The DERP! thread

[JJ Husker]

All I know is, anyone who thinks NTTAWWT is offensive or an "attack" on sexual orientation, must feel deep down that there is in fact something wrong with being gay. I don't think that way so pardon me if I struggle with how that it is considered offensive. Must just be my ignorant, middle aged, white guy rationale.

 

[knapplc]

I will not ban/suspend you or anyone else for disagreeing with me. That is ridiculous. You all are asking for context to why the post was removed, and I am giving it to you. You two were debating a topic, things got heated, insults were made, being gay was used as one of those insults, some reported the rule violation, and you each good a message about the issue. The argument right now is whether this was (1) meant to be offensive and (2) a rule violation. You all can debate if was meant to be offensive all you want. To that I will say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". However, it is up to the mods to decide if it was a rule violation. We determined "yes". Rather than giving suspensions, we simply sent PM to say keep it clean.

soo...which of the rules do or don't apply to the Shed? Or is it a situational, pick and choose kind of thing based on whatever agenda may or may not be present. Can you further explain the role the "new" Shed has within the forum? Do we need to get rid of the skin thread? Or maybe do away w/ all the versus threads? Or maybe create a "Defcon 1 Woodshed" since this one has been sissified?

If the determination was made that the post was degrading based on race/creed/color/sexual orientation/whatever, that's consistent with Shed policy and past practice. It wouldn't constitute a change in the way the Shed is being used, it just doesn't come up that often that a post is removed from the Shed.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Okay. Well, you did not mean it to be offensive. However, when you are in an argument and insulting one another, it is a lot to ask someone to read your comment and decide this was not meant to be offensive. knapplc, I am not calling you a homophobe. I am saying you posted a comment that offended others because it implied that being gay can be used as an insult.

You understand that implying someone, or the situation, is "gay" is entirely the point of "NTTAWWT," right? And that this has been used dozens of times on this board without someone reporting it, most frequently by NUance, right?

If whatever I wrote is to be taken as a gay slur, that quote needs to be banned.

No, I mentioned this already. The other times NTTAWWT was posted, it was used in a friendly conversation not in the middle of two members arguing and insulting each other. The situation makes the context of this phrase distinct. Still, your use of NTTAWWT was not the violation. You said you thought kchusker_chris was obsessed with your "mod muscle" (a reference to your penis) and you said it bothered you because you were straight. This means you were calling him gay as an insult.

NTTAWWT is okay.

mod muscle is okay.

Insulting others by calling them gay is not okay.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

All I know is, anyone who thinks NTTAWWT is offensive or an "attack" on sexual orientation, must feel deep down that there is in fact something wrong with being gay. I don't think that way so pardon me if I struggle with how that it is considered offensive. Must just be my ignorant, middle aged, white guy rationale.

Wow! How many times must I say that the use of NTTAWWT was not the problem. Use NTTAWWT all you want. I actually think it is ironic you are talking about ignorance while making this inaccurate statement.

 

[kchusker_chris]

good enough. anyways...

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

I will not ban/suspend you or anyone else for disagreeing with me. That is ridiculous. You all are asking for context to why the post was removed, and I am giving it to you. You two were debating a topic, things got heated, insults were made, being gay was used as one of those insults, some reported the rule violation, and you each good a message about the issue. The argument right now is whether this was (1) meant to be offensive and (2) a rule violation. You all can debate if was meant to be offensive all you want. To that I will say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". However, it is up to the mods to decide if it was a rule violation. We determined "yes". Rather than giving suspensions, we simply sent PM to say keep it clean.

soo...which of the rules do or don't apply to the Shed? Or is it a situational, pick and choose kind of thing based on whatever agenda may or may not be present. Can you further explain the role the "new" Shed has within the forum? Do we need to get rid of the skin thread? Or maybe do away w/ all the versus threads? Or maybe create a "Defcon 1 Woodshed" since this one has been sissified?

If the determination was made that the post was degrading based on race/creed/color/sexual orientation/whatever, that's consistent with Shed policy and past practice. It wouldn't constitute a change in the way the Shed is being used, it just doesn't come up that often that a post is removed from the Shed.

Thank you, knapplc. Again, I am not trying to personally attack you. It just happens your comment is at the center of this discussion.

 

[knapplc]

Insulting others by calling them gay is not okay.

Where we're going to have to agree to disagree is the belief that I did that. I understand that's the ruling, and I understand why it could have been perceived that way - although I think it's a stretch. I think everyone understands why I do not agree that I used sexual preference as a slur.

 

[JJ Husker]

All I know is, anyone who thinks NTTAWWT is offensive or an "attack" on sexual orientation, must feel deep down that there is in fact something wrong with being gay. I don't think that way so pardon me if I struggle with how that it is considered offensive. Must just be my ignorant, middle aged, white guy rationale.

Wow! How many times must I say that the use of NTTAWWT was not the problem. Use NTTAWWT all you want. I actually think it is ironic you are talking about ignorance while making this inaccurate statement.Sorry. Just having trouble understanding how any of this bothered someone enough to complain AND how that complaint was taken seriously. You've expand it the best you can. I just disagree with it and think it is an ignorant decision. Apparently that is my problem so I'll just f#*k off.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

All I know is, anyone who thinks NTTAWWT is offensive or an "attack" on sexual orientation, must feel deep down that there is in fact something wrong with being gay. I don't think that way so pardon me if I struggle with how that it is considered offensive. Must just be my ignorant, middle aged, white guy rationale.

Wow! How many times must I say that the use of NTTAWWT was not the problem. Use NTTAWWT all you want. I actually think it is ironic you are talking about ignorance while making this inaccurate statement.

Sorry. Just having trouble understanding how any of this bothered someone enough to complain AND how that complaint was taken seriously. You've expand it the best you can. I just disagree with it and think it is an ignorant decision. Apparently that is my problem so I'll just f#*k off.

It's cool. I am just glad this conversation was in the DERP Thread. Perfectly placed. It reminds me of the quote from Homer about serendipity, "Let's just say I'm sitting in the right chair".

 

[Redux]

My poor DERP! thread, bastardized by PC conversation pieces!

Actually yeah, perfect thread for this.

 

[NUance]

Let's see if I can shed some light here. The exchange at issue—the NTTAWWT post—was between Knapp and kchusker. And kchusker stated above that he did not report Knapp’s post. But what if someone else on the board found that post to be offensive? Or what if that someone else thought that others might find the NTTAWWT post to be offensive? Does it make any difference that even though neither Knapp nor kchusker took umbrage to that post, someone else might find it offensive?

As I said above, I don't think NTTAWWT rises to the level of inappropriateness that we need a decision rule on it. But just be aware that, even though *you* don’t think it’s offensive, perhaps someone else does.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Let's see if I can shed some light here. The exchange at issue—the NTTAWWT post—was between Knapp and kchusker. And kchusker stated above that he did not report Knapp’s post. But what if someone else on the board found that post to be offensive? Or what if that someone else thought that others might find the NTTAWWT post to be offensive? Does it make any difference that even though neither Knapp nor kchusker took umbrage to that post, someone else might find it offensive?

As I said above, I don't think NTTAWWT rises to the level of inappropriateness that we need a decision rule on it. But just be aware that, even though *you* don’t think it’s offensive, perhaps someone else does.

what if I find your post offensive? does it matter at all if it actually isn't offensive? my opinion is that it is, so then it must be right?

 

[knapplc]

Let's see if I can shed some light here. The exchange at issue—the NTTAWWT post—was between Knapp and kchusker. And kchusker stated above that he did not report Knapp’s post. But what if someone else on the board found that post to be offensive? Or what if that someone else thought that others might find the NTTAWWT post to be offensive? Does it make any difference that even though neither Knapp nor kchusker took umbrage to that post, someone else might find it offensive?

As I said above, I don't think NTTAWWT rises to the level of inappropriateness that we need a decision rule on it. But just be aware that, even though *you* don’t think it’s offensive, perhaps someone else does.

what if I find your post offensive? does it matter at all if it actually isn't offensive? my opinion is that it is, so then it must be right?

When a post is reported as offensive, the Mods kibbutz and, with as many chipping in an opinion as possible, they reach an opinion. Often it's not unanimous, and often most of them don't have strong opinions either way. I would imagine that's what happened here.

Let's say I called kchusker_chris a *******ing ***'s ******. Everyone would find that offensive, and after a report (sometimes without a report if it's bad enough) the mods will take action.

Let's say I called kchusker_chris a super-stupid poopy head. Someone finds that offensive and reports it. The mods start a thread about it, there's five or six "eeehhhhhhh, that's not baaaaaaaadddd" comments in the thread, and collectively they decide not to do anything about it. That happens way oftener than people think. Lots of posts get reported. Not all of them have action taken on them.

What's curious is that the offensive post wasn't put in the Offending Posts thread, but deleted entirely. There's some pretty salty racism in that thread. That's where I would have expected it to go if someone had a problem with it.

 

[kchusker_chris]

now i want to know what *******ing ***'s ****** is.

 

[knapplc]

Let's see if I can shed some light here. The exchange at issue—the NTTAWWT post—was between Knapp and kchusker. And kchusker stated above that he did not report Knapp’s post. But what if someone else on the board found that post to be offensive? Or what if that someone else thought that others might find the NTTAWWT post to be offensive? Does it make any difference that even though neither Knapp nor kchusker took umbrage to that post, someone else might find it offensive?

As I said above, I don't think NTTAWWT rises to the level of inappropriateness that we need a decision rule on it. But just be aware that, even though *you* don’t think it’s offensive, perhaps someone else does.

I get where you're going here. But for action to be taken shouldn't the post be objectively offensive? As in, no doubt about it, that's bigotry, everyone who reads that would agree. I can't believe that post was considered a no-doubt-about-it slur. Even taking the context of the argument into account.