SincerelyFranny's Feed

I still want to be referred to as "the hat"

datagod, nads, Snowflake, RaGe, Marcade liked this post

I can't believe it has to come to this either. Unfortunately, it seems at times people are going after one another when they don't agree, especially in disputes.

SincerelyFranny thanked this post

Gosh, I hope when I called Finton "Fish-Man" on one of his subs, it wasn't taken as offensive-we are RL buds, and I was only having fun with his legendary fishing skills...

:(

I don't think that's what is being referred to(somehow, I am oblivious, and am fine staying that way), but I don't want to get in trouble for taking a friendly poke at a bud either, it's kinda something I like to do...

thegamer1185, Desidious, Marcade liked this post

What if I claim not to be an adult? Does the ban rule still apply? Because it says I have to claim to be an adult for the rule to apply :) At any rate, why not just give those people a ban right now who are doing it, they will get the hint, and let us adults/non adults who are actually just having fun with each not worry about being banned for some good ol' fashioned barbs at someone's expense.

And I am offended by your comments @Rogerpoco . I thought @Desidious was "Man-Bear-Fish" not "Fish-Man"?! Or was it "Bear-Fish-Man"?!

Rogerpoco thanked this post

Snowflake, Rogerpoco, Desidious, Marcade liked this post

Originally Posted by thegamer1185

What if I claim not to be an adult? Does the ban rule still apply? Because it says I have to claim to be an adult for the rule to apply :) At any rate, why not just give those people a ban right now who are doing it, they will get the hint, and let us adults/non adults who are actually just having fun with each not worry about being banned for some good ol' fashioned barbs at someone's expense.

And I am offended by your comments @Rogerpoco . I thought @Desidious was "Man-Bear-Fish" not "Fish-Man"?! Or was it "Bear-Fish-Man"?!

I can tell when people are joking. No worries there.
It's the childish name that are spewed with the intent to offend or provoke.

This is just going out as the final and public warning.

Rogerpoco thanked this post

Rogerpoco liked this post

Speaking of offensive, TG has some naughty advertising showing up....and I can promise you my search browser/google searches/cookies are wiped clean because my wife uses it as a work computer and has some high profile content that gets deleted for protection.

The advertisement is "Toomics" whatever that is.

datagod liked this post

Names made in jest are totally okay I assume. I mean, I know the difference and I talk more trash to my best friend in real life than anyone I talk to here.

SincerelyFranny liked this post

I support this provided that honest critique of a submitter's submission methods and submission-related argumentation would not be considered an offense worthy of banning. I know for a fact that such truth in criticism directly related to a submitter's fallcious arguments in favor of their sub-par evidence and specious, assumptive (presumptive?) claims as to the motives behind my feedback, has been met many times by at least one other pretentious member as tantamount to "immaturity", even going to far as to mistake what I was identifying as "garbage", and then whined and moaned based exclusively on their own inept failure to comprehend what was said. Indeed, it appears that such members(s) seem to only chime in on controversial submissions when they just want to tell everyone else to effectively shut up. As far as I was aware, the entire point of TGSAP is to NOT shut up, and quite frankly, I can see where this could potentially lead to people like that taking their lack of critical thinking and comprehension to the administration and beg for the ban hammer on the "offender" when they could have simply otherwise avoided participating in the discussion, especially when they bring absolutely nothing productive whatsoever to the discussion. Other than that concern, I'm all for it.

Snowflake, datagod liked this post

Originally Posted by Desidious

Names made in jest are totally okay I assume. I mean, I know the difference and I talk more trash to my best friend in real life than anyone I talk to here.

Friendly banter is fine....I know the community pretty well enough to know who likes who and who doesn't.  It's pretty obvious who is saying things to be malicious.

Desidious thanked this post

Originally Posted by Garrett Holland

I support this provided that honest critique of a submitter's submission methods and submission-related argumentation would not be considered an offense worthy of banning. I know for a fact that such truth in criticism directly related to a submitter's fallcious arguments in favor of their sub-par evidence and specious, assumptive (presumptive?) claims as to the motives behind my feedback, has been met many times by at least one other pretentious member as tantamount to "immaturity", even going to far as to mistake what I was identifying as "garbage", and then whined and moaned based exclusively on their own misunderstanding of what was said. Indeed, it appears that such members(s) seem to only chime in on controversial submissions when they just want to tell everyone else to effectively shut up. As far as I was aware, the entire point of TGSAP is to NOT shut up, and quite frankly, I can see where this could potentially lead to people like that taking their lack of critical thinking and comprehension to the administration and beg for the ban hammer on the "offender" when they could have simply otherwise avoided participating in the discussion, especially when they bring absolutely nothing productive whatsoever to the discussion. Other than that concern, I'm all for it.

I'll make things easier on franny as she doesnt wanna demonize anyone. I and one other member were using outright name calling. not perceived offenses ( imean yes there was that too) but literal use of pronouns (not sure if thats the right word) for each other that were not the real name

offense has all sorts of grey area when it is and isnt needed espeically based on sensitivies/oversensitiviites of individuals involved. name calling is a lot more cut and dry. I will be following the rule.

Garrett Holland thanked this post

I must have (thankfully?) missed that. LoL!

Originally Posted by Snowflake

Originally Posted by Garrett Holland

I support this provided that honest critique of a submitter's submission methods and submission-related argumentation would not be considered an offense worthy of banning. I know for a fact that such truth in criticism directly related to a submitter's fallcious arguments in favor of their sub-par evidence and specious, assumptive (presumptive?) claims as to the motives behind my feedback, has been met many times by at least one other pretentious member as tantamount to "immaturity", even going to far as to mistake what I was identifying as "garbage", and then whined and moaned based exclusively on their own misunderstanding of what was said. Indeed, it appears that such members(s) seem to only chime in on controversial submissions when they just want to tell everyone else to effectively shut up. As far as I was aware, the entire point of TGSAP is to NOT shut up, and quite frankly, I can see where this could potentially lead to people like that taking their lack of critical thinking and comprehension to the administration and beg for the ban hammer on the "offender" when they could have simply otherwise avoided participating in the discussion, especially when they bring absolutely nothing productive whatsoever to the discussion. Other than that concern, I'm all for it.

I'll make things easier on franny as she doesnt wanna demonize anyone. I and one other member were using outright name calling. not perceived offenses ( imean yes there was that too) but literal use of pronouns (not sure if thats the right word) for each other that were not the real nameoffense has all sorts of grey area when it is and isnt needed espeically based on sensitivies/oversensitiviites of individuals involved. name calling is a lot more cut and dry. I will be following the rule.

It's not just you, so no need to take all the blame.

Snowflake thanked this post

Originally Posted by Garrett Holland

I support this provided that honest critique of a submitter's submission methods and submission-related argumentation would not be considered an offense worthy of banning. I know for a fact that such truth in criticism directly related to a submitter's fallcious arguments in favor of their sub-par evidence and specious, assumptive (presumptive?) claims as to the motives behind my feedback, has been met many times by at least one other pretentious member as tantamount to "immaturity", even going to far as to mistake what I was identifying as "garbage", and then whined and moaned based exclusively on their own misunderstanding of what was said. Indeed, it appears that such members(s) seem to only chime in on controversial submissions when they just want to tell everyone else to effectively shut up. As far as I was aware, the entire point of TGSAP is to NOT shut up, and quite frankly, I can see where this could potentially lead to people like that taking their lack of critical thinking and comprehension to the administration and beg for the ban hammer on the "offender" when they could have simply otherwise avoided participating in the discussion, especially when they bring absolutely nothing productive whatsoever to the discussion. Other than that concern, I'm all for it.

I think I have read you mentioning about these issues before. I don't think people should take critique of submissions personally; I like to believe we are all here to help each other and make sure it's a level playing ground for every submitter. I don't think there's any member (current) that would be glad about someone else's submission not being accepted.

Garrett Holland thanked this post

datagod liked this post

I'm clearing these names that i refer to @kernzyp as:

wanksta

wank-a-roo

wanksta-dee-doo-dah

etc. lol

No malicious intent. He likes those names!

Oh, and @Marcade :

Mr. Fancy Pants.

Little Boy Blue.

Stupid Goatee Guy. (lol)

Oh oh, and @Max :

Mr. Fancy Sweater. (it's very fancy!)

That's about it, off the top of my head..

carry on!

kernzyp thanked this post

Marcade, ILLSeaBass, Snowflake, kernzyp liked this post

Originally Posted by RaGe

I'm clearing these names that i refer to

@Marcade :

Mr. Fancy Pants.

Little Boy Blue.

Stupid Goatee Guy. (lol)

carry on!

You forgot "OUTCAST" !!!

.I, Marcade own all the TrademarC's on these terms and phrases below...

RaGe AKA... Muscle boy, Fugly @ss, Gaming "resume" a joke, and a "Traitor" (Occasionally wears a Red Sox hat)

"ALL-RIGHTs" reserved!

RaGe liked this post

Originally Posted by sdwyer138

I still want to be referred to as "the hat"

You always be "the hat" in my heart.

sdwyer138 liked this post

Okay I'm going to speak up a bit here because I know a few think this but won't speak up.

There are a ton of gray areas here with how insults can be taken and I believe (and maybe others would say it) it leads to biased decisions.

Look, I don't want to assume anything, I just want there to not be any gray areas. Either gives the same punishment out for all negative comments regardless of the situation or definite the ruling a bit better to avoid biased agenda assumptions. This is a ZERO TOLERANCE policy so I need to be defined a bit better than it is now.

Thanks for listening, I know you always do Franny.

datagod thanked this post

datagod, Marcade liked this post

Originally Posted by Desidious

Okay I'm going to speak up a bit here because I know a few think this but won't speak up.

There are a ton of gray areas here with how insults can be taken and I believe (and maybe others would say it) it leads to biased decisions.

Look, I don't want to assume anything, I just want there to not be any gray areas. Either gives the same punishment out for all negative comments regardless of the situation or definite the ruling a bit better to avoid biased agenda assumptions. This is a ZERO TOLERANCE policy so I need to be defined a bit better than it is now.

Thanks for listening, I know you always do Franny.

This post was specifically about childish name-calling with malicious intent.
It's not necessarily a zero-tolerance policy against negativity, because people can't be expected to be positive 24/7. I want people to be able to express themselves freely, but without tearing others down. You can debate and heated discussions without devolving into name-calling. I understand that some people have thicker skin than other, but it's just not worth the trouble to all these things anymore.

Some examples include manipulation of user's names in a negative manner and referring to community members as 'muppets'. It's just unnecessary and immature.

Desidious thanked this post

Desidious liked this post

this is why i had no problem brinign up my involvement.

"you just lied" "you are a liar" are we really gonna call the second "name calling" i mean it can be but theres grey area when its acceptable
compare that to "well hello mr.liar".
This new rule happened in respond to true outright name calling, truly using a name for someone that wasnt their own. that has no grey area at all. its very easy to see when a name is being used thats not a real name, and theres never a time such a thing is needed (but there are times its wanted).
i can and will live this with this rule
now if "you are a liar" was outlawed because some people view it as name calling that would be an issue since you have to be able to calll out issues.

Garrett Holland, Desidious liked this post

It's always a good idea to stop offending people. In this new era of Earth, we are being wrapped up in a new layer of cotton wool every year. We are all Michelin "persons", now. I don't like the fact that HE-MAN is now PERSON-PERSON, because it "offended" someone, somewhere...
This helps prove a phrase we should all know: "Offence is derived in the mind of the listener, not from the mouth of the speaker".
Rage can call me what the hell he wants. I laugh, every time. It's bonding. However, if a stranger or someone else called me them, I may be offended, as there's no bond. So, I decided it was not offensive, then OFFENSIVE. Same phrases have polar opposite effects.
This cannot be properly policed. Bad language can.

So, calling people childish names gets you banned, but narcissistic gang stalking and suggestions of suicide are ok?
I think the sledge hammer missed all those nuts...

#RaGe you complete and utter tosspot.
x

RaGe thanked this post

RaGe, Marcade liked this post