Rules against Internet tough guy behaviour ?

[ray245]

The recent thread about the early days of SD.net and ASVS has inspired me to create this topic. From what I understand, there is no specific rules against acting like a Internet tough guy, one who thinks it is cool to talk about wars like a video games, trying to bully others by trying to adopt a hardliner position.

Many forums has this problem, where people tried to act like how fun it is too beat annoying kids up, beat annoying teenagers up, and it being cool to bash teenagers novels and its characters for acting like a teenager or a child.

People who bash teenage novels because it does not cater to their views of guns and explosives, death and etc. People who view that the only way they can tolerate certain novels is including the concept of child soldiers, that kids are expected to act like professional child soldiers. Or people being too trigger happy, viewing that military solution is the best solution without taking other things into account.

I have to ask, is it wise to set up proper rules against those behaviour?

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't bloody think so. Some of the things you mentioned clearly fall under the catagory of "people with different tastes/views." No point making a rule against having a militaristic attitude, taking hardliner positions, or bashing certain types of books.

Of course, if they cross the line to spamming or trolling, that can be a problem, but we have ways of dealing with that already.

[DaveJB]

I don't really think it's a problem unless posters are actually advocating violence and murder against people, which is already covered by PR6 (and arguably PR5 as well, depending on the context).

[Bounty]

And it's covered by spamming too. The HOS has more than one thread flushed because of ITG.

[Starglider]

The appropriate punnishment for this is being ruthlessly mocked and riddiculed, and that already happens. Of course if it continues into spam/vendetta/wall of ignorance then there are existing rules to take care of it.

[ray245]

I don't really think it's a problem unless posters are actually advocating violence and murder against people, which is already covered by PR6 (and arguably PR5 as well, depending on the context).

However, isn't most people more reliant towards people calling for military actions? That is where the Grey areas lie.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't really think it's a problem unless posters are actually advocating violence and murder against people, which is already covered by PR6 (and arguably PR5 as well, depending on the context).

However, isn't most people more reliant towards people calling for military actions? That is where the Grey areas lie.

Are you saying we should have a rule against advocating military actions? Because that would be obscene, and absurd. This board's rules do not exist for censoring political opinions you don't personally agree with.

Technically, though, I suppose advocating an illegal military action such as torturing prisoners might fall under the rules against advocating illegal activity.

[Bounty]

I don't really think it's a problem unless posters are actually advocating violence and murder against people, which is already covered by PR6 (and arguably PR5 as well, depending on the context).

However, isn't most people more reliant towards people calling for military actions? That is where the Grey areas lie.

If those who don't advocate military action can have their say without being dogpiled, what's the problem? You can't force an opinion on the board's population through rules. All you can ask for is fair moderation that makes sure even unpopular viewpoints are heard and discussed in a mature manner.

[ray245]

I don't really think it's a problem unless posters are actually advocating violence and murder against people, which is already covered by PR6 (and arguably PR5 as well, depending on the context).

However, isn't most people more reliant towards people calling for military actions? That is where the Grey areas lie.

Are you saying we should have a rule against advocating military actions? Because that would be obscene, and absurd. This board's rules do not exist for censoring political opinions you don't personally agree with.

Technically, though, I suppose advocating an illegal military action such as torturing prisoners might fall under the rules against advocating illegal activity.

However, to define wars and legality has always been a huge problem for any community. One on hand, it is possible to argue that the Iraq war is illegal, yet at the same time, it is reasonable to argue that a nation should have sovereignty over its decisions.

Bear in mind that I am not saying advocating military actions is a bad thing, and should be banned. I am talking about people advocating a World War 3 for the sake of having a war( like what I did a few years back) . I was dogpiled for making that stupid view, but if I remember correctly, there is no specific rules in regards to those issues.

[Lord Revan]

Ray, for the Name of Light, quit suggesting "be nice" rules.

we don't need and I'd assume for the large part want, rules that would censor away opinions (with certain execptions (which can be found in the rules)).

the rules are there for a certain reason and censoring certain opinions you don't like is not that reason. wars for their own sake are stupid but so are rules for the sake of having rules.

[Sarevok]

You know ray if you wanted to be so nice why not start being nice enough to include examples ? What am I supposed to do with your vogue rant ? Run through thousands of internet forum pages with a microscope to find a correlation between harsh language and inappropriate call for violence ?

[Shroom Man 777]

Jesus Christ, Ray! This board is BUILT on discussing sci-fi, science, and mocking stupid people. If someone says something stupid, they get verbally abused and get called 'fucktards' and 'bitch-faced face-bitchers' and fuck after their arguments and opinions get punched in the ovaries. Christ, man!

Someone should give Ray a recommended reading list, to show him what the founders of this board did to shitpieces for fun.

Ray, why don't you take a break from posting in the House of Commons? You won't lose anything from taking a short break, mang. I mean, look, you don't HAVE to come up with 'brilliant ideas' or anything, dude. No one's pressuring you to do that, and it's really not that important. Just chillax and go whack off to some porn.

[ray245]

You know ray if you wanted to be so nice why not start being nice enough to include examples ? What am I supposed to do with your vogue rant ? Run through thousands of internet forum pages with a microscope to find a correlation between harsh language and inappropriate call for violence ?

Well, I will use my past behavior as an example.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=103531

Where I asked questions like would you kill another member of this board, which is a extremely stupid thing to ask.

Then there is another thread, where I tried to act like an internet tough guy. Can't find it, but I do remember the details well enough.

From what I recall, I tried to suggest how nice it was for US to invade the ChiCom for the sake of repelling the communist, and lead the KMT back into power. When people pointed out to me, that the sheer amount of destruction it can cause by enlarging the Korean war into another world war, I refused to back down and view world war 3 as a perfectly reasonable result. That there is nothing wrong with having a war as long as the Winners(the 'good guys') won.

I even used stupid examples like how calling for a world war 3 is no different from a 'RAR!' thread.

Looking at how stupid I was in the past, I thought that certain rules can be made in regards to my past behavior for instance.

Ray, why don't you take a break from posting in the House of Commons? You won't lose anything from taking a short break, mang. I mean, look, you don't HAVE to come up with 'brilliant ideas' or anything, dude. No one's pressuring you to do that, and it's really not that important. Just chillax and go whack off to some porn.

Perhaps it is a reasonable thing to do. I'm just getting way too annoyed with my past behavior.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No, because if this is banned, you might as well ban sarcasm. That's how broad this ban is.

[Shroom Man 777]

Perhaps it is a reasonable thing to do. I'm just getting way too annoyed with my past behavior.

Just deal with it and post something in the Venting thread at the Hall of Shame rather than another House of Commons thread.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but mang, you don't have to post everything that comes inside your brain. Curb your enthusiasm.

[Edi]

Ray, just shut the fuck up. We already have enough rules that cover eventualities like this and the moderators have enough power to crack down on any internet tough guy shit that manifests on the forums. We have dozens of precedents on that.

So take your suggestions about new specific rules about an issue that is not a problem and shove them.

[Sarevok]

There should be a quota system for number of new threads ray can post in the HoC in a month or he would break the system.

[ray245]

Ray, just shut the fuck up. We already have enough rules that cover eventualities like this and the moderators have enough power to crack down on any internet tough guy shit that manifests on the forums. We have dozens of precedents on that.

So take your suggestions about new specific rules about an issue that is not a problem and shove them.

Ah, sorry about that.

Perhaps a mod can ban me from the House of Commons until I managed to cool my enthusiasm?

[Solauren]

Why don't you exercise some common sense Ray?

Read over the rules, and if you're considering an idea, RE-read them, and see if any of the rules could apply to the situtation you are thinking about.

If there's even a small chance, then don't post your idea.

Or better yet, instead of getting someone to lock you out of the HOC, why don't you lock yourself up, and don't read and post in here?

Geez...

[ray245]

Why don't you exercise some common sense Ray?

Read over the rules, and if you're considering an idea, RE-read them, and see if any of the rules could apply to the situtation you are thinking about.

If there's even a small chance, then don't post your idea.

Or better yet, instead of getting someone to lock you out of the HOC, why don't you lock yourself up, and don't read and post in here?

Geez...

Maybe it is because of the fact that I have a hard time trying to control myself?

[Sarevok]

Maybe it is because of the fact that I have a hard time trying to control myself?

How to stop embarrassing yourself and others in 4 easy steps.

1. Download a net nanny program.

2. Block the link to HoC.

3. Select option for net nanny master password.

4. Type random password with eyes closed.

And presto ! You are the first person to ban yourself from a subforum without admin powers.

[ray245]

Maybe it is because of the fact that I have a hard time trying to control myself?

How to stop embarrassing yourself and others in 4 easy steps.

1. Download a net nanny program.

2. Block the link to HoC.

3. Select option for net nanny master password.

4. Type random password with eyes closed.

And presto ! You are the first person to ban yourself from a subforum without admin powers.

I want to view this sub-forum without being able to post ideas in here for a while. Sigh, never mind, I'll do my best to refrain from posting new threads here.

For all I know, I could have developed an obsessive-compulsive disorder in regards to posting new ideas in the House of Commons.

[Eleas]

Maybe it is because of the fact that I have a hard time trying to control myself?

Everyone does. I dislike dogpiling, but this entire thread is yet another example of you flying off half-cocked. And the reason you give is apparently that you can't control yourself. That notion kinda offends me, who in a few days are to go to my first ADD evaluation, because I'm deeply aware of how something very much like it feels. You may be high-strung, have a low threshold for boredom, whatever. Do you really imagine that's unique? Do you really believe that absolves you of responsibility?

Protip: it doesn't. Instead of taking some fucking responsibility for yourself, you asked if the mods could pretty please chain you up so you don't embarrass yourself yet again. Frankly, that's you being a problem, not them or the board as a whole. Why don't you solve it?

[Mayabird]

Trying not to dogpile, just making things simple:
Self-control is a skill. Learn it.

Or I'll hunt you down and make you jaywalk, hatfucker.

[fgalkin]

Blah blah, question answered, ray is a grot, thread is pointless, thread is locked.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin