• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

VS Battles Wiki Forum

Deagonx
Deagonx
You can fairly easily argue that "shit" or "braindead" are worse, but to draw a line you'd have to draw one right in the middle; where some people will be offended by unpunished speech, and some people will casually toss out punishable speech without a second thought, which I think is generally a bad situation to be in.
I don't think it's too large of an ask to require people not to use that kind of language even against their opponents argument. I mean, what does it add to the discussion? I don't feel offended if someone says "this line of reasoning doesn't seem logical, because x" but if someone says "this is a brain dead argument" of course it'll be offensive.
to draw a line you'd have to draw one right in the middle; where some people will be offended by unpunished speech, and some people will casually toss out punishable speech without a second thought, which I think is generally a bad situation to be in.
The line has to be somewhere. Are we going to let people say "this argument is ******* stupid" because it's just about the argument? I don't think so. I think that just sets the stage for more hostility, which then escalates further and further. It also means that people that are genuinely good mannered and polite and reasonable have to endure constant vitriol from an opponent and never have any avenue to rectifying the situation. I'm not going to endorse letting such users go around bullying everyone that disagrees with them.

I had never heard of LordGinSama before this incident, I don't know who he is or what his history is, but he comes off horribly in that thread. Constant jabs, insults, snark, and just generally acting like an ill-mannered child in every possible way. When I looked into him after all this, he's been reported nearly a dozen times and seems like one of the worst-behaved users on the site. Good riddance. We need to do more to prevent that kind of behavior, the constant wrist-slaps aren't doing us any favors, and hopefully the warning tracker can help in that regard.
Agnaa
Agnaa
I don't think it's too large of an ask to require people not to use that kind of language even against their opponents argument. I mean, what does it add to the discussion? I don't feel offended if someone says "this line of reasoning doesn't seem logical, because x" but if someone says "this is a brain dead argument" of course it'll be offensive.

Venting out frustrations? Not needing to ditch a thread the second you get a bit heated at the risk of a ban? Emphasis? Variety in language?

The line has to be somewhere. Are we going to let people say "this argument is ******* stupid" because it's just about the argument? I don't think so.


I think so.

I think that just sets the stage for more hostility, which then escalates further and further.


Hostilities can get started from the smallest of issues. Setting the bar for which level of hostilities is bannable earlier doesn't stop hostilities from rising, it just gets people banned earlier in that chain, giving less time for one of them to come to their senses and take a step back from the conversation.

It also means that people that are genuinely good mannered and polite and reasonable have to endure constant vitriol from an opponent and never have any avenue to rectifying the situation. I'm not going to endorse letting such users go around bullying everyone that disagrees with them.


It also means that generally good mannered, polite, and helpful people have tamer outbursts marked against their record, which can be obsessively tracked by people who dislike them to get them kicked off the site more easily.

And to both of those previous points, as I said, there's a non-negligible amount of people that will get offended, and will get riled up by statements it sounds like you'd consider non-warnable. You are not preventing all bad feelings and hostility, you're not preventing all vitriol and bullying. You're moving the notch over somewhat, and I don't think that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
Back
Top