Why is the shoutbox becoming a safe-space

[Sneaky]

I couldn't agree more, however we could change it to something like 'with malicious intent' or someone says something in order to offend someone directly. Rather than someone randomly saying 'nigger' or 'autistic'.

It comes to the point where the rules create a borderline between us actually being an 'awesome garry's mod' community or a dictated communist community.

This is something I think that should definitely be debated both between the staff team and with the rest of the community.

-up for rewording, still stand behind my arguement that rules are too open.

we have staff on our side in this revolution

 

[Philip]

I call all my friends autists, one of them even has autism and he doesn't find it offensive he just laughs and calls me something even worse, so if an autist doesnt think its disrespectful, isnt it pretty dumb to ban people who say it to people who aren't even autistic?

 

[Sneaky]

At the end of the day, I see where you're coming from. For the most part, the jokes posted in shoutbox are quite funny and stimulate conversation over suppress, but sometimes it goes too far, and a majority of the time when it goes too far everybody is up in arms about punishments given out. It's understandable why this clarification was made.

Name one example, because this is bullshit. nobody has ever been legitimately offended exept for one situation which has nothing to do with calling people autistic or niggers etc, the ezrider situation.

 

[John Daymon]

you're absolutely right, ph has become a dictatorship where everyone strives for power and they get a fucking kick out of banning people because there's too many open rules allowing people too.

we have staff on our side in this revolution

That is so stupid, holy fuck.

This post that you made now just pulls your arguements down the drain, there's no one in our staff team that get's a kick out of banning anyone what are you even on about? Holy fuck.

 

[rat]

Name one example, because this is bullshit. nobody has ever been legitimately offended exept for one situation which has nothing to do with calling people autistic or niggers etc, the ezrider situation.

I don't actually agree with the changes, but I also disagree with your complete hostility towards the staff team.

At the end of the day, we're all here to have fun and play a game. I for one feel that the divide between player base and staff team is damaging the community. Every time a change is made you assume that the staff team is out to get you, we just want to make sure everybody is enjoying themselves and if you protest your opinion enough then it may get repealed, but calling the staff team power hungry, dictators or even so far as saying that we "get a kick of out banning people" is completely absurd and unjustified.

Some of us are just here for the fun and the memes, bro.

 

[Sneaky]

At the end of the day, we're all here to have fun and play a game.

So why do we get banned/warned for calling people autistic? Apparently because @John Daymon said it caused staff confusion. so we suffered from it.

but calling the staff team power hungry, dictators or even so far as saying that we "get a kick of out banning people" is completely absurd and unjustified.

what im trying to say is that the staff still don't work one one line, where one is chill enough one really likes to ban you for everything the rules allow people to be banned for.
[DOUBLEPOST=1492170453,1492170370][/DOUBLEPOST]

That's a horrible excuse, didn't he make a comment saying: "oops was going to write a paragraph but forgot" please, c'mon.

 

[Adrish]

Name one example, because this is bullshit. nobody has ever been legitimately offended exept for one situation which has nothing to do with calling people autistic or niggers etc, the ezrider situation.

I kind of agreed with you at the start, but you're taking it way too far. Where everyone strives for power? It's only natural. Get a kick out of banning people? I ban people because they break the rules and I ENFORCE them. Bans act as a deterrent and helps other people to stop breaking rules as well as the banned person.

Honestly, I was thinking this was a normal general discussion but outright slandering the staff team wouldn't support your argument. I think you're a bit too triggered over this. It isn't something to be screamed at and it will go away, it's something to be discussed. Stop being so ignorant and give us some constructive replies.

 

[McYeke]

All due respect - The staff team do have rules to cover and some things in the Shoutbox have in the past been seriously distasteful but as you would see in some Shoutbox Ban Appeals " 'X' Staff member allowed it so why can't I say it?" and this lead to lots of arguments as staff had their own ideas of what their idea if a "rule infringement was" this way they have done it is to centralize everything so there is a boundary of what can be said and what cannot as for example, people like to pop at @Minilarro when he issues forum warning but because a previous staff member allowed it, it has to be allowed all round?

What @John Daymon and the Senior Staff team are trying to impose is a way that there is no "loophole" and the rules are clear, yes they may be able to be worked on but as people say, you cannot prove banter from hatred at some points unless there is a heated argument before hand.

 

[Sneaky]

I kind of agreed with you at the start, but you're taking it way too far. Where everyone strives for power? It's only natural. Get a kick out of banning people? I ban people because they break the rules and I ENFORCE them. Bans act as a deterrent and helps other people to stop breaking rules as well as the banned person.

Honestly, I was thinking this was a normal general discussion but outright slandering the staff team wouldn't support your argument. I think you're a bit too triggered over this. It isn't something to be screamed at and it will go away, it's something to be discussed. Stop being so ignorant and give us some constructive replies.

banning/warning people for using 'discriminatory' words isn't enforcing rules anymore. I asked for an example which i still didn't get, i gave several arguements on why this all doesn't make sense and so did many other users. Maybe i did go over the top and should have worded it diffrently but i fully stand behind about the rules being to open and people being warned/banned for bullshit.

 

[Imperial Watch]

but sometimes it goes too far, and a majority of the time when it goes too far everybody is up in arms about punishments given out. It's understandable why this clarification was made.

Im afraid you lost me there. So you don't want people to flip out over punishments when they are given out (which is understandable). But the way you do it is tighten the rope even more on the rules???
I'm sorry but that does not make any sense. Rules were properly enforced before and "discriminatory terms" have not been a problem at all. Even if they were, they were handled.

 

[Sneaky]

ll due respect - The staff team do have rules to cover and some things in the Shoutbox have in the past been seriously distasteful but as you would see in some Shoutbox Ban Appeals " 'X' Staff member allowed it so why can't I say it?" and this lead to lots of arguments as staff had their own ideas of what their idea if a "rule infringement was"

this is the exact reason. The staff got confused in what was allowed and what was not so it was outright banned altogether. the whole point is to reverse this and make it all allowed unless someone's litteraly attacking someone, a line between joking and litteraly attacking is rather obvious

 

[John Daymon]

So why do we get banned/warned for calling people autistic? Apparently because @John Daymon said it caused staff confusion. so we suffered from it.


what im trying to say is that the staff still don't work one one line, where one is chill enough one really likes to ban you for everything the rules allow people to be banned for.

You get banned for calling people autistic as it is disrespectful, you might not take any disrespect from it but there are people who do.

What people have to understand is that this is not a final decision regarding the shoutbox as a whole, it's rather something that we wish to test/use as something while we come up with a final decision around the whole thing, as simply it isn't the easiest to sit down one night and decide everything, it might even need a full staff meeting where everyone is used to bring out a final decision instead of just us administrators and senior administrators. While I do agree that it is stupid to have absolutely no tolerance around it I rather think it's more that we need to clarify for the community as a whole what is acceptable and not.

I believe what is necessary is hearing from the community what they want us to adjust in the "rule/change" to the shoutbox, instead of us all (including myself) arguing like children just trying to find weakspots in each others arguements or just stupid comments that we make on each other.

 

[Eviction Notice]

At the end of the day, saying a word isn't discrimination. Using it maliciously is.

// mobile telephone device, looking at you daymon

 

[Adrish]

I asked for an example which i still didn't get

The xhantium situation. How about that? My situation, when Chase took the piss out of me. Want more? Look through the countless shout box ban appeals and find them yourself.

 

[Sneaky]

I believe what is necessary is hearing from the community what they want us to adjust in the "rule/change" to the shoutbox, instead of us all (including myself) arguing like children just trying to find weakspots in each others arguements or just stupid comments that we make on each other.

Then why aren't we getting a say in the whole thing? why isn't there a concept brought up by you and discussed with the community, like you did with the construction book poll?

What people have to understand is that this is not a final decision regarding the shoutbox as a whole, it's rather something that we wish to test/use as something while we come up with a final decision around the whole thing, as simply it isn't the easiest to sit down one night and decide everything, it might even need a full staff meeting where everyone is used to bring out a final decision instead of just us administrators and senior administrators. While I do agree that it is stupid to have absolutely no tolerance around it I rather think it's more that we need to clarify for the community as a whole what is acceptable and not.

While I do agree that it is stupid to have absolutely no tolerance around it I rather think it's more that we need to clarify for the community as a whole what is acceptable and not.

Then why isnt it discussed with the community?!?!

 

[John Daymon]

Then why aren't we getting a say in the whole thing? why isn't there a concept brought up by you and discussed with the community, like you did with the construction book poll?



Then why isnt it discussed with the community?!?!

As stated in my first post I made in this thread; We wanted to put this out there so that no confusion like the case with AyJay happens again

 

[Adrish]

Then why isnt it discussed with the community?!?!

That's the aim of this isn't it? I do agree that it should've happened before the rule was actually implemented. But I hope after this situation we will change our ways in the future. Like perhaps a satisfactions survey @MrLewis

 

[John Daymon]

This will be discussed further with suggestions and such in a thread made later this week or next week.

Thread locked