[R] Flaming/posting in bad faith

[-Ocelot-]

viewtopic.php?p=35178469#p35178469

Nothing too bad, overall the video was retarded (especially the inclusion of the Sarkesian hag) but otherwise quite mild. Some nonsensical things like stopping kids playfighting because TOXIC MASCULINITY coupled with good and inspirational speeches from Terry Crews.

But mostly a failure. No idea why they decided to put that crap out. Gave it a well deserved dislike.

[Scomagia]

If that's actionable then this might be too.

I personally have not seen any issue with the video, "Men should hold men accountable" is a good message, I mean, what do people want, women to held men accountable for shitty thing some do?
Honestly the backlash this video has been getting is just silly, they have completely missed the point of the video.

You don't see the issue with this video. There are dozens of flavors of asshole who will see a problem with this video. Pick-up-artists, bullies, people who consider women their properly, rapists, delusional american conservatives with a persecution complex.... the list goes on. Besides, how are these poor oppressed guys going to take advantage of women if said women are more careful and more willing to speak up against harassment? Such anti-harassment messages make their job harder.

Blanket statements about the kinds of people who find the ad problematic seems wrong. Then there's this;

I seriously don't get why people get such extreme cases of the vapours over being asked to act like a decent freaking person.

Gillete will learn the hard way about why companies should not play politics that don't effect their companies

Funny how that message only applies when they're saying things that Conservatives find triggering.

I don't get what the discussion is about...

A company that makes razors suggested that men should act like decent human beings. And suddenly everyone got triggered.

Seems like Vass is just there to troll and call everyone who doesn't like the ad "triggered". But you be the judge, oh mighty mods.

[Vassenor]

So what does Star Wars have to do with the topic at hand, aside from the generic screaming about how evil feminists are?

Who died and made you the topic police? If you're genuinely trying to keep the thread on track, which we all know you aren't, there are better ways to do it than snarky shitposting guaranteed to continue the jack.

Just a thought.

Doesn't seem like a particularly good faith way to respond to an attempt to head off a threadjack.

[Scomagia]

The only problem with my post is the "which we all know you aren't" bit. I'll acknowledge that wasn't necessary and might deserve a slap.

I stand by the rest of that post because Vass, to me at least, wasn't genuinely trying to get the thread back on track but, rather, was using that as an excuse to make caricatures of other people's posts.

[NERVUN]

Not seeing any of that rising to actionable status.

[-Ocelot-]

Not seeing any of that rising to actionable status.

Does this mean I can also use words like "retarded" and "hag" when talking about events or people?

[Vassenor]

Not seeing any of that rising to actionable status.

Understood. Thank you for your time.

[Scomagia]

I guess I can see why Ocelot's post isn't actionable but it really looks to me like Vass was only interested in trolling. In any case, thanks for looking.

[Reploid Productions]

Not seeing any of that rising to actionable status.

Does this mean I can also use words like "retarded" and "hag" when talking about events or people?

3) No rules lawyering. The intent of a post (while sometimes hard to judge), is a very important factor when determining whether or not it is actionable. The Moderation team does its best to interpret it. Agreeing or disagreeing with a moderation decision at whatever length you wish is perfectly within the rules, so long as it is done tactfully and civilly. Please see the Appeals Process (listed below) for further information.

That said, moderator decisions are not to be taken in bad faith. For instance, if something is ruled to be acceptable, don't turn around and use that ruling to bait another player (e.g. "In this case, I don't think Player 2 intended to be malicious when he described Player 1 as a 'maladjusted rapscallion.'" "Okay. Hey, Player 2! You're a maladjusted rapscallion! Moderator 3 said it's okay to call people that!"). This will never end well for you and it's best to simply leave things be; if you are doing so in an attempt to demonstrate that a moderator decision is wrong, simply file an appeal.