Curious to see how this develops, what schisms exist within the mods?
@CCPcel and @Infinity interested in your commentary
News CCPcel in Open Rebellion against Infinity - does CCP plan to oust ∞ from power?
Curious to see how this develops, what schisms exist within the mods?
@CCPcel and @Infinity interested in your commentary
Incels.is member don't argue about lolis you will never get challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
I don't understand the 2nd half of your sentence
are you guys still fighting over that rule?
H
Incels
Some hold the view that the letter of the rule should match the application.
IE if it's going to be enforced more broadly (maybe somewhere in between the March 3rd and March 6th versions?) the writing could reflect that.
Basically here's how it works in terms of Tanner stages, keeping in mind that Tanner 1 is pre-pubescent and Tanner 5 is adult (Tanner 2-4 are the mid-pubescent stages)
March 3rd banned all minors, which means only Tanner 5 (adult) was permitted (Tanners 1-4 were banned)
March 6th only banned Tanner 1 (prepubescent) meaning Tanners 2-4 were allowed.
I expect the scope isn't considered broad enough now, so my suggestion (if the mods want to apply this policy anyway, be honest about it?) would be be to add something like "do not sexualize early-pubescent (Tanner 2+3) minors" meaning that the only mid-pubescent minors we would be permitted to sexualize would be Tanner 4 (near-adult).
That or just avoid the LARP of tolerating pubescent/adolescent sexualization (if you won't actually do it) and go back to the March 3rd phrasing of Tanner-5-Only if that's what is actually being practically enforced in contradiction to the letter.
who yall rootin for
idek wtf is going on
idek wtf is going on
idek wtf is going on
yummy
Seventeen-year-old Haruka Amami wants mods to inform us whether or not we are permitted to Lewd her here.yummy
good thing im youngcel hmhmhm
if you're under 20 you should be bannedgood thing im youngcel hmhmhm
dont matter i would just come back when i hit of age
They should settle their dispute via a nigger dance competition.
oh god please stop weve had enough flame wars over this for one day
I don't see the contradiction. Can you point it out to me?
I thought the red squares made it pretty clear, you trolling? Guess I'll indulge...
It has to do with omission.
The initial March 3rd rule was phrased "do not sexualize minors" which implied "all minors" (ie don't sexualize a 17yo girl)
The March 6th amendment was phrased "do not sexualize pre-pubescent minors" which implied sexualizing a mid-pubescent minor (like a 17yo girl) would be tolerated. This was a change from a "do not sexualize minors" to "do not sexualize SOME minors" essentially (emphasizing the concern for protecting pre-pubescent minors, not mid-pubescent ones)
The May 13th statement from CCPcel was "sexualization of minors is not allowed", implying -all minors- like the March 3rd version, rather than the more current March 6th amendment Infinity posted.
The response by @Experiment626 makes this pretty apparent.
Wondering which mod banned him and why btw (happened shortly after I made this thread) , was it for pointing out this contradiction to CCP or for something else?
By "minors" he's referring to pre-pubescent minors as stated in the document ,which is law.
That's bullshit, you don't paraphrase pre-pubescent minors as just "minors" because that implies ALL of them, which is why they added the clarifying wording on March 6th in the first place.
Yes you do. Mods do not make or modify rules on whim, only enforce them. So all such phrases by mods are paraphrasing the rule as it stands and are not to be construed as modifications. Its not our fault if some users are not smart enough to understand that much and waste their time arguing semantics.
Only if you're incompetent or trying to sew chaos.
That's untrue, the application/interpretation of law does change rules on the whim and it's a constant problem with IRL law enforcement so why wouldn't it be a concern w/ forums?
Dropping an adjective is a modificaton not a paraphrase,
Like imagine paraphrasing the "do not mass tag people" rule as "do not tag people".
Mas-tagging is a subset of tagging as prepubescent minors is a subset of minors. If you drop the adjective you're quoting a non-existent rule
So now you're insulting people who don't intuit the inner workings of your feels?
Roastie speak.
Using small words is incompetence now? That's new.
Well then show me where this law has been interpreted to change the rule, not in semantics but in actual moderation practice.
False analogy. " Mass" is an adverb to tagging as opposed to "prepubescent" which is an adjective to "minors". So mass tagging is not a subset of tagging since without the adverb the action itself completely changes.
On the other hand prepubescent minors are a subset of minors but that distinction won't be necessary for anyone who has actually read the rules and can reason what the post means. When I say pedophiles are banned on this forum, I don't have to add the suffix "male" since its understood females are not allowed on the forum either way.
All of this does not change the fact that the rule was never interpreted in practice in the strictest sense of ccp's may 13rd wording so this entire discussion is basically pointless rumination over semantics.
Not really. I'm only insulting autists who have zero grasp on context and/or lack the basic reasoning cOmPeTeNcE to read between the lines. Thus demanding verbal rigour in running conversations. And last I checked making fun of disabled in not against the rules.
Last edited:
That's not what is being discussed, I think you're high-IQ enough to realize this therefore are probably just fucking around with me, feels homoerotic, please stop.
Giving out warnings is part of the moderation practice.
In the aforementioned thread for example, CCP talked about "MAPs" which is an initialism referring to minor-attracted-person, which taken at face value can simply mean wanting to fuck a 17-yo girl.
Obviously those aren't ideal terms to have around because I think they possibly originate more strongly amongst those who want to fuck babies/toddlers who are trying to normalize it by equating it to 17yos via a term like "minor" which has broader implications than "prepubescent".
While that is a good reason to avoid the use of a term like MAP, there's still going to be "take the acronym at face value" types who will just use it for 17yos. Those people shouldn't be warned off as if their use of MAP means a prepubescent minor when the acronym doesn't mean that.
Pretty sure verbs in present tense can be used like nouns in which case an adverb should function like an adjective =/
Mass tagging is tagging, 'mass' is a quantifier for the amount of tagging.
There's a history of guys getting warnings for mid-pubescent foids who are clearly mid-pubescent.
Even if that's stopped, that history of abuse is reason enough to be skeptical that a mod means what the rules say and isn't trying to revert March 6th > March 3rd in practice.
That's like the reverse relationship though.
"All pedophiles are banned" = includes the women by default.
"All minors are banned" = includes the mid-pubescent (and even post-pubescent) minors by default.
In the case of "all women and pedophiles are banned" you're via the criteria banning female pedophiles twice which causes no extra harm so that's why the disclaimer isn't needed.
Says you, I see a point in it, maybe you don't grasp my point... ugh phrasing.
Is it autistic to protest that it's unreasonable to underestimate any grasp as "zero" ?
Grasp of context is a spectrum of partyways IMO not an all-or-nothing discrete measurement.
Silly metaphors tbh. Can't read a word which isn't there.
Read between lines is roastie rhetoric.
I should make a list of these so we know what to avoid.
I suppose it's a question of how broadly to apply "do not persecute, harass, or attack others" and when mockery becomes harassment.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
