On reducing vitriol

[Leftovers]

Flaming is what we're trying to curb here. We're looking at posts on a case-by-case basis. A bunch of mates referring to themselves as autistic dumbfucks is no trouble, but if interactions between ShonenHero42 and Devil_Boner always lead to disruptive discussions that end in intelligences insulted and one's mother being dishonored, then word choices in certain contexts act as buzzwords that we need to step in.

If it's a case by case basis then this is a wholly unnecessary rule. Exercising one's judgment on what is flaming shouldn't hinge on what buzzwords are used. So if this isn't a general ban on certain terminology but rather a reaffirmation of the age-old rule "don't be a dick", then what exactly is the point of focusing on certain context-sensitive words in the first place?

I mean really, do you need to see someone being called a retard to intervene or what.

[Dark Pulse]

Guys, it's very simple. Don't be a dick to other people. Try not to casually throw around words that'll piss people off. We can tell when things are joking around and when things aren't a joke, because usually the stuff that's not a joke gets reported by somebody.

If you can do that, great, then you don't need to worry about a thing.

We're not the morality police, we're not going to ban swearing or demand everyone be perfectly politically correct, but some of it is getting ridiculous and we feel it needs to be curbed.

[I3uster]

Yeah I think nobody is arguing against "no flaming" being an enforced rule.

except cruor

[Christemo]

We can tell when things are joking around and when things aren't a joke, because usually the stuff that's not a joke gets reported by somebody.

And that's where it gets silly because people with easily hurt butts like Lyco and Rai go around and report every post with the word "autism" or anything like it because they feel a need to completely criminalize a word based on what I presume is personal self-righteousness.

So yeah like please also do something about people overusing/misusing reports because the effect on two or three people should not have to be handheld and their sensitivities accommodated for in a group of a couple of hundred people, most of which probably don't actively interact with them.

- - - Updated - - -

long sentences

[kay4today]

personally the thing bothering me the most is that i suspect half the people on here who fling 'autist' around dont know what autism actually is. either that or they use the word much like certain teenagers in 2008 used the words RAWR or SPORK

[Arashi_Leonhart]

Blame Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise.

[I3uster]

i actually use autism for a very small set of behavioral patterns and not as a general insult, usually associated with nerd subculture obsessing over minutiae and ignoring thematic/emotional content or context

[Dark Pulse]

And that's where it gets silly because people with easily hurt butts like Lyco and Rai go around and report every post with the word "autism" or anything like it because they feel a need to completely criminalize a word based on what I presume is personal self-righteousness.

So yeah like please also do something about people overusing/misusing reports because the effect on two or three people should not have to be handheld and their sensitivities accommodated for in a group of a couple of hundred people, most of which probably don't actively interact with them.

On the flip side of that, is there an actual need to call something autistic, or is there other words that get the idea across that aren't likely to piss people off?

Yes, they shouldn't be smashing the report button every time it's used, but on the flip side, I can't think of very many sentences in which there is no other word to use that can't convey the same idea in a way that's not likely to piss people off.

i actually use autism for a very small set of behavioral patterns and not as a general insult, usually associated with nerd subculture obsessing over minutiae and ignoring thematic/emotional content or context

"Fanboys."

[kay4today]

"Fanboys."

boys but not girls? i cant believe our very own admin is a misandrist

[Dark Pulse]

boys but not girls? i cant believe our very own admin is a misandrist

"Fangirls" works too.

[I3uster]

"Fanboys."

No. The connotation is smaller and more specific. It's a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing.

That said I don't think I ever leveled it at a user as an insult. More like fanbases and a CERTAIN OTHER BOARD.

[mAc Chaos]

nvm i misread your posts

So basically this new rule is "dont do the thing you werent supposed to be doing since day 1"

thank you mods

bruh

This isn't so much an ironclad rule, as it is a public call for awareness.

basically the idea was just to remind people about these things since we are more active about enforcing them now, and to appeal to your sense of maturity and/or conscience so it doesnt have to be always enforced at the crack of a whip

[Christemo]

On the flip side of that, is there an actual need to call something autistic, or is there other words that get the idea across that aren't likely to piss people off?

Is there an actual need? No actually probably not, but I like variety in my joke-insults and I think everyone else does too. Is there an actual need to censor it or cut down on it? Not really, because as just said, there's at least 5 words that can convey the exact same thing.

If I find some obscure term that basically conveys the exact same thing as autist or retard and use that willy nilly instead, the staff will just urban dictionary that and go "nuh uh uh, that's not allowed" either, repeat until friends are no longer allowed to call each other any word related to mental illness.

So yeah, no, there's no actual need to use it, but there's no actual need to censor it either because a handful of people goes "THAT HURTS MY SENSIBILITIES DESPITE BEING IN A CONVERSATION THAT HAS ZERO RELEVANCE TO ME".

[kay4today]

people sure get offended by what other people get offended by

[Leftovers]

Is there an actual need? No actually probably not, but I like variety in my joke-insults and I think everyone else does too. Is there an actual need to censor it or cut down on it? Not really, because as just said, there's at least 5 words that can convey the exact same thing.

If I find some obscure term that basically conveys the exact same thing as autist or retard and use that willy nilly instead, the staff will just urban dictionary that and go "nuh uh uh, that's not allowed" either, repeat until friends are no longer allowed to call each other any word related to mental illness.

So yeah, no, there's no actual need to use it, but there's no actual need to censor it either because a handful of people goes "THAT HURTS MY SENSIBILITIES DESPITE BEING IN A CONVERSATION THAT HAS ZERO RELEVANCE TO ME".

Welcome to an hour ago.

[Christemo]

people sure get offended by what other people get offended by

Offended is not the right word but yes I get annoyed when people tell me what i'm allowed and not allowed to say.

Thankfully IRUN and Mac have cleaned up the misunderstanding but I'm still not particularly pleased about this. Literally half the fun of BL is the utter vitriol it contains.

[I3uster]

Literally half the fun of BL is the utter vitriol it contains.

and you wonder why youre on the last strike

[Christemo]

and you wonder why youre on the last strike

I only have one sweet cheeks.

[kay4today]

Literally half the fun of BL is the utter vitriol it contains.

i thought it was the warm thoughtful moments the users share with each other

[Dark Pulse]

Is there an actual need? No actually probably not, but I like variety in my joke-insults and I think everyone else does too. Is there an actual need to censor it or cut down on it? Not really, because as just said, there's at least 5 words that can convey the exact same thing.

If I find some obscure term that basically conveys the exact same thing as autist or retard and use that willy nilly instead, the staff will just urban dictionary that and go "nuh uh uh, that's not allowed" either, repeat until friends are no longer allowed to call each other any word related to mental illness.

So yeah, no, there's no actual need to use it, but there's no actual need to censor it either because a handful of people goes "THAT HURTS MY SENSIBILITIES DESPITE BEING IN A CONVERSATION THAT HAS ZERO RELEVANCE TO ME".

Your sense of humor doesn't apply to everyone. You do realize this, yes?