"wrong call by the editor?" Topic

In this thread, alien bloody hell surfer made a personal attack against trenchraider, and received a DH. Trenchraider made a personal attack against alien bloody hell surfer, and his attack was merely deleted. At the suggestion of Bill, I submit to the general TMP membership that Bill made a wrong call.

This is the Internet. We left kindergarten a long time ago.

As usual.

Trenchraider made a personal attack against alien bloody hell surfer, and his attack was merely deleted.

My judgment was that Trenchraider's use of the phrase "taking out the trash" was not a personal attack, but seeing that it could be misconstrued, I chose to it.

TrenchRaider has made personal attacks on Editor(s) Julia twice now and not been Daug Housed or had his account locked.
I am at a loss as to why not.

In the case that I remember, TrenchRaider removed the material before the complaint was moderated.

This is the Internet. We left kindergarten a long time ago.

You obviously visit a different Internet than I do.

In fact your forum visits on THIS site must be highly selective.

Wow.
A strong case could be made that a thread like this attacking a specific forum member and calling for disciplinary action against them is a form of harassment and personal attack. I suppose Armintrout disagrees as my report of the post/thread has gone unaddressed.

But since the thread is being left in place I might as well make a short reply.

Yes, "Alien Bloody Hell Surfer" made a puzzling personal attack on me in the thread that Rebelyell2006 links to. I saw the post, and hit the "report" button to report what I regarded as personal attacks and trolling. Apparently Armintrout agreed, as the post got nuked and ABHS is now munching puppy chow in the DH. So far so good.

I then made a quick post thanking the editor for taking out the rule breaking post, referring to it as "trash", and commenting that we seem to have had more trolling and other bad behavior of late. For whatever reason Armintrout snipped the first sentence of the post and left the rest in place.

I think that most reasonable and unbiased people would recognize that my "taking out the trash" comment was a reference to the rule breaking post, and not directed at the member who made the offending post. Certainly directing such a comment AT another forum member would be a breach of forum rules…and I don't make a habit of breaking the rules here.

But, RY2006, does not like me for something I said in passing last week, and is looking at it in a biased manner. So it goes.

That's my side of it anyway….

Martin
(I would still like to see the thread locked and appropriate action taken for the reasons I state in the opening paragraph. But that's not my call.)

Edit: Armintrout explained his decision to snip the post while I typed the above. In the future, I will try to make myself more clear so as to avoid this sort of thing.

And The Editor remains puzzled by accusations of uneven enforcement of rules.

"taking out the trash" is a common enough idiom that I cannot possibly see how a native speaker of English could not understand it as a personal attack.

Apparently none of us are capable of comprehending the flexibility and precision of his wit. I know that I am incapable of discerning the nuances so it must be my own fault.
I could have sworn it was a simple " personal attack" but I guessed wrong.

Editor, if you are not going to DH trench raider for his personal attack, then let alien bloody hell surfer out.
At least PRETEND you can be even handed.

He said that Editor(s) Julia suffers from a mental illnesses, in one thread and posted the wrong gender in another, I see that as a pattern.

Don, you are spinning this.

He did not specifically say that Editor Julia (or anyone else) was suffering from a mental illness. What he did state is his opinion regarding transsexualism in general.

Julia is in the middle of dinner so is not posting now, but she has told me that she is not offended, and recognizes that people have a lot of questions about LGBT people.

I enjoy a good slice of pie.

Someone complains that Bill DH conservatives, another liberals, others that Bill is capricious in his enforcement. Some are banned from the site and seek exile at websites that they feel are more accommodating to their point-of-view. In the end, one can either stay or leave, because no one put a gun to your head.

I complained about it at the time and had my posts deleted. Did Editor(s) Julia delete them ???

You made attacks, which were removed by myself.

What he did state is his opinion regarding transsexualism in general.

He stated that transsexualism was a form of mental illness, which is a bigoted statement. And a group attack. And from the FAQ:

If I don't like something, can I say that it's "gay"?
No, because you're implying that "gay" is "bad," and this is a forum where everyone is welcome.

He stated that transsexualism was a form of mental illness, which is a bigoted statement. And a group attack.

I disagree. I see no evidence that he has any ill will towards LGBT people, he simply has an opinion. You may feel that someone who believes that way must be a bigot, but I think that is not an automatic conclusion.

Do you really want the editors to restrict the forum to "approved" opinions?

If the editors are not offended, why should anyone else be?

If the editors are not offended, why should anyone else be?

Because the editors might not be the only LGBT people on this website?

Do you really want the editors to restrict the forum to "approved" opinions?

Bigotry is okay as long as it is shrouded as an "opinion"? By that logic, how can you justify DH'ing people for racism, as you have done in the past? Isn't a personal attack just an "opinion"?

This whole exercise would just be hysterically funny were I not just mind blown that it's even being permitted to continue. Are these three (Kyote, Rebelyell, and OFM's sock puppet) really being permitted to attempt to whip up a sort of lynch mob?
Really?

I honestly don't think I have ever seen anything like this outside of a free for all cesspit like Frothers or 4chan.

And people honestly say that TMP is too draconian in it's rule enforcement…
Amazing.

Martin

Edit: This is my last word on this thread. I disagree that this is being permitted to happen. But in the end, it's not my call. Like I said, not my circus, not my monkeys.

Obviously not draconian enough to DH you for blatantly obvious infractions.

Well, that's why we're having this discussion – to hear from the TMP membership.

Bigotry is defined as "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

Perhaps all of us need more tolerance.

Don, you can drop her a PM.

Perhaps all of us need more tolerance.

LOL,I'm the real bigot for not tolerating his intolerance? Really? That's what you are going with?

I would rather do it thru Facebook.

Tell her.

LOL,I'm the real bigot for not tolerating his intolerance? Really? That's what you are going with?

You're the one jumping to the conclusion that he's intolerant, just because he believes the way he does.

You're the one jumping to the conclusion that he's intolerant, just because he believes the way he does.

It's a belief that denigrates people for who they are. That is intolerance.

how do you feel about LGBT and the fight for Marriage Equality ???

Are you suggesting that being against same-sex marriage makes someone a bigot too?

> This is the Internet. We left kindergarten a long time ago.

That is like Kirk telling a computer contradictory information to get it to explode…

Can you find a reason to oppose it, outside of bigotry?

Seems like a question where you ask a guy are you still beating your wife or have you stopped? There rarely is only one side to any discussion.

Hello, everyone!

I don't think being a ladyboy is like having a mental illness. Some people are just old-fashioned and not open-minded.

However, I don't blame them if that's what they think of us ladyboys. I'm not offended by what other people think, as long as they don't take away our freedoms.

Men, women and transgenders are equal. All we need is understanding.

Peace!

"Can you find a reason to oppose it, outside of bigotry?"

How about religious belief? Or does anyone who holds religious convictions automatically qualify as a bigot?

"Equality for all."

Your opinion, I respect that.
You, in turn, should respect the opinions of others who disagree with you. If you cannot, then perhaps the bigot lies within.

I do not support gay marraige. But I bear no ill will towards gay people, married or not. Nor do I harbour any
hate for transsexuals. Be what you were born to be. If the Government stayed out of peoples private lives we would all be better off. When the Editor hired the new employees, I went out of my way to write them and welcome them because it seemed to me to be the right thing to do. I may not agree with your lifestyle, but it is not up to me to judge you. People should be able to live their lives as they see fit, regardless of who doesn't like or agree with it.

Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I hate you or wish you harm. I do not.
If gay marraige is ruled to be legal, then I accept that.
I may not like it or agree with it, but the law is the law.
I just have a different point of view. It doesn't make me antything but a person with a different opinion, so don't go painting me with your wide brush.

I thought this was a gaming forum? Folks have way too much time on their hands!

How about religious belief?

You can believe whatever you want, just don't use that belief to attack others, especially if they do not share the same religious beliefs as you, like the Quakers who are not opposed to it.

Or does anyone who holds religious convictions automatically qualify as a bigot?

Only if you use those convictions as an excuse for attacking others. After all the Quakers are one of many groups of people with religions convictions that do not oppose it, and in fact officiate over such weddings.

A person can hold a belief system that may be the majority/ minority opinion and that some could interpret as bigoted. It's what he/she does with it.
For example, a gay couple wants to get married and contacts a baker for a wedding cake. He or she is opposed to same sex marriages, but as a baker, who takes pride in their work, provides a first class wedding cake.
Another scenario, the baker could refuse citing a booked schedule and no one would know their personal beliefs.
It's only when someone cites a belief in public and acts according to that belief that society might draw the conclusion of bigotry.

Why even bring up whether you "agree" with someones life?

There's no points scored for it.
It gets tedious when the hyper-aggressive internet atheists do it (and I say that as an atheist) and it gets tedious when people do it on LGBT topics as well.

Why take that extra 10 seconds just to get in a jab at someone else's life?

Someone on the internet is different from you and that bothers you? Close the browser.
Newsflash: There's some 7 billion of us. The only one like you is YOU.

And no Dear Editor(s) I will not let this go.

Can you bring up the original post, so everyone can see what you are bothered about?

I will post the link.

And the quote in question:

I'm a political and social conservative. I'm not a Neo-Nazi or anything of that sort. But I'm far enough right to be considered "non-mainstream" by most people. So no, I'm not ok with Armintrout exclusively hiring Asian transvestites to edit the site. I'm against the general effort to "normalize" what I see to be a form of mental illness. So I'm not down with his other site and it's agenda. It's the reason that on the handful of occasions I have needed to, I refuse to use the pronoun "she" when referring to an editor.

You may hold whatever religious belief that you want, as long as you do not follow it in everyday life. Got it.

So when he says:

I'm against the general effort to "normalize" what I see to be a form of mental illness.

Don, you see that as a personal attack on Editor Julia?

You think it can only be meant as an attack; it can't just be his honest opinion on the subject?

Don, you see that as a personal attack on Editor Julia?

Yes, because he is saying a core aspect of Editor Julia's existence is a form of "mental illness". It doesn't matter whether or not he believes it, it is an attack against her and all transgender people.

Bill – you don't feel that deliberately misgendering a transgender person is an attack on your employee?

Winston – Not sure if that was a response to me?

Take it personal if you wish, but it's just a general comment.
I simply get annoyed when non believers tell believers what they should think.
Did that apply to you? Your call.

I simply get annoyed when non believers tell believers what they should think.

I think it is more of a case of non-believers telling believers to leave those beliefs at home instead of basing public interactions with non-believers on those beliefs. And keep in mind it is not all believers, as I mentioned the Quakers earlier.

John – Achieving thought control will take a few more elections, we're working on it though!
Until then, we have to rely on the PC police and water flouridation.

Less joking, it's like if you have that one friend who won't shut up about their pet peeve, every chance they get.

I think it is more of a case of non-believers telling believers to leave those beliefs at home

You are telling people that they are not allowed to put their beliefs into practice.
Can I tell a "progressive" that?

Sorry, Bud. But telling people that they cannot follow their beliefs is just plain ridiculous.
What's the point of having personal beliefs if you MUST follow the "consensus"?

I'll let you two fight it out.

Sorry, Bud. But telling people that they cannot follow their beliefs is just plain ridiculous.

Nobody is saying that. Just don't try to make non-believers adhere to your beliefs. But this is a distraction from the issue of Bill showing favoritism towards posters who use personal attacks against the editors and other LGBT people.

We are at DEFCON 2 people.

Focus!

And no, you can't take your hazmat suit off yet, even if it is making you hot and humid.

"Can you find a reason to oppose it, outside of bigotry?"

Um, because he considers it to be a mental illness? After all, until the 1970s homosexuality and the desire to change genders were listed as mental illnesses in psyc textbooks. They were removed due to political pressure, not because the psychological community decided they were normal.