Invalid Report against Jabba

I'm staying out of this.

 

Pacifist can't force me to do anything, my decisions are my own.

Anyway, let's break it down.

Pacifist made this comment:

Spoiler: Comment

You then made this comment:

Spoiler: Comment

It doesn't take a whole lot of thinking to see that you are referring to Pacifist, calling him an uneducated hack.

Pacifist reported it, and I rejected it initially, as you didn't directly call him out.

Pacifist then messaged me in private, and after some consideration on my end, I came to the decision your a server/forum troll, and that letting trolls have their way isn't something I'm interested in promoting to our staff.

We've been going easy on people just on our platforms to troll. That is an error we will be addressing in the future.

You were in fact targeting Pacifist with your comment. Just because you left his name out doesn't save you.

@Lordyhgm

 

Oh, and as for Pacifist's "harassment" towards you.

I see the word 'Despicable' used. It appears to me, he's talking about the politics of some political figures.

As for the him calling your traditions stupid, well, that's exactly what he did.

He called an idea stupid. Just because you subscribe to that idea doesn't mean he's harassing you.

 

That's not accurate.

Hongo do not say that the idea that blah blah blah is uneducated. He said that the person who believes that, Pacifist in this case, is an uneducated hack.

 

Aight, so I'd come to a conclusion but didn't get round to writing it out till now.

The idea of treating sweeping generalisations, particularly when about politics of all things, as harassment does not sit well with me. One exception to this being where they are used to directly target a member who has stated they hold the beliefs within recent conversation, especially when the generalisation, if stated directly, would be harassment. Hongo did this, targeting the particular belief put forwards by pacifist to demean and insult people who hold it shortly after paci expressed it. I, however, also hold issue with the particular generalisation used, since free speech laws' relations to private corporations are a lot more complex than either portrays and since neither is a lawyer they are both almost certainly uneducated about it. Hack is a tenuous insult, but within the context of saying someone is sharing misinformation serves to discredit and defame them.

Now, since the thread was a controversial one to behind with, was political, and I see thinly-veiled harassment on all sides, I think that this situation would've been better served to be dealt with more softly. A reminder to refrain from harassing others and keep things civil would have given greater chance for discussion and greater justification for punishment for continuing. Although, given Hongo's history of harassment and trolling, I can understand not wishing to allow much leeway when it comes to harassment.

To conclude, I do not see that @Jabba the Slut was incorrect to issue a warning for harassment for either Pacifist or Hongo, but would like to remind him that some cases are not simply warning or no warning point.



On a relevant tangent: I'm certainly no lawyer either, but I also live in the UK so there's less controversy about the matter. I once saw in a thread quite some time ago that this case was shared, and how it was cited to allow an advertising corporation to use an online service provider to distribute promotions en mass, it was declined and set a precedent for allowing private corporations to control what is said and expressed on their platforms.