That is what the fire proof suit i bought is for.


----------



## the Jester

Scott DeWar said:


> over there most people are.




But with love!



Scott DeWar said:


> Oh well.That is what the fire proof suit i bought is for.




*Nods* Wisdom = not your dump stat.


----------



## Scott DeWar

Scott DeWar said:


> over there most people are.






the Jester said:


> But with love!




Are you over there in Circvs Maximvs?

never mind, just saw you in the "grab the book nearest you.right now thread'


----------



## 1_particular_person

Theo R Cwithin said:


> Naw, the _real_ problem with putting people on your ignore list is that it doesn't involve clocking them over the head then  binding and gagging them.
> 
> 'Tis far too civilized solution for a far too barbaric int3rwebz.



Well, It good to know this place is civilized!!

I woiuld not like the clocking of my noggin-weather I deserved it or not.


----------



## 1_particular_person

Relique du Madde said:


> Hot tub bribes don't work unless beautiful scantily clad women are involved.



and a keg of Sam Adams please.


----------



## Scott DeWar

wow, got really chatty here, huh?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Rel said:


> There's quite a difference between incivility and vulgarity.  Hell, sometimes I'm both!




New words:

Incivulgar- the state of being incivil and vulgar simultaneously.

Civulgar- the rare state of being civil and vulgar simultaneously.


----------



## Scott DeWar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> New words:
> 
> 
> Civivulgar- the rare state of being civil and vulgar simultaneously.




fify


----------



## Relique du Madde

Scott DeWar said:


> wow, got really chatty here, huh?




Sssshhhh....  maybe the mods won't realize.


----------



## Scott DeWar

*ok, i will be really quiet*


----------



## Dice4Hire

Scott DeWar said:


> *ok, i will be really quiet*




color = black


Much better


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> There's another kind of person, who posts unpopular opinions, who is kind of abrasive, and is generally unlikeable




Thanks for thinking about me!




RC


----------



## Scott DeWar

Dice4Hire said:


> color = black
> 
> 
> Much better






Scott DeWar said:


> *ok, i will be really quiet*




is that better?


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

Could you speak up a bit?  I can't hear you.


----------



## Jdvn1

Relique du Madde said:


> Hot tub bribes don't work unless beautiful scantily clad women are involved.



This thread is worthless without pics.


----------



## Relique du Madde

Jdvn1 said:


> This thread is worthless without pics.




I would post them however, _my_ grandma thinks bikini's are indecent.... cause she's old.


----------



## jonesy

Relique du Madde said:


> I would post them however, _my_ grandma thinks bikini's are indecent.... cause she's old.



My grandma thinks bikini's are awesome... cause she's hot.

Or maybe that was _when it's hot_.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

Relique du Madde said:


> I would post them however, _my_ grandma thinks bikini's are indecent.... cause she's old.



... but is she _hawt_?  Maybe in a swim dress?  
Or in a bathing cap?  
Or in a DIVING BELL??

_(Oy! Be still my beating heart...)_


----------



## Jdvn1

Theo R Cwithin said:


> ... but is she _hawt_?  Maybe in a swim dress?
> Or in a bathing cap?
> Or in a DIVING BELL??
> 
> _(Oy! Be still my beating heart...)_



I had to Google that.


----------



## diaglo

Umbran said:


> We've had the feature for years.  I think since as far back as 2003 or 2004, maybe?




longer even i think.

i had some moderators on it before they became moderators. only recently took them off b/c Piratecat made me.


----------



## Diamond Cross

One gist I'm getting from this thread is if you have unpopular opinions you should just shut the heck up and let other people speak.

If that's true then I don't see any point in posting on this entire forum anymore. Because I'm one of those kinds of people who does have unpopular and dissenting opinions. 

And yes, I've often been told that it's simply the way I express it. But no, it's not that at all. I've had many experiences where I have used tact and people still get angry at me because I don't agree with them and they still shut me up using any stupid means they can.

So really, what good is using tact if the people are just going to get angry and shut you up anyway?

I do not believe in tact period, and see it as just another way of lieing. You're just trying to hide things using softer language. It's crap.

And of course, I'm often accused of being a troll as well, just because it's a super easy thing to do and it automatically puts people on the defensive.

It's still a bunch of junk to do so.

And I will never understand people's need to be not be offended. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. 

And I'll never understand this idiotic attitude.


----------



## RangerWickett

Diamond Cross said:


> I do not believe in tact period, and see it as just another way of lieing. You're just trying to hide things using softer language. It's crap.




I can't decide whether to respond honestly, or to respond tactfully, or to respond with ironic honesty.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

diaglo said:


> i had some moderators on it before they became moderators. only recently took them off b/c Piratecat made me.




Isn't discussing moderators actions in public a ban-worthy offense?


----------



## Scott DeWar

*"D" * is only discussing an action taken during their pre moderator days


----------



## Morrus

Diamond Cross said:


> I do not believe in tact period, and see it as just another way of lieing. You're just trying to hide things using softer language. It's crap.




Whether you believe in it or not, you'll use it if you want to post on EN World.



> And I will never understand people's need to be not be offended. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.




But there is a rule which means you must do your best not to offend people.  You agreed to to it.



> And I'll never understand this idiotic attitude.




"Idiotic" or not, those are the rules.  It's not open for debate.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Morrus said:


> t's not open for debate.





Are you sure?  I'm a master debater.






































...what?


----------



## Diamond Cross

Whatever the .


----------



## Scott DeWar

Diamond Cross, What is up, dude? What is really bugging you? This all seems to be smoke and flash paper of an under lying thing. Has simple courtesy really become an anathema to you?


----------



## Diamond Cross

> Diamond Cross, What is up, dude?



Growing up I never had this kind of attitude. Nobody ever used common courtesy with me. Nobody ever cared about how something was said would affect me as a child. Even as an adult I still find it hard to have people use common courtesy with me. In fact every time I tell a person that something I find offensive would you please stop doing that they always reply with things like "grow a thick skin" or "sit down and take it like a man" and never under any circumstances back off and admit they could've been wrong and apologize to me but would instead get defensive and angry at me for pointing it out to them. But as soon as I, usually inadvertently, said something that somebody took offensive, they'd get in my face and never let it go no matter how I explained or justify myself until they heard the words "I'm sorry, I was wrong to say such a thing".

So yes, common courtesy really is such an anathema to me. I've never truly seen it nor have I ever truly been given it so to me it's a bunch of crap.

And yes, I am fully expecting to be banned for my unpopular attitudes.

That's the way the world works, you see. If you have unpopular attitudes and beliefs you will be shut up one way or another.

And I also find it entirely frustrating to constantly encounter these kinds of utterly retarded attitudes of using soft language. 

I often have unpopular beliefs and am often told that I should just shut up and let everybody else talk around me because we all have to be a good little robot and be exactly the same. And of course, I am often accused of being a troll as well.

Basically, being on forums like these makes it feel like it just a game to see how long I can last until I am banned.

I am an adult and I should have the option to express myself as I see fit.

If you don't like it, that's what the ignore function is for.

Having an unpopular opinion and being abrasive is not the same thing as trolling.

Oh yes, I know. I'm just being a child and I should grow up. Whatever the  that means.


----------



## Morrus

Last warning, DC. Cut the profanity right now. You agreed not to use profanity when you signed up. Next instance of it WILL be a ban. That's your choice; you won't be able to blame it on your childhood or on having an "unpopular opinion".


----------



## Diamond Cross

Forced consent is not real consent at all.

And you're being a real little rules Nazi.

So  off, you ing Nazi moderator.

And no, there is no ing choice in the matter.


----------



## Morrus

Diamond Cross has chosen to leave us.

Thread closed.


----------

