# Harassment



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

In an effort to solicit feedback on the AUP changes, as well as better answer questions, we have created this forum for each individual clause of the AUP. We will modify and/or improve AUP clarity based on suggestions and feedback.
 
- - - - - - - -

*Harassment*
 Images or comments intended to harass, slander or otherwise directly disrupt the use/enjoyment on the site will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to the conveyance of: racism, bigotry, derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association, or images or comments directed at any other individual(s) to incite or inflame matters of personal conflict on the site.


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 22, 2009)

I'm gonna nitpick these to death 

This mentions "personal matters". What about not-so personal matters? After, I think it was that Thanksgiving banner, people complained - and images showed up, telling such people to STFU in a non-specific way. And I'm willing to bet now, people complaining about the new rules are getting made fun of in some way or another. Plus I think there was something a while back about a moderator who did something... was that the sandwich thing? Ah, hell, I can't keep track of it all. You know what I mean. Point is, what's your official stance on these cases?


----------



## Tobias Amaranth (Jan 22, 2009)

The same can be said about journals. How direct does the insult have to be, and how hateful does the insult have to be, to warrant it as anything more than free-speech? I mean, I know what the likely intent is, I just wonder if there's a specific range, and what the minimum needed to result in moderation is.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 23, 2009)

Ahem.

When I last brought this issue to your attention I was basically told 'the AUP doesnt cover it' and that apparently was that.

Now you say you want feedback? Well then I have some for you.

Ban users who conduct harassment of other FA users via off-site means, particularly WTF_FA LJ and anonib/dramachan. They are mocking the spirit of the AUP they agreed to when they made accounts on this site... letting them go unpunished when you know what they are doing is wrong is nothing short of condoning their actions.

It should be a simple matter for you to confirm identities VIA IP tracking.

Using FA is a privelage, and just because the majority of users enjoy it free of charge doesnt mean they get to take it for granted. All it would take to make FA a better site for all of us is the occasional demonstration that all users are accountable for their actions towards other users, whatever means they exploit to try to avoid the consequences; that nowhere on the internet is a safe haven for harassment.

In other words, Im saying you dont have to turn a blind eye to harassment just because it occurs on your doorstep rather than in your livingroom.

Let your arm reach far, and wield the ban-hammer like a righteous flaming sword.


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jan 23, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Ahem.
> 
> When I last brought this issue to your attention I was basically told 'the AUP doesnt cover it' and that apparently was that.
> 
> ...





So basically you want Dragoneer to punish people for visiting an entirely different website. 

Riiight....


How about people get punished for actively harassing users while on FA-no matter where they were directed from-and not for activities that happen off of FA, hmmm?


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 23, 2009)

Witchiebunny said:


> So basically you want Dragoneer to punish people for visiting an entirely different website.



I dont see why a site that is dedicated in its entirety to discussion of happenings on FA and populated almost exclusively of FA users should be exempt from the FA AUP.

Remember, these are BAD PEOPLE Im talking about here; immature and antisocial douchebags who get their jollies at the expense of other FA users. By holding their little hate-parties on another domain, yet confining the content of their discussions and activities to FA, they are effectively thumbing their collective noses at the FA admins and chanting "nyah nyah, cant catch us!". And its true, Dragoneer might not be able to affect what they do on other domains and nor should he... but that doesnt mean he should be overcome with inexplicable amnesia the moment these same offenders log onto FA with the expectation of equal and harassment-free access to its services; they very same services they attempt to make unusuable for other FA users when not enjoying them theirselves.

There is no need for Dragoneer to cripple himself with retarded 'rules of engagement' much like those that can be seen today on many a foreign battlefield... just because the enemy drops his gun and walks away doesnt make him any less a viable target... not if you dont want to be constantly on the recieving end of attacks by a foe who isnt playing by the same rules you are.


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jan 23, 2009)

.....

I'm rendered speechless.


----------



## IanKeith (Jan 23, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> I dont see why a site that is dedicated in its entirety to discussion of happenings on FA and populated almost exclusively of FA users should be exempt from the FA AUP.
> 
> Remember, these are BAD PEOPLE Im talking about here; immature and antisocial douchebags who get their jollies at the expense of other FA users. By holding their little hate-parties on another domain, yet confining the content of their discussions and activities to FA, they are effectively thumbing their collective noses at the FA admins and chanting "nyah nyah, cant catch us!". And its true, Dragoneer might not be able to affect what they do on other domains and nor should he... but that doesnt mean he should be overcome with inexplicable amnesia the moment these same offenders log onto FA with the expectation of equal and harassment-free access to its services; they very same services they attempt to make unusuable for other FA users when not enjoying them theirselves.
> 
> There is no need for Dragoneer to cripple himself with retarded 'rules of engagement' much like those that can be seen today on many a foreign battlefield... just because the enemy drops his gun and walks away doesnt make him any less a viable target... not if you dont want to be constantly on the recieving end of attacks by a foe who isnt playing by the same rules you are.



Uhhhh...hate to burst your little hug-box-bubble, but not everyone's going to approve of every shitty MS-paint doodle of someone jerking off their dog. In fact, most people won't approve of it. The folks at wtf_fa are simply blowing off steam over retarded things that probably shouldn't be posted in the first place, usually posted by people who have no business calling themselves 'artists'.

Dragoneer will run his website, his way. That's what it burns down to. wtf_fa is run on a different website, and is out of his reach. Plenty of members of that community have found themselves similarly attacked by people who don't know how to take a joke, and can't stand to see something they created be shown for what it is. And certainly, most of them don't expect people to stand up for them when they do get attacked.

I guess what I'm going for here is, sorry you got butthurt by someone, but that doesn't mean everyone else is a bad person.


----------



## Vandell (Jan 23, 2009)

So, doesn't this mean the sizeable number of pictures involving priests + sex = against the AUP?


----------



## MiffTheFox (Jan 23, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> There is no need for Dragoneer to cripple himself with retarded 'rules of engagement' much like those that can be seen today on many a foreign battlefield... just because the enemy drops his gun and walks away doesnt make him any less a viable target... not if you dont want to be constantly on the recieving end of attacks by a foe who isnt playing by the same rules you are.



Now I don't know much about international politics, but my best guess is that if you stop respecting international agreements such as rules of engagement, you basically make your nation look like a @!?#$bag to the rest of the world, thereby decreasing the likelihood that anybody else will trade with you, or even worse, causing other nations to declare war.

If FA decides to stop showing restraint in banning users, many legitimate users will feel as if they are in danger just by using FA, and will likely migrate to competing sites such as DA.


----------



## Vandell (Jan 23, 2009)

Oh, and a serious question here; is atheism provided the same protection as, say, a Christian? Y'know, if someone posts something saying (and believing) that all atheists are Hitler, as a stupid example... Well, I personally wouldn't be offended - but I know people that would.

I ask this because it's tiring that religous people get more rights than me as a non-religous person (in that they're free from persecution and can sue over such things, while I can't.


----------



## Dlovesovi (Jan 23, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Remember, these are BAD PEOPLE Im talking about here; immature and antisocial douchebags who get their jollies at the expense of other FA users. By holding their little hate-parties on another domain, yet confining the content of their discussions and activities to FA, they are effectively thumbing their collective noses at the FA admins and chanting "nyah nyah, cant catch us!". And its true, Dragoneer might not be able to affect what they do on other domains and nor should he... but that doesnt mean he should be overcome with inexplicable amnesia the moment these same offenders log onto FA with the expectation of equal and harassment-free access to its services; they very same services they attempt to make unusuable for other FA users when not enjoying them theirselves.



Are you sh%&&ing me? Are you seriously trying to F*$K with us? They're bad people? Oh god oh god my brain esplodes.

You sound like the most BAWWWWWtastic member of the human race since Mussolini. You really need to understand what being a bad person is. A bad person is definately not someone who laughs at your bad thigh breast porn. A bad person is someone who breaks their own and other's moral laws because they feel like it. Just because you identify yourself as furry and believe your inner self to be a goat with knee boobs doesn't mean people are horrible for making fun of said knee boobs(they used to be thigh boobs untill you got older then they started to sagggggggg). Also your opinion is silly and trying to make the internet police come down hard on those guys is silly.....you are silly


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 23, 2009)

We may as well ban people from FA for mocking its users at FA:U, AC, FC, any other furry convention on the planet and, oh heck, why not just in real life too? Get that FA Big Brother train a-rollin', there's butthurt in them hills!


----------



## mottled.kitten (Jan 23, 2009)

Excuse me, Ran: I'm pretty sure I saw you over at WTF_FA.

I haven't been over there in a really long time (they post waaaaaay too often... it was all I could see in my Friends page! o____o) but they seem to have things under control. They're more "WTF"-ing at some things that people draw, and most of the artists--like ChimeraSynx--are cool with it, even engage some of the people in conversation about it. Now, I do say "most" but not "all" because this is the Internet, and 'we can't have anything nice' on the Internet.

Dragoneer can't claim responsibility for what FA users do on other websites, but he can take action if it carries on over here. That's his job, and the job of the other moderators.


----------



## darkdoomer (Jan 23, 2009)

Freedom of Speech shall not be infringed.


----------



## mottled.kitten (Jan 23, 2009)

darkdoomer said:


> Freedom of Speech shall not be infringed.



Unless you live in a country where such a freedom does not exist.


----------



## Ailure (Jan 23, 2009)

Most people who are made fun of on wtf_fa honestly deserves being made fun of. Same goes for furries mentioned on Encyclopedia dramatica etc...

And there's the segment who don't mind being made fun of, since they actually have a sense of humor. One of my friends takes it an accomplishment infact.


----------



## Fiz (Jan 23, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Ahem.
> 
> Ban users who conduct harassment of other FA users via off-site means, particularly WTF_FA LJ and *anonib/dramachan.*



Excuse me. I run dramachan, and if you have a problem with something on there, you come whine to me, not Dragoneer, because Dragoneer nor the other staff can't do shit about things that happen on dramachan, or furthermore, offsite.

As long as the harassment isn't onsite (furaffinity.net or forums.furaffinity.net), there won't be any banning onsite.


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jan 23, 2009)

Fiz said:


> Excuse me. I run dramachan, and if you have a problem with something on there, you come whine to me, not Dragoneer, because Dragoneer nor the other staff can't do shit about things that happen on dramachan, or furthermore, offsite.
> 
> As long as the harassment isn't onsite (furaffinity.net or forums.furaffinity.net), there won't be any banning onsite.



This. (Except for the running dramachan part.)


----------



## Dragonhawknumber (Jan 23, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> I dont see why a site that is dedicated in its entirety to discussion of happenings on FA and populated almost exclusively of FA users should be exempt from the FA AUP.
> 
> Remember, these are BAD PEOPLE Im talking about here; immature and antisocial douchebags who get their jollies at the expense of other FA users. By holding their little hate-parties on another domain, yet confining the content of their discussions and activities to FA, they are effectively thumbing their collective noses at the FA admins and chanting "nyah nyah, cant catch us!". And its true, Dragoneer might not be able to affect what they do on other domains and nor should he... but that doesnt mean he should be overcome with inexplicable amnesia the moment these same offenders log onto FA with the expectation of equal and harassment-free access to its services; they very same services they attempt to make unusuable for other FA users when not enjoying them theirselves.
> 
> There is no need for Dragoneer to cripple himself with retarded 'rules of engagement' much like those that can be seen today on many a foreign battlefield... just because the enemy drops his gun and walks away doesnt make him any less a viable target... not if you dont want to be constantly on the recieving end of attacks by a foe who isnt playing by the same rules you are.




Ahahahaha, oh boy you're so funny!

Just made my day, thank you buddy =D


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 23, 2009)

You're not going to take WTF_FA away from myself or anyone else. I will do everything in my power to disallow it, and so will a lot of other people.

Dragoneer isn't stupid. He's not about to start banning people because they visit other websites. If the people then come _here_ and start flinging crap, then it's against Terms of Service (and whatever other policies), but the ToS here can't be forced on any other site.

Furthermore, you overestimate the power of "IP tracking". Yeah, it might work - until people discover that it's in use, and implement the _very_ simple measures needed to prevent it from working.

FA is not the Internet Police, and should not act as such.


----------



## Volkodav (Jan 23, 2009)

THIS JUST IN: YOU MAY NO LONGER VISIT 4CHAN BECAUSE 4CHAN HAS SOME MATERIAL ON THEIR SITE THAT GOES AGAINST MY BELIEFS AND THE THINGS THEY SAY MAKE ME CRY
ANYBODY WHO GOES THERE SHOULD GET BANNED FROM FA.


That's all I'm getting out of this. ]:


----------



## Volkodav (Jan 23, 2009)

Ailure said:


> Most people who are made fun of on wtf_fa honestly deserves being made fun of. Same goes for furries mentioned on Encyclopedia dramatica etc...
> 
> And there's the segment who don't mind being made fun of, since they actually have a sense of humor. One of my friends takes it an accomplishment infact.



Exactly, if you make a fool of yourself on a public website and expect nobody to notice or say anything about it, you need to get off the internet.

Plus, it's the internet. :S
Most of the people on WTF_FA and Dramachan don't do anything hxc illegal or anything IRL, except for a select few, so it's all harmless fun.


In my opinion.


----------



## darkdoomer (Jan 23, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Ahem.
> 
> 
> Ban users who conduct harassment of other FA users via off-site means, particularly WTF_FA LJ and anonib/dramachan. They are mocking the spirit of the AUP they agreed to when they made accounts on this site... letting them go unpunished when you know what they are doing is wrong is nothing short of condoning their actions.
> ...


you know what? i'm on EBAUMSWORLD, lulz.net, and talk a lot about furaffinity and this fandom, especially in the most derogatory way. ( also enhanced some articles on  EncyclopediaDramatica )
the truth is, you cannot stop us. what happens offsite remains offsite. raids, reposts
yes; i am this bad people you are talking about. even more bad than your grammar, and yes; i know you hate me and all of us who are just here for the lulz, and i like it.

also, privelage means nothing. and i'm french. 
any questions?


----------



## DuncanFox (Jan 23, 2009)

darkdoomer said:


> Freedom of Speech shall not be infringed.



"Congress shall make no law (...) abridging the freedom of speech..."

Private citizens are permitted to abridge the freedom of speech of persons on their property in any way they please.



RANQuickFox said:


> Ban users who conduct harassment of other FA users via off-site means, particularly WTF_FA LJ and anonib/dramachan.



A few nights ago over dinner with friends, we spent a solid hour just trashing the hell out of people bawwwing over the new AUP.  Would you like us to be banned from FA as well?


----------



## Winail (Jan 23, 2009)

Hey brown~ BAAAAAW.

Seriously dude, you can't ban just everyone for posting stuff off a certain website. What the HELL are you thinking? 

I don't like your views and you're making fun of me so I will ban you? 

Good thing you're not admin. :U


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 23, 2009)

To RANQuickFox:

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." - _Noam Chomsky_

If you can't deal with people making fun of you ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WEBSITE, you just need to stop going to that website altogether.  Punishing FA users for their actions outside of FA, no matter how objectionable you find those actions, sets a very dangerous precedent.

In short: what the fuck.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 23, 2009)

To Freehaven : freedom of speech has limits; defamation, harassment, hate-speech, etc. are not acceptable and should not be defended.

Your slippery-slope paranoia is no reason to defend the rights of these assholes to bully others with impunity.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> To Freehaven : freedom of speech has limits; defamation, harassment, hate-speech, etc. are not acceptable and should not be defended.
> 
> Your slippery-slope paranoia is no reason to defend the rights of these assholes to bully others with impunity.



Just so you know: hate speech, so long as it doesn't incite violence or is intended only to incite violence or harm towards a person or group of persons, is perfectly legal under the First Amendment (see: Skokie, Illinois and the NSPA march controversy).  I don't have to like it, but I am a defender of Free Speech, and hate speech not intended to incite violence or provoke people to violence is protected Free Speech.  If you don't like it, move to China (I hear they love to crack down on the sort of things you're whining about here).

And while my argument may be a "slippery slope" argument, it makes it no less legit.  FA _could_ ban users for things they say/do on other websites, but that would be a very dangerous thing to start doing.  Not only would monitoring outside websites for "harassing" activity by FA users add more to the admins' workload, but it would have a chilling effect on Free Speech -- if you knew the FA admins were watching your personal blog or imageboards for things to bust you on, would YOU feel like you could discuss the latest thing the FA admins did wrong?

If you don't like what someone is saying about you on a different site, you have several options:
1.) *Whine like a butthurt little bitch* about it on that site (or your own site/FA space), calling more attention to the offending content and ensuring that any drama you were hoping to avoid will most certainly spread like wildfire thoughout the usual channels.
2.) *Calmly (and privately) ask the admins of the site to do something* about the offending content, and wait and see what happens.  (It beats whining about it publically.)
3.) Your best option is to *ignore it* and realize that you are a small, insignificant blip on the massive network of information that is the Internet, and that years from now nobody is going to give a flying rat's testicles if you got called a fat, smelly dogfucker on Dramachan unless you act like a little bitch and get worked up about it.

Everyone has the right to speak their mind, but nobody has the right to be offended.


----------



## Altera (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> To Freehaven : freedom of speech has limits; defamation, harassment, hate-speech, etc. are not acceptable and should not be defended.
> 
> Your slippery-slope paranoia is no reason to defend the rights of these assholes to bully others with impunity.




Er, your paranoia has no right to ban people on FA for being on a site you don't like. 
It's only FA harassment that Dragoneer has control over. Not people talking on another site.

Don't like what they're saying on there/laughing about/talking about?

Don't join in, hit the back button.




Or shall I be banned for reading and commenting on an Atheist blog because it's against the Christian values and someone may be offended by my discussion on protozoa?


----------



## xxow (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> To Freehaven : freedom of speech has limits; defamation, harassment, hate-speech, etc. are not acceptable and should not be defended.
> Your slippery-slope paranoia is no reason to defend the rights of these assholes to bully others with impunity.


Whether or not it's defamation, harassment, or hate-speech is up for debate. 
It's pretty much fact, though, that visiting or participating on wtf_fa or dramachan does not mean you have engaged in possible harassment. It's also a fact that Dragoneer is not at all responsible for the views of any of his userbase, nor what gets said on a website he is not admin of. Therefore, it's not his responsablity to punish anyone for doing something on site A while they were also a member of site B.

Also, what you're suggesting is pretty much unenforceable. Even if you were able to isolate _only_ people coming from the subdomains wtf_fa and dramachan, new boards, new communities, and entirely new websites could be used for the same purpose. It's way more trouble than it'll be worth, because it would not "protect" you from people who disagree with you and either debate with you or harass you.


----------



## Dlovesovi (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> To Freehaven : freedom of speech has limits; defamation, harassment, hate-speech, etc. are not acceptable and should not be defended.
> 
> Your slippery-slope paranoia is no reason to defend the rights of these assholes to bully others with impunity.




defamation of character doesn't happen on wtf with mob rules, i've seen people targetting and i've seen it squashed

if your on wtf and not bringing crap to fa where dragoneer would be able to do something about it then your not confronting people with it for harassment

it's not hate-speech really in the way you hope it is

I'm not defending them I'm calling you out for acting like a child. Grow some skin and stop letting everything get to you. Your not 2 years old anymore you don't need a babysitter to make sure the kids aren't making fun of you or your friends. I think we should close this topic before Sir crys-alot trys to further his crusade.


----------



## Takun (Jan 24, 2009)

*popcorn*


Man, this is going to be interesting.  Don't go to those sites?  Stop setting yourself up to get badmouthed?  Seriously, I wonder how some of you function outside the internet.


----------



## brightfire (Jan 24, 2009)

RanQuick Fox is just butthurt because a friend of his got snarked on wtf_fa.


Butthurt =/= legitimate reason for banning members.


I've had friends of mind get snarked before.  It's not that big a deal, jesus christ.


----------



## PriestRevan (Jan 24, 2009)

I've read both 2 pages, and I have no idea what you people are arguing about.

---

If you like freedom of speech, than shut up about how people either hate you or disagree with you. 

---

If you're being harassed on another website, than stop bringing it into FA/FAF. In truth, no one cares what happens to you on another website (or the web in general).


----------



## XerxesQados (Jan 24, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> If you're being harassed on another website, than stop bringing it into FA/FAF. In truth, no one cares what happens to you on another website (or the web in general).



I'm sorry, but your avatar made it impossible to read what you wrote without giggling. And then appending "The power is YOURS!" to the end of it.

I agree though.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Ban users who conduct harassment of other FA users via off-site means, particularly WTF_FA LJ and anonib/dramachan.



So... You're seriously suggesting Dragoneer put mountains of time and effort into policing every member's activity over the internet? Bit of an invasion of privacy, isn't it? Not to mention a waste of resources.

Does this go for the other rules, too? If someone posts ripped sprite comics on their DA account, or photos of naked women grinding on a Mickey Mouse plush to their personal website, should they be banned from FA? Or are you just singling out snark sites, for whatever reason?

Harassment involves "face to face" (as close as can be over the internet) interaction. Talking crap about someone behind their back on another website isn't harassment, unless the person in question wanders over there and starts posting, and then _they're_ the ones engaging. If posting on WTF_FA or wherever is harassment, then I harassed Andy Warhol for comments to my friend at the local museum about how his paintings were ugly.

Besides, I seem to remember you making a post or two (not just comments, but snark posts) on WTF_FA. Does that make you "BAD PEOPLE", too?

I like the Harassment clause the way it is, personally. It's concise, clear, covers all the bases, and isn't overly heavy-handed.


----------



## PriestRevan (Jan 24, 2009)

Makyui said:


> So... You're seriously suggesting Dragoneer put mountains of time and effort into policing every member's activity over the internet? Bit of an invasion of privacy, isn't it? Not to mention a waste of resources.
> 
> Does this go for the other rules, too? If someone posts ripped sprite comics on their DA account, or photos of naked women grinding on a Mickey Mouse plush to their personal website, should they be banned from FA? Or are you just singling out snark sites, for whatever reason?
> 
> ...


 
I argue the bold. 

If two retards get into an argument about their actions on FA _on a completely different website, _it should not be FA's problem and FA should stay out of it. 

Now, if those two retards bring that crap into FA, then it is FA's problem. But, lets be honest, I've seen how confused and idiotic furries become when harassed. They're harassed, then they post a journal about it.

...


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 24, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> If two retards get into an argument about their actions on FA _on a completely different website, _it should not be FA's problem and FA should stay out of it.



Agreed completely.



PriestRevan said:


> Now, if those two retards bring that crap into FA, then it is FA's problem. But, lets be honest, I've seen how confused and idiotic furries become when harassed. They're harassed, then they post a journal about it.



Also agreed.  If someone brings crap from another site into FA and it results in two or more users getting into a shitstorm of drama, then the admins have full rights to punish them FOR THEIR ACTIONS ON FA (and nothing else).


----------



## Makyui (Jan 24, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> I argue the bold.
> 
> If two retards get into an argument about their actions on FA _on a completely different website, _it should not be FA's problem and FA should stay out of it.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I fixed that bit (I think). I wasn't terribly clear on my intentions the first time.

Certainly, I don't think FA has any say over anything that happens outside of their jurisdiction (and anything off the FA site or the FA forum, at the moment, would be outside of their jurisdiction). I just wanted to point out why RANquickfox's argument -- that offsite commentary is harassment -- was wrong.

...Although, now that I think about it, if a "victim" wandered over to, say, WTF_FA and started a bitchfit, the resultant pummeling wouldn't be harassment either, since they walked into it and are 100% capable of walking out of it.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 24, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> Just so you know: hate speech, so long as it doesn't incite violence or is intended only to incite violence or harm towards a person or group of persons, is perfectly legal under the First Amendment (see: Skokie, Illinois and the NSPA march controversy).  I don't have to like it, but I am a defender of Free Speech, and hate speech not intended to incite violence or provoke people to violence is protected Free Speech.  If you don't like it, move to China (I hear they love to crack down on the sort of things you're whining about here).


Defamation has a different precedent in Australia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutnick_v_Dow_Jones
Yes, I am able to sue foreign persons or business entities that defame me regardless of their location if what is published on an online discussion board is accessible here. Your US concept of 'freedom of speech' does not entitle you to legal protection in the international court.



Freehaven said:


> And while my argument may be a "slippery slope" argument, it makes it no less legit.


Citing a slippery slope fallacy in support of your argument robs it of legitimacy by definition.



Freehaven said:


> FA _could_ ban users for things they say/do on other websites, but that would be a very dangerous thing to start doing.  Not only would monitoring outside websites for "harassing" activity by FA users add more to the admins' workload, but it would have a chilling effect on Free Speech -- if you knew the FA admins were watching your personal blog or imageboards for things to bust you on, would YOU feel like you could discuss the latest thing the FA admins did wrong?


That sounds wonderful to me, if people were forced to actually THINK about what they were saying on publicly accessible forums. If people kept the expression of such thoughts and opinions private, not only would they not be harming anyone but they would also not need to worry about any consequences.
What you go on to suggest is really no different; that it is the victims of such harasment who should withold their right to free expression so as not to incite future harassment. I call a double-standard on you for that.



Freehaven said:


> If you don't like what someone is saying about you on a different site, you have several options:
> 1.) *Whine like a butthurt little bitch* about it on that site (or your own site/FA space), calling more attention to the offending content and ensuring that any drama you were hoping to avoid will most certainly spread like wildfire thoughout the usual channels.


Tried doing nothing, didnt work. Sure, the trolls change victims pretty regularly but why should that make it more acceptable? Should I not care because I am no longer the victim? should I discard my empathy for others out of moral cowardice?



Freehaven said:


> 2.) *Calmly (and privately) ask the admins of the site to do something* about the offending content, and wait and see what happens.  (It beats whining about it publically.)


Tried this. The people who administrate such sites are not reasonable people, they do not respond favourably to polite requests. Honestly, what kind of people do you THINK administrate these kind of sites? They are as immature and morally bankrupt as the worst of their users.



Freehaven said:


> 3.) Your best option is to *ignore it* and realize that you are a small, insignificant blip on the massive network of information that is the Internet, and that years from now nobody is going to give a flying rat's testicles if you got called a fat, smelly dogfucker on Dramachan unless you act like a little bitch and get worked up about it.


Noone should have to tolerate such abuse merely because it is transitory. Would you tell the victim of a violent crime that complaining about it wont do any good because it cant undo what has been done? Justice is a concept worth upholding, however big or small the issue is.

Dragoneer has INVITED feedback on this issue, so I am taking the opportunity to give him some... if not here and now then where and when? never? I should just bite my tongue because it doesnt suit my opponents? Nice try at a convincing argument, keep working on it.



> Everyone has the right to speak their mind, but nobody has the right to be offended.


Fortunately neither you nor anyone else here is responsible for deciding what my rights are. I reserve the right to be offended when someone says something offensive to/about me, and that legally speaking, you are talking out of your ass if you think that freedom of speech is absolute and without exceptions.



			
				Makyui said:
			
		

> So... You're seriously suggesting Dragoneer put mountains of time and effort into policing every member's activity over the internet? Bit of an invasion of privacy, isn't it? Not to mention a waste of resources.


None of the FA admins have to dedicate much time or effort to this, if a harassment report they are provided outlines all the relevant details for them. There's no invasion of privacy when we are talking about public forums such as the ones I mentioned.
If Dragoneer sends Fiz or Surgat a request for the IP information of a poster on their sites involved in a harassment case, they are easily able to provide this information, and would not really be in a position to refuse.


----------



## GoldenPoncho (Jan 24, 2009)

Um... if I recall correctly, you, RANQuickFox, once posted a snark yourself to WTF_FA. I'm assuming that if these rules are ever actually enforced, you will gladly give up your own account because of your actions?


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 24, 2009)

GoldenPoncho said:


> Um... if I recall correctly, you, RANQuickFox, once posted a snark yourself to WTF_FA. I'm assuming that if these rules are ever actually enforced, you will gladly give up your own account because of your actions?



You remember incorrectly, or rather you are simply reciting what others have told you without verifying the facts for yourself.

I have only ever created one topic on WTF_FA, which was a general appeal to its members to treat their fellow FA members with the same compassion and respect deserved of all human beings, regardless of whatever fetishes they might be into. It was not well recieved.

I have never 'snarked' anyone's FA submissions on WTF_FA, though I have had other, personal disagreements with FA users that are done and buried as far as Im concerned.

But even so, if my own ban from FA was what it would take to get this anti-harassment measure pushed through then it is a sacrifice I would make without a moment's hesitation.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 24, 2009)

mottled.kitten said:


> Excuse me, Ran: I'm pretty sure I saw you over at WTF_FA.
> 
> I haven't been over there in a really long time (they post waaaaaay too often... it was all I could see in my Friends page! o____o) but they seem to have things under control. They're more "WTF"-ing at some things that people draw, and most of the artists--like ChimeraSynx--are cool with it, even engage some of the people in conversation about it. Now, I do say "most" but not "all" because this is the Internet, and 'we can't have anything nice' on the Internet.



Topics like this recent one : http://community.livejournal.com/wtf_fa/992434.html have been the majority of my experience with WTF_FA. Does that look like fun-loving people having a light-hearted chuckle at some unusual art on FA to you?

It looks like pretty blatant defamation to me. Note the people calling me all kinds of insulting things, saying how much they hate me or how I disgust them... this behaviour is TYPICAL of these people.

They are all FA users. They have accounts here; they enjoy sharing this community with others, and they enjoy the fact that they wont be harassed here because the mods care about keeping this a pleasant online art community; not a stinking monkey-cage pandamonium like 4chan.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> because the mods care about keeping this a pleasant online art community; not a stinking monkey-cage pandamonium like 4chan.


 
And this is... A bad thing?


----------



## Volkodav (Jan 24, 2009)

This is unbelievably stupid.
I hope you know you brought this all on by yourself, and now all you're doing is drawing more negative attention to yourself.
If you hadn't posted porn comics [which will obv get suspicious thoughts about] or cried and called the people who outed Java as a dogfucker "trolls", this wouldn't have started.
You just keep dragging it on and on, but now that you're in the spotlight [where you really want to be], you're crying about it.

Just stop, it's getting annoying.
The more you cry, the more people are gonna' see the Dchan posts and other posts about you, do you want that?


----------



## Volkodav (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Topics like this recent one : http://community.livejournal.com/wtf_fa/992434.html have been the majority of my experience with WTF_FA. Does that look like fun-loving people having a light-hearted chuckle at some unusual art on FA to you?




It's "WTF FA", not "WTF ART FA"

:\


----------



## LoveCube (Jan 24, 2009)

So if I make a post in my LiveJournal where I ridicule you(r artwork), you want me to be banned from FA/plan on suing me because I make fun of you on a site that's not even related to FA in any manner?

Regardless of that and to reply to your posts.. WOW, stop being so damned butthurt and take shit personal. There will always be people who dislike you(r art) and there will always be people who will make fun of you one way or another on some site. If you can't lift your chin high and walk right past that, then you are just another sorry sap with no backbone.

Let's face it, your entire argument is based on an incident where you made fun of, otherwise you wouldn't give a rat's ass. Someone made fun of you or otherwise put you in a bad light. You don't have the balls to deal with it in a mature fashion by... Oh, I don't know, IGNORING IT MAYBE? So you're going off into a rant here demanding anyone who makes fun about users on FA on a site that is not FA be banned on FA?

People like you make me angry. You are taking personal issues into legal matters because you can't deal with rejection of some sort. God forbid not everyone praises you like a deity, really.

*Grow the fuck up* RAN. That's all there is to this.


----------



## Volkodav (Jan 24, 2009)

LoveCube said:


> So if I make a post in my LiveJournal where I ridicule you(r artwork), you want me to be banned from FA/plan on suing me because I make fun of you on a site that's not even related to FA in any manner?


Anybody anywhere who makes fun of Ranfuck should be killed.


lmfao.


LoveCube said:


> Regardless of that and to reply to your posts.. WOW, stop being so damned butthurt and take shit personal. There will always be people who dislike you(r art) and there will always be people who will make fun of you one way or another on some site.


It would be kind of hard for him to not take things personally, seeing as though he's the only 26 year old man living in Australia, and if you mention something about a man living in Australia you're automatically talking about him.



LoveCube said:


> If you can't lift your chin high and walk right past that, then you are just another sorry sap with no backbone.


He hates the negative attention but he llooooves to get it.


----------



## Takun (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Defamation has a different precedent in Australia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutnick_v_Dow_Jones
> Yes, I am able to sue foreign persons or business entities that defame me regardless of their location if what is published on an online discussion board is accessible here. Your US concept of 'freedom of speech' does not entitle you to legal protection in the international court.



Oh shit guys, he's serious.  Don't make him get the internet world police on this.  You're all going to ecourt.  


Good thing I have Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney on my side.


----------



## Volkodav (Jan 24, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Oh shit guys, he's serious.  Don't make him get the internet world police on this.  You're all going to ecourt.
> 
> 
> Good thing I have Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney on my side.



I read it as "anybody who makes fun of me on a website can go to jail, see? see?? I have a link to prove it"


----------



## Nocturne (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Defamation has a different precedent in Australia :
> Yes, I am able to sue foreign persons or business entities that defame me regardless of their location if what is published on an online discussion board is accessible here. Your US concept of 'freedom of speech' does not entitle you to legal protection in the international court.



Haha, if you think the Australian high court has any authority whatsoever on people in other countries, you are sorely mistaken.

To clarify, let me just say that your case for someone making fun of you on a forum is not going to hold up internationally.


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 24, 2009)

If it did _NOT HAPPEN on FA_, it should not be brought into the light to stir up drama/trouble/etc.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 24, 2009)

Since you've pretty much proven yourself to be a gigantic idiot, RQF, I'm going to make this my last direct reply to you, and then Dragoneer can join the list of people pointing out how utterly idiotic your request is.  And since you've raised my ire with this bullshit, I'm warning you that I'm about to get "Seven Words You Can't Say on TV" on your ass.



RANQuickFox said:


> Defamation has a different precedent in Australia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutnick_v_Dow_Jones
> Yes, I am able to sue foreign persons or business entities that defame me regardless of their location if what is published on an online discussion board is accessible here. Your US concept of 'freedom of speech' does not entitle you to legal protection in the international court.



Somebody calling you a twat on FA probably isn't going to catch much attention when there are more important goddamned things happening on the Internet, and like I said before, you are an insignificant blip on the 'Net, so if you can prove that someone calling you a twat on FA has significantly defamed you in any way, then I'm pretty goddamned sure you really need to reexamine your life's priorities rather than take out a lawsuit against 'Neer and Co.  (And for the record, that ruling by the Australian courts is utter bullshit and never should have gone that way.  It completely undermines the legal system of both Australia and the United States.)




RANQuickFox said:


> Citing a slippery slope fallacy in support of your argument robs it of legitimacy by definition.



I never said I was a GOOD arguer.



RANQuickFox said:


> That sounds wonderful to me, if people were forced to actually THINK about what they were saying on publicly accessible forums. If people kept the expression of such thoughts and opinions private, not only would they not be harming anyone but they would also not need to worry about any consequences.



Fuck you, fuck you, FUCK YOU RIGHT UP YOUR ASS WITH THE THOR DILDO.

Now, see, if I was afraid of speaking my mind freely on this forum, I wouldn't dare say the above line for fear of being suspended, banned, or worse.  But I don't have that fear because I'm willing to accept the consequences of my decision to express myself freely.  I could probably be punished for saying it, and it's perfectly within the rights of the FAF admins to do so, and while I'd be a little pissed about any action they take against me, I wouldn't whine that much unless I felt the action taken was disproportionate to the offense I'd committed.

But, just as a hypothetical, let's say I was afraid to speak my mind on this forum.  That's fine and good, as the FA admins are known for being a little hardassed sometimes, so biting your tongue can save your ass in some situations.  But that fear shouldn't carry over to other websites -- I shouldn't be afraid to speak my mind about the FA admins on a wholly different website (be it Dramachan, my personal blog, or something else entirely).  Your suggestion to punish FA members for things they've said and done on other websites would do exactly that -- it would scare people into giving up their God-given right to Free Speech by making them believe that the FA admins could ban them for making fun of the stupid things they see on FA (be they shitty submissions, stupid journals, or bad decisions by the FA admins) *on sites that aren't FA*.  I cannot and will not be party to that sort of fear-based suppression of Free Speech rights, and I will fight *to my dying fucking breath* to keep something like that from happening on FA.



RANQuickFox said:


> What you go on to suggest is really no different; that it is the victims of such harasment who should withold their right to free expression so as not to incite future harassment. I call a double-standard on you for that.



Hey, guess what, asshole?  I just called you an asshole.  Guess what?  I've been called an asshole on the Internets before.  *GET THE FUCK OVER IT.*  If you're truly being harassed on FA, then yes, go to the admins and get them to help you.  If someone is harassing you in real life, then yes, go to the cops and get them to help you.

But if someone who has an FA account calls you an asshole on Dramachan and you know for sure what the FA account of that person is...complain to the Dramachan admins about it -- don't run to the FA mods and ask them to ban the person who called you an asshole from FA.  Dramachan is not their domain, Dramachan is not their site, and the actions a person takes on one site should not directly impact their status on a wholly different site.

Let me put it another way: let's say I work at Wal-Mart, and I go to my local Blockbuster to rent a movie, and I get into an small argument with another customer there.  Should that customer then be able to go to Wal-Mart and demand I be fired for being an asshole to them in Blockbuster?

If you think the answer is "yes", then you truly are one deranged, messed-up motherfucker.



RANQuickFox said:


> Tried doing nothing, didnt work. Sure, the trolls change victims pretty regularly but why should that make it more acceptable? Should I not care because I am no longer the victim? should I discard my empathy for others out of moral cowardice?



Trolls are essentially Internet bullies; if you ignore them, then likely they'll move on to someone who'll be a bigger LOLcow by reacting directly to their tactics.

And yes, you should learn not to care and to discard your empathy for the most part.  Let people worry about their own bullshit; don't try to play White Knight for the entire Internets.



RANQuickFox said:


> Tried this. The people who administrate such sites are not reasonable people, they do not respond favourably to polite requests. Honestly, what kind of people do you THINK administrate these kind of sites? They are as immature and morally bankrupt as the worst of their users.



Guess what?  It's well within their rights to let such content stay up.  I said it's better than whining like a bitch; I didn't say it was a foolproof method.



RANQuickFox said:


> Noone should have to tolerate such abuse merely because it is transitory. Would you tell the victim of a violent crime that complaining about it wont do any good because it cant undo what has been done? Justice is a concept worth upholding, however big or small the issue is.



You're suggesting that FA users be banned from FA for saying mean things on a non-FA site; I'd venture to say that your sense of justice is sick and twisted.



RANQuickFox said:


> Dragoneer has INVITED feedback on this issue, so I am taking the opportunity to give him some... if not here and now then where and when? never? I should just bite my tongue because it doesnt suit my opponents? Nice try at a convincing argument, keep working on it.



I'm not saying you shouldn't provide feedback on the issue.  Rather, I invite you to come up with *reasonable* feedback on the issue at hand.  But your suggestion that FA's admins essentially become the furry version of the Thought Police is dangerous to Free Speech, unethical, immoral, and practically impossible for the FA admins to do.  I will not stand idly by and let something so monumentally *retarded* go unchallenged, even if it doesn't really need to be challenged directly (as any reasonable person looking at your suggestion can see how stupid it is).



RANQuickFox said:


> Fortunately neither you nor anyone else here is responsible for deciding what my rights are. I reserve the right to be offended when someone says something offensive to/about me, and that legally speaking, you are talking out of your ass if you think that freedom of speech is absolute and without exceptions.



Being able to speak your mind freely is a right.  There are limits to Free Speech, I've never disputed this; however, offhandedly calling someone an asshole on the Internets isn't part of those limits.
Being offended at something is an emotional reaction based on a combination of past experiences and personal beliefs.  Nobody -- *absolutely nobody* -- has the right to be offended.



RANQuickFox said:


> None of the FA admins have to dedicate much time or effort to this, if a harassment report they are provided outlines all the relevant details for them. There's no invasion of privacy when we are talking about public forums such as the ones I mentioned.



Sure, there's no technical invasion of privacy, but it still creates an air of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) on those websites.  People will be afraid to speak their minds if the Furry Thought Police are ready to expel them from FA for doing so.



RANQuickFox said:


> If Dragoneer sends Fiz or Surgat a request for the IP information of a poster on their sites involved in a harassment case, they are easily able to provide this information, and would not really be in a position to refuse.



Actually, they would be in a position to refuse, as they shouldn't be afraid of having their users effectively silenced because someone like you got butthurt that they got called names on the Internets and went whining to 'Neer about it.  They shouldn't give in to a request for a user's IP unless the people requesting it are part of a lawful criminal/civil investigation, and even then, they should only give it up when they are absolutely sure that such people have a legit, legal reason for needing that information.

Since I said I'd stop replying to you directly after this post, I'm going to leave you with this final statement, you thin-skinned son of a bitch -- *anything that a FurAffinity user does outside of FurAffinity that does not directly affect FurAffinity should have no bearing whatsoever on that user's FurAffinity account.*


----------



## DuncanFox (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Dragoneer has INVITED feedback on this issue, so I am taking the opportunity to give him some...



Ok...let's see what that feedback looks like so far:

*People who disagree with RANQuickFox (25)**: Witchiebunny, IanKeith, MiffTheFox, kitsunez, TakeWalker,  mottled.kitten, darkdoomer, Ailure, Fiz, Dragonhawknumber, DigitalMan, Clayton, DuncanFox, Winail, Freehaven, Altera, xxow, Takumi_L, brightfire, PriestRevan, XerxesQados, Makyui, LoveCube, Nocturne, mrchris

*People who agree with RANQuickFox (1)*: RANQuickFox

* Not counting 2 or 3 people with a postcount of 1.


----------



## Bruce Kent (Jan 24, 2009)

ITT: Ranquickfox, aspiring fascist.


----------



## PriestRevan (Jan 24, 2009)

DuncanFox said:


> Ok...let's see what that feedback looks like so far:
> 
> *People who disagree with RANQuickFox (25)**: Witchiebunny, IanKeith, MiffTheFox, kitsunez, TakeWalker, mottled.kitten, darkdoomer, Ailure, Fiz, Dragonhawknumber, DigitalMan, Clayton, DuncanFox, Winail, Freehaven, Altera, xxow, Takumi_L, brightfire, *PriestRevan*, XerxesQados, Makyui, LoveCube, Nocturne, mrchris
> 
> ...


 
Why am I on that list?


----------



## Altera (Jan 24, 2009)

Isn't RQF constant accusations of immoratility, childishness, trolling, cowardice, harassing people for being a member of WTF_FA, making a post insulting WTF_FA members on their site, crusading member's journals, spreading lies and rumours about the members to random people because those people spoke to one of them, accusing them of having no life, no job, no intelligence, trying to enforce silence rules on people, taking away any form of self-expression, spamming, insulting, defamation...and so much more going to be considered?

All of this has actually been done on FA and in the forums, somehow I do believe this consists as harassment.

RQF, I think you should think about your rude and defamatory opinions and comments and keep them private. Harassing people every time they express an opinion is quite rude and your manner of spreading rumors and lies is appalling.

I'm offended by your harassing measures against people who are members of WTF_FA, and I, myself, am not even a member.



RANQuickFox said:


> ...BAD PEOPLE...
> ....immature and antisocial douchebags
> ...get their jollies at the expense of other FA users...
> ... the enemy....





RANQuickFox said:


> ...assholes ...





RANQuickFox said:


> ...this behaviour is TYPICAL of these people....


 - in your experience. You really should stop your defammation of people, it's not flattering

Remember, my first experience of you was you messaging me to tell me the person I'm discussing anatomy with is actually using it as an excuse to insult you, you then proceeded to defame him and attempt to "convert" me :|


			
				RQF said:
			
		

> ...childish prat, which is fitting because that's what he is.
> 
> Clayton ... is just a liar and a drama-whore who wants you to sympathise with him even though he has done nothing to earn it.


----------



## Memento Mori (Jan 24, 2009)

RAN, I think you should go over to WTF_FA and personally teach all those jerks a lesson about making fun of you and your friends.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 24, 2009)

I had a thought on this topic.

What about perceived harrassment? To illuminate:

I call Dragoneer a fag because he's a fag because he knows I don't mean it. It's just kidding around with language that, in another context, could be considered insulting.

FA user WhiteKnightFox696969 sees this comment of mine, and reports it as harassment.

Given that the intention was not to harass, but a, shall we say, in-joke was taken amiss by someone out of the loop for genuine harassment and insult, would I still get in trouble?

And maybe for this example, we can just ignore the fact that Drago could clear me himself with his godly moddy powers?


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 24, 2009)

TakeWalker said:


> I had a thought on this topic.
> 
> What about perceived harrassment? To illuminate:
> 
> ...



In cases such as this, I think the administration should hold off on acting on this until they've had a chance to look at past interactions between the "harasser" and the "victim".  If it appears to the admins that this is a one-off thing or that the comments were made in jest, then little-to-no action should be taken (a note to the parties involved would, at the most, be sufficient, as that would allow the parties to explain the situation); however, if there is a pattern of "harassing" comments made towards the "victim" and it appears that the "harasser" is most definitely engaged in an active campaign of harassment/trolling against the "victim", then the admins should take immediate action.


----------



## DuncanFox (Jan 24, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> Why am I on that list?



I took this to mean you disagree with his premise:



PriestRevan said:


> If you're being harassed on another website, than stop bringing it into FA/FAF. In truth, no one cares what happens to you on another website (or the web in general).


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 24, 2009)

As I've repeated myself  others have, that *ANYTHING OCCURING WITH USERS OUTSIDE FURAFFINITY has NO STANDING HERE*. Is that clear enough, RASQuickFox?

Dense.


----------



## PriestRevan (Jan 24, 2009)

DuncanFox said:


> I took this to mean you disagree with his premise:


 
Never said I disagreed with him.

I just posted my opinion.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 24, 2009)

DuncanFox said:


> Ok...let's see what that feedback looks like so far:
> 
> *People who disagree with RANQuickFox (25)**: Witchiebunny, IanKeith, MiffTheFox, kitsunez, TakeWalker,  mottled.kitten, darkdoomer, Ailure, Fiz, Dragonhawknumber, DigitalMan, Clayton, DuncanFox, Winail, Freehaven, Altera, xxow, Takumi_L, brightfire, PriestRevan, XerxesQados, Makyui, LoveCube, Nocturne, mrchris
> 
> ...



The vast majority of the people who disagree with me are WFA_FA and dramachan users... the only reason there are so many of them posting in this thread is because it was linked on their respective sites.

I mean, no kidding there are going to be a few hundred people who violently disagree with me on this topic... pointing that out doesnt really strengthen the argument against me.

Im sure that the vast majority of FA users would agree with me when I say : FA users who harass other FA users should be banned from using FA, and there shouldnt be any loopholes in that rule that allow them to get away with it.


----------



## PriestRevan (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> The vast majority of the people who disagree with me are WFA_FA and dramachan users... the only reason there are so many of them posting in this thread is because it was linked on their respective sites.


 
Please don't try to lump me in with them.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Jan 24, 2009)

New AUP was made right after I was banned for 7 days 
I think that me trolling a large amount of furries on FA in one day has caused it.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 24, 2009)

Zoltan said:


> NO I'M NORMAL! STOP FURSECUTING ME!



And this is why the admins need to lurk Dramachan for offsite harassment claims.

Amirite?


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 24, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> In cases such as this, I think the administration should hold off on acting on this until they've had a chance to look at past interactions between the "harasser" and the "victim".  If it appears to the admins that this is a one-off thing or that the comments were made in jest, then little-to-no action should be taken (a note to the parties involved would, at the most, be sufficient, as that would allow the parties to explain the situation); however, if there is a pattern of "harassing" comments made towards the "victim" and it appears that the "harasser" is most definitely engaged in an active campaign of harassment/trolling against the "victim", then the admins should take immediate action.



Hurrr... I think I actually forgot to include my point in that post, that being, will second-hand harrassment reports be given any consideration? "It's obvious this user was harrassing this other user" when the reporter has nothing to do with either party? If users are held accountable for reporting harrassment against themselves, then that scenario wouldn't generate a legitimate report.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 24, 2009)

TakeWalker said:


> Hurrr... I think I actually forgot to include my point in that post, that being, will second-hand harrassment reports be given any consideration? "It's obvious this user was harrassing this other user" when the reporter has nothing to do with either party? If users are held accountable for reporting harrassment against themselves, then that scenario wouldn't generate a legitimate report.



This is true.  I think secondhand reports should be investigated, but they should not be considered to be on the same level as direct reports/complaints of harassment.


----------



## Altera (Jan 24, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> The vast majority of the people who disagree with me are WFA_FA and dramachan users... the only reason there are so many of them posting in this thread is because it was linked on their respective sites.




I am not one of them, unless viewing the site once every 4 months is cause for a criminal investigation.
I'm quite capable of deducing that you're batshit insane by myself after you spammed me with paranoid delusions about Clayton. 

(You may not be aware, but this post is linked to along with all the new AUP posts on the top of FA. EVERYONE has been linked to it.
So please stop your silly delusions. It's embarrassing for the rest of us Aussies.)



> Im sure that the vast majority of FA users would agree with me when I say : FA users who harass other FA users should be banned from using FA, and there shouldnt be any loopholes in that rule that allow them to get away with it.



Stop trying to misrepresent it.

What you MEAN is : People who talk about FA users on a site NOT on FA should be banned from FA via means of dubious privacy violation such as requesting their IP.
BUT ONLY IF RQF DOESN'T AGREE WITH THEIR VIEWS.



			
				FreeHaven said:
			
		

> This is true. I think secondhand reports should be investigated, but they should not be considered to be on the same level as direct reports/complaints of harassment.


I second this, partially because what the reporter may view as severe harassment, the victim may not really care. If the victim REALLY cared they would report it themselves.


----------



## TehBrownPup (Jan 24, 2009)

IMHO you've all just harassed RANQuickFox on FurAffinity's website where it's FA's business to ban you if you do.

But that's just me.


----------



## Takun (Jan 24, 2009)

TehBrownPup said:


> IMHO you've all just harassed RANQuickFox on FurAffinity's website where it's FA's business to ban you if you do.
> 
> But that's just me.




Oh noes, bans.  I've never had that happen before.


----------



## TehBrownPup (Jan 24, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Oh noes, bans.  I've never had that happen before.



It's not my choice to say whether or not you get banned as I'm not an admin, or moderator, or any power with the capability of disciplining anything of any severity.

And by "you" I'm speaking plurally


----------



## N8! (Jan 25, 2009)

*Re: The Internet is indeed serious business*

Honestly, why do you care so much that someone somewhere is saying something on some site about someone on FA?  This is not a massive deal.  "OH NOES SOME ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT US FURRIEZ!!"  Do you honestly think whining is going to solve the problem?  Has whining EVER solved the problem?  No, it hasn't.

   You really want to do something to make people see the furry fandom in a positive light?  Every time _x_Chan/wtf_fa/SA or someone else starts saying something "mean, nasty and awful (or more frequently "truthful and hilarious") about furries.  Instead of going with your gut reaction and whining about it as loud as you possibly can like a good chunk of the fandom has done since dinosaurs and raw telnet roamed the Earth, why not try this...

..Try ignoring it.  No, I'm serious.  People will get sick of trolling you if you don't give them the reaction they are looking for.  It's really, really simple.  Just click that Red X in the corner of the screen and go on with your life.


----------



## IanKeith (Jan 25, 2009)

TehBrownPup said:


> IMHO you've all just harassed RANQuickFox on FurAffinity's website where it's FA's business to ban you if you do.
> 
> But that's just me.



There's a difference between 'disagreeing with' and 'harassing'. Learn it.


----------



## nobuyuki (Jan 25, 2009)

"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!!"


----------



## Kushaba (Jan 25, 2009)

does this mean we can't make dragon jokes or fox jokes or wolf jokes on the site anymore?


----------



## Icen (Jan 25, 2009)

Wow. I don't even know where to go with this.

I like my freedom of speech and privacy QBF. Get the fuck out of my internet-life and stay the fuck away from it.


----------



## Lyxen (Jan 25, 2009)

aint the internet like a place where we can say anything we want?, there are no rules...i mean spam sucks, but the internet is pure anarchy!! why not keep it that way and never answer spammers that you think are spammers, let the moderate moderation do it's work on laying down the ban hammer,, dont knwo really what saying....


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 25, 2009)

*Re: The Internet is indeed serious business*



N8! said:


> Honestly, why do you care so much that someone somewhere is saying something on some site about someone on FA?  This is not a massive deal.  "OH NOES SOME ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT US FURRIEZ!!"  Do you honestly think whining is going to solve the problem?  Has whining EVER solved the problem?  No, it hasn't.
> 
> You really want to do something to make people see the furry fandom in a positive light?  Every time _x_Chan/wtf_fa/SA or someone else starts saying something "mean, nasty and awful (or more frequently "truthful and hilarious") about furries.  Instead of going with your gut reaction and whining about it as loud as you possibly can like a good chunk of the fandom has done since dinosaurs and raw telnet roamed the Earth, why not try this...
> 
> ..Try ignoring it.  No, I'm serious.  People will get sick of trolling you if you don't give them the reaction they are looking for.  It's really, really simple.  Just click that Red X in the corner of the screen and go on with your life.



I wish more furries would follow the last section of this post and there would not be massive amounts of butthurt folks bitching on their Myspace/LJ/FA journal.


----------



## Icen (Jan 25, 2009)

OKAY WAIT I JUST THOUGHT OF A GOOD COMPARISON FOR THIS </endcaps>

Jacob, an 18-year-old senior in high school, smokes cigarettes. He doesn't smoke them on school campus or within the limited amount of feet around any school campus. Hell, he doesn't even bring his cigarettes to school. He buys them himself and, by law, that's totally okay. But, by law, he doesn't bring them to a public high school due to the no tolerance policy.

Some teacher, who is super against smoking, finds out that he smokes cigarettes. He brings the school council together and wants to punish any kids who smoke cigarettes, regardless they are of legal age and do not do it in/around schools. The others tell him that's basically retarded, because these kids are 18 and can legally do what they want with cigs as long as they don't break school rules. They can't monitor these kids behavior outside of school.

Of course, this is suggesting that ALL kids in this perfect high school smoke cigs after they turn 18 and not around/in campus.

So there's my comparison. As retarded as it is.

(I have a hunch someone is gonna pop in with school-rules-and-outside-of-schools-because-it's-a-public-school stuff or something.)


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 25, 2009)

"Dear LiveJournal.com,

We run the website FurAffinity.com. It has come to our attention that some people have been using your website and communities on your website to talk and say mean things behind the backs of some of our users. Surely you understand that this is unacceptable, so could you please provide the IP addresses that have accessed the following LiveJournal accounts..."


Seems like a flawless plan to me.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 25, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Ahem.
> 
> When I last brought this issue to your attention I was basically told 'the AUP doesnt cover it' and that apparently was that.
> 
> ...



That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

People who bash FA and FA users on other sites are not violating the AUP by definition.

This would be like punishing an eighteen-year-old US citizen for drinking while on vacation in England. You cannot violate the rules of your place while you are in another place.


----------



## Alchera (Jan 25, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> I dont see why a site that is dedicated in its entirety to discussion of happenings on FA and populated almost exclusively of FA users should be exempt from the FA AUP.
> 
> Remember, these are BAD PEOPLE Im talking about here; immature and antisocial douchebags who get their jollies at the expense of other FA users. By holding their little hate-parties on another domain, yet confining the content of their discussions and activities to FA, they are effectively thumbing their collective noses at the FA admins and chanting "nyah nyah, cant catch us!". And its true, Dragoneer might not be able to affect what they do on other domains and nor should he... but that doesnt mean he should be overcome with inexplicable amnesia the moment these same offenders log onto FA with the expectation of equal and harassment-free access to its services; they very same services they attempt to make unusuable for other FA users when not enjoying them theirselves.
> 
> There is no need for Dragoneer to cripple himself with retarded 'rules of engagement' much like those that can be seen today on many a foreign battlefield... just because the enemy drops his gun and walks away doesnt make him any less a viable target... not if you dont want to be constantly on the recieving end of attacks by a foe who isnt playing by the same rules you are.



What happens off the website and forums is not the concern of FA's Administration, nor should it be unless the activities present a risk to the functioning of the site itself. Outside of the website and forums, the FA Administration has no power whatsoever when it comes to the types of people you speak of. These are not just rules Dragoneer and the others follow--anyone sensible who runs a community does the same thing. What happens on other websites happens on difference servers which are not controlled by the same people.

As for such people being 'bad'. That is merely opinion simply because they do not follow the same points of view and mannerisms you do. Keep in mind you do not know them or why they might try to provoke people.


----------



## Dragonhawknumber (Jan 25, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> The vast majority of the people who disagree with me are WFA_FA and dramachan users... the only reason there are so many of them posting in this thread is because it was linked on their respective sites.
> 
> I mean, no kidding there are going to be a few hundred people who violently disagree with me on this topic... pointing that out doesnt really strengthen the argument against me.
> 
> Im sure that the vast majority of FA users would agree with me when I say : FA users who harass other FA users should be banned from using FA, and there shouldnt be any loopholes in that rule that allow them to get away with it.




Duuuuuuuuuuude!

How did you ever...

*EVER*

*EEEEEEEEEEEVER*

ever survived High School with that attitude "BAW BAW BAW ANYONE WHO MAKES FUN OF ME NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL >:C"

Seriously, HOW did you? I'm shocked :O


----------



## Surgat (Jan 25, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Freehaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



RQF, you think "reasonable" means "agrees with me [RQF]," and that being polite means insulting people and making vague threats when they don't do what you want. 

Man, I just don't get you. You can't see how you're being hypocritical with some of your statements in this thread (or you're hoping other people won't notice)? 

Your suggestion is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. A website's rules explain how users can interact _on that website_. Hence, we don't ban someone from the FAF because they repeatedly derailed threads or posted regular porn on a *chan board (as a tripfag), from the mainsite because they posted someone else's artwork on lulz.net, why I don't ban someone from wtf_fa because they made a post about someone they've had personal drama with on another community like sf_drama or fuckyoulist, DA doesn't ban people for posting furry porn on FA or VCL, etc. 

They'd have to ban anyone and everyone who works in advertising too, since advertisements are considered spam on the forums.   

Plus, the internet is fucking _huge_, and it includes things like online games, IM's, IRC, private forums, blog/article comments, and multiple languages, and people have different aliases on different websites. There are no trouble tickets or report buttons on any of these for FA admins/moderators. It's not even _possible_ to police offsite behavior effectively.    

And what would such a policy be for? So you could take revenge on a few people who said some unflattering (but true) things about you and an artist you like, and who refused to delete their posts, after LJ abuse undoubtedly failed to be "reasonable." Most FA users probably don't give a shit about what goes on at wtf_fa or dramachan. 

You don't care about anyone featured on wtf_fa, you don't care about closing loopholes in site rules, all you care about is furthering your little vendetta. This is evident from your use of insults and willingness to make threats. You only think the administrators will buy your argument because you cannot conceive that you might be wrong, or that reasonable people might disagree with you.


----------



## Takun (Jan 25, 2009)

Surgat said:


> RQF, you think "reasonable" means "agrees with me [RQF]," and that being polite means insulting people and making vague threats when they don't do what you want.
> 
> Man, I just don't get you. You can't see how you're being hypocritical with some of your statements in this thread (or you're hoping other people won't notice)?
> 
> ...



Winner by T.K.O, Surgat


----------



## Volkodav (Jan 25, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> "Dear LiveJournal.com,
> 
> We run the website FurAffinity.com. It has come to our attention that some people have been using your website and communities on your website to talk and say mean things behind the backs of some of our users. Surely you understand that this is unacceptable, so could you please provide the IP addresses that have accessed the following LiveJournal accounts..."
> 
> ...



LOL IKR

They'd then have to ban anybody who says anything mean about another FA user on another website.

For example; I go on Gaiaonline and call Ran a douchebag.
SINCE WE'RE BOTH FA USERS I SHOULD GET BANNED BECAUSE IM BEING A MEANIE


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 25, 2009)

Surgat said:


> RQF, you think "reasonable" means "agrees with me [RQF]," and that being polite means insulting people and making vague threats when they don't do what you want.
> 
> Man, I just don't get you. You can't see how you're being hypocritical with some of your statements in this thread (or you're hoping other people won't notice)?
> 
> ...



Owned.


----------



## Altera (Jan 25, 2009)

Surgat said:


> RQF, you think "reasonable" means "agrees with me [RQF]," and that being polite means insulting people and making vague threats when they don't do what you want.
> 
> Man, I just don't get you. You can't see how you're being hypocritical with some of your statements in this thread (or you're hoping other people won't notice)?
> 
> ...




I think I just developed a straightcrush on you.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 25, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Defamation has a different precedent in Australia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutnick_v_Dow_Jones
> Yes, I am able to sue foreign persons or business entities that defame me regardless of their location if what is published on an online discussion board is accessible here. Your US concept of 'freedom of speech' does not entitle you to legal protection in the international court.



That's not how it works at all. That very fact is why a... er, certain pirating website stationed in Sweden with the initials P.B. (I've no idea if saying their name is allowed, so if anyone thinks I'm making stuff up, note me and I'll tell you), despite numerous threats by major high-profile companies including Disney and *Microsoft*, has yet to be sued or forced to remove anything.

That's, of course, beside the fact of the matter: making commentary behind someone's back on another website is not harassment. If posting on snark sites is harassment, then I'm harassing Picasso _right now_ for telling y'all that I think some of his paintings are ugly.



> If Dragoneer sends Fiz or Surgat a request for the IP information of a poster on their sites involved in a harassment case, they are easily able to provide this information, and would not really be in a position to refuse.


Lawl, yes they would. They don't have to give out IPs to just anyone who asks.

For that matter (touching on the point Clayton brought up earlier), is this ruling of yours ONLY limited to WTF_FA and Dramachan? If it occurs anywhere else, is that within the reaches of the FA admins? If I post on some other non-snark message board waaay on the other side of the internet about how nasty someone's pic is on FA and it turns into a discussion on _that_ site, is that exempt? Or should the mods play internet detective to make sure I don't make such commentary anywhere on the internet, ever?


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 25, 2009)

Surgat said:


> RQF, you think "reasonable" means "agrees with me [RQF]," and that being polite means insulting people and making vague threats when they don't do what you want.


Id like to see how YOU define reasonable, seeing as you dont consider a politely worded request to remove specific defamatory topics and statements from a board YOU administrate as 'reasonable'. The response you gave me amounted to "no I wont because I dont like you and you cant force me, nyah nyah" -the very definition of an immature, unreasonable response.



> Man, I just don't get you. You can't see how you're being hypocritical with some of your statements in this thread (or you're hoping other people won't notice)?


If Im being hypocritical about anything, why cant you actually reference what Im being hypocritical about? At least I bother to qualify my statements.



> Your suggestion is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. A website's rules explain how users can interact _on that website_. Hence, we don't ban someone from the FAF because they repeatedly derailed threads or posted regular porn on a *chan board (as a tripfag), from the mainsite because they posted someone else's artwork on lulz.net, why I don't ban someone from wtf_fa because they made a post about someone they've had personal drama with on another community like sf_drama or fuckyoulist, DA doesn't ban people for posting furry porn on FA or VCL, etc.
> 
> They'd have to ban anyone and everyone who works in advertising too, since advertisements are considered spam on the forums.
> 
> Plus, the internet is fucking _huge_, and it includes things like online games, IM's, IRC, private forums, blog/article comments, and multiple languages, and people have different aliases on different websites. There are no trouble tickets or report buttons on any of these for FA admins/moderators. It's not even _possible_ to police offsite behavior effectively.


You dont get my point in the slightest. This isnt about what any FA user is doing offsite that is unrelated to FA... its about how FA users are acting towards other FA users over what gets posted to FA.

You want to harass other FA users with impunity on some other site? Im not saying that anyone should (or could) be able to stop you, only that you should not expect to be able to take advantage of FA's services yourself if thats your attitude.

Honestly, what is the point of having anti-harassment clauses in the FA TOS if it doesnt actually do anything to prevent its users from being harassed? Im pointing out that right now there is a huge loophole that allows people to get around this rule, and that something should be done about it.

The only person that would be stopping you from doing such things is YOURSELF, because you've decided that you want to use FA for the purpose it is made for more than you want to indulge your desire to harass other FA users.



> And what would such a policy be for? So you could take revenge on a few people who said some unflattering (but true) things about you and an artist you like


It should be clear from even a brief perusal of the topics in question that there is very little truth on display, and and overwhelming amount of libel/slander, hyperbole, assumptions, exadgeration and outright lies.



> and who refused to delete their posts, after LJ abuse undoubtedly failed to be "reasonable."


LJ is an unmoderated cesspool and you know it. They dont care about communal harmony, only covering their own asses against legal threats.



> Most FA users probably don't give a shit about what goes on at wtf_fa or dramachan.


Thats only because most FA users dont know these sites even exist. Its hard to avoid discovering them when you personally become a topic of discussion there however, and it only takes one person sending you a link and saying 'hey look at this' for you to find out. I think most people would object to being an object of discussion on either of those sites, if they had any say in the matter.



> You don't care about anyone featured on wtf_fa, you don't care about closing loopholes in site rules, all you care about is furthering your little vendetta. This is evident from your use of insults and willingness to make threats.


I cant prove that I really care about anyone other than myself, no more than you can disprove that I do... but I can assert that I do, and that I honestly believe the changes I suggest would only be good for this community.

Why are you so dead against this? why is being able to defame, verbally abuse and harass other FA users offsite so important for you?



> You only think the administrators will buy your argument because you cannot conceive that you might be wrong, or that reasonable people might disagree with you.


I think the merits of my argument are self-evident, and that the qualities displayed by those who post here opposing them only adds to their merit.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> That's not how it works at all. That very fact is why a... er, certain pirating website stationed in Sweden with the initials P.B. (I've no idea if saying their name is allowed, so if anyone thinks I'm making stuff up, note me and I'll tell you), despite numerous threats by major high-profile companies including Disney and *Microsoft*, has yet to be sued or forced to remove anything.


 Its just a matter of time. All filesharing sites have a limited lifespan, they always get taken down eventually.

What does copyright law have to do with anti-defamation lawsuits anyway? Its apples and oranges. Your example simply demonstrates an embarrassing lack of comprehension about the subject being discussed.



> That's, of course, beside the fact of the matter: making commentary behind someone's back on another website is not harassment. If posting on snark sites is harassment, then I'm harassing Picasso _right now_ for telling y'all that I think some of his paintings are ugly.


When that person find out about it, its no longer happening BEHIND THEIR BACK. If its occurring on a publicly accessible forum, where it leaves a permanent (unless deliberately removed) record that can be accessed long after the comments are made, its hardly the same thing as a private offline conversation between two people.



> Lawl, yes they would. They don't have to give out IPs to just anyone who asks.


If they dont themselves wish to be blocked from accessing FA, what choice would they have but to cooperate?


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

More like BAWQuickFox m i rite?

i m rite.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> Lawl, yes they would. They don't have to give out IPs to just anyone who asks.



You speak wisdom.

also to clarify a few things for others good satire is "Comedy Central's Roast of:" I believe they really had fun dissing on the Pedophile rumor on "everyone favorite Host" from funnest home videos.

Sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4Chan are satire/Liable and CAN have charges pressed against them for their actions and articles, because they are not protected speech. (also posting pictures of people even altered without their permission is illegal regardless if they have it posted on a public website it's called right to personal image, there are only a hand full of exceptions all of have nothign to do with satire as much anything else.)

in my option if the admins want to ban some twat that writes a ED article on someone I am not gonna stop them, people like them need to be told "NO" in a harsh and predigest manner.

as for hurtful artwork I find such things to be mostly in ill-taste, basically I agree with Carlos if the person you are makeing fun of can't laugh at your joke it isn't funny. and speaking of the devil i will openly say I though his vegetarian joke was horrible. I know two people with Preteen allergies they are vegetarians because if they cant eat meat.


----------



## Azure (Jan 26, 2009)

LOL @ this thread.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Yes this conversation is kind of ridiculous in some cases and reminiscent of "MOMMY he dosen't agree with me."


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Ban users who conduct harassment of other FA users via off-site means, particularly WTF_FA LJ and anonib/dramachan. They are mocking the spirit of the AUP they agreed to when they made accounts on this site... letting them go unpunished when you know what they are doing is wrong is nothing short of condoning their actions.


Excuse me, but... no.  Fur Affinity is not the Internet Police, the Furry FBI, the Knotted Inquisition or whatever other terms my brain will randomly generate.

What happens off site Fur Affinity is none of my business. I don't care. _It's my business NOT to care._ 4chan, anonib, dramachan, wtf_fa... what they do is not my concern. Do I necessarily agree with everything that happens on these sites? No. But my duty is to enforce the rules ON Fur Affinity and Fur Affinity ONLY. I judge people by their actions on this site and only this actions. If a user is trolling on our site it will be taken care of. It is not my place to judge people, only judge them by the site rules, and the site begins and ends with *.furaffinity.net. Nothing more.

*For example:
*Surgat abides by the rules of LiveJournal and Fur Affinity. Once again, do I necessarily agree with what Surgat does? No, but he abides by the rules and voices his opinion withing the constraints of LiveJournal and their Terms of Service. Should I ban Surgat for being an asshole offsite? If so, I'd have to ban myself and over half the site for their actions. We've all giggled, snickered or laughed at some image under our breath some time or another. 

The only thing I care about, and all any FA admins should care about, is if people are obeying the rules of the site. I can not control what people do off site, at furmeets, in their bedroom or in their head. I can not, I will not.

To ask that we take action for what people do off site is to ask that the staff of Fur Affinity invade people's privacy. I'm not about to do that.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Excuse me, but... no.  Fur Affinity is not the Internet Police, the Furry FBI, the Knotted Inquisition or whatever other terms my brain will randomly generate.
> 
> What happens off site Fur Affinity is none of my business. I don't care. _It's my business NOT to care._ 4chan, anonib, dramachan, wtf_fa... what they do is not my concern. Do I necessarily agree with everything that happens on these sites? No. But my duty is to enforce the rules ON Fur Affinity and Fur Affinity ONLY. I judge people by their actions on this site and only this actions. If a user is trolling on our site it will be taken care of. It is not my place to judge people, only judge them by the site rules, and the site begins and ends with *.furaffinity.net. Nothing more.
> 
> ...



And now RQF can shut his face.  Thanks, 'Neer!


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Hay I'm just trying to say that the ideal was misconstrued or not thought out enough. don't get me wrong on this but i would rather not see any ED freaks or prefer they keep it to themselves off that atrocity.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4Chan are satire/Liable and CAN have charges pressed against them for their actions and articles, because they are not protected speech.


 
However for libel to be libel, it has to be untrue.  The burden of proof is on the accuser so inorder for someone to SUCCESSFULLY bring upon charges of libel they would also have to prove that what was said on Encylopedia Dramatica was KNOWINGLY incorrect.  Which means if said dog fucker saids 'I fuck dogs!', ED retained proof that he said 'I fuck dogs!', the dog fucker can not successfully bring on libel charges because he is, at least as far as the accused knows from the accusers own words, a dog fucker.

And the scariest part of ED is that this shit is pretty much true, if you filter out the hyperbolic language it uses.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

I cant say this outcome was unexpected, but at least I tried. Ive said my piece, and Im willing to leave it at that.


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 26, 2009)

More than long enough due even with some people (including myself) TELLING YOU the same that that Dragoneer just did. You can take it elsewhere now.


----------



## Rehka (Jan 26, 2009)

EDIT: damnit, took to long editing! My point is moot. 

Well said Dragoneer :3


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

mrchris said:


> More than long enough due even with some people (including myself) TELLING YOU the same that that Dragoneer just did. You can take it elsewhere now.


Yeah, but your opinion doesnt count for shit, Dragoneers does. As I pointed out already, most people agreeing with you are the very people who would be banned so their opinions can hardly been taken as unbiased or objective.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> However for libel to be libel, it has to be untrue.  The burden of proof is on the accuser so inorder for someone to SUCCESSFULLY bring upon charges of libel they would also have to prove that what was said on Encylopedia Dramatica was KNOWINGLY incorrect.  Which means if said dog fucker saids 'I fuck dogs!', ED retained proof that he said 'I fuck dogs!', the dog fucker can not successfully bring on libel charges because he is, at least as far as the accused knows from the accusers own words, a dog fucker.
> 
> And the scariest part of ED is that this shit is pretty much true, if you filter out the hyperbolic language it uses.




well actually; most of what ED posts *IS* untrue, hurtful and demeaning; its drama they create. the proof is ED doesn't bother hieing it,they are even claiming that it is in their right to say the horrible things and insults. I myself discredited their screen shots over 80% came back with a fully verified alterations and only 10% had doubts. their edits couldn't beat over 10 years of photo shop expertise.

also they are still instigateing illegal activity and even coveting deformation of character (this also falls under liable sorry the law does disagree with your defence.)

Put simply ED and 4chan are Hubs for cyberbullies;and NO, bullying on the internet of any type this includes written is cyuberbullying and guess what ALSO illegal in the since ED is doing it. the site has even been listd as illegal, face it you cant win in defending it ED went too far and refused tomake right 4chan ddi the same.

it's game over for them the owners are wanted, and not in the good way. if thats not a objection form sicity I dont know what is, the people that own em have been dubbed crimnals.

Botom line is there are certin things that CAN'T be done and ceritn things that CAN'T be said, even under first amnedment rights. and while im not to objecting giving these turds a kick in tjhe behind they deserve, I want to see this kick come from someoen who will leave an impact that stopps more than one.


----------



## Surgat (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Id like to see how YOU define reasonable,



Using evidence logical reasoning to support controversial statements; being open to belief revision by rational means; honesty, etc.  



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> seeing as you dont consider a politely worded request to remove specific defamatory topics and statements from a board YOU administrate as 'reasonable'. The response you gave me amounted to "no I wont because I dont like you and you cant force me, nyah nyah" -the very definition of an immature, unreasonable response.



I have most of the conversation saved; some parts may have gotten dropped out. Needless to say, you're *lying*. 

In chronological order:



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> As the admin of WTF_FA, could you please delete the following topics, as they pertain less to actual 'wtf @ art' or drama so much as they do to character assassination, which I believe might fall under 'harassment' in the LJ TOS :
> 
> http://community.livejournal.com/wtf_fa/795296.html
> http://community.livejournal.com/wtf_fa/912157.html
> http://community.livejournal.com/wtf_fa/907566.html





			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> The entries in question neither call for or encourage harassment, attempt to interfere with usage of this site, provide any information that would help people identify or contact you or others offline, nor do they constitute hate speech. As such, they are within the bounds of the LJ TOS.
> 
> Two of the entries you linked to did in fact deal with art. Non-art offerings, such as forum or journal posts are permitted anyways, as is the occasional [*section possibly dropped out; demarcation from quoted message also dropped out; reason unknown*]http://community.livejournal.com/wtf_fa/907566.html





			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> Btw, did my whole message go through, or does it look like a section got cut out?
> 
> --- ranquickfox wrote:
> > As the admin of WTF_FA, could you please delete the following topics, as they pertain less to actual 'wtf @ art' or drama so much as they do to character assassination, which I believe might fall under 'harassment' in the LJ TOS :
> ...





			
				RQF said:
			
		

> --- surgat wrote:
> > The entries in question neither call for or encourage harassment, attempt to interfere with usage of this site, provide any information that would help people identify or contact you or others offline, nor do they constitute hate speech. As such, they are within the bounds of the LJ TOS.
> 
> 
> ...



My next reply begins with the second paragraph and does not include 





> Not that I expected you to be reasonable about this, but if you won't reconsider your position I can and WILL seek intervention from the LJ support team... is that a level of scrutiny you really want to invite for WTF_FA?



LJ acts up in some odd ways.



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> What? if you don't think these entries 'call for or encourage harassment' or 'constitute hate speech' you must have been reading something else entirely! They basically have nothing to do with the art in question, but rather attack the opinions and personal lives of the intended targets!
> 
> The entries never said anything to the effect of "go harass/troll this person," and in any event never provided personal information or tried to interfere with your usage of this site. They do not violate stated community rules, and more importantly they do not meet LJ's criterion for harassment:
> http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=108
> ...





			
				RQF said:
			
		

> You are a shitty admin if you wont even remove defaming threads about a person when they personally ask you to. How you personally feel towards me or java should be irrelevant.
> All you are doing here is condoning harassment.
> 
> --- surgat wrote:
> ...





			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WHptG35EWU
> 
> --- ranquickfox wrote:
> > You are a shitty admin if you wont even remove defaming threads about a person when they personally ask you to. How you personally feel towards me or java should be irrelevant.
> > All you are doing here is condoning harassment.





			
				RAQ said:
			
		

> Look, can you take a break from being an asshole for one minute and be a reasonable human being?
> 
> So fine, you don't HAVE to do anything I ask, and it remains to be seen if I can actually force this matter.
> 
> ...



After this point, I preemptively banned you to both keep you from "hang[ing] around and argue and fight and just generally be a downer" wile not having to censor my community users.  




			
				RQF said:
			
		

> If Im being hypocritical about anything, why cant you actually reference what Im being hypocritical about? At least I bother to qualify my statements.



You think I'm stupid, don't you. 

You go on about how we're mean and how sometimes people don't say nice things about each other, but you have no trouble "defaming" wtf_fa users. You say you want to close rule loopholes, but you had no trouble breaking LJ's TOS by making threats, or doing what would be considered harassment here by making misogynistic comments at women wtf_fa members.  



			
				RCQ said:
			
		

> ...BAD PEOPLE...
> ....immature and antisocial douchebags
> ...get their jollies at the expense of other FA users...
> ... the enemy....





			
				RCQ said:
			
		

> ...assholes ...





			
				RCQ said:
			
		

> ...this behaviour is TYPICAL of these people....






			
				RCQ said:
			
		

> You dont get my point in the slightest. This isnt about what any FA user is doing offsite that is unrelated to FA... its about how FA users are acting towards other FA users over what gets posted to FA.



What does the relationship to FA matter? There's no relevant difference.



			
				RCQ said:
			
		

> You want to harass other FA users with impunity on some other site? Im not saying that anyone should (or could) be able to stop you, only that you should not expect to be able to take advantage of FA's services yourself if thats your attitude.



Why? What do offsite occurrences between people have to do with a website's users? Why should FA admins care?



> Honestly, what is the point of having anti-harassment clauses in the FA TOS if it doesnt actually do anything to prevent its users from being harassed?



To prevent onsite harassment. Duh. 



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> LJ is an unmoderated cesspool and you know it. They dont care about communal harmony, only covering their own asses against legal threats.



My community's plenty harmonious. Well, good enough I guess. 

Also: *told you so*.



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> It should be clear from even a brief perusal of the topics in question that there is very little truth on display, and and overwhelming amount of libel/slander, hyperbole, assumptions, exadgeration and outright lies.



Slander is spoken. Almost all posts present only information that can be found through whatever they're linking to, if even that. Any hyperbole is done for comedic effect. You also seem to have no trouble making false written statements, "exadgerations," and outright lies yourself.

You are *dishonest*. 



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> Thats only because most FA users dont know these sites even exist. Its hard to avoid discovering them when you personally become a topic of discussion there however, and it only takes one person sending you a link and saying 'hey look at this' for you to find out. I think most people would object to being an object of discussion on either of those sites, if they had any say in the matter.



Most who do know about it don't care; snarkees often become fellow members. 

ONE OF US 
ONE OF US



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> I cant prove that I really care about anyone other than myself, no more than you can disprove that I do... but I can assert that I do, and that I honestly believe the changes I suggest would only be good for this community.



I have some evidence that you don't: you have no trouble breaking site rules, making false written statements, "exadgerations," and outright lies. 



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> Why are you so dead against this? why is being able to defame, verbally abuse and harass other FA users offsite so important for you?





			
				RDF said:
			
		

> false written statements, "exadgerations," and outright lies



FTFY.



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> I think the merits of my argument are self-evident...



I think this is part of the problem: you can't conceive that you are wrong or that reasonable people might disagree with you. 






RANQuickFox said:


> Yeah, but your opinion doesnt count for shit, Dragoneers does. As I pointed out already, most people agreeing with you are the very people who would be banned so their opinions can hardly been taken as unbiased or objective.



Oh, but _you're_ "unbiased" and "objective." It's not like you have any _grudges_ or _vendettas_ against anybody. 

You seem to think objectivity, like reasonableness, equates to agreeing with you. 

Also: ad hominem.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Yeah, but your opinion doesnt count for shit, Dragoneers does. As I pointed out already, most people agreeing with you are the very people who would be banned so their opinions can hardly been taken as unbiased or objective.



Where some of us may come from doesn't make our points any more or less valid. If we are right, we are right. If we are wrong, we are wrong. Where people decide to spend their free time doesn't matter very much, in this case.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> well actually; most of what ED posts *IS* untrue


Last time I looked ED still listed Alkora and myself as the same person. Most of their shit about me was completely untrue, some of it was right one the money. It's a mixed bag.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

Yay, more stupidity!  This will be fun.



LadyHisoka said:


> well actually; most of what ED posts *IS* untrue, hurtful and demeaning; its drama they create. the proof is ED doesn't bother hieing it,they are even claiming that it is in their right to say the horrible things and insults.



And it is their right.  Y'know, First Amendment and all that.  Just because the things they say are hurtful or demeaning or insulting doesn't mean they don't have the right to say them.  And so you know, this is coming from someone with a page dedicated to him on ED.



LadyHisoka said:


> I myself discredited their screen shots over 80% came back with a fully verified alterations and only 10% had doubts. their edits couldn't beat over 10 years of photo shop expertise.



So you intentionally altered legit screenshots, posted the altered images to ED, and you're complaining that ED allows false information to be posted?  Wow, nice.  You must be proud of yourself.



LadyHisoka said:


> also they are still instigateing illegal activity and even coveting deformation of character (this also falls under liable sorry the law does disagree with your defence.)



As has been stated above -- when you take out the hyperbolic language and the insults, a fair amount of the things that ED says about actual people (as an example: Chris-chan) are pretty much true.  That those people would feel it falls under libel/slander/defamation is their opinion, and the onus is on the alleged victim to prove that it is defamation in a court of law.



LadyHisoka said:


> Put simply ED and 4chan are Hubs for cyberbullies;and NO, bullying on the internet of any type this includes written is cyuberbullying and guess what ALSO illegal in the since ED is doing it.the site has even been listd as illegal, face it you cant win in defending it ED went too far and refused tomake right 4chan ddi the same.
> 
> it's game over for them the owners are wanted, and not in the good way. if thats not a objection form sicity I dont know what is, the people that own em have been dubbed crimnals.
> 
> Botom line is there are certin things that CAN'T be done and ceritn things that CAN'T be said, even under first amnedment rights. and while im not to objecting giving these turds a kick in tjhe behind they deserve, I want to see this kick come from someoen who will leave an impact that stopps more than one.



I don't even know where the hell you're getting this.  There's nothing about the site being deemed "illegal" in anything I can find, and that includes the site's Wikipedia article.  Just because you disagree with what they do there doesn't make it illegal.

Incidentally, "cyberbullying" is not illegal.  And don't throw the Megan Meier case at me and say that's proof "cyberbullying" is illegal -- the Lori Drew conviction was a load of crap and the charges she was convicted of were brought against her specifically because "cyberbullying" is not against the law.  Just like it's not illegal to be a jerk to someone in real life.  And besides, "cyberbullying" is a term intended to make what's more commonly known as "trolling" sound worse than it really is.

Encyclopedia Dramatica is offensive to some people, and I respect that.  Not everyone's got a sense of humor that allows them to accept ED as something humorous.  But the site's existence is not illegal, and you're going to have to learn with that.  If you don't like the site, nobody is forcing you to look at it or add content to it or anything like that, so why even worry about it at all?


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Well Dragoneer that is why I said most, but there is the fact that from what I have seen it's only an excuse to be a bug bully.

 I can see where you are coming from on the sock puppet rumors, they got a friend banned from Deviant Art pulling that. I still prompt the question to spied why; he isn't responding to that and the question would it matter if it wasn't me or my attorney on the sockpppet and deformation their staff members dissed out as well. I even called in a third party they claim they willing to take him seriously till he joins DA; naturally he refused as that would forfeit his third party status.

 freeheaven I'm gonna openly admin I'm gonna smack you around about this because you have been acting semi irrational through out this whole topic.

  Basically Free speech *IS* limited that's the whole point here i belive, and saying hurtful things in that manner *IS* part of why its illegal the other is when the person says *STOP* ED just continued; that made it Satire/Liable/Deformation and a chargeable offense. like I said there are things you just CAN'T do even with first amendment protection.

I did not alter the screen shots in any way shape forum; I sent the guy the links and he sent them threw a series of tests to confirm the authenticity of the screen shots he sent a list of the notable signs were the Neofilter (sometimes called Turn to Neon) was not consistent, text size and fount were mismatched, color washes were present. the other 10% of content is the actual article and HIGHLY plagiarized material. something he wasn't verified on telling if it was false or not.

  Actually there is an article about it in the WEEK called "When Bullies Go Online" about the topic other articles expressed innocents of suicide directly linked to the emotional trauma received by victims of cyberbullies has led to the deaths being classified as Negligent Homicide.

 So ya Its illegal BY LAW, and everything here is a hint instead of using wikipedia (that can and possibly is altered by anyone and everyone) use the Freedom of Information act, something wikipedia should be using in reference to it's law sections.


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Well Dragoneer that is why I said most, but there is the fact that from what I have seen it's only an excuse to be a bug bully.
> 
> I can see where you are coming from on the sock puppet rumors, they got a friend banned from Deviant Art pulling that. I still prompt the question to spied why; he isn't responding and would it matter if it was me or my aturny on the sockpppet and deforamtion their staff members dissed out as well. I even called in a third party they claim they willnto take him seriously till he joins DA; naturaly he refuesd as that would forfet his third party status.
> 
> ...




I tried to make it through your post, but it hurt my eyes way too much.  Please fix it up.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Surgat said:


> I have most of the conversation saved; some parts may have gotten dropped out. Needless to say, you're a *liar*.


I havent lied about anything. I was perfectly civil until YOU insulted me by calling me a misogynist and a hypocrite, when I am neither. Oh, then you linked me an insulting youtube video whose message was 'cry more'. A reasonable person doesnt insult and TAUNT someone who comes to them asking for something that will cost them nothing but the slightest shred of empathy.



> After this point, I preemptively banned you to both keep you from "hang[ing] around and argue and fight and just generally be a downer" wile not having to censor my community users.


So you... crushed all dissent simply because you could? so its okay for YOU to do it to me, just not anyone else to do it to you? Hypocrite.



> You think I'm stupid, don't you.


Initially I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you removed all doubt with your words and your actions.



> You go on about how we're mean and how sometimes people don't say nice things about each other, but you have no trouble "defaming" wtf_fa users.


Actually, you are the one doing the defaming by making public a conversation that was intended to be private, good work. 



> You say you want to close rule loopholes, but you had no trouble breaking LJ's TOS by making threats, or doing what would be considered harassment here by making misogynistic comments at women wtf_fa members.


Something I said was misinterpreted as misogynistic. All I said was that a woman who thinks 'might makes right' has a double standard because she believes she is equal to a man despite being physically less powerful than one. I maintain that a woman IS the equal of a man, DESPITE being less physically powerful, how is that misogynistic?



> What does the relationship to FA matter? There's no relevant difference. Why? What do offsite occurrences between people have to do with a website's users? Why should FA admins care?


Because its abuse of a privelage, you want to have your cake and eat it too, whereas I think you should be forced to choose - play nice, or play somewhere else.



> Slander is spoken.


Information on internet discussion boards has a greater precedent as being regarded as Slander because it is a conversation, not a permanent publication like a book, which would be libel. The distinction between the two is irrelevant for the most part, since they are more frequently referred to collectively as 'Defamation'.



> Most who do know about it don't care; snarkees often become fellow members.
> 
> ONE OF US
> ONE OF US


Victims of childhood abuse often grow to become abusers themselves, but that just makes it understandable, not acceptable.

I dont want to become part of your little gang of e-thugs, and for that you resent me, because as you see it the only thing a person can be other than a victim is an abuser.

I say FUCK YOUR CYCLE OF ABUSE.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Eh, sorry my laptop is having text transfer issues the source is as yet unknown.

i shall fix it at once.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> well dragoneer that is why I said most, but there is the fact that from what i have seen its only an excuse to be a bug bully.



Talking trash about people isn't bullying. It may not be nice or polite, but it's not bullying. Bullying involves abuse, browbeating, and intimidation. Getting made fun of on a website isn't necessarily abusive or intimidating unless you let it be.

When we do ANYTHING in public, it opens us to judgment and personal opinion, and not everyone is going to be passive and keep it to themselves. Thank god, too, because without objective judgment, nothing can be improved on.



			
				RANQuickFox said:
			
		

> Victims of childhood abuse often grow to become abusers themselves, but that just makes it understandable, not acceptable.



Did... did you just compare WTF_FA to child abuse?

Oh, you're golden. You're a treat.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> Talking trash about people isn't bullying. It may not be nice or polite, but it's not bullying. Bullying involves abuse, browbeating, and intimidation. Getting made fun of on a website isn't necessarily abusive or intimidating unless you let it be.
> 
> When we do ANYTHING in public, it opens us to judgment and personal opinion, and not everyone is going to be passive and keep it to themselves. Thank god, too, because without objective judgment, nothing can be improved on.




Actually that not the harassment part the harassment as I said before is they don't stop not even when ignored DivineAngel proved that one, and they get to a point that is beyond going too far. It only gets worse and worse and when a staff member like Chixor banns the victim it only moves to other places.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> well dragoneer that is why I said most, but there is the fact that from what i have seen its only an excuse to be a bug bully.
> 
> I can see where you are coming from on the sock puppet rumors they got a friend banned form deviantArt pulling that, I still prompt the question to spied why; he isn't responding and would it matter if it was me or my aturny on the sockpppet and deforamtion their staff members dissed out as well. I even called in a third party they claim they willnto take him seriously till he joins DA; naturaly he refuesd as that would forfet his third party status.
> 
> ...



I don't even know where to begin with this...partially because it's written in such horribly mangled English.  Good Lord.

But anyway, let's see if I can make some sense of what you're saying.

I am an ardent supporter of Free Speech rights, as earlier posts should tell you.  And while I support the rights of people to speak their minds and express themselves, even I acknowledge that Free Speech has its limits.  And those limits are defamation (that can be *proven*) and incitement of violent acts.

ED, on its face, certainly looks illegal to someone new to the site.  "They can't REALLY call this guy a retarded dogfucking shitstain, can they?"  But ED is a satire site, and as such, they have a little extra latitude to take things a little far when it comes to poking fun at certain people, places, and things.

If ED claims something to be a fact, and they have a way to back that claim up, then they're allowed to dress up that claim with as much colorful language as they want, so long as the claim itself is true.  If you don't like that, too bad -- it's their right under the First Amendment.

I don't think a lot of the things ED puts on its site are funny (mostly because the writing on some articles is godawful), but even I respect its right to put what it thinks is funny up on the 'Net so long as the content isn't breaking laws (and that means articles like this and this and this and this are perfectly legal for ED to host; NSFW warning on all of those links, BTW).

Free Speech is a right, but it's also a responsibility that comes with consequences -- for instance, calling a black man a "nigger" is perfectly within the rights of Free Speech, but there are consequences to saying that word that depend on the context of using it.  I'm positive ED is perfectly aware of their legal rights and how far they can go with their articles.

In short: ED isn't illegal, they'll continue to rip on people deserving of it, and you need to learn to deal with it.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> Did... did you just compare WTF_FA to child abuse?
> 
> Oh, you're golden. You're a treat.


I was not necessarily implying sexual abuse, but rather more in the vein that most children who are bullied, physically or emotionally, whether by adults or other children, often manifest these behaviours themselves later in life.

I would not be surprised if most WTF_FA and anonib users were themselves the victims of bullying growing up, and that their behaviour is therefore the manifestation of this abuse come full-circle.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> I was not necessarily implying sexual abuse, but rather more in the vein that most children who are bullied, physically or emotionally, whether by adults or other children, often manifest these behaviours themselves later in life.
> 
> I would not be surprised if most WTF_FA and anonib users were themselves the victims of bullying growing up, and that their behaviour is therefore the manifestation of this abuse come full-circle.



Or it could just be The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> Or it could just be The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.


Yeah, except most of you arent anonymous and Im not trying to be funny.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Yeah, except most of you arent anonymous and Im not trying to be funny.



Good, because you're not funny.  Also, you need to learn to fucking deal with people making fun of you on the Internet and in real life, because essentially the situations are pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Yeah, except most of you arent anonymous and Im not trying to be funny.



I think you are quite hilarious.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Actually that not the harassment part the harassment as I said before is they don't stop not even when ignored DivineAngel proved that one, and they get to a point that is beyond going too far. It only gets worse and worse and when a staff member like Chixor banns the victim it only moves to other places.



Ohh, you're talking about the raiding and such, I take it?

If that's the case, most of the time it's the "victim's" own behavior that exacerbates it, usually by pitching a fit about it. Being featured on ED isn't always going to result in an internet meltdown, and ED doesn't feature people so that they'll be raided and/or have their internet lives ruined. It's for laughs, mostly.

If people are continually getting visited, it's probably (but, I admit, not always) because they're doing something to encourage it.



			
				RANQuickFox said:
			
		

> I would not be surprised if most WTF_FA and anonib users were themselves the victims of bullying growing up, and that their behaviour is therefore the manifestation of this abuse come full-circle.



Oh, I didn't realize laughing at someone's horrible MSPaint Sonic vagina shots was the same as _*child abuse*_. Or speaking opinions about someone that might be negative. While keeping it off of the "victim's" personal space. Yes, I was _totally_ a social victim growing up, and that's why I think badly-rendered porn is hilarious.

People don't have to keep their comments entirely to themselves. To say that making commentary on there is harassment just because someone might _voluntarily_ come across it, read it, and get bent out of shape about it hours, days, months, or YEARS down the road is stinky poopy.

Nobody is obligated to hurt NOBODY'S feelings at ALL times. If they were, nothing would be said, ever.

It doesn't compare to child abuse. If they were hunting down people, following them around, intimidating them, disrupting their activities, and making their waking lives miserable, that might be another matter. ...And, you know, if the "victims" were _children._ Frankly, if making snarky offsite comments was the worst manifestation of child abuse, that'd probably be something of a good thing.

It's quite possible featured people who join in are there for the same reason other members are: because they're mature enough to take it lightly, the fandom is ripe with hilarity, and those places are quick spots to find it.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> Oh, I didn't realize laughing at someone's horrible MSPaint Sonic vagina shots was the same as _*child abuse*_.


 
No, MSPaint Sonic vagina shots *are* child abuse.  Ask my childhood memories, they'll tell you where the furries touched them.


----------



## Altera (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> I cant say this outcome was unexpected, but at least I tried. Ive said my piece, and Im willing to leave it at that.



Good, you can stop harassing and defaming everyone now.



RANQuickFox said:


> I was not necessarily implying sexual abuse, but rather more in the vein that most children who are bullied, physically or emotionally, whether by adults or other children, often manifest these behaviours themselves later in life.
> 
> I would not be surprised if most WTF_FA and anonib users were themselves the victims of bullying growing up, and that their behaviour is therefore the manifestation of this abuse come full-circle.



oh wait, you're still writing defamation, insults and lies about people. If you weren't so funny I'd request that YOU be banned for your constant harassment of anyone who doesn't agree with you


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> If that's the case, most of the time it's the "victim's" own behavior that exacerbates it, usually by pitching a fit about it. Being featured on ED isn't always going to result in an internet meltdown, and ED doesn't feature people so that they'll be raided and/or have their internet lives ruined. It's for laughs, mostly.
> 
> If people are continually getting visited, it's probably (but, I admit, not always) because they're doing something to encourage it.


You have never been insulted ridicules or else wise bulled in the real world have you?


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> You have never been insulted ridicules or else wise bulled in the real world have you?




I have, get over it.  Online bullying is no where near the same as real life.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> You have never been insulted ridicules or else wise bulled in the real world have you?



Actually, I was bullied for a lot of the time I was in school.  I have firsthand knowledge of what it's like to be bullied, and for the most part, I can say that yes, reacting to bullying is usually what causes a bully (or, in the case of the Internets, a troll) to keep doing that voodoo that they do.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> You have never been insulted ridicules or else wise bulled in the real world have you?


He clearly has, and deals with the pain by bullying others.

Cycle of abuse : perpetuated.


----------



## Altera (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> He clearly has, and deals with the pain by bullying others.
> 
> Cycle of abuse : perpetuated.



You're defaming people again~


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> I don't even know where to begin with this...partially because it's written in such horribly mangled English.  Good Lord.
> 
> But anyway, let's see if I can make some sense of what you're saying.
> 
> ...



I have a question I would like to ask you but your thing says wolf and I'm guessing your explaining your irrational repeats yourself behavior goes overboard and even would defend a sinner to hell attitude that in all honesty is completely Unattractive so ya.... I can act like that too, I will ask you once to rephrase your comment in a more civilized manner and after words leave you to the moderators. I understand my demonstration was a bit much; yet in my defense you are hardly one to talk yourself.


 Also I repeat my statement about you being Irrational and completely off topic that in all fairness is really starting to annoy the living hell out of me. you are trying to defend Cyberbullies for crying out loud what has gotten into you?


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> He clearly has, and deals with the pain by bullying others.
> 
> Cycle of abuse : perpetuated.




Really I just write really sick twisted comics or go monster bashing in a MMORPG imagining their face on the portrait of the monster. I usually just get over it in less than 30minuets. naturally this dosnet work if they fllow me around ruining my "leave me the ---- alone" time.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> No, MSPaint Sonic vagina shots *are* child abuse.  Ask my childhood memories, they'll tell you where the furries touched them.



I'm so sorry.  You have my condolences. I hope the pain will be eased some in time.



			
				LadyHisoka said:
			
		

> You have never been insulted ridicules or else wise bulled in the real world have you?



_Everyone_ has. It's impossible to live one's life without being snarked at for some reason by somebody. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Even _saints_ aren't immune. ...Hell, they wouldn't be saints if they were. Lawl.



			
				RANQuickFox said:
			
		

> He clearly has, and deals with the pain by bullying others.
> 
> Cycle of abuse : perpetuated.



Are you my psychologist now?


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

You really need to take an English class or two, LadyHisoka.



LadyHisoka said:


> I have a question I would like to ask you but your thing says wolf



What the blue bloody blazes does that have to do with anything?



LadyHisoka said:


> I'm guessing your explaining your irrational repeats yourself behavior goes overboard and even would defend a sinner to hell attitude



Depends on the sin.  Murder?  Rape?  Child abuse?  Let 'em burn.  Trolling?  Saying naughty words?  There's worse things in the world than insulting people over the Internet.



LadyHisoka said:


> I can act like that too, I will ask you once to rephrase your comment in a more civilized manner and after words leave you to the moderators. I understand my demonstration was a bit much; yet in my defense you are hardly one to talk yourself.



With the exception of my ripping on your English skills, I was as civilized as possible in my reply to you.  I'm not getting what you're trying to say here.



LadyHisoka said:


> you are trying to defend Cyberbullies for crying out loud what has gotten into you?



You don't have to like the things people say to defend their right to say them.


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

Psych major here.

The person being abused often puts themselves in positions to be abused.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui, Since you are being rational I'm going to ask this of you. Please Lay off RANQuicFoxa bit you are starting to Instigate a nasty argument, now I understand some of the staff and memebrs that have posted hre have seen fit to act worse than the south bound end of a north bound cow but if the members attack eachother it's only gonnamake it that much worse.

Freeheaven: *STOP *I have aspecal task for you I want you to do this before comenting in this thread again, why is because you are becomeing the very thing you claimed to hate with a passion and you aren't helping the free speach movement (that has ended by the way) by encourageing speech that impeeds ones right to happyness.

-Mail your chamber of comerce, Invokeing the Freedome of Information act to get any refrence information you can on the freedom of speech Amendment parts in piticluar about somethign called "Unprotected Speech" be sure to mention that you would prefer a copy, but are willing to accept anythign in general they can give you.

-When you recive the documents I want you to read them carefuly NO SKIMMING, and NO USING WIKIPEDIA.

I belive you will find what I speak of and have a more firm understanding if what I am trying to tell you.

as foryou RANQuickFox take a chill pill, I know the staff hasnt been pokeing at the instigators liek they should but in all fairness you were being a little brash.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Freeheaven: *STOP *I have aspecal task for you I want you to do this before comenting in this thread again



Yeah, I don't think so.



LadyHisoka said:


> why is because you are becomeing the very thing you claimed to hate with a passion and you aren't helping the free speach movement (that has ended by the way) by encourageing speech that impeeds ones right to happyness.



By impeding the rights of people to legally express ideas, opinions, and thoughts that some may find offensive, you impede upon their right to speak their mind freely.  I am a supporter of Free Speech, and that includes ideas and opinions I may disagree with or personally find utterly reprehensible.  As I said above, you don't have to like the things people say to defend their right to say them.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Makyui, Since you are being rational I'm going to ask this of you. Please Lay off RANQuicFoxa bit you are starting to Instigate a nasty argument, now I understand some of the staff and memebrs that have posted hre have seen fit to act worse than the south bound end of a north bound cow but if the members attack eachother it's only gonnamake it that much worse.



...Well, thanks for calling me rational. I mean that, too. I try to be, most times.

I don't think I'm treating him too unreasonably, however, considering he's making unfounded claims on my personal history, and calling me on my (at times, perceived) character instead of my arguments.

I don't think I've called him any names here (feel free to correct me on that), but if he's going to evaluate my psyche and make a diagnosis, he'd better be my psychologist. Thank god he ain't, too, considering he called me a male.

(Not that being male is a bad thing. I'm not, though.)

But I do see what you're trying to say.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> Yeah, I don't think so.



Than I will have to discredit you, Since you are not willing to learn what it is you are calming to defend you clearly are not truthful to your words and are simply Lying. also I am gonna to have to ask you remove yourself from this conversation in light of your clear unwillingness to stay on topic and for nothign other than to avoid unnecessary conflict.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> ...Well, thanks for calling me rational. I mean that, too. I try to be, most times.
> 
> I don't think I'm treating him too unreasonably, however, considering he's making unfounded claims on my personal history, and calling me on my (at times, perceived) character instead of my arguments.
> 
> ...



Than you know what its like, If he will agree to step off on the brash comments will you exnay on the "slight parading" you don't have to actually insult them to make them feel trapped and remind them of the bad things. do you think that can work out for the both of you?


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Makyui, Since you are being rational I'm going to ask this of you. Please Lay off RANQuicFoxa bit you are starting to Instigate a nasty argument, now I understand some of the staff and memebrs that have posted hre have seen fit to act worse than the south bound end of a north bound cow but if the members attack eachother it's only gonnamake it that much worse.
> 
> Freeheaven: *STOP *I have aspecal task for you I want you to do this before comenting in this thread again, why is because you are becomeing the very thing you claimed to hate with a passion and you aren't helping the free speach movement (that has ended by the way) by encourageing speech that impeeds ones right to happyness.
> 
> ...




Wow, how old are you?  I just went to your page and read your journal.  My god.  You give us all a bad name.  Stop forcing drama into your life.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Than I will have to discredit you, Since you are not willing to learn what it is you are calming to defend you clearly are not truthful to your words and are simply Lying. also I am gonna to have to ask you remove yourself from this conversation in light of your clear unwillingness to stay on topic and for nothign other than to avoid unnecessary conflict.



Unless you're a mod that can stop me from posting, I don't see that happening.

And I am willing to learn.  It's why I've done a fair amount of research into the First Amendment (which, I should point out, I can read in its entirety online without having to file a Freedom of Information Act -- the whole text of the amendment is available on Wikipedia, among hundreds of other websites).  I know what the widely-considered limits for Free Speech are (speech that incites/calls for violence, provable defamation, that sort of thing).

And I also have enough common sense to know that with every right comes a responsibility to use it correctly.  Sure, you COULD go to a neighborhood populated chiefly by a certain ethnicity and shout out racial slurs until your throat got sore; it's well within your First Amendment rights.  But you have to be prepared to face the consequences of doing that (and more than likely, those consequences would include getting beat nearly to death).

Discredit me for whatever reasons you think I could be discredited for (being a stupid fuckin' furfag, being a troll on random occasions, stuff like that), but don't discredit me for a lack of education on the subject.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Wow, how old are you?  I just went to your page and read your journal.  My god.  You give us all a bad name.  Stop forcing drama into your life.




You ave done nothign but instigate more drama please stop!



Freehaven said:


> Unless you're a mod that can stop me from posting, I don't see that happening.
> 
> And I am willing to learn. It's why I've done a fair amount of research into the First Amendment (which, I should point out, I can read in its entirety online without having to file a Freedom of Information Act -- the whole text of the amendment is available on Wikipedia, among hundreds of other websites). I know what the widely-considered limits for Free Speech are (speech that incites/calls for violence, provable defamation, that sort of thing).
> 
> ...



This coming form someone who wasn't willing to validate their credibility? Seriously take that bad attitude elsewhere please.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Than you know what its like, If he will agree to step off on the brash comments will you exnay on the "slight parading" you don't have to actually insult them to make them feel trapped and remind them of the bad things. do you think that can work out for the both of you?



I don't mind his "brash comments". He's not worth getting too bent out of shape over. However, just as your politeness now makes me feel as though I should be polite to you, if he responds politely, he's more likely to get it in kind, yes.

It's no guaranteed, though; I tend to be blunt without _trying_ to be impolite. A friend of mine ribs me sometimes for my low persuasion rating.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> I don't mind his "brash comments". He's not worth getting too bent out of shape over. However, just as your politeness now makes me feel as though I should be polite to you, if he responds politely, he's more likely to get it in kind, yes.
> 
> It's no guaranteed, though; I tend to be blunt without _trying_ to be impolite. A friend of mine ribs me sometimes for my low persuasion rating.




sometimes as easy as it is to cast the first stone its hard to give, some people have had their trust broken and need a little good faith before their good side can come out.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Psych major here.
> 
> The person being abused often puts themselves in positions to be abused.


That makes it sound like you're saying "its all the victims fault".


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> That makes it sound like you're saying "its all the victims fault".




Ignore or report him he is just causing problems!


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Ignore or report him he is just causing problems!



Yes, because saying something you disagree with is "causing problems".  :roll:


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> That makes it sound like you're saying "its all the victims fault".



You are putting words in my mouth.  A women marries an alcoholic and gets repeatedly beat.  Now, it's not her fault he beats her but it is her fault for sticking around for subsequent beatings.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> Unless you're a mod that can stop me from posting, I don't see that happening.


This is what your argument comes down to; putting on a big tough-guy "why dont you MAKE me" act. You, Surgat, Fiz, no matter how blameless you make yourself out to be, when it comes to putting an end to the drama you wont lift a finger to stop yourself or anyone else. You revel in it, as you delight in small cruelties.



> And I also have enough common sense to know that with every right comes a responsibility to use it correctly.  Sure, you COULD go to a neighborhood populated chiefly by a certain ethnicity and shout out racial slurs until your throat got sore; it's well within your First Amendment rights.  But you have to be prepared to face the consequences of doing that (and more than likely, those consequences would include getting beat nearly to death).


Youre arguing now because you dont want there to be any consequences for this kind of behaviour. You only feel brave enough to act out like this because you know you cant be punished.

Tell me, in your version of morality is it okay to commmit a crime if you know you wont face justice for it? That's what it sounds like you're saying. 
You arent fooling anyone by pretending to be a paragon of personal responsibility when you avoid it like it was death.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> You are putting words in my mouth.  A women marries an alcoholic and gets repeatedly beat.  Now, it's not her fault he beats her but it is her fault for sticking around for subsequent beatings.


As I said, blaming the victim. I suppose its partly a woman's fault for being raped if she wears revealing clothes, lets men buy her drinks, etc?

Please find a new field to study in.


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

I think the problem is that morals are subjective.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> This is what your argument comes down to; putting on a big tough-guy "why dont you MAKE me" act. You, Surgat, Fiz, no matter how blameless you make yourself out to be, when it comes to putting an end to the drama you wont lift a finger to stop yourself or anyone else. You revel in it, as you delight in small cruelties.
> 
> Youre arguing now because you dont want there to be any consequences for this kind of behaviour. You only feel brave enough to act out like this because you know you cant be punished.
> 
> ...



Don't bother this one fears being wrong! or is ignorant of the fact that the amendments are just tat amendments that are often revised and changed in hopes of perfecting them. (this is why government is flawed lovely isn't it?)


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> sometimes as easy as it is to cast the first stone its hard to give, some people have had their trust broken and need a little good faith before their good side can come out.



If he wants to give a snippy attitude, he can, IMO. So long as he follows the rules, anyway. All I ask is that he temper it with some sense and reasonableness.

Answering my point by erroneously calling me a victim of child abuse (and not because he sympathized or cared, but as a condescending _insult_ -- I mean, dude, really), on top of those other blanket statements at the beginning of the thread, is not acting with sense and reasonableness.

Quite simply, I don't think RANQuickFox is willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they are willing to side with him 100%. I may be wrong; he's willing to prove me wrong.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> This is what your argument comes down to; putting on a big tough-guy "why dont you MAKE me" act. You, Surgat, Fiz, no matter how blameless you make yourself out to be, when it comes to putting an end to the drama you wont lift a finger to stop yourself or anyone else. You revel in it, as you delight in small cruelties.



I have a perfectly legitimate right to reply to LadyHisoka no matter how much she wants me not to because I've been "discredited" by her.  Unless she's a mod, or can find a mod who'll side with her on the issue, there's nothing she can do to stop me from speaking my mind.

And how is this drama?  It's a discussion about the rights of people to speak their mind on one site without being punished for it on a wholly different site.  I'm not seeing the drama here.



RANQuickFox said:


> Youre arguing now because you dont want there to be any consequences for this kind of behaviour. You only feel brave enough to act out like this because you know you cant be punished.



I never said that, and you should be ashamed of yourself for implying I did.  I spoke my mind concerning your ideas on harassment prevention/punishment on FA because I thought they were horrible and dangerous, and I'm speaking my mind on the rights of Free Speech now because I believe that you and LadyHisoka are trying to find a way to prevent people from using that right just because things they're saying offend you.  If the mods believe I'm out of line, they can shut me up.  I'm perfectly aware of the consequences of my posting here, and I'm ready to accept them.  (And that includes having to read your replies to my posts.)



RANQuickFox said:


> Tell me, in your version of morality is it okay to commmit a crime if you know you wont face justice for it? That's what it sounds like you're saying.  You arent fooling anyone by pretending to be a paragon of personal responsibility when you avoid it like it was death.



No, it's not.  Nobody should commit a crime, even if they won't be punished for it.  But acting like a jerkass to another person, even if it's on the Internet, *IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.*  And even then, it's not like acting like a jerk is without its own consequences, even if you can't see them happening in front of your face.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Don't bother this one fears being wrong! or is ignorant of the fact that the amendments are just tat amendments that are often revised and changed in hopes of perfecting them. (this is why government is flawed lovely isn't it?)



Yes, laws are changed to adapt to the times and the culture.  But last I checked, the laws on Free Speech haven't been changed to make being a jerk to someone a crime, and that includes being a jerk to someone on an anonymous Internet forum.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> If he wants to give a snippy attitude, he can, IMO. So long as he follows the rules, anyway. All I ask is that he temper it with some sense and reasonableness.
> 
> Answering my point by erroneously calling me a victim of child abuse (and not because he sympathized or cared, but as a condescending _insult_ -- I mean, dude, really), on top of those other blanket statements at the beginning of the thread, is not acting with sense and reasonableness.
> 
> Quite simply, I don't think RANQuickFox is willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they are willing to side with him 100%. I may be wrong; he's willing to prove me wrong.



well he has some one down his thought that will not let up and he is probably frustrated by this person look at the other comments people are makeing at him. freeheaven isn't exactly being a role model.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> You revel in it, as you delight in small cruelties.



You're delighting in making snide commentary about people that you find detestable right now, aren't you? Surely you're not still here because you don't like it.

Except, unlike the snark sites, you're not confining it to third-party venues.



			
				RANQuickFox said:
			
		

> Tell me, in your version of morality is it okay to commmit a crime if you know you wont face justice for it?



Except snipping at people offsite isn't a crime, nor is being blunt/impolite to people. So your analogy doesn't work.



LadyHisoka said:


> well he has some one down his thought that will not let up and he is probably frustrated by this person look at the other comments people are makeing at him. freeheaven isn't exactly being a role model.



RANQuickFox isn't an innocent victim here, either.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

Durr. Doublepost, sorry.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> RANQuickFox isn't an innocent victim here, either.




I will get to him later, but now he is over exasperated and you are kind of not makeing things any better.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

So, if I'm reading this insanity correctly, LadyHisoka, the Celestial Lynx, has totally discredited FreeHaven by proving that he is a wolf.

Makes total sense to me.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> So, if I'm reading this insanity correctly, LadyHisoka, the Celestial Lynx, has totally discredited FreeHaven by proving that he is a wolf.
> 
> Makes total sense to me.




No I discredited the wolf by proving he wasn't putting his money where his mouth was! actually you also spelled it wrong while a Celestual (kell-est-oul) linx is a celestial its a guardian spirit celestial.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> No I discredited the wolf by proving he wasn't putting his money where his mouth was!



How do you figure that?  Because I didn't stop replying to you?  Because I'm not agreeing with you 100%?  Because I'm using naughty language?

God, you and RQF deserve each other.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

> I have a question I would like to ask you but your thing says wolf


 
I think we all need to hear this like explained, in vivid detail.  I'm sure it would be golden if you did so.  Please.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> RANQuickFox isn't an innocent victim here, either.


Of course... I clearly invited people on WTF_FA to accuse me of raping my dog by uploading furry art to FA, and then invited it again by defending others similarly accused with as little evidence.

Im such a monster; how dare I defend myself or others from baseless criticism!


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Of course... I clearly invited people on WTF_FA to accuse me of raping my dog by uploading furry art to FA, and then invited it again by defending others similarly accused with as little evidence.
> 
> Im such a monster; how dare I defend myself or others from baseless criticism!




RAN calm down lets get this thread back on topic first, before it has to be locked or removed.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Im such a monster; how dare I defend myself or others from baseless criticism!



And by "defend myself or others", you mean "punish people on FA for saying things on sites that aren't FA", right?


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Of course... I clearly invited people on WTF_FA to accuse me of raping my dog by uploading furry art to FA, and then invited it again by defending others similarly accused with as little evidence.
> 
> Im such a monster; how dare I defend myself or others from baseless criticism!



So this whole thing really _is_ because they snarked you?

It's not the humanity of it all, it's because some people, on some website somewhere out there on the internet, snarked you?

And this totally justifies you making erroneous, inflammatory blanket statements, while doing such is why you say they're such nasty people.

Okay, then.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> How do you figure that?  Because I didn't stop replying to you?  Because I'm not agreeing with you 100%?  Because I'm using naughty language?
> 
> God, you and RQF deserve each other.




Ok,since you insist I'm going to burst your fuclking bubble right here and now smart-ass!

First off: if you had done as I said you would have found out that what ED does is considered _written word_ and IS NOT covered under the freedom of *speech* act but the Journalism Laws; according to witch ED is actually in the throws of committing an Illegal Crime. if you bothered to pay attention in class you would have known that freedom of speach *ONLY APPLYES TO VERBAL WORDS.*

secondly: your continued behavior and neglince to actually *ADMIT *you are causing Drama here is leading to more of an issue that what was allredy presented!

IN english *GET A LIFE!*


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> First off: if you had done as I said you would have found out that what ED does is considered _written word_ and IS NOT covered under the freedom of *speech* act but the Journalism Laws; according to witch ED is actually in the throws of committing an Illegal Crime. if you bothered to pay attention in class you would have known that freedom of speach *ONLY APPLYES TO VERBAL WORDS.*



Wait, what?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Freedom of Speech dealy put into place _precisely_ to protect the press from being censored by the government?


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> First off: if you had done as I said you would have found out that what ED does is considered _written word_ and IS NOT covered under the freedom of *speech* act but the Journalism Laws; according to witch ED is actually in the throws of committing an Illegal Crime. if you bothered to pay attention in class you would have known that freedom of speach *ONLY APPLYES TO VERBAL WORDS.*



I...should I tell her?  Should I burst her bubble?

Yeah, I'mma do it.  The full text of the First Amendment, with emphasis added where necessary:



> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press*; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Now, if you want to claim that what ED does falls under "journalism laws" (and I think you're quite mistaken on that, dear), they still have the right to post articles under the First Amendment's protection of that thing called "freedom of the press".

BTW, that claim that Free Speech applies only to the spoken word?  Thanks for posting that; I haven't laughed that hard all weekend, and I really needed it.  Seriously, that is some funny-ass shit right there.



LadyHisoka said:


> secondly: your continued behavior and neglince to actually *ADMIT *you are causing Drama here is leading to more of an issue that what was allredy presented!



RQF and yourself have chosen to continue the discussion, so I'm choosing to continue it as well.  I will continue the discussion for as long as I feel I need to (or want to), or until the discussion thread is closed, whichever comes first.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Freedom of Speech dealy put into place _precisely_ to protect the press from being censored by the government?



You know how the government is messed up?
ya... freedom of the press is a entirely different bucket, and what you are thinking about. they must still fallow a set of rules an moral thou, because what ED is writing are Articles (Written reports) they too must abide by these laws. ED claims its satire is all truth and in that has committed purgatory (sp), and last I checked that was a crime.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> You know how the government is messed up?
> ya... freedom of the press is a entirely different bucket, and what you are thinking about. they must still fallow a set of rules an moral thou, because what ED is writing are Articles (Written reports) they too must abide by these laws. ED claims its satire is all truth and in that has committed purgatory (sp), and last I checked that was a crime.



This is a link to the legal disclaimer for Encyclopedia Dramatica.  I read through it, and not once do they say that their satirical slant is meant to be taken as the 100% literal truth on anything.

Did you want your crow in pie form, or will you be eating it raw?

(Oh, and the term you're looking for is "perjury", which they're still not guilty of.)


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> You know how the government is messed up?
> ya... freedom of the press is a entirely different bucket, and what you are thinking about. they must still fallow a set of rules an moral thou, because what ED is writing are Articles (Written reports) they too must abide by these laws. ED claims its satire is all truth and in that has committed purgatory (sp), and last I checked that was a crime.



*giggles* Purgatory. Perjury, I think you mean (because you asked).

ED doesn't claim to be entirely true under penalty of perjury. Just claiming that what you say is true doesn't mean you could be punished for that. If I say something untrue, and then sarcastically say it's true, I'm not going to jail for it. ...Unless something really nasty happens, and then I'm going to jail for other reasons (say, neglect), not perjury.

Satire isn't 100% true. If it was, it wouldn't be satire.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> First off: if you had done as I said you would have found out that what ED does is considered _written word_ and IS NOT covered under the freedom of *speech* act but the Journalism Laws; according to witch ED is actually in the throws of committing an Illegal Crime. if you bothered to pay attention in class you would have known that freedom of speach *ONLY APPLYES TO VERBAL WORDS.*


 
"Freedom Of Speech" is often used as a blanket term that covers freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion

'Freedom Of Speech' is an inspecific idea, specificly in US law it's drawn from the first amendment. Saying 'Freedom Of Speech' is basicly like saying 'car' when you might mean your 'minivan' specificly.

Can we hear about the FreeHaven wolf thing now?


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Can we hear about the FreeHaven wolf thing now?



...I am kinda curious about this, too. Yanno, being a wolf, myself.


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

Oh no, it's a parody!  Still, it's kinda mean.  I hope once they shut Encyclopedia Dramatica down, they shut down Saturday Night Live.  It wasn't very nice of Tina Fey to make fun of Sarah Palin and I think Tina Fey should be arrested.  Oh wait, no I don't because I'm not a complete fucking moron.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> ...I am kinda curious about this, too. Yanno, being a wolf, myself.


 
My money is, she thinks that FreeHaven's personality is directed entirely by his fursona choice, and she is basing this entirely on outdated stereotypes of complicated wolf hirearchies with an 'alpha male' at the top.  Dispite that it's been proven that wolf packs are nothing but nuclear families and all male wolves eventually become their own 'pack leader'... Unless they die first.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> *giggles* Purgatory. Perjury, I think you mean (because you asked).
> 
> ED doesn't claim to be entirely true under penalty of perjury. Just claiming that what you say is true doesn't mean you could be punished for that. If I say something untrue, and then sarcastically say it's true, I'm not going to jail for it. ...Unless something really nasty happens, and then I'm going to jail for other reasons (say, neglect), not perjury.
> 
> Satire isn't 100% true. If it was, it wouldn't be satire.



Ah here is where the technicality bite them and don't worry I fully admit my spelling and grammar aren't the best int eh world.


you see technically ED writes articles and unless they say that their articles contain falsehoods its a Liability but ED claims to catalog Drama: IE they are claiming their articles are a written report of traumatic events on the internet.

what they don't tell you is this: They create the drama they write about, and for the sake of some sick laugh alone they continue and will continue till the person is aether dead, chased form the internet, or joins them.

here is where their other crime comes in, I don't have to tell you ED's failure to fallow the rules led to it being in the hot seat. you can pretty much guess why the etiquette laws exist.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> you see technically ED writes articles and unless they say that their articles contain falsehoods its a Liability but ED claims to catalog Drama: IE they are claiming their articles are a written report of traumatic events on the internet.



No, they aren't.  Sure, their articles may recap (in a very loose manner) "drama" and people involved with the "drama", but the articles do not claim to be completely factual, and the site's legal disclaimer even says that the site is satirical in its purpose.



LadyHisoka said:


> what they don't tell you is this: They create the drama they write about, and for the sake of some sick laugh alone they continue and will continue till the person is aether dead, chased form the internet, or joins them.



You can't prove ED directly leads to the creation of "drama", and even if you could, so what?  So they troll people; as has been said before, being a jerkass is not against the law.



LadyHisoka said:


> here is where their other crime comes in, I don't have to tell you ED's failure to fallow the rules led to it being in the hot seat. you can pretty much guess why the etiquette laws exist.



ED is not breaking the law, and there are no such things as "etiquette laws".


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> So this whole thing really _is_ because they snarked you?
> 
> It's not the humanity of it all, it's because some people, on some website somewhere out there on the internet, snarked you?
> 
> ...


Thats how I know about the character of the people Im talking about, and as for any of what Ive said being a blanket statement... the people to whom those statements apply know who they are, and I doubt any of the exceptions are present in this thread.

They have a victim/abuser mentality... if you arent one, you are the other. I spoke in defence of the victims, so in their eyes I am not an abuser and therefore a victim.

This is very much not about just me, but about everyone who has ever been in my position, and ever will be.

Its a travesty of justice that users who violate the spirit of the FA Code of Conduct are permitted to continue to make use of its services :



			
				Code of Conduct - The Three Laws of Courtesy said:
			
		

> A user may not intentionally harass, slander or disrupt another User of the site, or, through inaction, intentionally allow another User to come to be harassed.
> A user must obey the requests and guidelines given to them by the Administration, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
> A user may protect their interests, as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second Law.
> "Inaction" is defined as the user being aware of harassment, slander or other abuse and not notifying a member of the staff to intervene. If you see harassment taking place you are obligated to report it.
> FA does not tolerate bigotry, and will take action against users found to be crude and vulgar. Crude and vulgar is defined as, but not limited to: racist slurs, anti-Semitic insults and/or other derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association. In addition, users will not engage in "disruptive behavior" meant to purposefully interfere with the normal flow of website enjoyment, personal galleries or dialogue in the chat or forums.



I see nowhere where limitations of jurisdiction are outlined; it simply says that harassment *of* FA users *by* FA users will not be tolerated.

Is what these FA users do offsite not_;






			"disruptive behavior" meant to purposefully interfere with the normal flow of website enjoyment, personal galleries or dialogue in the chat or forums.
		
Click to expand...

_? I sure feel like my enjoyment of FA has been infringed upon by knowing that my fellow users are saying such things as would get them perma-banned if they said them in my gallery... what difference does it make to me if its on a different web-domain? its all a click of the mouse and a few characters to me either way.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> you see technically ED writes articles and unless they say that their articles contain falsehoods its a Liability



But... they do.

_"The information on these pages may or may not be accurate."_



			
				LadyHisoka said:
			
		

> They create the drama they write about



Um, no they don't. They generally feature people who've deserved it in some way. They don't just randomly pick people to make articles about. People who aren't funny don't have articles. See: The Great Sonic-Cide of 2007, for instance. I don't have an ED account, but I was there when this went down, and it wasn't ED's drama-hounds that started this. (Entirely anecdotal evidence, I know, but that's all I've got.)



			
				LadyHisoka said:
			
		

> you can pretty much guess why the etiquette laws exist.



 _What_ etiquette laws? You're seriously suggesting that someone can go to jail for being impolite?


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> They have a victim/abuser mentality... if you arent one, you are the other. I spoke in defence of the victims, so in their eyes I am not an abuser and therefore a victim.



Or you're just a whiny jackass.  Either way, it works.



RANQuickFox said:


> I see nowhere where limitations of jurisdiction are outlined; it simply says that harassment *of* FA users *by* FA users will not be tolerated.



Because it's understood that the FA admins' jurisdiction is limited specifically to sites under the furaffinity.net domain.  And it's even The Word of God, if you'd even bothered to listen to Dragoneer.



RANQuickFox said:


> I sure feel like my enjoyment of FA has been infringed upon by knowing that my fellow users are saying such things as would get them perma-banned if they said them in my gallery... what difference does it make to me if its on a different web-domain? its all a click of the mouse and a few characters to me either way.



Because *THOSE OTHER SITES ARE NOT FURAFFINITY*.  What you're suggesting would be the same thing as if I was a jerk to you in Restaurant A, and the manager of Restaurant B banned me from eating at his establishment because I was a jerk to you in Restaurant A.

You are an idiot and an aspiring facist.  But hey, please go ahead and dig the hole you're in deeper.  I'll lend you a shovel, if you want it.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

OK that tears it Makyui, help me out here, I'm trying to figure out what the hell is going on. soplease fornow find somethign else toocupy yourself.

Takumi L, Ashley Ashes, and Freeheaven: you aren't helping you are just causing more problems so GO AWAY before I report you all for the drama you have caused here! I for one have had enough of your bullshit, and I will hear nor see not more of the vile attempots of ED to escape the charges that were made on it years ago! ED has ALLREDY been proven guilty in a hearing told to shut down and refused! END OF STORY!!!!!

RANquickFox tell me whats going on, WITHOUT responding to the others, There is a reason for everything and I think its best we resolve this without anymore drama.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> I will hear nor see not more of the vile attempots of ED to escape the charges that were made on it years ago! ED has ALLREDY been proven guilty in a hearing told to shut down and refused! END OF STORY!!!!!



I'm afraid you're going to have to show me proof of this, or I'll have to discredit you.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

FA is allowed to break it's own rules. FA allowed to disreguard it's own rules. FA is allowed to change it's rules on a whim to suit it's own motives. FA is allowed to enforce it's rules for some and ignore them for others.

None of the rules on FA are legally binding and their enforcement are entirely up to personal whim. FA could very well ban you with the reason of 'No RANQuickFox's allowed' even if this is not a written rule. They could ban users for owning pants that the admins don't even like. However, FA, like pretty much any other website, has one primary goal: To exist.

FA's rules are there to ensure that the website's attendance behaves in a means reasonable to allowing the website to remain popular and thusly viable. If FA were to start banning users for tittering on WTF_FA or any other place this would likely cause some sort of uprising and an exodus to otherwebsites, because, well, that would be a fuck lot of bans.

FA's existance proves that this is true. Otherwebsitse cracked down on the hosting of 'mature' material, this created users who wanted to leave one website and find a more suitable one. Same when Y!Gallery nixed the anthro stuff, those there moved to FA. If FA started banning the shit out of people untill they basicly felt in FEAR of saying anything negative, they would NOT stop saying things about FA. They would instead, say things about FA, get the shit banned out of them and go somewhere else. It would likely lead to a new site, maybe it would be called 'AnthroFancy' because furries suck at original names. But basicly, what you want FA to do would lead to FA's own destruction. You don't want FA to simply close it's doors either, you basicly want FA to slam itself into the ground, hard, over, and over and over and over agian till it's nothing but nostalgia in a WikiFur article.

The FA admins probably feel that this would be a less than ideal situation.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> I'm afraid you're going to have to show me proof of this, or I'll have to discredit you.




ED had posted someones private information they acquired through illegal means deviantart was somehow involved it ended in DA being places under investigation and ED being told to SHUT DOWN:

this horseshit they had up wasn't up a year ago in fact its ED last ditch attempt to avoid being forced to be shut down!


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> I will hear nor see not more of the vile attempots of ED to escape the charges that were made on it years ago! ED has ALLREDY been proven guilty in a hearing told to shut down and refused! END OF STORY!!!!!


 
[_citation needed_]


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Thats what I *assume* about the character of the people Im talking about.



Fixed.



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> and as for any of what Ive said being a blanket statement... the people to whom those statements apply know who they are, and I doubt any of the exceptions are present in this thread.



And the people who are featured on snark sites know when something untrue has been said, and don't have to act like big babies about it.



			
				RQF said:
			
		

> They have a victim/abuser mentality... if you arent one, you are the other. I spoke in defence of the victims, so in their eyes I am not an abuser and therefore a victim.



Your repeated pointing out of posts involving yourself as the "victim" don't exactly prove them wrong.



> This is very much not about just me, but about everyone who has ever been in my position, and ever will be.


Which is *everybody in the history of everything.*

Guess what: I've been featured on snark sites, too. Are you defending me, too? I hope not, because that's kind of patronizing on your part, assuming that I need rescued from the big bad internet, because I _should_ be insulted, and I _should_ be wronged by their actions, and that I'm somehow a bad person for not being bothered by it. (After all, I _must_ be a victim of abuse if I choose to take part in it, too.)

But I guess that's why you single out snark sites that have wronged you personally, and don't expect the staff to sniff out criticism on other sites (at least, I hope not), nor do you expect it to apply to other rules of the site.

It's against the FA rules to post RL bestiality. Perhaps someone should be banned from FA if they participate in offsite bestiality forums? Protection from legal liability is a big part of the "spirit" of the Rules.



> I sure feel like my enjoyment of FA has been infringed upon by knowing that my fellow users are saying such things as would get them perma-banned if they said them in my gallery...


I sure feel like my enjoyment of FA has been infringed on by people who post horrible art and porn that offends my sensibilities. Should I insist that they be banned?

No, because that would be _stupid_.



			
				AshleyAshes said:
			
		

> But basicly, what you want FA to do would lead to FA's own destruction. You don't want FA to simply close it's doors either, you basicly want FA to slam itself into the ground, hard, over, and over and over and over agian till it's nothing but nostalgia in a WikiFur article.
> 
> The FA admins probably feel that this would be a less than ideal situation.



This right here -- this _right here._


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> ED had posted someones private information they acquired through illegal means deviantart was somehow involved it ended in DA being places under investigation and ED being told to SHUT DOWN:
> 
> this horseshit they had up wasn't up a year ago in fact its ED last ditch attempt to avoid being forced to be shut down!



Yeah, because complying with a request to take down personal information (something ED tries to do on an active basis anyway; they disallow dox, as it's referred to, on their site) is really a "last-ditch attempt" to stay on the 'Net.

And again, that's even if I take your word on it, which I don't, since you're an ED opponent and would easily make something up about the site to make it sound like a tool of the devil.

Huh.  Making something up about a person/group of people just because you disagree with them in order to make them out to be evil or horrendous.  Now, where have I seen accusations like that before...?


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

wtf_fa is actually a pretty nifty group.  I fail to see what is wrong with making fun of really bad art and porn offsite away from the people who made it.  It's not like they are sitting there and yelling at the person that THIS IS COMPLETELY SHIT, STOP DRAWING FOREVER.  If you can't take critizsm of your work, you probably shouldn't be putting it on the internet.  Just a thought.

I've been there once and it's always a bunch of horrible rule 34 and fetishes getting laughed at.



LadyHisoka said:


> ED had posted someones private information they acquired through illegal means deviantart was somehow involved it ended in DA being places under investigation and ED being told to SHUT DOWN:
> 
> this horseshit they had up wasn't up a year ago in fact its ED last ditch attempt to avoid being forced to be shut down!




What is to stop me, or anyone from doing the same on wikipedia?  We better shut that down.  In fact I could post personal information on this site.  FUCK THE WHOLE INTERNET MUST BE SHUT DOWN.

But wait, I could print it in a newspaper or a book.  NO PRESS ANYWHERE, PEOPLE MAY SLANDER.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> Yeah, because complying with a request to take down personal information (something ED tries to do on an active basis anyway; they disallow dox, as it's referred to, on their site) is really a "last-ditch attempt" to stay on the 'Net.
> 
> And again, that's even if I take your word on it, which I don't, since you're an ED opponent and would easily make something up about the site to make it sound like a tool of the devil.
> 
> Huh.  Making something up about a person/group of people just because you disagree with them in order to make them out to be evil or horrendous.  Now, where have I seen accusations like that before...?




the fact they had acquired the information through illegal means was why they were being shut down; it was all over the internet when it happened or did that escape your mind conveniently and did I not tell you to high tail it?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

Maybe ED was shut down by an order from a secret military court that only LadyHisoka has access to, and that's why we have to take her word for it.

Believe me, if any court had made a decision agianst ED, it'd be well documented online, hell there would even be an ED page about it.



> the fact they had acquired the information through illegal means was why they were being shut down; it was all over the internet when it happened or did that escape your mind conveniently and did I not tell you to high tail it?


 
THEN SURELY YOU CAN COME UP WITH A LINK TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS, RIGHT? D:


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> the fact they had acquired the information through illegal means was why they were being shut down; it was all over the internet when it happened or did that escape your mind conveniently and did I not tell you to high tail it?



ED is not a person.  You could go edit something on it right now if you wanted to.  ED is a website.  I've written articles on there. OH NOES, ARREST ME OFFICER.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> the fact they had acquired the information through illegal means was why they were being shut down; it was all over the internet when it happened or did that escape your mind conveniently and did I not tell you to high tail it?



Link me to any site that has a recap of the situation that ISN'T biased against ED, and I'll gladly concede the point.  Otherwise, your claims are unfounded and unsupported, and I'm going to have to say they're bullshit.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> wtf_fa is actually a pretty nifty group.  I fail to see what is wrong with making fun of really bad art and porn offsite away from the people who made it.  It's not like they are sitting there and yelling at the person that THIS IS COMPLETELY SHIT, STOP DRAWING FOREVER.  If you can't take critizsm of your work, you probably shouldn't be putting it on the internet.  Just a thought.
> 
> I've been there once and it's always a bunch of horrible rule 34 and fetishes getting laughed at.
> 
> ...




it was HOW they got the information. and the fact ED refused to forfeit the identity of the person that posted the information when asked by the athoritys.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> Link me to any site that has a recap of the situation that ISN'T biased against ED, and I'll gladly concede the point.  Otherwise, your claims are unfounded and unsupported, and I'm going to have to say they're bullshit.




Sorry in advanced people but as i said before i'm sick of her bullshit


GO TO HELL!


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> it was HOW they got the information. and the fact ED refused to forfeit the identity of the person that posted the information when asked by the athoritys.


 
Wait, do you mean Sarah Palin???

That was Wikileaks, not ED, and an ENTIRELY different website.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> Sorry in advanced people but as i said before i'm sick of her bullshit
> 
> 
> GO TO HELL!



Sounds to me like you can't back up your claims.  Too bad, so sad, now STFU.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> If you can't take critizsm of your work, you probably shouldn't be putting it on the internet.  Just a thought.



*Exactly*. Posting a piece of artwork, even clean and reasonably well-made, could very well get criticism somewhere by somebody. Nothing pleases everybody all the time. If people are going to have their "enjoyment infringed on" by the thought of someone, somewhere out there, not liking what they do, they're going to have a really hard time having fun doing anything.

I draw fanart. A lot. Some people think _all_ fanart is lazy, useless shit and the artists who do them are worthless, lazy bastards out to make a quick pageview. Some of them post these opinions in places one could accidentally come across, including on art sites.

Should I stop drawing fanart because of this? Hell no.

Should I insist upon a massive internet-wide sweep of such people, to prevent it from happening? _Hell_ no.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> *Exactly*. Posting a piece of artwork, even clean and reasonably well-made, could very well get criticism somewhere by somebody. Nothing pleases everybody all the time. If people are going to have their "enjoyment infringed on" by the thought of someone, somewhere out there, not liking what they do, they're going to have a really hard time having fun doing anything.
> 
> I draw fanart. A lot. Some people think _all_ fanart is lazy, useless shit and the artists who do them are worthless, lazy bastards out to make a quick pageview. Some of them post these opinions in places one could accidentally come across, including on art sites.
> 
> ...




and what does this have to do with the topic?


----------



## Takun (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> and what does this have to do with the topic?



The topic is harassment.  Clearly some people think that making fun of art offsite counts as harassment.  I disagree.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> and what does this have to do with the topic?



RQF made the suggestion that people who are offended by the actions of other FA members on sites that aren't FA should be allowed to report such actions as "harassment" and have those FA users doing the "harassing" be punished.

Criticism of art is just one thing that can offend someone, and God knows, I've seen enough thin-skinned furries who can't even take concise, polite, well-thought-out criticism/advice without telling the person giving it to go orally fuck themselves with a shotgun.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> and what does this have to do with the topic?


 
No, no, no changing directions.  We are STILL waiting for you to prove that ED was ordered to shut down.  You said that it was ALL OVER THE INTERNET, so surely you can give us some link from the internet that supports your claims.  We're going to stay on that issue untill you get the link.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> I see nowhere where limitations of jurisdiction are outlined; it simply says that harassment *of* FA users *by* FA users will not be tolerated.
> 
> Is what these FA users do offsite not_;_? I sure feel like my enjoyment of FA has been infringed upon by knowing that my fellow users are saying such things as would get them perma-banned if they said them in my gallery... what difference does it make to me if its on a different web-domain? its all a click of the mouse and a few characters to me either way.


The FA Terms of Services covers FA and FA only. This would be like expecting Wal-mart to take action against somebody because they caused a commotion in Target.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

LadyHisoka said:


> and what does this have to do with the topic?



Quite simply: RANQuickFox is complaining because, somewhere out there on the internet, people don't like his hobbies, and he's letting this realization affect his "enjoyment" here. Quite foolishly, I might add.

I say "his", and I mean "his" -- I'm inclined to believe that other "victims" are lumped into his crusade as mere side-thoughts. This is my opinion.

Just as I don't (and shouldn't) let other people's visible-but-not-on-my-turf commentary affect my enjoyment of my craft, his enjoyment of his craft shouldn't be affected by the thought that someone is making visible-but-not-on-his-turf commentary.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> The FA Terms of Services covers FA and FA only. This would be like expecting Wal-mart to take action against somebody because they caused a commotion in Target.




I think trying to explain this to him while the "gag me" crew is at it will do no good; I cant say I didn't try and keep thing stable. I understand they are members but that was no excuse for them to be an asshole to the poor bloke, I'm still awfully confused as to what was going on.

on one hand we have freeheaven who's inappropriate defense of the way people bully others online is beyond stupid and dragged this thread off topic whiel allowing him to efectivly continue to herass people, and than there is the guy that was prading RAN with sarcasum and the staff members not helping the situation by not scolding hte instigators....


and people wonder why the net has gone to the s-can.

someone ticked this guy off and a lack of sympathy has led to frusttration and actions that may in a normal instance be unbecomeing of him.


----------



## RANQuickFox (Jan 26, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> The FA Terms of Services covers FA and FA only. This would be like expecting Wal-mart to take action against somebody because they caused a commotion in Target.


Uh, no more like Wal-mart taking action against one its employees for attending an anti-walmart rally outside of the opening of a new chain store, in their wal-mart work clothes, with their nametag showing.



			
				Makyui said:
			
		

> Quite simply: RANQuickFox is complaining because, somewhere out there on the internet, people don't like his hobbies, and he's letting this realization affect his "enjoyment" here. Quite foolishly, I might add.


Not 'somewhere out there' but rather in the very next room that can be heard faintly through the walls. Its like coming to work every day with a co-worker who acts very polite in the workplace, but stalks you, steals your mail, keys your car, kicks over your garbage cans etc. when off the clock, and if you mention it to your boss he'll just shrug and says its not his problem.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

> and people wonder why the net has gone to the s-can.


 
ARPANET was all about pictures of ASCII dicks going between universities, trust me.



> someone ticked this guy off and a lack of sympathy has led to frusttration and actions that may in a normal instance be unbecomeing of him.


 
God damn it, SPELL YOUR OWN FURSONA SPECIES CORRECTLY before you start psychoanalyzing people who won't believe your bullshit.


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

Makyui said:


> Quite simply: RANQuickFox is complaining because, somewhere out there on the internet, people don't like his hobbies, and he's letting this realization affect his "enjoyment" here. Quite foolishly, I might add.
> 
> I say "his", and I mean "his" -- I'm inclined to believe that other "victims" are lumped into his crusade as mere side-thoughts. This is my opinion.
> 
> Just as I don't (and shouldn't) let other people's visible-but-not-on-my-turf commentary affect my enjoyment of my craft, his enjoyment of his craft shouldn't be affected by the thought that someone is making visible-but-not-on-his-turf commentary.




Does anyone know the exact events of the incident?


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Uh, no more like Wal-mart taking action against one its employees for attending an anti-walmart rally outside of the opening of a new chain store, in their wal-mart work clothes, with their nametag showing.
> 
> 
> Not 'somewhere out there' but rather in the very next room that can be heard faintly through the walls. Its like coming to work every day with a co-worker who acts very polite in the workplace, but stalks you, steals your mail, keys your car, kicks over your garbage cans etc. when off the clock, and if you mention it to your boss he'll just shrug and says its not his problem.



OK write out the events without he metaphors.


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Uh, no more like Wal-mart taking action against one its employees for attending an anti-walmart rally outside of the opening of a new chain store, in their wal-mart work clothes, with their nametag showing.
> 
> Not 'somewhere out there' but rather in the very next room that can be heard faintly through the walls. Its like coming to work every day with a co-worker who acts very polite in the workplace, but stalks you, steals your mail, keys your car, kicks over your garbage cans etc. when off the clock, and if you mention it to your boss he'll just shrug and says its not his problem.



...you really are just a thick-headed stubborn little facist-wannabe.

Dragoneer himself has said that FA cannot and will not police other sites for the behavior of FA users and punish them for their actions outside of FA unless it directly affects FA.

Snarking on people on WTF_FA?  Not worth a ban.
Calling for people to DDOS FA?  Yeah, that's banworthy.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 26, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> ...you really are just a thick-headed stubborn little facist-wannabe.


 
You realize that this guy's FA profile lists 'Eugenics' as one of his interests, right?


----------



## LadyHisoka (Jan 26, 2009)

You see what I'm talking about?


----------



## Freehaven (Jan 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> You realize that this guy's FA profile lists 'Eugenics' as one of his interests, right?



...eugh.

Well, I may not like what he says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it.


----------



## Makyui (Jan 26, 2009)

RANQuickFox said:


> Uh, no more like Wal-mart taking action against one its employees for attending an anti-walmart rally outside of the opening of a new chain store, in their wal-mart work clothes, with their nametag showing.



Someone attending an Anti-Walmart rally while wearing their Walmart work clothes would probably not be taken very seriously.

 Walmart has rules against doing dumb shit while wearing the uniform, anyway. FA doesn't.

And no, it would be more like someone complaining about Walmart on their SpongeBob forum, only to find themselves banned from Walmart because of this. This would be dumb.

(I don't think the users of WTF_FA or Dramachan are necessarily anti-FA, anyway. Some of them might be, but that's their business.)



			
				RANQuickFox said:
			
		

> Not 'somewhere out there' but rather in the very next room that can be heard faintly through the walls. Its like coming to work every day with a co-worker who acts very polite in the workplace, but stalks you, steals your mail, keys your car, kicks over your garbage cans etc. when off the clock, and if you mention it to your boss he'll just shrug and says its not his problem.



No, "somewhere out there" -- the internet isn't a series of rooms with leaky walls. Your whole beef is that somewhere on the internet, someone is expressing their dislike about a piece of art or someone's behavior. If it wasn't WTF_FA (or Dramachan) and was... say, Smart_Snark, or the Concept Art forums, you seriously wouldn't have any beef?

And if someone makes nasty comments in the "very next room" and you happen to hear them, so what? You're expecting people to not make negative commentary anywhere EVER, and you're expecting -- nay, _demanding_ -- the "victims" of such commentary to give a crap about it.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 26, 2009)

IN BEFORE THREAD LOCK!

Scooore.


----------

