Triko said:
No doubt it was childish micro-aggression.
I was angry at the time because I asked an honest question and felt like I'd been shot down for it.
Maybe I am an idiot for not using my common sense. Nonetheless, I wanted specific guidelines, got them, and as such should probably be happy.
If this reeks of passive-aggression, it's not meant to.
I'll just step back now to avoid drama, I suppose.
Vereaux said:
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree. We live in a dynamic world that changes, whether we want it to or not. The guideline of "should I post this?" meant something else ten years ago when I started writing in Play-by-Post RPs, and it will be mean something different ten years from now when I'm in my 30s. In my opinion, Triko had every right to ask his question, because the context of any situation is different. Treating it as an ethical principle is not correct, because there are exceptions. There are lessons that can be learned from it, yes, but it is not a comprehensive idea, and cannot be used as a the determining factor in any decision. I do not know Triko's state of mind, his thoughts, or his questions. I don't know why he came to the conclusion to ask it, but I do know that whatever process he used, he asked because he didn't understand something. To me, the search for knowledge will always be the driving force for the formation of questions. As odd as saying this will be, but there are no "stupid" questions.
Vereaux said:
I don't agree with Tefka's point of view for one reason: I don't know it.
Time and time again, the community asks Staff for specifics. Time and time again, even Staff asks me for specifics. Sometimes, Staff and I cave. Sometimes, I'm vague.
This time, I'm purposefully being vague.
Because what we're dealing with here is a human element, one that's never the same in any given situation. Again, I maintain my posture as "Don't troll" and that's that - but I'll tell you why I'm not giving you specific instances.
1. If a member were to innocently defy these specifics, and another member had it out for them -
the aggressive member could throw it back in Staff & I's face. Of course I'd #tyrannyreigns the situation, but
this is a PR move. Staff saves face by not locking itself into a certain posture when
I absolutely know from experience it will come back to bite us in the buttocks. I like taking ammo out of crazy people's guns before they aim it at me.
2. This isn't Morality 101. I've made decisions before, and I will again, that not even I agree with and I don't wish to publicize them. Staff & I will always make try to make the best decision we can - but that doesn't mean it's the best decision available.
3. I do not wish to lock Staff into specific guidelines when
the precedent already exists. An excerpt from our General Rules states:
GENERAL RULES
Harassment and abusive behavior is absolutely not allowed. This includes trolling members and racial, sexist, religious, ethnic, sexual or political remarks that can be considered derogatory.
See this link: http://starwarsrp.net/pages/generalrules
The guideline I impose on you all is that of human decency and the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you wish to be treated. If your interpretation of this doesn't align with Staff's interpretation, we'll certainly let you know before you see the "You have been banned", so you'll know what not to do.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. We Staff members try to be a bit more flexible.
