Login

ThatDamnWalrus · 09-16-2018, 11:45 AM

09-15-2018, 03:53 AMBaelor Swift Wrote:
09-14-2018, 04:29 PMThatDamnWalrus Wrote: HO are a massive bundle of sticks

Jesus, you're an idiot.

OMG STOP INSULTING ME YOU ARE HURTING MY FEELINGS SO MUCH HO PLEASE STOP HIM OH GOD I CANT HANDLE THESE ATTACKS

ToeDragon84 · 09-16-2018, 11:45 AM

Wally said "We don’t have an age restriction and with that being the case we merely educate those that may never be on a path of bigotry and hatefulness that it is okay."

We should not be letting this type of thought based on manipulating a young individuals morals go into the rulebook. While it seems to be trying to do a good thing it's doing it's pretty terrible to let a small group of individuals control words. The rules are meant to keep things running smoothly. It should be nobody's job to ban words, just cause HO feel's capable of handling other peoples speech now doesn't mean they are or will be in the future. We think different things, express them differently and to explicitly take words you don't want to see away is asinine. You may not agree with something added in the future cause things change quick around here. New people will show up, get jobs and make decisions with this garbage? Why would we include such a powerful rule?

Ban people when they behave poorly, don't ban words jesus.

JumpierPegasus · 09-16-2018, 11:49 AM

09-16-2018, 11:45 AMToeDragon84 Wrote: Wally said "We don’t have an age restriction and with that being the case we merely educate those that may never be on a path of bigotry and hatefulness that it is okay."

We should not be letting this type of thought based on manipulating a young individuals morals go into the rulebook. While it seems to be trying to do a good thing it's doing it's pretty terrible to let a small group of individuals control words. The rules are meant to keep things running smoothly. It should be nobody's job to ban words, just cause HO feel's capable of handling other peoples speech now doesn't mean they are or will be in the future. We think different things, express them differently and to explicitly take words you don't want to see away is asinine. You may not agree with something added in the future cause things change quick around here. New people will show up, get jobs and make decisions with this garbage? Why would we include such a powerful rule?

Ban people when they behave poorly, don't ban words jesus.

Please don't use Jesus name in vein

As a religious person, this offends me

ToeDragon84 · 09-16-2018, 11:53 AM

09-16-2018, 11:49 AMJumpierPancakes Wrote:
09-16-2018, 11:45 AMToeDragon84 Wrote: Wally said "We don’t have an age restriction and with that being the case we merely educate those that may never be on a path of bigotry and hatefulness that it is okay."

We should not be letting this type of thought based on manipulating a young individuals morals go into the rulebook. While it seems to be trying to do a good thing it's doing it's pretty terrible to let a small group of individuals control words. The rules are meant to keep things running smoothly. It should be nobody's job to ban words, just cause HO feel's capable of handling other peoples speech now doesn't mean they are or will be in the future. We think different things, express them differently and to explicitly take words you don't want to see away is asinine. You may not agree with something added in the future cause things change quick around here. New people will show up, get jobs and make decisions with this garbage? Why would we include such a powerful rule?

Ban people when they behave poorly, don't ban words jesus.

Please don't use Jesus name in vein

As a religious person, this offends me

I meant Jesus not jesus

Justice · 09-16-2018, 11:54 AM

would it be easier to ban gay people since the word gay is so taboo

JumpierPegasus · 09-16-2018, 12:04 PM

I mean to sum it up, this is kind of how I think a lot of people feel:

I totally agree with the HO sentiment of wanting the SHL to be a more inviting place. We should be kinder to our fellow members, and to people of minorities. However, the HO has kind of cocked this up since that thought. There has been a severe lack of good communication, a lack of understanding of why the ruling is too far, and an inability to adapt to their mistake. The old rule encompasses attacks on other members, people, and hate speech. What should have happened, is that they should have made that rule more severe so there was more incentive not to be terrible to people or say shitty things and words that are meant to offend and hurt.

Instead HO tried to ban certain words, feels very authoritarian, and destroys context specific situations. I believe this could be handled way better by HO, and the rule should have remained as it was, with new provisions added. The biggest issue people have is with that ONE specific section that bans words, especially the word "gay".

HO needs to re-word and re-do this new rule. They need to make it more context specific, while creating a stricter context on the words. But don't ban them outright, and don't make the rule that fuzzy in what you mean. Simply tighten up the ruling and try to make the forum a better place. All you've done is make this way worse than simply one thread about Slash, because you've brought power to this conversation. Just fucked up by HO from step #1

Dangles13 · 09-16-2018, 12:06 PM

09-16-2018, 12:04 PMJumpierPancakes Wrote: I mean to sum it up, this is kind of how I think a lot of people feel:

I totally agree with the HO sentiment of wanting the SHL to be a more inviting place. We should be kinder to our fellow members, and to people of minorities. However, the HO has kind of cocked this up since that thought. There has been a severe lack of good communication, a lack of understanding of why the ruling is too far, and an inability to adapt to their mistake. The old rule encompasses attacks on other members, people, and hate speech. What should have happened, is that they should have made that rule more severe so there was more incentive not to be terrible to people or say shitty things and words that are meant to offend and hurt.

Instead HO tried to ban certain words, feels very authoritarian, and destroys context specific situations. I believe this could be handled way better by HO, and the rule should have remained as it was, with new provisions added. The biggest issue people have is with that ONE specific section that bans words, especially the word "gay".

HO needs to re-word and re-do this new rule. They need to make it more context specific, while creating a stricter context on the words. But don't ban them outright, and don't make the rule that fuzzy in what you mean. Simply tighten up the ruling and try to make the forum a better place. All you've done is make this way worse than simply one thread about Slash, because you've brought power to this conversation. Just fucked up by HO from step #1

Are you saying they are fascist regime intent on creating a "perfect" society?

NJBadApple · 09-16-2018, 12:11 PM

use of offensive words should be on a case-by-case basis, as people are offended

Justice · 09-16-2018, 12:11 PM

im offended by head office

ToeDragon84 · 09-16-2018, 12:12 PM

09-16-2018, 12:04 PMJumpierPancakes Wrote: I mean to sum it up, this is kind of how I think a lot of people feel:

I totally agree with the HO sentiment of wanting the SHL to be a more inviting place. We should be kinder to our fellow members, and to people of minorities. However, the HO has kind of cocked this up since that thought. There has been a severe lack of good communication, a lack of understanding of why the ruling is too far, and an inability to adapt to their mistake. The old rule encompasses attacks on other members, people, and hate speech. What should have happened, is that they should have made that rule more severe so there was more incentive not to be terrible to people or say shitty things and words that are meant to offend and hurt.

Instead HO tried to ban certain words, feels very authoritarian, and destroys context specific situations. I believe this could be handled way better by HO, and the rule should have remained as it was, with new provisions added. The biggest issue people have is with that ONE specific section that bans words, especially the word "gay".

HO needs to re-word and re-do this new rule. They need to make it more context specific, while creating a stricter context on the words. But don't ban them outright, and don't make the rule that fuzzy in what you mean. Simply tighten up the ruling and try to make the forum a better place. All you've done is make this way worse than simply one thread about Slash, because you've brought power to this conversation. Just fucked up by HO from step #1

There should be no list, it will encourage some to see what they can get added and there's too many things people get offended by. Adding the routine punishments in there along with a list of words kind of normalizes the behavior. It's asking for trouble I think. We don't have a ton of filth on here now, I saw people get shamed and fired from a job like we really don't need word banning all of a sudden.