Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
No, it's about making accusations based on "implicit" words that have not been said. Implying policy that has not been stated. The whole "if they don't ban thing X, they are endorsing it" BS.
Okay, I've spotted the disconnect here. Apparently it's "very politically charged" to say that an instance implicitly endorses something. Whatever that "something" is, is not relevant, because it's clear now that's not the point.
I guess this would have been a provocative and very politically charged statement if I assumed what their favorite pizza topping was.
Warp wrote:
My very first post was asking to keep to the facts rather than making implications and assumptions based on things that have not been said.
Then why is the original post still making the exact same statement about "implicit endorsement of hate speech"? What's "implicit" about it if, according to you, there are so many facts?
Have they directly endorsed hate speech at freenode or not? As I said in my second post, I don't really give a flying f about what they may or may not have done elsewhere. I only care about what their official policy is at freenode.
And here I officially give up. You have clearly not read the thread. You are clearly refusing to read the thread. You have once again skipped through the posts about evidence, logs, and explicit acts of endorsement. And you've neatly cut out my linking to those posts about evidence in this very post you just quoted.
You can't be continuing to ask these questions when the answers have been posted again and again and you have ignored them again and again. It's literally yelling into a vacuum.
At this point I'm going to have to ask you to stop. The facts are in this thread, there is no point in you asking for them. And there is nothing on-topic that you are adding to this conversation.
Since previous mods tried and failed to rerail the conversation and failed, I'm going to give an official warning. If I get another post that repeats this pattern, I will remove your ability to post.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Although one could question why it's necessary. I think everybody understands that certain degree of civility and good manners is to be expected. I highly doubt that someone scours such rules pages with a fine tooth comb and if they don't find something explicitly forbidding "hate speech", they take it as sign that they can freely engage in it, but if they see the sentence there, they will abstain from doing it. Forbidding something in some rules page isn't really any sort of deterrent.
It's a bit like saying "murder is not allowed here". Well, duh. I think that's clear to anybody without having to explicitly state it.
It's not how this works. People who care read it and act within those rules. Those who don't, get reminded and warned. And if someone ignores explicit mod warnings, they get banned.
I honestly don't understand what you mean. I'm being completely honest here, not confrontational.
I don't think that any person would go through the rules of the site, see that "hate speech" has not been explicitly forbidden, and then proceed to, for example, attack someone in the forum with racist slurs expecting it to be tolerated and not get banned. Even if someone came here to throw racist or other type of objectionable stuff, I highly doubt he would have scoured the rules of the site first in order to see if it has been explicitly banned or not. Such people don't usually read site rules and policies.
Likewise it's not like someone comes here, reads through the rules, sees that "hate speech will not be tolerated" and think to themselves "oh shoot, and I was going to throw racist slurs at people. Oh well, I suppose I can't do that now, since it has been explicitly banned. I'd better restrict myself."
I honestly cannot understand why such a statement in the rules is needed. As mentioned, there are literally thousands of different things that would not be tolerated here, and they are not all meticulously listed in the rules (that would make a quite long list indeed). From the literally thousands of things that could be listed in the rules, why is that one particular thing brought up?
It's a completely self-evident thing that wouldn't need to be stated. Everybody knows it without it being explicitly said.
Well, I know why it's there. It's a political statement. Deny it all you want, it still a political statement. It's not there because it needs to be. It's there to send a message. A political message. It's a message aimed primarily at people of a particular political disposition, I would say.
And this ties closely to my original objection: Political statements, and assumed political positions based on things not being said. If explicitly saying "hate speech is not tolerated" sends a political message, then some site not making that statement in their policy is assumed to be sending the opposite message.
I would seriously ask: I don't think the site rules needs that statement. Do you believe that this means I'm endorsing hate speech?
Have they directly endorsed hate speech at freenode or not? As I said in my second post, I don't really give a flying f about what they may or may not have done elsewhere. I only care about what their official policy is at freenode.
And here I officially give up. You have clearly not read the thread. You are clearly refusing to read the thread. You have once again skipped through the posts about evidence, logs, and explicit acts of endorsement. And you've neatly cut out my linking to those posts about evidence in this very post you just quoted.
You are misunderstanding what I meant there. Those were not me asking you "where's the evidence?" as in me doubting there is any. Those were related to the statement in the original post about "implicit endorsement".
Let me rephrase: "Instead if accusing them of "implicit endorsement", the post should have kept to the facts and state the direct evidence to the stated freenode site policy." When I write something in the form of a question, like "have they directly endorsed hate speech or not?" what I mean is "show in the original arguments that they are endorsing hate speech, if they indeed have".
Since previous mods tried and failed to rerail the conversation and failed, I'm going to give an official warning. If I get another post that repeats this pattern, I will remove your ability to post.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
I don't think that any person would go through the rules of the site, see that "hate speech" has not been explicitly forbidden, and then proceed to, for example, attack someone in the forum with racist slurs expecting it to be tolerated and not get banned. Even if someone came here to throw racist or other type of objectionable stuff, I highly doubt he would have scoured the rules of the site first in order to see if it has been explicitly banned or not. Such people don't usually read site rules and policies.
Likewise it's not like someone comes here, reads through the rules, sees that "hate speech will not be tolerated" and think to themselves "oh shoot, and I was going to throw racist slurs at people. Oh well, I suppose I can't do that now, since it has been explicitly banned. I'd better restrict myself."
I honestly cannot understand why such a statement in the rules is needed. As mentioned, there are literally thousands of different things that would not be tolerated here, and they are not all meticulously listed in the rules (that would make a quite long list indeed). From the literally thousands of things that could be listed in the rules, why is that one particular thing brought up?
It's a completely self-evident thing that wouldn't need to be stated. Everybody knows it without it being explicitly said.
Interestingly, changes in written policy regarding these sorts of affairs do affect what their users do in them. Places like 4chan don't have these sorts of rules, and everyone knows what sort of conduct goes on inside there (especially some of the more popular boards). Sometimes what you say might apply, often times it does not. People will do whatever they know they can get away with.
Another example, nice and topical, is the change in conduct on freenode itself after the outlined changes in the policy. This has in fact been linked a few times already.
Warp wrote:
I would seriously ask: I don't think the site rules needs that statement. Do you believe that this means I'm endorsing hate speech?
Even if you can say it doesn't outright, it sure makes it look like you lean in that direction.
Warp wrote:
Do whatever you want.
I admire your willingness to martyr yourself over this cause. However, it highlights another problem. You have no interest in turning this thread on-topic, even after multiple moderators asked you to. So I'm going to play my hand here. You are no longer allowed to post on this forum.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
