* *
 
1 Guest, 0 Users
bulletWelcome, Guest. Please login or register.
bulletApril 28, 2017, 03:00:16 AM

Login with username, password and session length

recent postsRecent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Chat / FA and the SJW Cancer
« Last post by Maulkin on March 30, 2017, 04:27:46 PM »
I posted the following Journal to FA, entitled "FA and the SJW Cancer". It was recently removed for allegedly violating CoC 1.8 - ie, it was supposedly 'hateful or malicious speech' against one of the protected groups;

Quote
To the conservative and libertarians on the forum reading this, welcome! I hope this will be informative, and confirm your current suspicions about the FA administration and/or moderator teams, as well as motivate you to be more vocal and vigilant in regards to their abuses.

To the SJWs and Regressives reading this, hello Nazis! See, this is what we call 'hyperbole' and 'irony', and it's part of humor – I'm exaggerating for comedic effect, but there's some truth to it. Hopefully you'll stop being gigantic pussies long enough to take a joke as well as you take feral horse cocks.

Now, let's examine the facts of this particular shit show. A month or two ago I ran into a user I didn't know, and commented on their page (more on this in another journal) – something innocuous, not hostile in the least. The response I got was a snide 'Thanks for reminding me to ban you'. So, thinking I perhaps knew him on another account, I checked his profile to see if he had any other accounts I knew of. He didn't have any I knew, but he did have another account. I went to that account, shouted something along the lines of “Hey douche, you forgot to block me here too, though I dunno why you would in the first place tbh”.

In normal big-boy land, where the rules aren't made for emotionally unstable little cunts who think words can really physically hurt, this would be the end of it; after all, people would be expected to enforce their own blocks, and if they don't then they shouldn't complain about it. Not so on FA! Apparently, we're expected to automatically know that this clause under 1.6 of the AUP - “evading any block a user has put into place, such as using an alternate account or commenting at the user,” - doesn't mean what you'd generally expect it to mean, but every single possible interpretation imaginable. That is, it isn't just using one of your own alternate accounts to talk to the same person after they've blocked you; it's also contorted to mean that using your own account to talk to an account that hasn't actually blocked you yet is considered 'evading a block'. Pretty retarded, right?

Well, this was news to me – and I expect it would be news to anyone who isn't fucking insane. I debated this with the mods in question, but they wouldn't budge; so, continuing on from that, I went on with the assumption that this is how FA works until further notice.

And, golly gee, would you look at that; someone else did exactly that to me! That is, someone I had blocked went to my other account and posted a shout on it, as well as using an alternate account of theirs to reply to one of my comments. Both of these actions are CLEARLY against the rules, right?

Except, well... FA hasn't done jack shit about it yet. See, they responded within a day or two when it came to punishing me for my shout; but it's been at least a month since I made those other trouble tickets, and nothing has come of it. One ticket is the exact same situation as what got me a strike *immediately*, but when a progressive does it to me? Dead silence.

Pretty shitty, right? It's damn disgusting when the moderator team or administration refuses to apply the rules equally; even more shitty, however, is to enforce the rules and refuse to explain exactly why it was applied.

See, more recently I posted a journal entitled “The FA Rules on Gender and Tags”, poking fun at the FA administration for their stance on gender in the browse/search system, and having a laugh at the SJWs and Tumblrettes and their attitudes on gender in the process. Now, I've checked with several people, including an ardent tranny progressive who doesn't agree politically with me on anything, and they all said that my journal was exactly what I stated above; it mocked people who made certain choices, but not trannies in general. If you don't believe me, you can look up the title of the journal in Google and probably find something; I posted it in Pastebin and 4chan because of the shenanigans FA is pulling.

So, I made another trouble-ticket. I asked them to specifically point out exactly where it makes fun of trans people, and not just the Tumblrette/SJWs who are responsible for the situation I talked about in the journal. Now, again, I was given a strike quite quickly; I posted it, went to bed, and woke up to find it removed with the claim that I had violated AUP 1.8 (Malicious Speech). Now, with how quickly they had taken it down, surely they had some solid reason, right? Something they could immediately point to and justify their takedown?

Well, apparently not; I've asked for a justification for their takedown, and they don't even have the decency to give me that. Most likely because they actually can't; there was, again, nothing disparaging of any of those protective groups, but rather of the SJW attitudes and behaviors that led to the issue in the journal. Shoot, they didn't even cite what specifically in the journal that was specifically hateful or disparaging towards any of the protected classes.

So, yes; the FA administration and/or staff are biased against conservatives and libertarians; they have given in to the Regressive Left and the SJWs. Do not expect a fair hearing; they will selectively enforce the rules, drag their feet, and do everything in their power to silence conservative and libertarian thought while promoting the SJW's retarded agenda.

I can't say I'm surprised, and I fully expect to be eventually banned as they go through each and every word of every one of my posts, looking for anything that can possibly be construed as 'Hate Speech' and giving me strikes for it.
2
General Chat / Re: Anyone here?
« Last post by Maulkin on March 19, 2017, 03:44:00 PM »
I do not understand your comment?

But family friendly? I think it is that here in the forums.

Still, I think this is doing well and i like the forum.

My 'old standby' was constantly making diaperfur/gay references and jokes.
3
General Chat / Re: Anyone here?
« Last post by American Otter on March 19, 2017, 02:38:21 PM »
I do not understand your comment?

But family friendly? I think it is that here in the forums.

Still, I think this is doing well and i like the forum.
4
General Chat / Re: Anyone here?
« Last post by Maulkin on March 19, 2017, 11:45:14 AM »
I could always go back to my old standbys, but I hear this place is a bit more family-friendly than the RH forum =p
5
General Chat / Re: Anyone here?
« Last post by American Otter on March 18, 2017, 10:14:57 PM »
I am here... just not sure what to talk to or post at.
6
General Chat / Anyone here?
« Last post by Maulkin on March 16, 2017, 09:11:09 AM »
I haven't seen anyone in a while; is everyone alright???
7
Politics and Debate / Furaffinity SJW autism
« Last post by Maulkin on February 28, 2017, 07:39:53 AM »
So, FA appears to be run by SJW's now. I posted a journal on FA about 1.5 weeks ago, criticizing FA's policy on gender and tagging. You can find the contents here;

http://pastebin.com/fGKqnLzA

This was deleted, with FA citing hate-speech, and I was given a strike on that. I filed an Administrative Action trouble-ticket, basically asking exactly what the problem was with it; the moderator in question cited my use of the word 'Retarded', 'Autism', and 'Electro-Shock therapy', and something about 'a person's identity' - which is *retarded*, since the first two were clearly referring to ideas and not people, while the Electro-Shock therapy reference was also clearly a joke and not seriously maligning or disparaging anyone. I further asked for clarification, as they weren't explaining HOW at least the first two were disparaging towards any group, but the mod did not respond with anything meaningful. You can see the full content here:

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/8097285/

So, I opened up ANOTHER trouble ticket, disputing THAT administrative action. Here's a transcript:

The color Blue is for my responses, Red[/quote] is for his.




02/28/17 07:02 am
One of my journals was removed for allegedly violating the following rule:

CoC 1.8 Do not engage in malicious speech.
This includes bigotry and disparaging remarks or content about anyone's race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, etc. This does not apply to fictional works.

Here is the content of said journal, if it is for some reason inaccessible: http://pastebin.com/fGKqnLzA

And here is a copy of the ticket logs, if you cannot read it (the colored parts indicate the exchange): http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/8097285/


The reasons cited were as follows;
The use of the word "Retarded"
The use of the word "Autism"
The use of the phrase "Electro-shock therapy".

I asked repeatedly for evidence of this; namely, I wanted them to name WHAT group was being maligned or disparaged, and HOW I was maligning or disparaging them. No group was specifically mentioned, however; the moderator in question refused to answer exactly who I was supposedly maligning, and how - they only mentioned something about 'identity', and they didn't even state how the use of those words in those contexts were disparaging to any particular identity. In any court of law, this would be a gross violation of 'Habeas Corpus', akin to condemning someone for murder without producing a cause of death or even the murdered victim; in the same way, the moderator did not show the group I allegedly maligned/disparaged, let alone the means by which I allegedly did so. Granted, Furaffinity is not a court of law, but the same principles apply; if a rule is broken, the accuser must show exactly how those rules were broken. The moderator clearly failed to do that, and on that grounds the strike and removal are invalid.

But, let's assume we're talking about transgender people - that's the closest I can figure from his use of the word 'identity'. So, let's review the contexts of the allegedly 'malignant' or 'disparaging' comments;

In the case of "Retarded", I was referring to Furaffinity's policy on gender and tags - specifically, rather than using anything meaningful like 'sex' in categorization, they used the whimsical and useless classification of 'gender' - something that has no grounding in reality and is entirely based in the mind of the character/author, and has nothing to do with what people actually look for when they select by category what they want to see. This statement does not mock anyone; it mocks ideas and policies. Fully supporting FA's policies in this regard is not a requisite to be transgender, and indeed has nothing to do with being transgender; it is, in short, ridiculous to claim that the use of this word is 'disparaging or malignant' towards transgender people.

The same applies to 'Autism'; again, it's calling Furaffinity's policy autistic, and is by no means disparaging or maligning transgender people. And, again - thinking the policy is autistic is not a requisite to being transsexual, those two things are unrelated. It's like accusing someone of racism against black people because they hate rap; you don't have to be black to like rap, and plenty of black people dislike rap.

As for the 'Electro-Shock therapy' comment, that is what we call a *joke*. No one reading that with even a shred of honesty would think I'm advocating that people with Gender Dysphoria should go get electro-shock therapy. Shoot, even if one did read it completely literally and assert that I was advocating for electro-shock therapy, nothing in my statement indicated it should be administered involuntarily; even if taken absolutely literally and humorlessly (ie, dishonestly), nothing about that statement indicates violent or ill will! In any case, it was not disparaging or malignant; it was a joke, and anyone reading it honestly would come to that conclusion. Are those jokes, therefore, against the rules? I should hope not; this would be an awfully boring place if humor were treated literally.

With all this in mind, I would like to have the strike removed from my profile, and for permission to re-post my journal as it originally was.





02/28/17 09:51 am
I would like to draw your attention to Section 1.5 of our Code of Conduct:

Do not be disrespectful to site staff or abuse the trouble ticket system.
Our staff is currently made up of volunteers who perform duties that are difficult and time consuming. Please refrain from needless harassment, insults, and arguing as it interferes with the ability for staff to perform their duties. Furthermore, please refrain from contacting staff via notes, shouts, comments or offsite communication about FA-related issues and instead use the Trouble Ticket system. Do not misrepresent site policies or any actions staff have made.

Trouble ticket abuse includes opening multiple tickets for the same issue and re-opening tickets after a ruling was made by an Administrator after escalation. Do not encourage others to open Trouble Tickets en masse - one ticket is sufficient.

You already received a ruling on a dispute of this removal, and that ruling stands: You may repost the journal IF you eliminate the problem sections.
Continuing to argue with this administrative decision may result in further action being taken against your account.

[system]: Closing the ticket.





02/28/17 10:14 am
I did not disrespect the site staff; I disagreed with them.

I did not abuse the trouble ticket system; I was accused of something, and the mod in question could not provide basic Habeas Corupus and show where and how I violated the rules when I opened a trouble ticket disputing administrative action. I made another trouble ticket when that occurred, disputing the administrative action there, and now it's STILL being rebuffed.

Please, I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt; just state plainly and clearly exactly WHAT group I supposedly disparaged/maligned, and exactly HOW my post disparaged/maligned them. If it's so cut-and-dried, you should be able to do that.

[system]: User reopened the ticket.




Fortunately this is a different mod; I hope they're more reasonable than the other. For reference, the first mod was Chase (the one that refused to give any real justification for the ticket) and the now-open ticket was with quoting_mungo; we'll see how this goes.

In the meantime, I do have some... well, let's call it recourse. I'll see how the moderators respond. If they can pull their collective heads out of their asses and realize I was disparaging *ideas* rather than *protected classes of people*, I'll be able to drop it.
8
General Chat / Re: Fireworks time!
« Last post by Maulkin on February 21, 2017, 05:37:59 PM »
Now, if the moles left over from Obummer's administration could be dislodged then that would go a great way towards insuring this administration has a chance at success.


Hrmmm... Nah. I think it'd be better for the moles to remain, and just identified; that way Trump can 'leak' ridiculous things, then the media blows up about it, and then it turns out they were entirely untrue.
9
Politics and Debate / Re: One in Fourteen Catholic Priests in Australia
« Last post by Maulkin on February 21, 2017, 05:35:12 PM »
Part of the problem here is that the Church, unfortunately, did have a habit (and a bad one) of covering up the abuse that was reported and quietly shifted the offenders to monasteries or other places where they could do no harm.  Another part of the problem is that there is this desire to take (generally by the left and particularly the virulently anti Christian elements) any accusation and twist it into guilt regardless of outcome.

While the Church does have it's problems, statistically, more teachers are convicted of pedophilia than clergy.  But stories like this get the attention since the Catholic Priest Molestation stories really blew up back around 2003 and 2004.

It's sad, but it's the way the ball bounces.  We live in an era where any touching by an adult on a child is widely 'reported' by the media as sexual abuse.  When I see these claims, I tend to ignore them.

I'm sure that's the case, yes; however, I would like to see actual evidence to support it. Right now, all I have is the news itself, and I was hoping someone else heard something.
10
General Chat / Re: Fireworks time!
« Last post by Cryshalsing on February 21, 2017, 02:52:57 AM »
Now, if the moles left over from Obummer's administration could be dislodged then that would go a great way towards insuring this administration has a chance at success.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10