LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Sheepy explained this pretty clearly on IRC recently. Its not that one genocide is worse then another or that one groups of victims is better then the other. The difference is that one group came under the !@#$ banner & raised a bunch of !@#$. Sheepy decided the best way to deal with this was a mass ban on nazism. If one another group were to do similar things under a different banner he would in all likely-hood take similar measures. So that is an enlightening description of why the flawed rule was put into place. It does not change the fact that the rule is flawed. If one mass murdering racist dictator is not allowed to be roleplayed then they none should be. 1 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 So that is an enlightening description of why the flawed rule was put into place. It does not change the fact that the rule is flawed. If one mass murdering racist dictator is not allowed to be roleplayed then they none should be. You're welcome to not participate in the world if you don't agree with the rules. 1 He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 You're welcome to not participate in the world if you don't agree with the rules. Ah...the 'rules' again. They should not be questioned. We should blindly follow them. How old are you btw? -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigInZen Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Now now, LR2, you know full well how the game is played in forums, being an admin at our forums for how many years? You're going to let yourself be trolled that easily? For shame 1 Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 You cut me deep piggy. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigInZen Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 You cut me deep piggy. Truth hurts but I love you too much to lie to you Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Truth hurts but I love you too much to lie to you I luz you too. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigInZen Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Yeah I don't really think that's how that works. Israel kills Palestinian children and I would find the name Benjamin Netanyahu offensive. But you probably don't think so. At the end of the day, there are many people who have slaughtered innocent civilians but we can all pick and choose who we deem offensive. The Nazis mass murdered Jews, but they are hardly the most evil group that ever existed. Well there isnt just one person who is named Adolf Hitler. A name can not be offensive. I know a Mexican named Adolf, but the only Adolf Hitler I've heard of is the historical one and some douche bag on the news who named his kid Adolf Hitler and then got arrested or something. _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Why is only references to Nazism banned? Stalins regime killed waaaaay more people than Hitler did. As much as that's true, Russians consider Stalin a controversial figure and a hero. Anyway, can we not start all this "This is offensive, so lets ban it" crap. This is how we ended up with all the ridiculous rules about Nazism. Can we just give it a rest and agree that this is the internet? _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 The Nazis mass murdered Jews, but they are hardly the most evil group that ever existed. Who is the most, or at least more, 'evil' group that ever existed? -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Who is the most, or at least more, 'evil' group that ever existed? Well there's Stalin and Mao. European settlers, CSA, Great Britain, Japan, Islamic State, the inquisition, the Romans, Vikings, North Korea, Israel. The list is endless. It's entirely up to you who you want to decide is the "most" evil. I personally don't believe any of these are any more evil than the next. They all suck. That's all I care to say. _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 You are the one who said they were hardly the most evil. What you meant, I suppose, is that from a relativist perspective they were not more evil than other groups? -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted April 24, 2015 Author Share Posted April 24, 2015 Who is the most, or at least more, 'evil' group that ever existed? Think of it this way; Hitler knew that Jews were god's chosen people so he sent 6 million to heaven. -removed by thor- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 You are the one who said they were hardly the most evil. What you meant, I suppose, is that from a relativist perspective they were not more evil than other groups? Yeah, I suppose. I just don't get societies fetish with Nazis as opposed to people arguably even worse. Think of it this way; Hitler knew that Jews were god's chosen people so he sent 6 million to heaven. That's not really funny. _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Yeah, I suppose. I just don't get societies fetish with Nazis as opposed to people arguably even worse. Which loops us back around to the OP. We have members of the community who are apparently offended by mass murderers who are (at least arguably) worse than the one banned itf. A reasonable reason to reconsider the rule as written and its enforcement. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Which loops us back around to the OP. We have members of the community who are apparently offended by mass murderers who are (at least arguably) worse than the one banned itf. A reasonable reason to reconsider the rule as written and its enforcement. Sure. I just don't want to see more ridiculous censorship. If you can't handle the Internet, then it's not place for you. _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Sure. I just don't want to see more ridiculous censorship. If you can't handle the Internet, then it's not place for you. Cool, I am fine with either way. But your way works. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reagan Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Sheepy owns the game. He has terms and conditions by which players agree to abide by if they want to play it. He has his reasons and he's explained them to the extent that he's willing to, which is more than he had to. It's really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Sheepy owns the game. He has terms and conditions by which players agree to abide by if they want to play it. He has his reasons and he's explained them to the extent that he's willing to, which is more than he had to. It's really that simple. Blindly following rules without questioning them is one level of maturity. 2 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reagan Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) Blindly following rules without questioning them is one level of maturity. It's not blindly following. The issue has been debated and ruled on. The majority of the community has no issue with it. The ones that do are free to go elsewhere, or either accept the fact that they can't have every aspect of the game their way and keep playing. That's how life works. Edited April 24, 2015 by Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 It's not blindly following. The issue has been debated and ruled on. The majority of the community has no issue with it. The ones that do are free to go elsewhere, or either accept the fact that they can't have every aspect of the game their way and keep playing. That's how life works. And rules can be debated in an open society. That's how life works. I am interested in your scientific polling data on this issue. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reagan Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 And rules can be debated in an open society. That's how life works. I am interested in your scientific polling data on this issue. You must have missed the part where I said it's already been debated and ruled on. I don't know how, seeing as you quoted me. I'm sorry you weren't around for it, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened and that continuing on about is equivalent to beating a dead horse. If you like to argue for the sake of arguing, or one of those who can't concede that you're not always right, by all means, carry on. It won't change Sheepy's decision, though. You might try just respecting the ruling he made on it and move along. Wait for a new issue to pop up that is still debatable and jump back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigInZen Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Perhaps it's more of an issue with the player behind the name and less the name itself... I have no dog in this fight. I am fine either way. And I get the "it's Sheepy's joint" argument as I have used that argument at my forums. 1 Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted April 25, 2015 Author Share Posted April 25, 2015 It's not blindly following. The issue has been debated and ruled on. The majority of the community has no issue with it. The ones that do are free to go elsewhere, or either accept the fact that they can't have every aspect of the game their way and keep playing. That's how life works. Yes it is. -removed by thor- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts