[Report] Christian Discussion Thread

[Mostrov]

‎

[Lamoni]

First post is Addressed. The second one is not actionable.

[Tarsonis]

First post is Addressed. The second one is not actionable.

I'd like to appeal this on two grounds:

1. I already stated in the thread that I was being facetious here: viewtopic.php?p=39067640#p39067640

which I further affirmed here:

viewtopic.php?p=39067665&sid=cb67c6338432e4ee8d229aaf33029574#p39067665.

(in case it isn't obvious the bit about the gardens was also intended as a joke for sundiata)


These posts were up for Mostrov to read, but they decided to ignore them when making their report.


Secondly, even if I was earnestly advocating death, in this context I'm doing it as a form of capital punishment. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the rule here, but from what I've seen advocating for capital punishment to be used on those who've committed crimes, even if the method is macabre, is within the rules.

[Mostrov]

‎

[Sedgistan]

Tarsonis's appeal has been granted, and the warning is being rescinded. As has been clarified a few times over the last year, "wishing death / advocating violence" are not automatically rules violations, although on many occasions would fall foul of site rules such as trolling, advocating illegal activities, and flaming.

In this case, the post was advocating a form of capital punishment for a particular serious criminal offence - priests sexually abusing children, and is not considered a post "made with the aim of angering people". However, Mostrov is correct that what made the post less palatable was the description of the suggested punishment ("burnt these assholes at the stake in St. Peter's square"), which was unnecessary and would have been better omitted.

The second post, as ruled by Lamoni, remains not actionable.

[Tarsonis]

Tarsonis's appeal has been granted, and the warning is being rescinded. As has been clarified a few times over the last year, "wishing death / advocating violence" are not automatically rules violations, although on many occasions would fall foul of site rules such as trolling, advocating illegal activities, and flaming.

In this case, the post was advocating a form of capital punishment for a particular serious criminal offence - priests sexually abusing children, and is not considered a post "made with the aim of angering people". However, Mostrov is correct that what made the post less palatable was the description of the suggested punishment ("burnt these assholes at the stake in St. Peter's square"), which was unnecessary and would have been better omitted.

The second post, as ruled by Lamoni, remains not actionable.

Thank you. And I will keep that in mind going forward.