Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[ImmortalDread]

Seems the majority decided 2 years ban. Are we really going for 3 pages of discussion? It seems a bit not coincidental that each time weekly got reported, we always extend it two pages of back and forth discussion?

• 1 month ban (& vs-thread perm ban): @Antvasima, @Moritzva, @Promestein (3)
• At least 2 years ban/permanent ban: @Mr._Bambu @Deagonx, @Crabwhale, @Sir_Ovens, @Theglassman12, @Tllmbrg, @CloverDragon03, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Lonkitt, @Damage3245, @Emirp sumitpo @Qawsedf234 (12)
• 2 Weeks ban upto 1 year (or vs-thread ban): @Agnaa, @DarkGrath (2)
• No Ban/Neutral: DDM, @LordGriffin1000 (though said they are fine with a ban) (2)

Moreover, @WeeklyBattles is already in Mori's server, he can always ban-appeal if he has a staff member who can vouch for him (the server is full of staff members)

 

[DarkGrath]

If we're going for a middle ground between the quite short (a couple weeks to 1 month) and quite lengthy (2 years or permanent) ban periods suggested I'd personally go with 6 months or a year.

I would be comfortable with 6-12 months as a proportional punishment. In recognition of the general interests expressed so far, and the exceptional controversies surrounding this situation, I would lean on the high end and suggest a 1 year ban as a final compromise.

 

[Deagonx]

Should we seek out more staff input? It is currently 10-7 I believe, but there are a number of admins and thread mods who have not weighed in. Perhaps they could offer a few decisive votes on whether 2 years takes it or whether the vote is even enough to take a middle ground.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Seems the majority decided 2 years ban. Are we really going for 3 pages of discussion? It seems a bit not coincidental that each time weekly got reported, we always extend it two pages of back and forth discussion?

Considering the repeated offenses and how Weekly hasn't seemed to have changed, despite the many chances he's been given, and the fact that VSBW has clearly not been doing his mental health any favours, I agree to Option 2.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm going to tag some of the staff who I know are active but who haven't weighed in. If you're being tagged here but have no interest in voting or being involved, then I apologize and please feel free to ignore this. If you are willing to vote, please refer to Dread's post a few above mine here for the current tally.

@ByAsura @Colonel_Krukov @Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234 @Abstractions @Starter_Pack @LephyrTheRevanchist @Planck69 @KingTempest @Just_a_Random_Butler

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that DarkGrath makes sense above regarding finding a compromise solution, and that a 2 years ban seems like a considerable overreaction.

 

[Qawsedf234]

If you are willing to vote, please refer to Dread's post a few above mine here for the current tally.

Weekly had already had multiple clear and final warnings. This also isn't some new issue but a recurring one. A two year/permanent ban is warranted. Otherwise it just seems like favoritism.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that DarkGrath makes sense above regarding finding a compromise solution, and that a 2 years ban seems like a considerable overreaction.

@Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Just_a_Random_Butler

What do you think about this?

 

[Deagonx]

Well, I think that DarkGrath makes sense above regarding finding a compromise solution, and that a 2 years ban seems like a considerable overreaction.

Well, I understand your perspective on the matter but with Qawsedf's vote we are currently 12 to 7 in favor of a 2 year ban (with more than a few of those advocating for a permanent ban). I think that is a decisive enough majority to consider the matter settled. I have pinged some of the other staff but some of them don't want to get involved.

 

[Antvasima]

Weekly had already had multiple clear and final warnings. This also isn't some new issue but a recurring one. A two year/permanent ban is warranted. Otherwise it just seems like favoritism.

Well, it isn't favoritism. I have been far more lenient towards several members, including staff, who have insulted me considerably worse than what Weekly did here. I just usually try to be understanding and compassionate and to find less drastic solutions if we aren't dealing with people who just came here to cause problems.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I have been far more lenient towards several members, including staff, who have insulted me considerably worse than what Weekly did here. I just usually try to be understanding and compassionate and to find less drastic solutions if we aren't dealing with people who just came here to cause problems.

But Weekly is causing problems if they were not only demoted due to these issues, but banned before and have had multiple other reports addressed to them. A single freak out wouldn't warrant this unless it was particularly bad; but it's not a freak out as much as a constant pattern from what was brought up before.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think quantity is a serious concern for reports. And it shouldn't be overlooked that each of those incidents is causing stress for those on the other end of Weekly's behaviour.

I don't disagree with this statement. In fact, it is possible for an excessive habit of minor offenses to eventually stack together to become a major offense. That's more or less what Spam would be. But I more so was also bringing up it wasn't just an excess of minor occurrences but some people throw in reports that weren't even report worthy at all in the mix of the numerous minor offense reports. That was the real issue I probably should have specified.

Second, I consider myself apt enough at picking up conversations about who, what and where, regardless of the place they happen. I've been in a good number of Discord servers, friend groups and general gatherings of VS peeps, and I can tell you that there has never been an agenda against Weekly in my extensive time spent there. There's been complaining, sure, and a lot of it as well, especially when he was still staff. But I consider the point moot and void when the complaints were mostly kept to themselves, and were legitimate, and the rule violations he committed at the time were also legitimate.

I should have been more specific yes, but I will point out details. Simply agreeing with Weekly's 2 year ban or permaban is NOT harassment. Bambu is not doing anything wrong, you're NOT on the list of people targeting him either, and Maverick also isn't doing anything wrong either. If you agree with a permanent ban, that is perfectly fine. I am not forcing any of you to change your minds. But at the same time, there are a few users who deliberately antagonize WeeklyBattles at every opportunity they see. There were a combination of legit reports and not so legit reports also, but only the legit ones should be focused.

What is the relevance, exactly, here? As you said, trolls do this sometimes, way more often in the ancient days. I've had gorn bombs and profiles impersonating me, you've had them, anyone who's been staff long enough has had them.

That was originally one of the list of reasons for his year long block, but it turned out to be a false detail. And several other staff DID bring it up, not just me. If that wasn't Weekly, it should be used as a reminder then.

Again, WE ARE NOT JUDGING WEEKLY BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO. Comprehend that please, and while you're at it stop digging up prehistoric shit to use as a counter-argument.

Agnaa already proved that statement wrong by listing the numerous things. Also, it's not just "Prehistoric examples" I legit have seen instances even amongst Bayonetta revisions that were created after Weekly's ban expired where Glass was hostile to him or called him "Incapable of debating or showing scans." And Weekly isn't the only person Glassman antagonizes, he has recently been antagonizing Antvasima a lot as of late where he calls him out over every minor offense or for suspecting a conspiracy while never commenting when others say things far worse against Antvasima

I don't really agree with that. There are plenty of reports that don't quite surpass our threshold for action, but it isn't as though Weekly has been on the receiving end of any particularly egregious reports. I looked over Dread's list of each of his warnings. The only person who has reported him multiple times is Glassman and in each of those cases the staff agreed to issue a warning, three reports over the course of a year isn't exactly that crazy given that Weekly really is that routinely problematic and Glassman is often the one being forced to deal with it. Every other report was from a different user, none of whom have some grudge against Weekly.

No one is disagreeing that Weekly hasn't been problematic, but the most recent report was the first time since Weekly ban that actually was in Glassman's favor. I have seen numerous times of Glassman behaving just as bad if not worse than Weekly on various Bayonetta threads. Jinx was also someone who Weekly had issues with and never liked WeeklyBattles and some of her arguments on RWBY threads such as calling some blatant fight scenes outliers for no reason were also things I understand Weekly being annoyed by. But take the joke he made on Discord was something way out of context that Mori made a rant to say, you can take and offsite joke and weaponize it against people. And I was informed by some people in DMs that Glassman is someone a lot of users complain about albeit not as much as someone like Eficiente.

Counting the votes, we have more support for a 2-year ban than any of the other options by a decent margin. I say this with the utmost respect to both you and DDM, but you two are the primary reason why Weekly has gotten away with 6-7 warnings in a year with no actual bans. It feels as though every time Weekly gets reported here you guys come to defend him, minimize his violations, or otherwise remind everyone that he is mentally ill or got bullied years ago on the site.

However, it's just no longer the case. I've read many of these threads where reports have cropped up, Weekly is the instigator. Weekly is the one bullying others. He insults, mocks, or laughs at any user who disagrees with him or who agrees with his debating opponents. He lies about evidence when he's losing an argument. He routinely declares himself objectively correct and stonewalls thread after thread after thread, he pretends to be a victim to garner sympathy and has spun up a conspiracy theory about a staff bias against him, to such an extent that several Admins have avoided involving themselves in his reports in order to avoid lending any credence to his paranoia. That's very problematic.

Looking back, I don't deny being too lenient or too generous and both of us tried to help him on DMs numerous times with his mental health or that we may be partially at fault for the special treatment. However, I still think there are comments in the second paragraph that are exaggerations.

Weekly hasn't gotten worse, he's has improved. Has he improved enough to the point where he is good enough to be on the wiki? That's debatable, but saying he hasn't gotten any better since the year long ban is a stretch. Laughing I see a little bit, and the most recent was indeed an insult, but I have seen more mocks and insults from a few of his opponents than I have from him. "Intentionally lying" is also a reach when it is most likely just his opinion even if a controversial opinion or him often misunderstanding. It is indeed problematic that several Admins don't even want to get involved in reporting him, I too have felt discouraged to defend him from time to time just because I get yelled at just for trying to reach out to help him with his mental health. And I often get stressed when RVR blows up whenever I'm at work or when I'm asleep. To the point where I feel it's difficult for me to respond to what went on while trying not to go Beast mode myself (A common symptom of PTSD). Likewise, he has shared to me a few scans where you Deagon said you'd give 20 dollars for people to agree with you, with ImmortalDread agreeing. I ignored it because I was positive those were just jokes, and that it would be hypocritical since people tried using the same thing to get Weekly banned even when Mori called out those being jokes. In his defense though, LordGinSama used to be someone Weekly had issues with and also had issues with Weekly, but I hear they're pretty much cool with each other nowadays. Not saying this can hold weight on outcome, but just one example that he still isn't as bad as he used to be.

Likewise, I often get informed that when bullying happens to him offsite or are from users already permabanned from the forum, that he should probably learn to let those go given that the "Already banned users" is something we got taken care of. And shouldn't impact how he behaves onsite.

And now that Qawsed has commented recently and the votes are in favor of the stricter ban. I may not agree with going that far and think middle ground compromise could be discussed, but what is done is done. A 6 month or perhaps 1 year might be the best I can reduce it too now that the votes are in.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Well, the 2 year option now has a lot more definitive backing, and to be blunt further argumentation is just unproductive at this point after 3 pages of discussion.

Can we apply this?

 

[Qawsedf234]

And now that Qawsed has commented recently and the votes are in favor of the stricter ban. I may not agree with going that far and think middle ground compromise could be discussed, but what is done is done. A 6 month or perhaps 1 year might be the best I can reduce it too now that the votes are in

If the options are 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years or a perma-ban I'm more in favor of one year I guess.

 

[Deagonx]

Likewise, he has shared to me a few scans where you Deagon said you'd give 20 dollars for people to agree with you, with ImmortalDread agreeing. I ignored it because I was positive those were just jokes

Frankly, the fact that he even shared screenshots of that is pretty absurd. I linked to a Fun & Games thread from 3 years ago proposing to upgrade Rick Sanchez to Tier 0, not a CRT. What he did with Bambu was not a joke, and that myth has been dispelled numerous times.

Well, the 2 year option now has a lot more definitive backing, and to be blunt further argumentation is just unproductive at this point after 3 pages of discussion.

Can we apply this?

I believe so. I cannot see a good reason to circumvent the strong majority in favor of a two year ban.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, given that our staff votes are split between a 1 month and 2 years block here, but more favouring the latter, I think that a 1 year block seems like the most evenhanded compromise solution.

 

[Deagonx]

Well, given that our staff votes are split between a 1 month and 2 years block here, but more favouring the latter, I think that a 1 year block seems like the most evenhanded compromise solution.

I think the majority in favor of two years is strong enough that if we are to force a compromise instead of simply yielding to the vote, it should be more along the lines of 18 months.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I see no need to compromise given the majority vote, personally

 

[Theglassman12]

@Antvasima Do not try to circumvent the ban length. The 2 year ban outnumbers the 2 month one by a wide margin and Weekly was already banned for 1 year before, doing this is peak bias.

 

[Deagonx]

Agreed, I don't see it as being entirely reasonable for the losing side of a vote to force a compromise in that manner.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Likewise, he has shared to me a few scans where you Deagon said you'd give 20 dollars for people to agree with you, with ImmortalDread agreeing. I ignored it because I was positive those were just jokes, and that it would be hypocritical since people tried using the same thing to get Weekly banned even when Mori called out those being jokes.

This is taken out of context, clearly. You are also thinking way less of me, I am not cheap girl. I don't let people to pay me for this. How in the world are you comparing this case where two people including me outright in public said that Deagonx paid me to agree with me IN a fun & games thread. If it was serious bribe, those two comments would be deleted, fun and games would be turned to an actual CRT and Deagonx would argue for it.

Furthermore, it is hilarious that you are comparing an obvious joking comment from Deagonx to a serious offense where a user was banned for a year and demoted. In no way, you are still thinking it was false and unfair action.

Don't mind me, but you are obligated to apologize since I don't take this offense from you.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I believe so. I cannot see a good reason to circumvent the strong majority in favor of a two year ban.

I've done so.

 

[Moritzva]

I can't really defend Weekly's behavior at this point. I just ask that we actually dedicate time to the root of the problem and maintain these higher standards going forward. If we are banning him for two years, then the least we can do is actually follow through with dealing with the bullshit that got us here in the first place.

I think a bit of harshness is a step in the right direction. However, I don't want it to stop at just Weekly; what kind of wiki would we be if we responded to an issue involving harassment, widespread misbehavior, and lenient punishments across the board... by just banning Weekly before going back to normal?

I'm not going to oppose the ban because, based on what I have seen Weekly say, he clearly does not get it and I can't get the message across to him. I would argue that, given the circumstances, a one year ban may be more appropriate, but that's about it. I do heavily, heavily advise that we don't abandon the issue here, but rather, continue to look into and improve our standards for punishing behavior like this.

 

[Antvasima]

Agreed, I don't see it as being entirely reasonable for the losing side of a vote to force a compromise in that manner.

Well, this isn't an either or kind of issue to start with. We should generally try to reach a staff consensus.

 

[Deagonx]

continue to look into and improve our standards for punishing behavior like this.

I strongly agree, as well as with your earlier post expanding upon this in more detail. We should raise our bar across the board for civility and what kind of conduct we consider actionable. Perhaps it should be put into writing, in order to have a great deal of specificity about what kind of behavior is allowed and what is not, which will leave less in the realm of "any given mod's personal sensibilities about conduct" when we're dealing with less overt cases.

Well, this isn't an either or kind of issue to start with. We should generally try to reach a staff consensus.

I'd consider 12-7 a consensus.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Yes, we should definitely investigate the targeted harassment allegations now. I recommend contacting Weekly off-site for screenshots on that matter since he said he has lots of evidence.

 

[Antvasima]

I'd consider 12-7 a consensus.

That is not how we tend to handle things. Unless there is an absolutely overwhelming overweight for one option, we try to reach compromise solutions, especially regarding deciding punishments.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, we should definitely investigate the targeted harassment allegations now. I recommend contacting Weekly off-site for screenshots on that matter since he said he has lots of evidence.

Yes. That seems reasonable.

 

[Deagonx]

Yes, we should definitely investigate the targeted harassment allegations now. I recommend contacting Weekly off-site for screenshots on that matter since he said he has lots of evidence.

I agree such accusations should be investigated, but I advise setting expectations low. Having looked at a handful of instances where Weekly has claimed to have been harassed, I have never seen anything actually report worthy, and I say that as someone who has a much stricter stance on it than many.

That is not how we tend to handle things. Unless there is an absolutely overwhelming overweight for one option we try to reach compromise solutions, especially regarding deciding punishments.

To be clear though, the two year solution was a compromise. In Bambu's words, he said he would not be satisfied with anything less than two years. Several staff advocated for something permanent.

Please, let this go. We have spent three pages discussing Weekly and have reached a conclusion that a strong majority of our staff agreed with. It is simply impractical to dedicate any more time to this. This is honestly in his best interest. He needs to move on from the wiki for his own good, let alone for the benefit of the community.

 

[Moritzva]

If we continue to delve into this issue as a whole, across the board, then I will step back and let it happen.

We can't be entirely retroactive about it; hatred and anger breeds more hatred and anger, after all. I definitely know I've felt myself losing my cool and being increasingly irritable around here, which plays a part in why I've been staying away more. But setting a good standard for all of us, going forward, can't hurt.

And, I'll say this again: it isn't JUST the Weekly harassment things. I also think Weekly has a very bloated sense of what they are. What's more realistic is that a bunch of users do genuinely not like Weekly and will be particularly harsh and antagonistic, but not to a report-worthy level, from time to time. It's not an agenda, it's not a secret staff cabal, it's just people not liking the dude and occasionally provoking him, intentionally or not.

I would like to make it clear that this is far beyond just Weekly and the people surrounding him; we are extremely lenient on people in-general and have allowed a culture of passive-aggression and light punishments to grow into a sprawling jungle. Best take out the axes, because there's a lot of work to do.

Edit: Also, I don't think 2 years is a compromise, I think it's a high-end suggestion that is reasonable enough to be accepted. Personally, I think 1 year is better for the scenario and given our past standards, but if we are going to ramp up our standards across the board, then go ahead with 2.

 

[Deagonx]

we are extremely lenient on people in-general and have allowed a culture of passive-aggression and light punishments to grow into a sprawling jungle. Best take out the axes, because there's a lot of work to do.

I am willing to write up a draft of more specific guidelines for civility/respectability so that we have a clear reference point for future offenses, rather than the usual "staff vibe check" and can make it a staff thread so that we can discuss it further. I agree that the lack of clarity about when and how moderate aggression/rudeness should be punished has allowed a lot of people free reign to just be low-latent assholes on the forum, since they never cross our definite threshold of "literally cussing someone out."

 

[Antvasima]

To be clear though, the two year solution was a compromise. In Bambu's words, he said he would not be satisfied with anything less than two years. Several staff advocated for something permanent.

Please, let this go. We have spent three pages discussing Weekly and have reached a conclusion that a strong majority of our staff agreed with. It is simply impractical to dedicate any more time to this. This is honestly in his best interest. He needs to move on from the wiki for his own good, let alone for the benefit of the community.

That is not how I interpreted the issue. A balanced compromise solution in-between 1 month and 2 years seems like roughly 1 year.

If we continue to delve into this issue as a whole, across the board, then I will step back and let it happen.

We can't be entirely retroactive about it; hatred and anger breeds more hatred and anger, after all. I definitely know I've felt myself losing my cool and being increasingly irritable around here, which plays a part in why I've been staying away more. But setting a good standard for all of us, going forward, can't hurt.

And, I'll say this again: it isn't JUST the Weekly harassment things. I also think Weekly has a very bloated sense of what they are. What's more realistic is that a bunch of users do genuinely not like Weekly and will be particularly harsh and antagonistic, but not to a report-worthy level, from time to time. It's not an agenda, it's not a secret staff cabal, it's just people not liking the dude and occasionally provoking him, intentionally or not.

I would like to make it clear that this is far beyond just Weekly and the people surrounding him; we are extremely lenient on people in-general and have allowed a culture of passive-aggression and light punishments to grow into a sprawling jungle. Best take out the axes, because there's a lot of work to do.

Edit: Also, I don't think 2 years is a compromise, I think it's a high-end suggestion that is reasonable enough to be accepted. Personally, I think 1 year is better for the scenario and given our past standards, but if we are going to ramp up our standards across the board, then go ahead with 2.

The tendency to harrass others in this community en masse with limited provocation is a problem, yes, but I may be too considerate and empathetic to others to be able to be sufficiently harsh in this regard, but we also shouldn't turn too draconian and authoritarian, so it is a difficult issue to approach and deal with properly.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

That is not how I interpreted the issue. A balanced compromise solution in-between 1 month and 2 years seems like roughly 1 year.

Well several people also advocated for an indefinite block.

 

[Antvasima]

I am willing to write up a draft of more specific guidelines for civility/respectability so that we have a clear reference point for future offenses, rather than the usual "staff vibe check" and can make it a staff thread so that we can discuss it further. I agree that the lack of clarity about when and how moderate aggression/rudeness should be punished has allowed a lot of people free reign to just be low-latent assholes on the forum, since they never cross our definite threshold of "literally cussing someone out."

But you frankly seem to be among our least tolerant staff members in this area, and I do not want our forum to completely enter the politically one-sided, intolerant, and partisan cultural climate that much of western society is unfortunately currently engaged in. We need to maintain some degree of flexibility, tolerance, thick-skinned mental resilience, and diversity of opinion for our community to be reasonably democratic and not drive away even more people who feel oppressed by the "fun police" than we already do, or be bound by mandatory rules that demand us to constantly be one size fits all ruthless regarding punishments.

 

[Deagonx]

we also shouldn't turn too draconian and authoritarian

But you frankly seem to be among our least tolerant staff members in this area, and I do not want our forum to completely enter the politically one-sided, intolerant, and partisan cultural climate that much of western society is unfortunately currently engaged in. We need to maintain some degree of flexibility, tolerance, and thick-skinned resilience for our community to be reasonably democratic and not drive away even more people who feel oppressed by the "fun police" than we already do, not be bound by mandatory rules that demand us to constantly be one size fits all ruthless regarding punishments.

We can discuss this more in a different venue, but for my part (and I explained some of this in a discussion with Agnaa) I am far more concerned with protecting the dignity of our entire user base, and their right to be treated with respect, than I am in protecting the right of a handful of toxic users to be mildly-to-moderately rude on a constant basis with no avenue for stopping them.

Our primary consideration, IMO, should be the universal benefit of the health of the forum and community. I am sure there are many users who will groan and whine about "tone-policing" if we punish them for beginning their counterarguments with "Are you serious with this shit? LMAO" but frankly, those users suck and we should prevent them from doing that.

I understand and respect the fact that you yourself have been more lenient even towards users that have treated you far worse, but I do not believe that is the best model for improving our community.

I will write up a draft and make a staff discussion thread about more specific rules (especially for debate forums like CRTs and Versus Threads) that will help protect everyone from that kind of treatment, including Weekly should he choose to return after his ban.

 

[Antvasima]

Well several people also advocated for an indefinite block.

I suppose that is a valid point.

 

[Crabwhale]

But you frankly seem to be among our least tolerant staff members in this area, and I do not want our forum to completely enter the politically one-sided, intolerant, and partisan cultural climate that much of western society is unfortunately currently engaged in.

Ant with all due respect, what in Jove's name are you saying?

The only one inserting politics in this conversation is you. Partisan culture? Western society? Bro, we're on a VS indexing site, what is the relevance? I admit the swing of tolerance to intolerance regarding certain issues is ever moving, but this comparison is asinine.

 

[Damage3245]

Since the block has been applied, I think we should consider the matter settled as far as this thread goes and any additional discussion or thoughts should probably be taken to message walls or private messages.

 

[Antvasima]

We can discuss this more in a different venue, but for my part (and I explained some of this in a discussion with Agnaa) I am far more concerned with protecting the dignity of our entire user base, and their right to be treated with respect, than I am in protecting the right of a handful of toxic users to be mildly-to-moderately rude on a constant basis with no avenue for stopping them.

Our primary consideration, IMO, should be the universal benefit of the health of the forum and community. I am sure there are many users who will groan and whine about "tone-policing" if we punish them for beginning their counterarguments with "Are you serious with this shit? LMAO" but frankly, those users suck and we should prevent them from doing that.

I understand and respect the fact that you yourself have been more lenient even towards users that have treated you far worse, but I do not believe that is the best model for improving our community.

I will write up a draft and make a staff discussion thread about more specific rules (especially for debate forums like CRTs and Versus Threads) that will help protect everyone from that kind of treatment, including Weekly should he choose to return after his ban.

As I mentioned above, I think that we are already easily sufficiently harsh in these areas and should definitely not completely enter areas of oversensitive intolerance.

 

[Antvasima]

Ant with all due respect, what in Jove's name are you saying?

The only one inserting politics in this conversation is you. Partisan culture? Western society? Bro, we're on a VS indexing site, what is the relevance? I admit the swing of tolerance to intolerance regarding certain issues is ever moving, but this comparison is asinine.

Well, I meant that just because somebody is somewhat offensive, that doesn't mean that we should be completely oversensitive and systematically instantly apply draconian ban-hammers. Everybody would end up constantly walking on egg-shells in an almost Orwellian atmosphere, which is not remotely desireable.