Are you looking forward to Forum reforms?

Oops sorry Cocoanut.

I could not agree more. However there is a significant problem when some people are allowed to justify their behavior with I just couldn't control myself," and "But they started it!" and others are banned for similar actions. What seems to be created here is a culture where if one sides with the majority they can do whatever they want, but if one is against the majority they will be banned for being disruptive. In light of this, I will always advocate lieniency first. the true Jackasses, as you put it, will always float to the surface. But in the mean time should I be afraid to strongly disgaree with you, in case you all AR me and label me an incitor and a divisise commentator?

the abhornce to the act was not that the player was put on ignore, it was the celebrative way people went about stating they were putting him on ignore, and then continued to read his posts anyway. If people had simply put him on ignore then it would have been fine. But it was purely intented as an act to humiliate, not pacify, and that is what made it abhorent to me.

No one has ever been banned, suspended, or even informally warned for disagreeing with the majority, even when done strongly. (To my knowledge, anyway. If you have proof otherwise, I'll gladly take a look at it.) What has been taken to task is the libeling, the threatening, the belittling, the mud-slinging and the general shit-stirring that so many seem to piggy-back onto their disagreement.

If you can disagree without having a tantrum, then you have nothing to worry about. A thousand ARs won't get you banned if there are no violations on your part.

It was extremely petty. No doubt about it. So were the victory threads and posts once it was banned.

That doesn't change the fact that only one side was being condemned, or even mildly chastised. You and Cocoa both defended the worst offender I've ever seen in these forums, and you both did so relentlessly, ignoring all requests for you to view some history and educate yourselves to Prokofy's behavior. You chose not to do so, and instead to only point the finger at one side, when that one side was reacting (badly) to the other side's actions.

Now Cocoa claims that reacting badly to others' actions is excusable. That's hypocrisy. There's just no way around that.

But even when there are a number of people involved, as you claim, they are all individuals. We must not lump them into one group. Treat each one, AR each one, if you must.

Keep in mind, they might not be able to control themselves.

Damn. I had a buncha t-shirts printed up for the *six*.

Takes a deep breath. I think this thread is confusing two issues with two ppl. So on one of those issues let me set the record straight.

I'm not going to list exactly when but let's say in the last few weeks. I was informaly warned for my disagreeing with the majoirity. After several threads were derailed and locked not by what I had said but by the actions of others. I was in fact informaly warned the reason being that so many threads were locked.

Coco knows this because when it happened I was shocked that it had happened; and I told her. I felt and I still feel to this day (now)my convictions no matter how strong they are, are not worth losing everything I have worked so damn hard for in SL. Am I careful what I say now and how I say it, you better believe I am.

As for those that caused that informal warning, they are on perm ignore.

Self preservation.

Cat

So the informal warning was given to you, Cat, but you are completely and totally innocent of any blame? Well that seems darned unfair, Lindens.

Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't see it quite the way you do?

I think jackassery is my new favorite word, thank you Jauani.

I wouldn't of said anything had I not gone over the threads in question first. Stating an opinion should be fine, it wasn't.

Just trying to clarify here, someone called coco's facts into question.

Cat

I disagree that things you stated were not enough to help get a thread locked. You also have no idea who else may have received a warning for their posts in some of the threads you are refering to. I personally would not call you innocent in the least when it comes to this issue. But as always, it is ok that our opinions differ.



This is good though. It means the new system is working. And I guarantee it is helping others watch what they are saying too. Some may never curb their attitudes. Those of course will be the ones that will end up with warnings (and more) as well over time if they can't be responsible adults willing to practice self control and accept responsibility for their actions. Debate and discussions can get heated and controversial. References to the past and the future are logical in a discussion. There is not a thing wrong with that. But it is usually pretty obvious when a line is being crossed between heated disagreeing and attacking.



You would be better off stating that you are ignoring those you *think* caused the warning. Because I know the Lindens would not give you the names of anyone that may have ARed you. In fact, the only name you have that the Lindens state caused the warning is your own. And you can't very well ignore yourself!

Her facts are still in question. Now, yours are too. I've yet to see an example of someone getting warned who's only crime was disagreeing with the majority opinion. Period. Not fighting, not telling people to fuck off or their opinions dont matter, nothing but simple disagreement.

It was actually Jake I was addressing in that post, but even considering your example, I have yet to hear about someone who gets warned or suspended or banned for disagreeing with the majority. Calling people fucking morons and telling them to fuck off is the warnable offense, not disagreement.

If you have an example of someone being warned simply for disagreeing with the majority, who didn't lash out and insult and curse at people, please reference it.

My god, that was funny.

Are you really saying that the Lindens issued you a warning for disagreeing with the majority! Did the warning say exactly that?

This is apprehensible.

For a company to issue a warning for disagreeing with the majority is beyond unfair.

I'm going to the Hotline and post a question about this.

__________
A proud member of PIC = Pudding Inner Core
__________________v

Clarification is always a good thing.

And wow! You really did post the question!
/invalid_link.html

I disagree with the majority all the time! I dont remember getting any warnings! This cannot be, what am I doing wrong here?

*feels lost and lonely*



- Newfie


Yes, this IS sarcasm

Yes I did! I think we can all agree that giving Cat a warning for disagreeing with the majority is not fair.

Maybe I should start a petition to have this warning removed. If we want the system to work, it has to be fair. Giving a warning for disagreeing with the majority is not acceptable in my book.

__________________________
"To announce that there must be no criticism of
the president, or that we are to stand by the
president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt

I'm sure we would agree that would not be right. If that was what actually happened. I would hold off having a petition to get her warning taken away though. At least until you feel you know 100% for certain that this was truely the reason she got a warning. It appears to me that most on this thread do not believe her accusation. But only she and LL knows what her warning stated. I thought your question in the Hotline was well asked. I hope you get a response.