You can have nice things! But either stay to game-related, non-controversial stiff or learn to love disagreement.
Nah, was all good up to about 2 years ago That’s when most forumers stopped being active and the offended little toilet brushes came in.
(I assume you quoted wrong post so I fixed it.) Usually, intent can be determined based on other context surrounding the post(s). It can usually be determined by the mods or devs whether or not you intended to be hateful or demeaning, etc. If intent was determined incorrectly, you have the ability to appeal a silence or forum ban.
Still more clear than just the word hateful. You can always ask for clarity in help tickets or to moderators; I have sent in help tickets multiple times asking for further explanations and have gotten responses that cleared it up for me. Most often, words that are censored are considered the demeaning words (when directed at somebody). Intentionally bypassing the filter to use this kind of word is very blatant.
It really wasn’t. The amount of mob mentality and fake trolls was ridiculous. Then you had people like Anya, and before her Jenni who was argumentative af about everythingggg. high key loved them both tho But there were some good ones like pickles and cherry. It was 50/50, but I wouldn’t say it was any better than now. If anything people back then would argue and move on, now it drags into every thread. That’s about it.
as pointed out, this is a forum. it has its own set of rules and is allowed to interpret them as it sees fit in order to maintain its community. in this case, that means you’re now allowed to be hateful. most people don’t care if you disagree with things in a polite and respectful manner. however, that’s usually not the case, especially when what you are disagreeing with pertains to who a person is. don’t talk about thought policing if you actively make people’s lives, identities, and comfort a political issue to deny.
You firebenda, off the bat, brought up the fact that anything we said disagreeing with Starbucks new policy would be considered "hateful" because it would be demeaning to the LGBT community. YOU make the assumption that the only criticism of such a policy would be antiLGBT. YOU, whom also claim to support religious freedom, except for in practice. You are the facist thought police. You cannot hold a discussion if only one side of the argument is allowed to be presented. How about this, Starbucks products are already over priced. Providing non-essential medical benefits for employees will only drive costs up further. How many people are going to LOSE THEIR JOBS in the long run as a result of this new policy? Was that hateful, Ms. Thought Police?
I agree. Send help ticket to ATA and ask them to broaden it. (Also I edited my post just as you were typing that one, so I added the addendum to this post as well.)
Where did I say disagreeing with the policy was hateful? I just looked and was inable to locate that.
Sending a help ticket is a private clarification it should be so clear public ally that no clarifications are needed.