• Forums Discussion v2 - GO TO PAGE 109 FOR SOMETHING NEAT
    4,995 replies, posted
I heard we were talking about over-the-top titles. [editline]8th July 2017[/editline] I now realize how tame mine is in comparison due to recent developments though
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;52446787]people that change their names are [B]weak[/B][/QUOTE] I changed my name as I wanted to consolidate my aliases. When I was 14, I went by Scatman Moseby and used iwirthless for my email accounts. I decided at 16 that I wanted to have a new name, BackSapper happened, and my iwirthless e-mail was apart of a leak so I changed everything.
Things can be both really dark and comical, I think it's a bit silly to ban someone for rating a [i]very ironic[/i] situation funny
is that what marphy black does
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;52446787]people that change their names are [B]weak[/B][/QUOTE] I don't care if I'm weak this username is fucking terrible and I would do anything to change it to the username I currently use everywhere else that doesn't suck.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52447274]Damn those facist mods stopping me from rating events about death of a poor innocent child who was shot by his own father who didn't know the gun was still loaded "funny". It's incredibly inappropriate. You're getting the lightest of smacks about it and there's nothing funny about it. Rules are rules. Have some sensitivity.[/QUOTE] &#65295;&#65420;&#65420; &#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288; &#12288;&#12512;&#65344;&#12541; / &#12494;)&#12288;&#12288; &#8743;&#8743;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#65289;&#12288;&#12541; / &#65372;&#12288;&#12288;(�&#12539;&#969;&#12539;<::::�~&#8978;&#65288;&#12445;._,&#12494; /&#12288;&#65417;&#8978;7&#8978;&#12541;&#12540;&#12367;&#12288; &#65340;&#12288;&#65295; &#20022;&#65343; &#12494; &#65377;&#12288;&#12288; &#12494;&#65380;&#12288;&#12288;&#65377;|/ &#12288;&#12288; `&#12541; `&#12540;-�_&#20154;`&#12540;&#65417; &#12288;&#12288;&#12288; &#20022; &#65507; _&#20154;�&#24417;&#65417; &#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#65295;&#65344;&#12541; _/&#12288;&#8744; &#7503;&#7590;&#737;&#737; &#696;&#7506;&#7512;&#691;self &#7491;&#7598;&#7496; &#695;&#7491;&#7605;&#7580;&#688; &#7491;&#7598;&#7590;&#7504;&#7497; How's it hanging, heh FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Spamming" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
It's funny because of the irony. Not funny [I]specifically[/I] because a little girl died. "Wanna learn about gun safety, son? Watch me ask I po-[b]BANG[/b] OH fuck! Oh god!" You just took the "trolling with ratings" too seriously in that thread.
"Don't care about these 16x16 images they're literally meaningless" "unless you rate something and people find it insensitive then you get banned for it" seems a bit backwards tbh
[QUOTE=Waffle cones.;52447369]why is "trolling with ratings" bannable if caring about ratings is also bannable[/QUOTE] Why not? it's not like they're polar opposite of each other. They both achieve the same mess in threads. should I type a in depth paragraph on why or?
IMO Considering the Thread Context, only the ones rating Winner should've been banned. For the funny ratings you have to question the intent due to the morbid irony of the situation.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52447274]Damn those facist mods stopping me from rating events about death of a poor innocent child who was shot by his own father who didn't know the gun was still loaded "funny". It's incredibly inappropriate. You're getting the lightest of smacks about it and there's nothing funny about it. Rules are rules. Have some sensitivity.[/QUOTE] You have no idea what the intent behind those ratings or what aspect of the post it's about, though. It could be an ass literally laughing at a child dying, or laughing at the irony of a "gun safety lesson" causing a death. The entire reason you shouldn't post about ratings is because it doesn't make sense to take specific meaning from them, they aren't posts. So why do that, just seems self righteous.
Nobody thinks a child dying is funny wtf are yas going on about [editline]8th July 2017[/editline] maybe you should just remove ratings from SH entirely if somebody rating something incorrectly gets everybody in a tiff eh
:why: why would you rate an article of a child getting killed funny, like what makes you think that would look ok, nevermind the actual intent for the majority of people you'll just look like an edgelord trying to get a rise out of people and that's what gets you banned
yea but it was a right heckin riot when that sonic kid died I didn't rate it anything so I cant answer your question but when I saw the ratings I didn't think wow what a bunch of edgy kids enjoying the thought of a child being shot, i thought they were rating it funny because it was ironic as hellkk
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1210099"][t]http://i.imgur.com/RfeMMJT.jpg[/t][/URL] 1650 to go, Kiwi. [editline]8th July 2017[/editline] God dammit, Arc.
[QUOTE=Fapplejack;52447282]I don't care if I'm weak this username is fucking terrible and I would do anything to change it to the username I currently use everywhere else that doesn't suck.[/QUOTE] At least your name isn't in the ticker every 20 seconds when somebody talks about someone being banned.
I'm mainly referring to rating the article itself funny rather than some post like the soul condemnerâ„¢
Banning for "trolling" with ratings is so not worth it for how weak the proof of intention is. Sticking to banning people who complain about ratings is just so much more well defined and less bound to cause unnecessary conflict.
just make an ironic rating
[QUOTE=myon;52447613]:why: why would you rate an article of a child getting killed funny, like what makes you think that would look ok, nevermind the actual intent\[/QUOTE] Because people are assholes. Welcome to The Internet. I seem to recall years ago the reason for ratings was that for one word posts or just not posting like a dick you could instead rate a post, hence why we have such a variety. I still think the whole point of ratings is nullified if unacceptably rating a post gets you banned.
I do find it funny that people are outraged that they can't publicly state they find the death of a child funny without being banned. Saying you're doing it "ironically" doesn't save you from looking like an asshole.
who is rating it ironically :huh: they're rating it funny because the situation of shooting somebody while teaching gun safety is ironic which is "funny" in its own right
we just can't have people reading a news article getting offended by how it make others feel which is indicated by a small 16x16 rating icon obviously if someone gives it a rating that offends another person on the internet, they need to be banned because it's awful to use the ratings system in any way other than how the moderators want you to use it, right? even though it's bannable to bitch about ratings, unless you do it privately to a mod... i would double check with kiwi though!
[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;52447672]Banning for "trolling" with ratings is so not worth it for how weak the proof of intention is. Sticking to banning people who complain about ratings is just so much more well defined and less bound to cause unnecessary conflict.[/QUOTE] Trolling with ratings needed evidence/proof the user was out to troll the targeted user. in context of rating a sensitive news thread, you're perceive to be trolling everyone - aaaaand everyone that notices will happen to point out the rating and yea make a fuss [editline]8th July 2017[/editline] I used to do it, and got mods angry
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52447853]We do ban people who care about ratings when they make dumb posts about ratings on their own posts. Are you having a meltdown?[/QUOTE] I think he's caring a bit too much about ratings. :smug:
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;52447856]why not ban those people instead?[/QUOTE] we should already been doing that? whos skipping that part
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52447735]I do find it funny that people are outraged that they can't publicly state they find the death of a child funny without being banned. Saying you're doing it "ironically" doesn't save you from looking like an asshole.[/QUOTE] I think the problem is with you assuming those people must think children dying is funny. Things are better if you don't just assume the worst from a vague :v:
Honestly I could see myself rating an article like that funny (because it's ironic and funny) and not thinking anything further about it, then being confused about getting banned for it Imo you're kind of jumping to conclusions assuming intent based on a small icon but that's just me
[QUOTE=Craptasket;52447849]Trolling with ratings needed evidence/proof the user was out to troll the targeted user. [B][I]in context of rating a sensitive news thread, you're perceive to be trolling everyone[/I][/B] [...][/QUOTE] I don't like edgy funny ratings myself either, but it's not always 100% obvious whether they are doing it or not, and you are running risk of punishing somebody who found one aspect of a story genuinely funny, but didn't actually mean to troll or derail. Edgy funny ratings don't exactly cause that much damage on their own, I'm pretty sure most people actually ignore them. Just ban the parties who undoubtedly intend to derail by complaining about ratings in that thread.
[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;52447893]I don't like edgy funny rating myself either, but it's not always 100% obvious whether they are doing it or not, and you are running risk of punishing somebody who found one aspect of a story genuinely funny, but didn't actually mean to troll or derail. Edgy funny ratings don't exactly cause that much damage on their own, I'm pretty sure most people actually ignore them. Just ban the parties who undoubtedly intend to derail by complaining about ratings in that thread.[/QUOTE] I'm in agreement, that's why I don't ban for it. you just cant be 100% sure sometimes. forgot to add, I'd probably will if they consistently rated more than a few tragic threads and laughed it off somewhere. Would be clear intent by then.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.