[R] GA at-vote Trolling

[Attempted Socialism]

This is some very incendiary language, calling people "degenerated and deranged monsters", subhuman, and abominations.

So we're gonna pretend that those degenerated and deranged monsters can learn to behave differently and *learn* that they were wrong? If you don't put capital punishment on those acts, not giving the public the information to keep themselves safe is morally irresponsible.

Those things (I refuse to call sexual predators as humans, I, and any human for that matter, are simply higher than those degenerated and deranged abominations) murder the soul, and you expect them to be forgiven? Some things are unforgivable, some things should be carefully watched and monitored, and if the government doesn't do that? Then the general public should.

They deserve to suffer for the unforgivable crime they committed, actions have consequences, and they should suffer those consequences.

[Roavin]

That would usually be actionable, yes, but I think we can let that specific one slide. If any sexual predators feel offended, they're welcome to file a GHR about it.

[Attempted Socialism]

Attacking a person or group on these forums as degenerate and subhuman is, as I understand it, flaming. I'm pretty sure this specifically is trolling, i.e. aiming to anger and derail discussion:

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

In fact, this is pretty textbook ALL X ARE Y, in this case all sexual offenders are subhuman, degenerates, etc.

I'd like a second opinion.

[Sedgistan]

Roavin sought a second opinion while making the ruling; I agree with the ruling.

If this were an attack on a specific site user, it would be flaming yes - but it's not. As far as I'm aware, we do not have any sexual predators on the website to be offended by the post; if we do have any, I can confidently say that we don't want them.

The trolling rule does not protect those that commit odious acts from being criticised.

[Attempted Socialism]

While I do not understand or agree with the ruling, I also accept that I have exhausted my options.

[Thousand Branches]

Roavin sought a second opinion while making the ruling; I agree with the ruling.

If this were an attack on a specific site user, it would be flaming yes - but it's not. As far as I'm aware, we do not have any sexual predators on the website to be offended by the post; if we do have any, I can confidently say that we don't want them.

The trolling rule does not protect those that commit odious acts from being criticised.

Doesn’t this walk a very thin line though? Obviously sexually predatory actions are condemnable, but I feel like every user on this site has a different idea of what acts are considered “odious”. There are certainly people here that would argue trans people or gay people or people who’ve had an abortion are “odious”. If the precedent is “those that commit odious acts”, could that not be interpreted in a way that could be potentially harmful to an actual group here?

Of course I’m not ignoring the paragraph above that that notes that sexual predators aren’t allowed on the website, but still, it seems like rather an odd precedent to throw out willy nilly.

Note: again I have no actual issue with letting predators be trolled, mostly I just want to make sure this doesn’t extend to groups that are controversially odious (or not odious). Maybe that explains it badly but hope I’m getting the point across!

[Sedgistan]

The last line has to be read in the context of everything else in my post and this particular case. It is not an invitation to call any group ""degenerated and deranged monsters", subhuman, and abominations" because you believe they are odious, and those kinds of comments aimed at trans people, gay people or those who have had abortions, who result in warnings for trolling.

[Thousand Branches]

The last line has to be read in the context of everything else in my post and this particular case. It is not an invitation to call any group ""degenerated and deranged monsters", subhuman, and abominations" because you believe they are odious, and those kinds of comments aimed at trans people, gay people or those who have had abortions, who result in warnings for trolling.

Copy that, thanks so much Sedge. Just wanted to make sure that wasn’t a dangerous precedent