(December 31, 2017 at 3:52 pm)Cyberman Wrote:

(December 31, 2017 at 3:38 pm)Hammy Wrote: The Staff seem to have gone to shit lol. Totally lost perspective.

---

The Prime Directive's objective is a really cool idea. Discussion *is* what AF is about. But it seems to me that it's all just code for "Delete stuff we don't like."

Note my bold. That's all fine. Just don't be upset with anyone but yourself that you're wrong.

Well if the thread in question (and similar threads) gets banned then I'm not wrong.

There's nothing to be upset over (and that's kind of the point).

Maybe the Staff should remember why AF has never been about banning threads.

Thread bans is banning us from threads, not removing the thread.

(December 31, 2017 at 4:04 pm)Shell B Wrote: Thread bans is banning us from threads, not removing the thread.

That's even worse.

I think.

So it's either shutting down threads completely when AF has never been about that... or excluding people completely and hence not even bothering to be fair about it. I think the latter is perhaps even worse.

But both possibilities are terrible and will completely change the way AF is being run if the Staff keep putting their fingers on the buttons when they don't need to.

If people aren't actually flaming each other then just leave them alone and let them participate. If the people who have less potty mouths or are less emotionally charged get excluded from threads then this is going to become a very boring place to frequent at best.

In what way is that worse? People who are disrupting the thread, which we certainly were, can’t post so other people can. I prefer less moderation, but I think it’s way worse to delete threads than it is to remove flaming parties.

(December 31, 2017 at 4:01 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(December 31, 2017 at 3:52 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Note my bold. That's all fine. Just don't be upset with anyone but yourself that you're wrong.

Well if the thread in question (and similar threads) gets banned then I'm not wrong.

Really?

As Shell pointed out, the threadhammer (my name, get used to it ) is for excluding members from threads. If and when it is wielded, how does that justify an accusation of Staff "gone to shit shit" and "deleting stuff we don't like"?

(December 31, 2017 at 3:36 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It wasn’t even guilt by association, it was literally calling people supporters of the alt-right for no reason.

Oh...Has the reason suddenly CHANGED, as to why I'm up for banning then?

People make assessments and judgments of others' positions here ALL OF THE TIME. You made one of me, as a matter of fact, when you deemed me a radicalized fringe feminist in a personal attack, and offered no rationale for it.

I gave you the courtesy of providing clear reasons as to why I consider you a sympathizer. Your unwavering and hostile assessment of feminism in the MRM thread and past threads, your post history of vehemently bashing "PC" culture, prior claims asserting that white men are are "under attack", and your position that people should be allowed to openly discriminate against others in hiring practices, etc. if they wish to do so, is how I came to that conclusion.

I was not flaming you, I was giving my honest assessment, based on your positions and WORDS. And you didn't like it.

So if that's the real reason you wish to see me banned, then fine. Just say so.
Why play games?

(December 31, 2017 at 4:07 pm)Shell B Wrote: In what way is that worse? People who are disrupting the thread, which we certainly were, can’t post so other people can. I prefer less moderation, but I think it’s way worse to delete threads than it is to remove flaming parties.

It's worse because at least banning the thread for everyone is less exclusionary.

The people who end up insulting each other in an emotionally charged thread are going to be the ones who actually care about the topic the most, hence why they are getting emotionally charged about it. We're going to make every thread boring as fuck if we kick people out of threads whenever they get emotionally charged. We'll be left only with the people who aren't even that invested in the goddamn topic.

The fact that insults are irrelevant is exactly why they shouldn't be taken so seriously. It's only worth taking seriously if people are actually flaming. That's why the no flaming rule is a no flaming rule and not a "no insult" rule.

If this is the direction AF is going then we'd be better off moving half the sub-forums to R'lyeh because that will be the only part of the forum left that isn't a Safe Space and at least half of AF involves emotionally charged topics.

They were ad hominem attacks of the lowest caliber, Hammy. Regardless of how passionate any one member was, how does that advance the discussion?