Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The 'moral sewer' comment; re the Revolution Thread
Topic Started: Mar 7 2017, 11:06 AM (58 Views)
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Revolution thread refers

As promised about that post 60 which has apparently caused such grief and led to a series of rule breaking posts

No personal insult was made or intended by post 60 but I believe one was perceived.

That said, no one should have to phrase every debating point so that it's impossible for anyone, no matter how sensitive, to be annoyed by the challenge.

Post 60 was in response to post 59:
Affa
Mar 4 2017, 01:56 PM
IMO!
Nothing short of WAR, be it Civil or International on our doorstep is going to force change on the scale needed. . . .
Which as others have commented, appears to be extolling violent insurrection particularly after post 42 which leaned that way. That Affa made clear in the much later post 73 that he didn't mean that is good but not known at the time.

My view (as expressed throughout that thread) is that revolution against a democracy is utterly abhorrent. It is the usurping of undeserved power by thugs often through use of murder, destruction, mutilation, rape and other horrors often involving visceral attacks to settle imagined 'scores'

So it was and is legitimate to seek to clarify an apparent post 59 call for revolution. I chose to highlight what that post 59 appeared to be saying with an opportunity to deny it:
Steve K
Mar 4 2017, 02:41 PM
So lets be clear: it seems in your view it is OK to kill thousands of people to enforce your minority view on the majority because they don't agree with you

correct? . . .
And then give my view on that possible meaning
Steve K
Mar 4 2017, 02:41 PM
. . .Not exactly the moral high ground is it, more like the sewer

The "correct?" clearly gives the opportunity for Affa to say something like "no, I did not mean that, the words are unfortunate" instead he has mistakenly applied the 'moral sewer' to be a comment on him and not what it clearly was aimed at: the interpretation of his post 59 he was being asked to confirm or deny.

Unfortunately in post 67, Affa chose not to deny that interpretation so in posts 68 and 70 that was pointed out. That triggered a series of insults in posts 71, 73, 75, 96, and 98 followed by a series of posts intended to undermine moderation.

Hopefully this ends now

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Mar 7 2017, 11:06 AM
The Revolution thread refers

As promised about that post 60 which has apparently caused such grief and led to a series of rule breaking posts

No personal insult was made or intended by post 60 but I believe one was perceived.

That said, no one should have to phrase every debating point so that it's impossible for anyone, no matter how sensitive, to be annoyed by the challenge.

Post 60 was in response to post 59:
Affa
Mar 4 2017, 01:56 PM
IMO!
Nothing short of WAR, be it Civil or International on our doorstep is going to force change on the scale needed. . . .
Which as others have commented, appears to be extolling violent insurrection particularly after post 42 which leaned that way. That Affa made clear in the much later post 73 that he didn't mean that is good but not known at the time.

My view (as expressed throughout that thread) is that revolution against a democracy is utterly abhorrent. It is the usurping of undeserved power by thugs often through use of murder, destruction, mutilation, rape and other horrors often involving visceral attacks to settle imagined 'scores'

So it was and is legitimate to seek to clarify an apparent post 59 call for revolution. I chose to highlight what that post 59 appeared to be saying with an opportunity to deny it:
Steve K
Mar 4 2017, 02:41 PM
So lets be clear: it seems in your view it is OK to kill thousands of people to enforce your minority view on the majority because they don't agree with you

correct? . . .
And then give my view on that possible meaning
Steve K
Mar 4 2017, 02:41 PM
. . .Not exactly the moral high ground is it, more like the sewer

The "correct?" clearly gives the opportunity for Affa to say something like "no, I did not mean that, the words are unfortunate" instead he has mistakenly applied the 'moral sewer' to be a comment on him and not what it clearly was aimed at: the interpretation of his post 59 he was being asked to confirm or deny.

Unfortunately in post 67, Affa chose not to deny that interpretation so in posts 68 and 70 that was pointed out. That triggered a series of insults in posts 71, 73, 75, 96, and 98 followed by a series of posts intended to undermine moderation.

Hopefully this ends now

Quote:
 
From now on if we see outside the Dungeon an insult or series of insults to any moderator that is gratuitous, grossly offensive, significantly disruptive to the thread, likely to inspire imitative behaviour or seeks to undermine moderation then we will likely take action.


You didn't include truthful, obvious rules transgressions, and honest factual criticisms of administration, but those too will receive the same moderated response!

It ends when you personally stop trolling posters a number of which have complained of you doing.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · General Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply