The DERP! thread

[JJ Husker]

I blame Redux for starting the Derp Thread. SOB.

 

[knapplc]

I will just about guarantee you this wasn't one mod acting on their own. Most likely a member reported it, a discussion happened in the Mod forum, they may not have thought it was a big deal so they thought "Well, let's just remove it and send them a PM with a heads-up," and figured that would be the end of it.

I'd bet $100 we've already typed more words talking about this than they did making the decision to remove it.

The last thing I want to do is get worked up over some words removed from one of my posts. I don't understand why it was offensive to someone, but I'm not going to complain about it.

See, you have a much healthier attitude about it than me. All I can see is a senseless act based on nothing and, when you apply the slippery slope to this line of reasoning, you can easily see the possible disappearance of something many of us enjoy and love. I could let it go but I think it is worthy of discussion. I've never been a mod. I'm sure it is a tough, thankless job, But, I also imagine numerous complaints are placed with nothing ever being done. And that is how it should be when the complaint is as groundless as this appears to be. I can see the rationale of "hey, let's just play it safe and remove it". It requires less effort and seemingly the problem goes away. But this one would of just as easily gone away by telling the complainer "it's in the shed, it really isn't offensive, maybe you should avoid the shed." Rather than lending validity to some hair-brained claim of being non-inclusive, especially when being inclusive is not a requirement hereabouts.

It's difficult when someone says they're offended. You can't tell them, "No, you're not." Then you have to make a call - do you tell the person to ignore it/deal with it, or remove the "offensive" thing? Sometimes both are bad choices, so you make the least bad choice you can.

My guess is nobody thought anything in this thread was particularly offensive. What they thought was, 'kchusker_chris & knapplc are reasonable enough to understand why we're removing this' moreso than 'Mystery Person is reasonable enough to understand why we're leaving this as is.' They probably thought they'd get less flak from removing it than from leaving it.

I'm guessing that's not the case.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

I don't think any of them are rude or offensive, and I think "NTTAWWT" is a funny line. Which is why I was so surprised to see it removed from my post. Why would someone think it was offensive in the context I used it, and not in any of the other 20-ish times it's been used?

Unless that wasn't the offensive thing, and it was something else I wrote, or something kchusker_chris wrote.

I remain confused why anything was removed from this thread. I didn't think anything was offensive.

Using the phrase NTTAWWT is not a problem. knapplc, as you posted, this statement has been used numerous times as a quip. The problem was with the rest of your post. You made the statement about how obsessed kchusker_chris was with your "mod muscle", implying that he was gay. This is using sexual orientation as a means to attack someone, which is a clear violation of board rules.

knapplc, I appreciate how you get the mod's role in these issues.

For everyone concerned about the grey areas and how slippery our slopes are, let's be clear, NTTAWWT and mod muscle are perfectly acceptable. However, using sexual orientation in a derogatory manner is not.

 

[knapplc]

Using the phrase NTTAWWT is not a problem. As you posted, this statement has been used numerous times as a quip. The problem was with the rest of your post. You made the statement about how obsessed kchusker_chris was with your "mod muscle", implying that he was gay. This is using sexual orientation as a means to attack someone, which is a clear violation of board rules.

Now I'm confuseder. Every time NTTAWWT is used, it's an implication that someone's gay. That's the whole point of the quote.

If someone took what I wrote as an "attack," I will simply say I strongly disagree with that interpretation.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Agree w/ you JJ, I'd like to know the who/why/wtf is going on. The fact that I didn't get another message after the original one makes me think Knapp is probably correct though (though I didn't respond to the PM either). They sent the message because someone reported it and that's where it ended. I didn't get a follow up to what was decided because there probably wasn't any additional thought put into it. I didn't get a warning because I guess it wasn't bad enough to give me my ban. The only reason I posted the response was because I think Knapp thought I reported him and I didn't want that to be the case. It's the shed. I'm not reporting a single post put in here...it's what the shed is for. The fact someone is in here reporting sh#t makes them a dumb**** and we have enough of them to go around these days that it's pretty hard to narrow it down. For now I'll just blame Moiraine and guide her to her safe zone next time...

 

[JJ Husker]

I will just about guarantee you this wasn't one mod acting on their own. Most likely a member reported it, a discussion happened in the Mod forum, they may not have thought it was a big deal so they thought "Well, let's just remove it and send them a PM with a heads-up," and figured that would be the end of it.I'd bet $100 we've already typed more words talking about this than they did making the decision to remove it.The last thing I want to do is get worked up over some words removed from one of my posts. I don't understand why it was offensive to someone, but I'm not going to complain about it.

See, you have a much healthier attitude about it than me. All I can see is a senseless act based on nothing and, when you apply the slippery slope to this line of reasoning, you can easily see the possible disappearance of something many of us enjoy and love. I could let it go but I think it is worthy of discussion. I've never been a mod. I'm sure it is a tough, thankless job, But, I also imagine numerous complaints are placed with nothing ever being done. And that is how it should be when the complaint is as groundless as this appears to be. I can see the rationale of "hey, let's just play it safe and remove it". It requires less effort and seemingly the problem goes away. But this one would of just as easily gone away by telling the complainer "it's in the shed, it really isn't offensive, maybe you should avoid the shed." Rather than lending validity to some hair-brained claim of being non-inclusive, especially when being inclusive is not a requirement hereabouts.

It's difficult when someone says they're offended. You can't tell them, "No, you're not." Then you have to make a call - do you tell the person to ignore it/deal with it, or remove the "offensive" thing? Sometimes both are bad choices, so you make the least bad choice you can.My guess is nobody thought anything in this thread was particularly offensive. What they thought was, 'kchusker_chris & knapplc are reasonable enough to understand why we're removing this' moreso than 'Mystery Person is reasonable enough to understand why we're leaving this as is.' They probably thought they'd get less flak from removing it than from leaving it.I'm guessing that's not the case.

I would bet that is exactly how it went down. But, I also feel it should've been handled differently. No hair off my a$$ I guess. I just have a bit of a problem catering to one unreasonable complaint rather than doing what most everyone would consider prudent. Seems this mystery person could, and likely would, complain about limitless things that aren't really offensive. The bigger question is; Is the shed now a place where possibly offensive things are not allowed? Better take down the admonition of wearing your hard hat and leaving your thin skin behind. Apparently now we're accomodating persons without headgear and with extremely thin skin.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Using the phrase NTTAWWT is not a problem. knapplc, as you posted, this statement has been used numerous times as a quip. The problem was with the rest of your post. You made the statement about how obsessed kchusker_chris was with your "mod muscle", implying that he was gay. This is using sexual orientation as a means to attack someone, which is a clear violation of board rules.



knapplc, I appreciate how you get the mod's role in these issues.

For everyone concerned about the grey areas and how slippery our slopes are, let's be clear, NTTAWWT and mod muscle are perfectly acceptable. However, using sexual orientation in a derogatory manner is not.

I didn't take it that way...I actually think it was probably the appropriate response since I pretty well served that one up for him - I was kind of expecting it after I wrote it. It's still funny, and if that was the implication I am in no way offended by it.

 

[kchusker_chris]

What I don't get is since it was directed at me, why can't I be the one to determine what is and isn't offensive in that case? Why does someone else get to determine what is offensive to me. How was I not included in this. Doesn't sound inclusive at all.

 

[JJ Husker]

FWIW, I don't think Moiraine would've lodged a complaint about this. And I still think it is idiotic and a very bad precedent. Anybody who took that as a means to attack someone based on sexual orientation needs to get out of the house more. It was quite apparent to the non mentally challenged that it was simply someone being funny. .....and society gravitates even further away from common sense.

 

[kchusker_chris]

FWIW, I don't think Moiraine would've lodged a complaint about this. And I still think it is idiotic and a very bad precedent. Anybody who took that as a means to attack someone based on sexual orientation needs to get out of the house more. It was quite apparent to the non mentally challenged that it was simply someone being funny. .....and society gravitates even further away from common sense.

and was probably one of the milders statement made in the entire exchange haha...

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Using the phrase NTTAWWT is not a problem. As you posted, this statement has been used numerous times as a quip. The problem was with the rest of your post. You made the statement about how obsessed kchusker_chris was with your "mod muscle", implying that he was gay. This is using sexual orientation as a means to attack someone, which is a clear violation of board rules.

Now I'm confuseder. Every time NTTAWWT is used, it's an implication that someone's gay. That's the whole point of the quote.

If someone took what I wrote as an "attack," I will simply say I strongly disagree with that interpretation.

The previous usages of NTTAWWT were used for comic effect in friendly conversations. You were arguing with kchusker_chris then made a comment about his sexual orientation. Not the same thing.

Agree w/ you JJ, I'd like to know the who/why/wtf is going on. The fact that I didn't get another message after the original one makes me think Knapp is probably correct though (though I didn't respond to the PM either). They sent the message because someone reported it and that's where it ended. I didn't get a follow up to what was decided because there probably wasn't any additional thought put into it. I didn't get a warning because I guess it wasn't bad enough to give me my ban. The only reason I posted the response was because I think Knapp thought I reported him and I didn't want that to be the case. It's the shed. I'm not reporting a single post put in here...it's what the shed is for. The fact someone is in here reporting sh#t makes them a dumb**** and we have enough of them to go around these days that it's pretty hard to narrow it down. For now I'll just blame Moiraine and guide her to her safe zone next time...

kchusker_chris, when you get a PM and need further clarification, you have to PM the mod back. Otherwise, how are we supposed to know if you are confused about the violation?

WOODSHED

view potentially vulgar content. Come on in, but bring your hard-hat & leave your thin skin @ home,

Looks like somebody forgot the purpose of the shed. Now we have to be "inclusive" in the shed and can't crack jokes hinting at someone's possible orientation...........f#*k that.

Woodshed or not.

#5 - No Racist Comments or Materials

This includes both statements/comments and media (pictures, video, etc.), whether directed at a Huskerboard member or in general. Huskerboard welcomes any and every member that would like to discuss the Huskers. To do that, we expect members to adhere to behavior that does not offend based on race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation or other discriminatory or racial basis. If you have any question as whether what you are posting would violate this rule, don't post it. Alternatively, contact a Moderator or Administrator and run it past them.

 

[JJ Husker]

What I don't get is since it was directed at me, why can't I be the one to determine what is and isn't offensive in that case? Why does someone else get to determine what is offensive to me. How was I not included in this. Doesn't sound inclusive at all.

Achtung! Ju vill be offended und ju vill like it.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Using the phrase NTTAWWT is not a problem. knapplc, as you posted, this statement has been used numerous times as a quip. The problem was with the rest of your post. You made the statement about how obsessed kchusker_chris was with your "mod muscle", implying that he was gay. This is using sexual orientation as a means to attack someone, which is a clear violation of board rules.



knapplc, I appreciate how you get the mod's role in these issues.

For everyone concerned about the grey areas and how slippery our slopes are, let's be clear, NTTAWWT and mod muscle are perfectly acceptable. However, using sexual orientation in a derogatory manner is not.

I didn't take it that way...I actually think it was probably the appropriate response since I pretty well served that one up for him - I was kind of expecting it after I wrote it. It's still funny, and if that was the implication I am in no way offended by it.

I get that everyone is stepping back their comments now. However, when you are arguing on the board and use sexual orientation to attack someone, there is the line. Our board rules state we do not allow others to offend based on race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation or other discriminatory or racial basis. Hopefully, that clears up the issue.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Using the phrase NTTAWWT is not a problem. knapplc, as you posted, this statement has been used numerous times as a quip. The problem was with the rest of your post. You made the statement about how obsessed kchusker_chris was with your "mod muscle", implying that he was gay. This is using sexual orientation as a means to attack someone, which is a clear violation of board rules.



knapplc, I appreciate how you get the mod's role in these issues.

For everyone concerned about the grey areas and how slippery our slopes are, let's be clear, NTTAWWT and mod muscle are perfectly acceptable. However, using sexual orientation in a derogatory manner is not.

I didn't take it that way...I actually think it was probably the appropriate response since I pretty well served that one up for him - I was kind of expecting it after I wrote it. It's still funny, and if that was the implication I am in no way offended by it.

I get that everyone is stepping back their comments now. However, when you are arguing on the board and use sexual orientation to attack someone, there is the line. Our board rules state we do not allow others to offend based on race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation or other discriminatory or racial basis. Hopefully, that clears up the issue.

I'm not stepping sh#t back, everything I said before the comments we're discussing still stands. And your board rule is contradictory to the purpose of the shed - where the board rules are not applied in their entirety. Next week are you going to apply #3 to the shed as well and stop me from calling this a dipsh*t ruling?

 

[knapplc]

I get that everyone is stepping back their comments now. However, when you are arguing on the board and use sexual orientation to attack someone, there is the line. Our board rules state we do not allow others to offend based on race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation or other discriminatory or racial basis. Hopefully, that clears up the issue.

Nobody is stepping back anything. Nobody attacked anyone using sexual orientation, and nobody crossed any line. I know the board rules very well, and helped clarify or construct many of them.

I would prefer not to be told that I'm attacking someone, especially in a way that violates board rules, when that is in no way what I did. Especially when the person who was "attacked" doesn't feel they were attacked, either.