[Appeal] Unneeded Warn

[The Wisconsin Coalition]

I was recently warned in the thread, Ballot in California For Legalizing Shootings of LGBTs.

My warn was for trolling, and further that I was wishing death upon X group.

However, as the thread title states, we are discussing the "Ballot in California For Legalizing Shootings of LGBTs". It's not unexpected that some may not think that this is morally wrong.

In the thread, I was expressing my agreement for the ballot in the thread, by quoting another user as opposed to typing out my agreement directly (and that made me a "cheerleader for the troll"). I was quoting the statement where Galter Gulcher said "Idiot? I think hes got the right idea.". I did not quote the posts where he condoned the deaths of communists and arabs, which were off-topic from the actual thread.


Not only was my post on-topic, but it also should not have been considered trolling as I was expressing an opinion that I had based on what was being discussed. Although I understand that the freedom of speech on these forums is very limited, I was simply picking a side- the side that's for it.

In this argument, there are only two sides. The side that is against it, and the side that is for it. By what has been shown (my warn), being on the side that is for this ballot/legislation means you can not express your opinion in this thread at all.

Considering this and keeping this in mind, the thread is not at all needed as it will be a one sided echo-chamber. With people constantly going "oh no, this is horrid" and other variations of the same remark, no argument can be put in to go "no, this is a good step towards X".

[Katganistan]

Asserting that the law should change so that groups of people could legally be put to death for their orientation is trolling those people on this board. It cannot fail to anger and make feel threatened the LGBT players here.

Upheld.

[The Wisconsin Coalition]

Asserting that the law should change so that groups of people could legally be put to death for their orientation is trolling those people on this board. It cannot fail to anger and make feel threatened the LGBT players here.

Upheld.

So the thread will continue to be an echo chamber for LGBT sympathizers until people stop posting?

[Twilight Imperium]

Asserting that the law should change so that groups of people could legally be put to death for their orientation is trolling those people on this board. It cannot fail to anger and make feel threatened the LGBT players here.

Upheld.

So the thread will continue to be an echo chamber for LGBT sympathizers until people stop posting?

Much as I hate to agree with someone like this, if posting in agreement with the thing mentioned in the OP is automatically trolling, then kinda by default the discussion is going to be one-sided. Maybe just lock the thread?

[Phydios]

So the thread will continue to be an echo chamber for LGBT sympathizers until people stop posting?

Much as I hate to agree with someone like this, if posting in agreement with the thing mentioned in the OP is automatically trolling, then kinda by default the discussion is going to be one-sided. Maybe just lock the thread?

I agree. If only one point of view on an issue is considered appropriate here, then the issue shouldn't be discussed.

[Reploid Productions]

In theory, you can argue any opinion that you want. In practice, however, the more radical the opinion, the more difficult it is to argue it in a way that doesn't break site rules. Any opinion that amounts to "X group should be killed", whether you're talking about gays, Jews, Christians, bronies, whatever, is going to be radical enough that it is pretty much impossible to argue in a rule-abiding way. That's why you typically don't see serious Nazi-types or radical religious types lasting very long; they cannot find a way to argue their radical positions without breaking the site rules.

Not an official ruling-type post here, since I'm a participant in the thread, but felt that tidbit merits reposting.

[Farnhamia]

In theory, you can argue any opinion that you want. In practice, however, the more radical the opinion, the more difficult it is to argue it in a way that doesn't break site rules. Any opinion that amounts to "X group should be killed", whether you're talking about gays, Jews, Christians, bronies, whatever, is going to be radical enough that it is pretty much impossible to argue in a rule-abiding way. That's why you typically don't see serious Nazi-types or radical religious types lasting very long; they cannot find a way to argue their radical positions without breaking the site rules.

Not an official ruling-type post here, since I'm a participant in the thread, but felt that tidbit merits reposting.

Pretty much this. The thread is about the ballot measure proposal, not about the substance of the proposal itself (a thread on that subject wouldn't have gotten past the first page). Galter Gulcher didn't post anything about the proposal itself, its purpose, whether the originator is trying to make a point about California's ballot measure system, no, GG proclaimed that legalizing the murder of LGBT people is "the right idea." The Wisconsin Coalition applauded that statement, for which GG was DEATed. The warning stands.

[The Archregimancy]

I am genuinely surprised that some people can't tell the difference between 'I am opposed to LGBT rights' and 'I support a proposition that involves killing members of the LGBT community and will emphasise that support by quoting posts from someone callling for the murder of communists, Jews, Arabs, and gays'.

Anyone who really can't see why arguing the former is acceptable and within the rules, but arguing the latter will at best accrue a warning, will likely find that their time on these forums is short.