Honest question

[Sylvie]

I wouldn't bitch if I were being infracted for being an asshole, but why exactly am I not allowed to have my opinion on the whole Trayvon/Zimmerman situation again? I've been infracted twice now and they've been specifically for posts expressing the fact that I believe that Zimmerman's freedom is funny/deserved/mishandled. I'm not sure why I'm being infracted for that.

The first time you could've just said that I'm not allowed to express my opinion if people can't handle it. The second time you could've easily just said "You're being a fucking asshole".

I think it should be laid down right now that I'm not joking about how I feel about the kid getting shot.

Don't respond telling me that I'm a sick fuck.

Respond with an answer to the question. I'm not bitching about mistreatment. I don't give a shit if you want to slap me in the ass for being crude. I'm just curious about future expressions, because at this point, it seems clear to me that I'm not allowed to think a certain way.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Your not allowed to have an opinion on tls.

 

[Alex]

The only way to win the game is not to play.

 

[wander]

Your not allowed to have an opinion on tls.

This ought to be clarified in da rulz

Draft:
1. Anyone who attempts to cause unnecessary trouble by thinking differently to the rest of the pack will be vacuously warned and then pruned from the community entirely to preserve the one true opinion.

That's basically the only rule you'd need. Trolling, flaming, freedom of thought and expression--all these blemishes on this fine forum would vanish.

 

[wander]

I have reported every one of us for trolling in this thread.

 

[Tennyo]

You weren't infracted for an opinion, you were infracted because it was believed that you only said those things for the purpose of getting a rise out of people.

i/e no one really believes that's how you truly feel, you were just trying to piss everyone off.

 

[Fangu]

Sylvie,

The "wanting Zimmerman to get away with it" comment was controversial, and you would expect people to react to it. It's an uncommon and surprising thing to say.

However, that was not what tipped the scale for the people here. It was this comment.

It might have been a joke, but it came in the totally wrong time. Are you really surprise people mistook your opinion for trolling when you type in that as a one-liner?

Remember, you're dealing with a worldwide audience here. There are cultural differences in what is okay to joke with, and what is not. When handling delicate subjects, don't type in just 1 sentence and expect people to see it as a joke. I'd advice you to be very clear on what is a joke and what isn't when you're making controversial statements like the one you did. Of course you're entitled to an opinion. But if you're used to making controversial statements, you should also know that you have to be extra careful and detailed when typing out your opinions.

ie don't put in a herp derp sentence that can be misinterpreted in the middle of a serious debate because you will very easily be taken for trolling.

 

[Celes Chere]

"Honest question"
-posted by Sylvie


Ohhhh boy

 

[Geostigma]

"Honest question"
-posted by Sylvie


Ohhhh boy

Like you've totally been helpful with your dickish attitude to him in any thread he makes

@Alex... someones been watching Wargames?

 

[Sylvie]

You weren't infracted for an opinion, you were infracted because it was believed that you only said those things for the purpose of getting a rise out of people.

i/e no one really believes that's how you truly feel, you were just trying to piss everyone off.

Then you're all too eager to be victims, then. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to accept that I may have a controversial opinion. I was not saying those things to get a rise out of people, although, as any intelligent person should, I understand that it may confuse or upset others. But here's where it gets tricky! Is it going to be defended as a rule that you can only have an opinion if it isn't going to upset anyone? Just because my insight may offend someone, that doesn't mean that it's automatically "trolling" just because of that fact.

I'll have it known that I really despise the word "trolling" and I make a sincere statement right now that it is never my intention to fall into such an act.

Sylvie,

The "wanting Zimmerman to get away with it" comment was controversial, and you would expect people to react to it. It's an uncommon and surprising thing to say.

However, that was not what tipped the scale for the people here. It was this comment.

It might have been a joke, but it came in the totally wrong time. Are you really surprise people mistook your opinion for trolling when you type in that as a one-liner?

Remember, you're dealing with a worldwide audience here. There are cultural differences in what is okay to joke with, and what is not. When handling delicate subjects, don't type in just 1 sentence and expect people to see it as a joke. I'd advice you to be very clear on what is a joke and what isn't when you're making controversial statements like the one you did. Of course you're entitled to an opinion. But if you're used to making controversial statements, you should also know that you have to be extra careful and detailed when typing out your opinions.

ie don't put in a herp derp sentence that can be misinterpreted in the middle of a serious debate because you will very easily be taken for trolling.

I wasn't joking though. Nothing I said in that thread was a joke. So, like, what the fuck did I do wrong? I don't think there should be butthurt insurance when it comes to debating. I'm always used to saying what I feel when it comes to these kinds of discussions. Length =/= viability. If I can say what I need to in one or a few lines, and follow up with responses (which were all ridiculously hostile towards me from the very beginning) then why not?

By the way, I can't see the post you're linking to because I'm banned from the entire debate section. I told the guy who banned me from it that he could've just told me that I wasn't allowed to have my opinion there and I probably would've complied.

As this subject stands, you're all still basically telling me that you:

1. Don't want to accept my opinion as sincere.
2. Are going to ban me because you can't accept a differing, controversial opinion being expressed one more time.
3. Don't know how to tell the difference between a troll and a potentially fascinating difference in the outlook of certain scenarios and circumstances.

This shit should be fucking simple, but the word "trolling" gets thrown around and now it's like I'm trying to shove tennis balls through a fucking brick wall.

 

[Celes Chere]

lol okay mr I'm leaving tls boohoo *posts two seconds later*

 

[Max Payne]

It is a bit much to assume a person's intent from words alone, but when you don't take the proper steps to dissuade an assumption you open yourself up to that kind of shit I guess.

 

[Sylvie]

lol okay mr I'm leaving tls boohoo *posts two seconds later*

When did I say that, again?

 

[Celes Chere]

Not you, the other one. And just so you know I was NOT trying to be a jerk to you in other threads, it was only your other thread that really pissed me off.

 

[Geostigma]

Not you, the other one. And just so you know I was NOT trying to be a jerk to you in other threads, it was only your other thread that really pissed me off.

Errm me?

I requested the ban that has nothing to do with TLS, those 3 weeks I wasnt even in America

 

[Fangu]

By the way, I can't see the post you're linking to because I'm banned from the entire debate section.

Oh right.

You quoted Arianna's "Why would you say this?" with "It would be funny, and people would be so upset."

I wasn't joking though. Nothing I said in that thread was a joke. So, like, what the fuck did I do wrong? I don't think there should be butthurt insurance when it comes to debating.

So you're saying your "it would be funny" comment is sincere? Well allright then. I don't see a comment like that as "debating". What you're saying is "some individuals would find it amusing and that would make it worth it because..." - throw in some more arguments on how that statement in valid, and yeah, I guess you have a debate still going. But what you did there was just tossing in - fair enough - an opinion, but it's an opinion that will disturb most members and therefore, yes, should probably be taken elsewhere.

If you find that a crowd continuously finds your views disturbing, then maybe it's not the right crowd for you. At least put a little effort into explaining your opinions, don't just toss them out there in a way that can easily be interpreted as taking the topic and everyone in it for a hike.

 

[Joker]

Your feelings on the crippled and elderly may not be facetious and ezpressed with the intent to get a rise out of people, but they certainly fit the bill. And since you seem to be walking like a duck and quacking like a duck, I'm doubtful that I would lose a moment of sleep if the lot of you never posted again.

Then again, I find your opinions (or, if you prefer, the waus in which you express them) terrible and sickening and just plain garbage on par with my eldest sister's, and her ex-husband was a rapper.

Which explains why she's a lesbian now, though she is still an idiot with awful taste.

 

[Sylvie]

Oh right.

You quoted Arianna's "Why would you say this?" with "It would be funny, and people would be so upset."


So you're saying your "it would be funny" comment is sincere? Well allright then. I don't see a comment like that as "debating". What you're saying is "some individuals would find it amusing and that would make it worth it because..." - throw in some more arguments on how that statement in valid, and yeah, I guess you have a debate still going. But what you did there was just tossing in - fair enough - an opinion, but it's an opinion that will disturb most members and therefore, yes, should probably be taken elsewhere.

If you find that a crowd continuously finds your views disturbing, then maybe it's not the right crowd for you. At least put a little effort into explaining your opinions, don't just toss them out there in a way that can easily be interpreted as taking the topic and everyone in it for a hike.

First, I'll thank you for actually reading what I said.

But like I said, I'm okay with being pinned because I was being crude, because I was expressing it crudely. My main problem with what has gone down here is that what I'm actually saying is genuine. I think that it would be funny if Zimmerman walked. I would be amused by how upset people would be by it. I won't argue that I could've worded that slightly better. But you know, when there's people hounding your ass going "OMG R U FUCKING SERIOUS?", and you're someone like me, you can maybe imagine that it would be difficult not to start cackling and getting sadistic with the responses.

Your feelings on the crippled and elderly may not be facetious and ezpressed with the intent to get a rise out of people, but they certainly fit the bill. And since you seem to be walking like a duck and quacking like a duck, I'm doubtful that I would lose a moment of sleep if the lot of you never posted again.

Then again, I find your opinions (or, if you prefer, the waus in which you express them) terrible and sickening and just plain garbage on par with my eldest sister's, and her ex-husband was a rapper.

Which explains why she's a lesbian now, though she is still an idiot with awful taste.

That's all fair enough, my friend.

 

[Arianna]

I am not moderator staff, so I can't speak on any official TLS terms, but I feel how you presented yourself is why you were infracted.

Really, there's a difference between saying, "I think Zimmerman defended himself and Trayvon was in the wrong," and acting like a smart ass. You weren't just stating your opinion, you were being rude about it too.

Granted, there may be some personal offense to your opinion in the infractions.

The staff here - in my opinion - are pretty open to investigating moderator's actions and making amends if they're warranted. Ask (politely) and you may receive.

EDIT TO ADD: I've had an infraction myself. I understand how you feel if people are getting down your throat about things; sometimes, you may just have to walk away from the situation.

My own infraction was a complex issue - and yours is too. Some people are not going to be receptive, no matter how hard you try, to different thinking. No matter what proof you have, some people may not agree - and people of power (the moderators) may use their power to stifle views they see as problematic.

As Fangu said: you didn't even give us any meat to your opinion. You just stated it all provocatively.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

The staff here - in my opinion - are pretty open to investigating moderator's actions and making amends if they're warranted. Ask (politely) and you may receive.

Oh lol.

 

[Arianna]

Oh lol.

They've done it for me. The infraction still stood, but - we were on more even ground. *shrug*

 

[Sylvie]

Really, there's a difference between saying, "I think Zimmerman defended himself and Trayvon was in the wrong," and acting like a smart ass.

But that isn't really the alternative. There's not really a way to express how I feel about the situation without sounding like a smartass or amoral. I am both of these, afterall.

I don't believe that Zimmerman defended himself. Nor do I think Trayvon was necessarily in the wrong. Maybe he was, but I don't give a fuck. I think Zimmerman wanted to shoot a black kid, and he did. I think it would be splendid if he walked away from such a decision as a free man and not even another person had the balls to go blow his brains out in lapse of the legal system's massive fuckup on "keeping killers off the streets". It's almost as wonderful as John Lennon having his brains blown out in the 1980's. Spread the marketable concept of "peace and love". The decade turns. The insanity and the coldness swept him into the walls. It's suiting.

 

[Max Payne]

Honestly, I feel like it's a bit much to warn people based off of what you figure they might mean by their post. That kinda leaves too much room for personal bias to influence the decision to warn/infract someone.

I mean yeah sometimes the intent to dick around and troll is MORE than apparent, but I don't think it happens often enough for it to be something that's a concrete basis to form a standard to repeatedly punish people due to supposition.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Seemingly all it takes for justified warnings/actions is for 4 or more people to complain.

 

[Sylvie]

Honestly, I feel like it's a bit much to warn people based off of what you figure they might mean by their post. That kinda leaves too much room for personal bias to influence the decision to warn/infract someone.

This is mainly the problem. And if I would have been spoken to and asked about it, this thread probably wouldn't need to exist.