[r] flaming in Charlie Gard thread

by **Blitzkeig** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:57 am

Calling all people of a politicial ideology twats based off one comment is probably not OK.

viewtopic.php?p=32235432&sid=68e679be349518914f40bd63fbf46232#p32235432

by **Greater Cesnica** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:59 am

Blitzkeig wrote:Calling all people of a politicial ideology twats based off one comment is probably not OK.

viewtopic.php?p=32235432&sid=68e679be349518914f40bd63fbf46232#p32235432

I don't think the "twat" part is concerning. The fact that he attacked the guy's opinion by using quotation marks. THAT's flaming right there.

by **Thyerata** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:35 am

The context is the following. At least two of us in that thread (myself included) have literally had our lives saved by the NHS, so we are immensely proud of it. What other posters are suggesting should have occurred to the child is akin to torture of an innocent child. That's what riles me up. If a mod's going to wander into that thread, read the whole damned thing. I would also ask, for the third time now, that the thread be locked.

by **Greater Cesnica** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:09 am

Thyerata wrote:The context is the following. At least two of us in that thread (myself included) have literally had our lives saved by the NHS, so we are immensely proud of it. What other posters are suggesting should have occurred to the child is akin to torture of an innocent child. That's what riles me up. If a mod's going to wander into that thread, read the whole damned thing. I would also ask, for the third time now, that the thread be locked.

Which thread? Again, don't attack other's opinions. No one is attacking yours.

by **Thyerata** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:33 am

Greater Cesnica wrote:
Thyerata wrote:The context is the following. At least two of us in that thread (myself included) have literally had our lives saved by the NHS, so we are immensely proud of it. What other posters are suggesting should have occurred to the child is akin to torture of an innocent child. That's what riles me up. If a mod's going to wander into that thread, read the whole damned thing. I would also ask, for the third time now, that the thread be locked.

Which thread? Again, don't attack other's opinions. No one is attacking yours.

I'm not going to respond since I think you know damn well which thread I'm referring to.

by **Blitzkeig** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:52 am

Thyerata wrote:The context is the following. At least two of us in that thread (myself included) have literally had our lives saved by the NHS, so we are immensely proud of it. What other posters are suggesting should have occurred to the child is akin to torture of an innocent child. That's what riles me up. If a mod's going to wander into that thread, read the whole damned thing. I would also ask, for the third time now, that the thread be locked.

Honestly, if you can't respond in any way apart from calling millions of people twats, you probably shouldn't be responding to that post.

by **USS Monitor** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:57 am

Guys, don't bring your arguments in here. It's a report thread. I'm going to look at this.

by **Thyerata** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:22 am

I'm entitled to a second opinion, so I'd like one. I'd like the reviewing mod to read the thread. The entire thing. Including the posts that basically suggest that Charlie should have been subject to unethical medical experimentation.

EDIT: case in point: viewtopic.php?p=32236109#p32236109 (at the very bottom, suggesting the creation of "death panels"

by **USS Monitor** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:29 am

Regarding the "twat" stuff: viewtopic.php?p=32236772#p32236772

I'm not seeing any compelling reason to lock the thread. If there are other posts that you feel are actionable, report them and we'll take a look.

I traced back the quote chain leading up to the reported post, but I did not do a thorough trawl of the whole thread. In the quote chain, I didn't see anything that looked baity or trollish. There were some opinions that people might disagree with, but it's not against site rules to post an opinion that people disagree with.

Greater Cesnica wrote:
Blitzkeig wrote:Calling all people of a politicial ideology twats based off one comment is probably not OK.

viewtopic.php?p=32235432&sid=68e679be349518914f40bd63fbf46232#p32235432

I don't think the "twat" part is concerning. The fact that he attacked the guy's opinion by using quotation marks. THAT's flaming right there.

That part is attacking the argument, not the poster. It's fine. This post didn't provide any additional evidence to the report. Please don't post in report threads with these types of unsolicited opinions.

The reported post is only mildly actionable, and this is more hubbub than it deserved.

by **USS Monitor** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:31 am

Thyerata wrote:I'm entitled to a second opinion, so I'd like one. I'd like the reviewing mod to read the thread. The entire thing. Including the posts that basically suggest that Charlie should have been subject to unethical medical experimentation.

OK, I'll fire the 2nd opinion flare.

EDIT: case in point: viewtopic.php?p=32236109#p32236109 (at the very bottom, suggesting the creation of "death panels"

Pretty sure that's sarcasm.

by **Wrapper** » Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:38 am

There's no excuse to call other players twats. Denied.

[r] flaming in Charlie Gard thread

[r] flaming in Charlie Gard thread

Who is online