Limelight Forums

Your Name: Lord Octagon

Warning ID: 614

Issued by: Please include the [L²]/[L²:M] tag.

Reason: "inappropriate post"

Why should it be removed?: As expanded in a PM, apparently "There wasn't a reason I felt matched 100% as they're all a bit vague so I listed it as provoking flaming".

In a private message with Judge on Steam, the topic of George Floyd came up etc - I said the well known slogan "Black Lives Matter" who which he replies "no they fucking don't" (see screenshot). As I usually do with Judge's weird responses, I post them on a specially designed 'no context' thread found in the off-topic area of the forum. Now apparently this is me 'flaming', which is interesting considering the nature of the thread and that I'm not the one saying anything controversial.

Apparently this post was the absolute worst one out of all the terrorism, rape, and general sexually depraved jokes that fill up the thread. Now, I wasn't aware that anti-Black Lives Matter was the official line of Limelight - but apparently it is. Goigle, I'm sure you struggled to invent a rule breakage in this post in order to warn me - but I genuinely see no reason why it should be considered flaming. You even go as far in your PM to say "I am not going to assume you meant harm as it being a no context photo" - in what way, shape, or form, does my comment give the slightest notion of intention to harm or start a 'flame war'.

Dollars to doughnuts if someone with an anime profile picture posted a thread titled "Black Lives Matter" in the off-topic subforum, they would be receiving praise - not a warning for 'flaming'. Or are you just making assumptions about me?

Evidence:

(Jun 6, 2020, 03:30 AM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]As expanded in a PM, apparently "There wasn't a reason I felt matched 100% as they're all a bit vague so I listed it as provoking flaming".

For context, these are the default warnings:

Note how there's a Disrespect / Flaming option but not provoking option (which is still apart of the rules). I felt like a lesser warning point count than 3 was deserved so that's what I was saying.

(Jun 6, 2020, 03:30 AM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]Now apparently this is me 'flaming', which is interesting considering the nature of the thread and that I'm not the one saying anything controversial.

I never said you flamed, I said the image was provoking flaming.

(Jun 6, 2020, 03:30 AM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently this post was the absolute worst one out of all the terrorism, rape, and general sexually depraved jokes that fill up the thread. Now, I wasn't aware that anti-Black Lives Matter was the official line of Limelight - but apparently it is. Goigle, I'm sure you struggled to invent a rule breakage in this post in order to warn me - but I genuinely see no reason why it should be considered flaming. You even go as far in your PM to say "I am not going to assume you meant harm as it being a no context photo" - in what way, shape, or form, does my comment give the slightest notion of intention to harm or start a 'flame war'.

Struggled to invent a rule? Post rule 2: do not provoke flaming. We've had a variety of posts lately that have been causing people to flame each other. We've also had a corresponding flood of reports. I have warned people for flaming Faustin and I warned you because your post could easily cause someone to take it the wrong way and cause more forum arguments.

I actually thought the post was funny, but I also understood why it was reported and how it could be offensive.

(Jun 6, 2020, 03:30 AM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]Dollars to doughnuts if someone with an anime profile picture posted a thread titled "Black Lives Matter" in the off-topic subforum, they would be receiving praise - not a warning for 'flaming'. Or are you just making assumptions about me?

I did not make assumptions about you, and in the PM I said as much:

Quote:I am not going to assume you meant harm as it being a no context photo it could easily be a joke with context.

I never said you meant any harm and I can see the humor in it, but the forums is not the best place for images like that as tone is lost over text and when people other than your friends read it people can take offense and cause arguments. With that in mind, I chose to issue the warning with a reduce point count and halved duration.

So are you going to warn others for the Troubles jokes because it COULD bring up the topic of Irish separtism? No, because it's a joke thread and no one's serious about terrorism. 

Again, if one of the leftbros started a thread with BLM as the theme and I hit report would you warn them for "provoking flaming"? 100% not. 

So why am I the one to be warned when nothing I've said was flame provoking? Faustin's case is different and entirely irrelevant to this one, so not sure why you bring it up.

Someone will always be offended by anything. I'll go report that pride month thread for "provoking flaming" and no one will bat an eye. There are really no checks and balance when it comes to admin overreach.

No, I'm not going to warn 2 month old posts. I am American so I don't really know the nuances of what is and isn't offensive with the Troubles, but in 2001 we had 9/11 of course and it's a common thing to joke about. I would leave that up to a European / UK staff member to handle, but it basically boils down to tragedy and time. 

Without getting into nuances, say black lives matter is patently less offensive than saying no they don't days after cops killed a black man for no reason. You were warned because you were the one who made the post. We don't need someone taking it the wrong way and causing a shitshow due to how recent the events were and the protests were still active. It's fine for that to be in a Discord post or elsewhere, but something as recent as that should stay off the forums.

Is there a rule stating how long the topic needs to marinate before being allowed on the forums? No. There's literally a news section where recent topics are discussed. There is absolutely no rule against a comment, in jest, about recent events.

Importantly, it wasn't me who said they don't matter in the conversation - but Judge. Yet, everyone knows Judge doesn't actually think black lives don't matter. I don't understand why I'm getting punished. What exactly would have happened? Your argument lies upon a bunch of ifs. All that really matters here is my intent, which you admitted was not to provoke. Anyone can be offended about anything, doesn't mean warnings should be handed out left, right, and centre because someone might be offended. But what would they have done? Tag Judge, make a rant on a clearly meme thread when everyone knows he means well. 

I'm sorry but your argument is just one giant slippery slope fallacy and doesn't actually fall under rule breakage. There exists no rule which prohibits discussion about recent events, nor even lighthearted comments. Nothing said was disrespectful or insulting to any member of this forum (which would have been a rule breakage), nor was any hate speech, nor was there any real possibility of someone starting an argument due to the nature of the thread. 

If this really was the criteria, those other posts should have been warned for the same "possibility" - and even now their age does not matter. The rules do not say your posts are exempt from the rules after a certain amount of time. I'm sure there must be one member of Limelight out there who takes the Troubles at heart and might suddenly go ballistic - but realistically that isn't going to happen. That was recognised at the time, and should be recognised now with my post.

Seriously, it's just grasping at straws.

(Jun 6, 2020, 11:49 PM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]Is there a rule stating how long the topic needs to marinate before being allowed on the forums? No. There's literally a news section where recent topics are discussed. There is absolutely no rule against a comment, in jest, about recent events.

Importantly, it wasn't me who said they don't matter in the conversation - but Judge. Yet, everyone knows Judge doesn't actually think black lives don't matter. I don't understand why I'm getting punished. What exactly would have happened? Your argument lies upon a bunch of ifs. All that really matters here is my intent, which you admitted was not to provoke. Anyone can be offended about anything, doesn't mean warnings should be handed out left, right, and centre because someone might be offended. But what would they have done? Tag Judge, make a rant on a clearly meme thread when everyone knows he means well. 

No, that was me explaining why someone making a joke about a past event is less likely to cause an argument. Talking about news topics is a completely different beast than joking about them. Sure, you didn't make the joke, you posted it. As I said in my prior post:  It's fine for that to be in a Discord post or elsewhere, but something as recent as that should stay off the forums. I'm not going to warn Judge for making a joke not on the forums, that would be ludicrous.

(Jun 6, 2020, 11:49 PM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry but your argument is just one giant slippery slope fallacy and doesn't actually fall under rule breakage. There exists no rule which prohibits discussion about recent events, nor even lighthearted comments. Nothing said was disrespectful or insulting to any member of this forum (which would have been a rule breakage), nor was any hate speech, nor was there any real possibility of someone starting an argument due to the nature of the thread. 

So, again: it wasn't discussing recent events, it was joking about them. Joking about recent murders can be a touchy topic and lead to flaming and arguments. Hence the warning for provoking flaming.

Quote:2. Do not flame or provoke flaming.

And how am I supposed to know what provokes flaming and what doesn't? I'm not a robot, anything can be a touchy subject. 

Again: how can I be provoking flaming when I didn't intend to start an argument????

By getting an extremely light warning which is effectively a slap on the wrist saying "please don't do this again." You're not a robot so you should use common sense and emotional empathy and realize people might take offense to jokes about recent tragedies.

While intent is often include in "provoke" it is not required, touchy subjects could easily accidentally cause an argument which is something we need less of on the forums right now.

So if I start a topic on pizza and say in my view pineapple doesn't belong on it, and there sparks an unintended argument on pineapple on pizza would I get perm'd

There's a bit of a difference between pineapple on pizza and saying black lives don't matter........

This being a very light warning and after consulting other staff members I am going to go ahead and deny this warning appeal.