we have not enGEORGEd anyone in quite a while. I wish to end the misery of all poor souls who wish it: incapability of "doing stuff" is endemic to the council of GEORGE, due to brain things, having busy lives, or both. if your enGEORGEment request has sat for a very long time, it is nothing personal, nor a reflection of what we think of your website, solely a reflection of this fact.
as such, enGEORGEment requests are officially closed. this does not necessarily mean that no one will ever be added to GEORGE again, but it does mean that there is no official procedure to facilitate this.
I don't care. I am using the metaphor to communicate the point. it is not an argument for you to refute. it is a piece of information that I am providing to you, for your benefit.
Then it is your responsibility to comprehensively and unambiguously elucidate what you mean by that
it's not really my responsibility to do anything. think of apionet as our house. if we get tired of you, we can remove you from our house. we'd like to be nice to you and let you be in our house. however, there are various ways you can make this difficult for us.
without adjudicating who is right or who is wrong, you have many, many strict principles which you like to apply to everything being discussed and point out constantly. regardless of how severe you think something is, you should consider how severe we think it is and how appropriate we would find your objections to them to be.
you enumerate a set of harms which we do not subscribe to. we do not think banning someone from a chatroom or a minecraft server is a violation of their inalienable rights. if you can't adjust your conduct in light of this, we might want to see you out of our house.
ok so you assume i'm not following the guidelines just because i said i'm following the guidelines? maybe you're not following the guidelines yourself?
i already follow those guidelines? and what's that image meant to imply? it's hard to not find offence by it.
the image is meant to imply that those who cause the events which this thread is about are the ones in this thread saying that they aren't a problem and never happen.
take a moment to consider the fact that the least likely person to recognize that a behavior is causing problems is the one perpetrating it, that perhaps you should actually rethink what you have done and do regularly. since, if you were immediately able to recognize it, you probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
[make sure that] your dissent is appropriate, kind, worthwhile, and warranted. do not derail conversations by throwing around inflamatory terms out of the blue. they must actually correspond to the severity and importance of what is discussed. when in doubt, hold your tongue.
this is why I wrote this!!
if you can't understand this, we might have to just ban you. again. indefinitely. oh, how unethical!
addendum: consider the fact that I mean words the way I mean them, not the way you mean them. when I say "kind and appropriate", I mean "kind and appropriate" by my standards, not by yours. I am expecting you to adhere to "kind and appropriate" by my standards.
I concede that it may be difficult, for one reason or another, to consider how what you say affects another person. but when they tell you how it affects them, you should actually listen to them.
When descriptions are levied upon things, politeness is irrelevant: things are not people, and have no feelings that can be hurt. It is irrational for a person to take offense on behalf of things.
instead of reverting to your dogmatic principles, I will ask you to instead consider why someone might dislike having their interest called "objectively harmful and masochistic". do not try to convince me of why you called it that, because we're trying not to rehash these arguments, and because, quite frankly, you're wrong. either you need to gain some perspective or gain some restraint.
I'm not entirely sure that's true. sure, there is a particular person who is causing a lot of problems, but I've actually seen some of this behavior in others.
someone going around telling people that things they are interested in are "objectively harmful and masochistic" or "regressive propaganda" doesn't seem very nice to me.
that's true. it's not very nice. however, we're trying to avoid rehashing arguments in this thread.
I feel that perhaps we should ban the kinds of bad faith arguments that often occur. when you disagree with someone about something, make sure that:
if your position was false, that there could be an argument that could convince you that it was false that someone else could actually reasonably give
you are actually making an effort to consider the possibilities of what that person might mean, as opposed to immediately assuming that it means one specific thing
your position is actually grounded in reality
you can actually express your position in a way that is comprehensible to others, as opposed to assuming that they'll know what you mean
your dissent is appropriate, kind, worthwhile, and warranted. do not derail conversations by throwing around inflamatory terms out of the blue. they must actually correspond to the severity and importance of what is discussed. when in doubt, hold your tongue.
the only official rule of apionet is "do not be a bad person; do not do bad things". we reserve the right to moderate in any way we want, but these are perhaps some guidelines that we could put into effect.
