Re: how I can obtain harry potter and star wars with audio description?

All right. Since I'm getting mighty sick of accusations of bias - i.e., no warning given because it favours us - let's really rip apart post 60 piece by piece to detect personal attacks, shall we?

"You don't like the rules?

Leave. Go on. Shoo. There's the door. You're not on the mod/admin team. You don't get to sit here and say oh I am not reading Jade's posts, because he's wrong."

This is dismissive and pointed, but it is not a personal attack in the slightest.
The user is stating that the target should leave if they don't like the rules; this is not an attack. The user is stating that the target is not an admin; this is simply a fact. The user is stating that the target cannot/should not dismiss arguments of another user; this constitutes an opinion, not an attack of any kind.

"Jade's an admin. His /job/ is to enforce rules. Rules that you agreed to by using this site. Rules that the community were given a chance to discuss."

The user is telling the target about my being an admin; this is not an attack. The user is then saying that by being on the forum, the target has tacitly agreed to the rules. Again, it's a fact, not an attack. The user then mentions that the community had a chance to discuss the rules; this is also a fact, not an opinion and by no means an attack.

"You know what? You don't like not being able to sharee whatever pirated 'I am blind but I am greedy so give me all the things TV and film studios work their buts off on for free mentality' things? Go on. Make your own forum then. Make that and don't have any rules. Don't be shocked when people post links to things that get flagged by responsible users or quick acting admins. You want that? Go fucking make your own forum. You are coming off off as a greedy entitled so and so who wants everything handed to you and doesn't want to support creators and networks who make the content, or indeed the people making the audio tracks, too."

And here is the problematic paragraph for most people, I think. Deconstruction time.
The paragraph starts with the user, in essence, saying, "if you want to share/pirate freely, go someplace else and do it". This is not an attack; it's phrased dismissively, but it is by no means a personal attack of any kind.
There is then mention that questionable content might get flagged; totally harmless, not an attack.
Starting with the phrase "you are coming off...", the user explains that the target's behaviour is striking them a certain way, and this mentality clearly upsets the user. This is heated, but it is not a personal attack; at the absolute worst, it is an indictment of character, which is different. Anyone who has a problem with this, and thinks it's a personal attack, how would you feel if you called me dictatorial and I warned you for it? Better question: how many times have I turned such a comment about me, the admin team as a whole or the like into a warning? Go on, I'll wait.

"TL:DR: I for one am tired of your shit. Don't like the forum rules. Get lost, go make your own forum."

None of this is a personal attack, either. The user is saying that he is tired of the target's behaviour, and inviting the target to leave.

Conclusion: heated words, reason to be annoyed, indictment of character, no personal attack

Trust me, folks. If this were warning-worthy, a good number of you would have been banned a long time ago, because you engage in comments like this, and worse, without sanction. Thus, my lack of action on post 60 has nothing to do with who it's targeting, and everything to do with precedent.

But hey, if you want me to start handing out warnings for sharply-worded comments like this, do let me know, and we can consider it. I promise you that the forum will get quieter pretty quickly at first, though, and that outrage will grow as a result, because guess what? The nature of such forums is that sometimes people will piss each other off. We are not in the habit, at this time, of completely suppressing your right to be angry. Go ahead. Be angry. Do it constructively enough and we may even applaud you for it. But you know what will happen? A bunch of people will get pissed off, make comments worded like 60, get warned/banned because they can't hold themselves back, and then everybody will cry foul.
And, of course, they'll be right, because I, for one, don't want to be part of a community which holds that kind of standard. If I can't even indict your character or your actions, if your character or your actions are beyond all reproach and you're still allowed to say and do what you want, within fairly broad limits, then that's just open season for all kinds of idiocy. I want no part of it.

Nah, I'll take this one step further, and in a direction you folks might not be expecting.

This isn't about whether or not post 60 was a personal attack, and it never was.
You folks say that bias was at play because post 60 wasn't dealt with? I feel that bias is at play precisely because post 60 was flagged in the first place. this is an insane double standard y'all are playing with here.

But, as I said, if you want rules regarding personal attacks to be tightened and enforced really, really rigorously, go on and say so.

Or maybe, just maybe, have a look at exactly what was said. Don't worry about who said it to whom. Don't worry about your own biases; check them at the door, like I did when I first read, and subsequently dissected, the post in question. Perhaps then you'll realize that while post 60 is sharply worded and is clearly fed up with Grryfindore and others like him, the only reason you've construed it as a personal attack is because you very likely agree with the points Grryfindore has attempted to stand for by doing what he's done. In other words, you've done the equivalent of suggesting a two-year jail term for a shoplifter because your best friend owned the shop, when you would have given a random stranger a fine and six months probation.

Bias, you say? Here's a mirror. Take a good, long look.

-- 
Audiogames-reflector mailing list
Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com
https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Jayde via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Mitch via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : juan reina via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : grryfindore via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : thetechguy via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : JaceK via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : an idiot via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : marko via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : haily_merry via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Jayde via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Jayde via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Mitch via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : grryfindore via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : zakc93 via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Jayde via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : simba via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Jaidon Of the Caribbean via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Jaidon Of the Caribbean via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Sovs via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Xvordan via Audiogames-reflector
  • ... AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : Sovs via Audiogames-reflector

Reply via email to