| Forum Index > TL Community |
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil. NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50789 Posts
On March 29 2016 22:01 opisska wrote: This is not really true on TL, there are numerous viewpoints that are banned no matter the presentation. outside of religion, rape, anti-LGBT sentiments? I'd like to see examples of them. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 29 2016 22:01 opisska wrote: This is not really true on TL, there are numerous viewpoints that are banned no matter the presentation. Yeah, they exist, but I'd say that kind of bans make up only a tiny fraction of all the bans though. And I'd say that he vast majority of the people complaining about getting banned for their opinion were actually not. Anyway, should we entertain ourselves by listing the forbidden opinions maybe?  What comes up from the top of my head:- pedophilia - hacking - match fixing accusations I'm sure there are more though. | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
On March 29 2016 22:25 BLinD-RawR wrote: outside of religion, rape, anti-LGBT sentiments? I'd like to see examples of them. calling Zerg OP in 2012 when in fact Zerg was OP as hell bur TBF it kind of crossed roads with the entire no balance whine thing, icky sticky | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On March 29 2016 22:25 BLinD-RawR wrote: outside of religion, rape, anti-LGBT sentiments? I'd like to see examples of them. I don't follow your line of logic: you pick the most likely areas when examples exist, forbid them and ask for other examples. How is that a fair way of arguing? Anyway, we could design a lot of shit with the goal to be offending, but that would not be very interesting. Thus I tried to think about opinions that I don't find outright absurd which would probably sooner or later lead to a ban on TL, or which I have observed to do so in the past. Many of them fall within "religion, rape, anti-LGBT", but again, I don't see why those topics should be excluded. The first couple are really low-hanging fruit and based on real ban examples: - Religion is harmful to the society and should be actively fought. - Trans-sexual athletes have an unfair advantage in women-only competitions. - If intercourse happens in conditions of unclear consent, it's not any more the fault of the male than it is of the female, unless physical violence was used and the fact that males are generally physically stronger became relevant. But there are many more that I can imagine would meet a similar faith. Maybe they wouldn't, who knows. Some random ideas: - People's right to have children should be regulated to conserve humanity's resources. - Racial or ethnic profiling is an efficient way to prevent crime or other unwanted phenomena. - A vast majority of fat people is fat on their own fault and such be treated as such. - Sex between consenting adult relatives should be legal. | ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 29 2016 22:49 opisska wrote: I honestly don't recall if there has been a reasonable attempt to discuss pedophilia on TL, so I don't know if the opinion "pedophiles aren't bad people unless they really harm children and they need to be helped, not ostracized" would actually lead to a ban and I really hope it wouldn't, because stigmatizing pedophilia is among the most harmful things "correctness warriors" repeatedly do. I don't follow your line of logic: you pick the most likely areas when examples exist, forbid them and ask for other examples. How is that a fair way of arguing? Anyway, we could design a lot of shit with the goal to be offending, but that would not be very interesting. Thus I tried to think about opinions that I don't find outright absurd which would probably sooner or later lead to a ban on TL, or which I have observed to do so in the past. Many of them fall within "religion, rape, anti-LGBT", but again, I don't see why those topics should be excluded. The first couple are really low-hanging fruit and based on real ban examples: - Religion is harmful to the society and should be actively fought. - Trans-sexual athletes have an unfair advantage in women-only competitions. - If intercourse happens in conditions of unclear consent, it's not any more the fault of the male than it is of the female, unless physical violence was used and the fact that males are generally physically stronger became relevant. But there are many more that I can imagine would meet a similar faith. Maybe they wouldn't, who knows. Some random ideas: - People's right to have children should be regulated to conserve humanity's resources. - Racial or ethnic profiling is an efficient way to prevent crime or other unwanted phenomena. - A vast majority of fat people is fat on their own fault and such be treated as such. - Sex between consenting adult relatives should be legal. I didn't know of the bans you're talking about, and I'm kinda doubtful of them. Not of the fact that they were banned when talking about subjects like that, you have my trust on that, but I think they were banned mostly because of the way they expressed their opinion. I mean these days TL is a place where you can say that Islam is a stupid religion and that Muslim people are stupid, and still get only a warning. | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37071 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On March 29 2016 23:38 Seeker wrote: Getting off topic guys... >< Says the mod on the page where we have caused the most occurences of the word "ban" in the last couple of hundred pages ... | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 29 2016 23:38 Seeker wrote: Getting off topic guys... >< Aren't we talking about bans? d: | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On March 29 2016 22:36 Ej_ wrote: calling Zerg OP in 2012 when in fact Zerg was OP as hell bur TBF it kind of crossed roads with the entire no balance whine thing, icky sticky Same thing happened with terran during early WoL. I could see why they make LR threads free from balance whining. You don't want balance discussion to overwhelm the discussion about the games being played. I was visiting civfanatics during Civ 5's disastrous launch. Game had issues but some of us were still trying to enjoy the game and discuss it at the time. The mods there were stricter in moderating for language but didn't moderate for off-topic posts at all. They allowed all the whiners to just take over the forum and complain about all the changes the devs made. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On March 29 2016 22:36 Ej_ wrote: calling Zerg OP in 2012 when in fact Zerg was OP as hell bur TBF it kind of crossed roads with the entire no balance whine thing, icky sticky You still could, you just couldn't phrase it that way. In general you can get away with almost any message if phrased carefully enough, and not completely off-topic. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50789 Posts
On March 29 2016 22:49 opisska wrote: I honestly don't recall if there has been a reasonable attempt to discuss pedophilia on TL, so I don't know if the opinion "pedophiles aren't bad people unless they really harm children and they need to be helped, not ostracized" would actually lead to a ban and I really hope it wouldn't, because stigmatizing pedophilia is among the most harmful things "correctness warriors" repeatedly do. I don't follow your line of logic: you pick the most likely areas when examples exist, forbid them and ask for other examples. How is that a fair way of arguing? Anyway, we could design a lot of shit with the goal to be offending, but that would not be very interesting. Thus I tried to think about opinions that I don't find outright absurd which would probably sooner or later lead to a ban on TL, or which I have observed to do so in the past. Many of them fall within "religion, rape, anti-LGBT", but again, I don't see why those topics should be excluded. The first couple are really low-hanging fruit and based on real ban examples: - Religion is harmful to the society and should be actively fought. - Trans-sexual athletes have an unfair advantage in women-only competitions. - If intercourse happens in conditions of unclear consent, it's not any more the fault of the male than it is of the female, unless physical violence was used and the fact that males are generally physically stronger became relevant. But there are many more that I can imagine would meet a similar faith. Maybe they wouldn't, who knows. Some random ideas: - People's right to have children should be regulated to conserve humanity's resources. - Racial or ethnic profiling is an efficient way to prevent crime or other unwanted phenomena. - A vast majority of fat people is fat on their own fault and such be treated as such. - Sex between consenting adult relatives should be legal. First off, I'm not forbidding anything so no need to get overly argumentative about it, I just said that these are the things that are most likely to net a ban unless a ton of effort is put into the post(which never happens so I might as well say they always net a ban.) The examples of "religion is harmful to society and should be actively fought", well heres the thing, being anti-religious is the same as religious zeal in a lot of ways, people have their beliefs and a lot of them are born into it or adopt them, it gives them strength and comfort in life, people have done bad in the name of religion there's no denying that, but people have also done good, abstained or even absolved themselves through religion or their beliefs, so arguing against religion is the same as bringing up religion, someone is going to get hurt because of it. TL just cuts it off because its easier because no matter how good or thoughtful a post about it can be someone else isn't going to change his opinion on the matter. On transsexuals, that seems like a fact, no way that netted a ban, you may have had your gender changed to a woman but your body up until then did develop as a man, however if your body is still within the average physical condition I guess the argument could be bogus, so cite me the said ban please. On rape,unclear consent is less than full consent, it does count as rape, on whose part comes down to physical evidence simply blaming one person or the other please do remember that rape is a crime and should be treated as such meaning that facts of the case in question takes precedence. but generally when I talk about rape I mean the shit like tdot and Shauni blogs, pure misogynistic stuff. on the rest, well if you really want to discuss this I don't mind taking it to PMs. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18262 Posts
On March 29 2016 22:36 Ej_ wrote: calling Zerg OP in 2012 when in fact Zerg was OP as hell bur TBF it kind of crossed roads with the entire no balance whine thing, icky sticky Reported for balance wining  | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 29 2016 21:57 Cascade wrote: people keep saying that they got banned for opinion, they got banned because they bashed liquid, k-pop, whatever. The fact is that you can argue for any opinion (almost, things like hacking and pedophilia are banned on sight I think) and be safe from bans and warnings as long as you deliver it a reasonable way. It's like this safety-switch to protect your ego: "I'm not a bad poster, the problem is that they are not open to my opinion. Yeah, they are narrow-minded, I'm such a great open-minded guy!" While in practice chances are that you were just obnoxious or shit posted in general. + Show Spoiler + (not necessarily applying to this case, I'm talking in general.) I was just joking about k-pop, it was 8 years ago, I don't even remember the real reasons, just that it had something to do with japan, some k-pop and the football mondial of 2008. Football can transform anyone to a shit poster. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On March 30 2016 03:21 WhiteDog wrote: I was just joking about k-pop, it was 8 years ago, I don't even remember the real reasons, just that it had something to do with japan, some k-pop and the football mondial of 2008. Football can transform anyone to a shit poster. Maybe the mod agreed with you on k-pop but just supported a different team? | ||
|
Jealous
10313 Posts
On March 29 2016 23:38 Seeker wrote: Getting off topic guys... >< Perhaps I am not understanding, but why is it not okay to discuss bans and the reasons for banning in a silly blog such as this? If people want to complain, they can go to Website Feedback, and they know this because of the header at the top. But if they want to discuss generalities with other users, what better thread is there? I see you making a point of pushing people back on topic very frequently here, but I don't see a logical reason for it. Not to say that you are necessarily wrong, but if you could perhaps explain why this should not be acceptable here? | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37071 Posts
On March 30 2016 06:23 Jealous wrote: Perhaps I am not understanding, but why is it not okay to discuss bans and the reasons for banning in a silly blog such as this? If people want to complain, they can go to Website Feedback, and they know this because of the header at the top. But if they want to discuss generalities with other users, what better thread is there? I see you making a point of pushing people back on topic very frequently here, but I don't see a logical reason for it. Not to say that you are necessarily wrong, but if you could perhaps explain why this should not be acceptable here? Discussing about bans is fine. Just don't turn this thread into a General Discussion thread  | ||
|
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
On March 29 2016 23:56 LegalLord wrote: Ad robots just aren't interesting to talk about, unless they are shamas. Man i miss shamas | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
IPSL
WolFix vs nOmaD
dxtr13 vs Razz
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
