Zero Tolerance In Action

Post Reply New Topic

It is not necessary to be that way, but how else would nasty people be other than nasty? If they didn't act nasty, then they wouldn't be regarded as nasty? Do you see the tautology we're going to be dealing with here for the next countless number of replies?

'Freedom of speech' is superseded by the rules of the forum where your opinions are being shared. You may equate this, if you will, to the punishment of 'free speech' in a court room due to a ruling of contempt.

That said, in my opinion tolerance and respect should be taught, not demanded. It just happens that some people have access to better education than others.

Should someone who is offended by something on these boards make an appeal to a moderator?
Yes, of course they should.

Should we be practicing zero tolerance on these boards?
Maybe towards trolls who add nothing good to the 'community'.

But who then is a troll? Is a troll merely someone whom others find offensive or is it a particular manner of offending, the modus operandi, of a troll which offends?

You are The Troll™ , of course.





A recent user which has the word "rape" in his username, seems an example of someone that is more practical to consider a troll.

A troll is an individual who joins a forum for the sole purpose of offending the genuine members of said forum. For example, there was a recent thread in general, in which the OP claimed to have AS, then proceeded to talk at length about how he couldn't face the rest of his life as a 'diseased ret*d', amongst other things.

I certainly don't suggest we take an intolerant view of those who occasionally descend into trolling in pique, but we should certainly discourage such behaviour.



This.

No. I know. My point is that you have resorted to the "Grammar-Nazi" level of argumental tactic in other threads, and insist on derailing perfectly coherent arguments with ridiculous comments and childish responses.

Iamnotaparakeet, just because someone is nasty right now does not mean that they have to continue that way. there are many ways to change. a person who is nasty today could be kind next tomorrow, or next year. and that kind person would then behave kindly... according to your own logic.

Some people are even capable of having more than one emotional state. They can be really nasty about one subject, but quite nice about another subject. I like kittens, and will be nice to kittens all day long, but I hate people who mistreat kittens, and thus my behaviour towards such individuals would be classified as "nasty", (assuming we are talking about physically as well as verbally.)

"Nasty" people being "Nasty" all the time is like some kind of children's fairy tale version of how the world actually is. Nobody is PURE nasty. Hitler loved his dog too.

i completely agree with this answer. the courtroom analogy is perfect, in my opinion.

But do you support the current rules of this forum merely because they are currently favorable to you? If the rules for this subforum were changed so that freedom of speech trumped the other rules of the forum, would you then no longer support the rules on the basis of their status as rules?

if i didn't agree with the new rules, i would leave. WP's rules are not intended to keep me happy. i expect that whatever the rules are, they will be upheld. if i don't like them, it's my own problem.

You'd leave rather than arguing whether a rule is right or wrong, just or injust?

Is constantly bitching about it, any better?

Yes, and being able to constantly "b***h" about injustices is better than constantly having injustices to "b***h" about and not being able to.

First, that is hardly to change anything, as we are talking about a private site such as WP, once rules have been established, and if you don't like it, most likely you will not be able to do anything regardless, other than wasting time. So hyperlexian is right, regarding web forums, if X doesn't like it, X can leave and look for another place.

Secondly, injustice for you would be justice for others, I mean disagreements on this seems noticeable, especially in this case in which your position is debated and questioned, the issue regarding injustice, that depends on what the admin staff considers, unless the admin staff agrees with you that some rules have to be changed then you have it, but that seems unlikely to happen. Only thing seems possible I think, is to appeal to a moderator for "wrongful conviction".

iamaparakeet, nobody is taking away your right to b*tch, and anyway that has nothing to do with the question you asked. why would you ever want to be a member of a forum that disagree with your own sensibilities?