1. osu!community
  2. Other
  3. Off-Topic
posted

Tupsu wrote:

yes, you've exposed the vile IppE and his secret plan all along - he was just trying to amass a harem of cute girls by acting as the true and noble white knight and handing out coloured flairs on an internet shitposting forum
at least IppE is capable of drawing basic logical conclusions, which you've failed to prove thus far both in this friendly discussion and in those of our past

see, herein lies the difference between us two: I know where to stop
after I was called out by both administration and other users, I stopped bullying boat, and I'm currently even giving him a second chance that he really doesn't particularly deserve with secret santa :)

ah, yes, the fabled tuuba safe space with its politically correct swastikas, constant jew and kebab removal jokes, and - what's this here?


you mean aside from earlier this year when boat called for me to be banned and then publicly verbally attacked me, earning him a several month cooldown with severely restricted permisisons? yeah, nah, never happened
How am I supposed to know what happened several months after I left, genius? And go figure that Trash Boat is the one to suffer repercussions for "verbally abusing" you. Oh it must have be so terrible for you to suffer the online outburst of one mentally challenged individual whom you bullied for an extended period of time. Go have a cry.

No, it's you and IppE who are unable to create any logical conclusions, or come up with any arguments to justify your actions besides "m-muh feelings". Don't try to shift things around and make them out to be something else, the entire incident was centred around being able to post memes and jokes in ITT. It wasn't about me "hurting your feelings" or "going too far". The fact that you still have "political" content like stupid edgy jokes is just another example of your inconsistency when it comes to the "rules", in that you can have all the political bullshit you want, just as long as it isn't about Trump and as long as it doesn't offend a certain vocal minority group.

The "rules" are tantamount to "do what I say, don't say anything I don't want you to say or say anything that my arbitrarily decided in-group doesn't want you to say". There is no impartiality, there is no objective criteria or ruleset which creates an environment which is to the benefit of the majority, only a stupid little autocracy in which the few remaining members can have their circlejerk after they have long driven everyone else away.
posted

B1rd wrote:

I only provoked other people because I needed to verify the "rules".
Why did you "need to verify them"? You don't post CP to verifying that posting that isn't okay, lol. Just admit that you made poor judgement and screwed up instead of reframing it like you had a good reason to go against what a staff member was telling you to do.
posted

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

B1rd wrote:

I only provoked other people because I needed to verify the "rules".
Why did you "need to verify them"? You don't post CP to verifying that posting that isn't okay, lol. Just admit that you made poor judgement and screwed up instead of reframing it like you had a good reason to go against what a staff member was telling you to do.
You really don't have any idea what happened to be able to make any conclusive judgements on the issue.
posted
I've seen the posts myself, though. You were acting like an ass in a small community, what do you expect?
posted

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I've seen the posts myself, though. You were acting like an ass in a small community, what do you expect?
That's just a gross oversimplification and misinterpretation of the events. I might explain everything to you except I've done it a lot of times already, and I know you're strongly anti free speech anyway.
posted

B1rd wrote:

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I've seen the posts myself, though. You were acting like an ass in a small community, what do you expect?
That's just a gross oversimplification and misinterpretation of the events. I might explain everything to you except I've done it a lot of times already, and I know you're strongly anti free speech anyway.
I just think you've misunderstood the nature of forums in general. "Free speech" doesn't exist, and other websites aren't the same as 4chan. I know you strongly value the anonymity and culture that 4chan provides, but it just doesn't work the same way when everyone socialises with their own identities.
posted

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I just think you've misunderstood the nature of forums in general. "Free speech" doesn't exist, and other websites aren't the same as 4chan. I know you strongly value the anonymity and culture that 4chan provides, but it just doesn't work the same way when everyone socialises with their own identities.
And it wasn't even about "me being an ass" (which is completely subjective, btw). The reason was literally because I was posting Trump memes, not directed at anyone, and a vocal minority were complaining about their safe space was being invaded and that certain forms of politics be banned from Tuuba's ITT. That is why I mocked those two and they definitely deserved it.

And yet you don't realise the nature of why the Tuuba forum was founded in the first place. That was one of the main reasons it was founded, to get away from meddling moderators who had no idea what they were doing. Free speech works fine in forums, you're exercising de facto free-speech right now by virtue of the fact that no one is repressing it. The only reason it's popular on image boards in because the anonymity protects the users and site from prosecution. It's rare of forums that you actually need moderation because forums are for the most part self-regulating. And that was definitely the case with Tuuba, it was only a couple people bitching when they could have just ignored posts they didn't like, like everyone else does, and there wouldn't have been a problem. It would have blown over in a week. But no, because some idiot decides to enforce his will upon everyone - by virtue of the fact that by chance he was the server owner - it had to cause such a drama and make me leave the server. Not because there was any vote, or consensus (by no means was I alone in my opinion), that what I was posting ought to be banned, but because one guy on the behest of a vocal minority decided it. Actions like that are completely out of place in a forum that small, and it betrayed the purpose from which the forum was founded. The need for hierarchy has an inverse relationship with the number of people in a community, and I have been a part of MMO clans with more members than that yet without any centralised governance - everything being voluntary.

Yeah, the essential reason why I wanted the community to create it's own forum is because I hate writing long, detailed posts, and then have them disappear like people taken by the fucking Gestapo in the night, then wonder if I actually posted what I thought I did, and eventually have to back up all larger posts lest they be deleted and I lose their contents forever. That's not the type of environment I ever want to be in. It's cancer. But apparently, power corrupts and you can't even trust people you know to be fair and impartial once they have it.
posted
Listen Bird, mate, I'm your biggest supporter and even I believe you did step over the line and from there on started victimising yourself. Just please don't go into the uncanny valley and merge your politics with the whole tuuba deal. That's why people are being like this towards you.

Yes, deleting your posts might've been an exaggeration, but that does not mean you bear no guilt, either. The only thing that happened here is a lack of communication and too much hubris.
Be a man and show some humility. Trust me, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it means you're above the pettiness and whatever display this is.
posted
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
posted
I'm surprised that Tuuba board is still around
posted

Green Platinum wrote:

I'm surprised that Tuuba board is still around
why wouldn't it be? #tuuba has been around for years and has a group of devotees around it, hence it would only make sense that a forum stemmed from that group is also fairly resilient (though I'll admit before anyone else that it's quiet in there at the moment)
I'm personally waiting for the new forum design to come out and the obvious peak in activity that will come with it - tbf that was why that forum was made in the first place, so I'm not sure why anyone'd be surprised about it being quiet in there with this place still being useable
posted
I wonder if it's quiet because you alienated half the userbase

hmm...
posted

B1rd wrote:

Free speech works fine in forums, you're exercising de facto free-speech right now by virtue of the fact that no one is repressing it.
Getting banned from a forum for voicing unpopular opinions/being annoying is not a violation of free speech, and neither is getting your posts removed. Getting arrested by the state for voicing an unpopular opinion is a violation of free speech. Forums got nothing to do with it.


B1rd wrote:

The "rules" are tantamount to "do what I say, don't say anything I don't want you to say or say anything that my arbitrarily decided in-group doesn't want you to say".
Yes, that's kind of how it works when you have a small circle of people that just want to be among themselves and aren't looking for annoying, drawn-out fights. Tuuba is a forum for said in-group. If you don't fit and constantly clash with other users, you are no longer wanted. This is no different to how it works irl, by the way. You consistently provocate people and generally act in annoying ways? Eventually you're gonna get kicked out. Would you then complain about "missing impartiality" the same way you're complaining here? Have some common sense, man.


Here you even admit to being an annoying prick:

B1rd wrote:

And it wasn't even about "me being an ass" (which is completely subjective, btw). The reason was literally because I was posting Trump memes, not directed at anyone, and a vocal minority were complaining about their safe space was being invaded and that certain forms of politics be banned from Tuuba's ITT. That is why I mocked those two and they definitely deserved it.
Yeah, you being an ass is subjectiv, that's the whole point! It's subjective to THEM, so THEY removed your stuff because THEY don't want to deal with annoying shit.

But to sum this up: You broke the rules by posting politics in a place where it wasn't wanted. In other words: You were being annoying, even more so after mocking them afterwards. Now you double down on it by basically calling them all pussies who need "safe spaces" (very patronizing). Charming as always.

Are you really surprised that they wanted to get rid of you?

But this is the kicker:

B1rd wrote:

I only provoked other people because I needed to verify the "rules".
who on earth does something like that? Being annoying on purpose to verify the rules, excuse me what? No wonder they deleted your shit, lol.

Do you not have any experience with RL social interaction? Are you a sociopath? What's going on here?




I really don't dislike you that much, in my book you're just one hell of a weird guy. But damn this looks like you really need to get out of your cave.
posted

Railey2 wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Free speech works fine in forums, you're exercising de facto free-speech right now by virtue of the fact that no one is repressing it.
Getting banned from a forum for voicing unpopular opinions/being annoying is not a violation of free speech. Getting arrested by the state for voicing an unpopular opinion is a violation of free speech. Forums got nothing to do with it.


B1rd wrote:

The "rules" are tantamount to "do what I say, don't say anything I don't want you to say or say anything that my arbitrarily decided in-group doesn't want you to say".
Yes, that's kind of how it works when you have a small circle of people that just want to be among themselves and aren't looking for annoying, drawn-out fights. Tuuba is a forum for said in-group. If you don't fit and constantly clash with other users, you are no longer wanted. This is no different to how it works irl, by the way. You consistently provocate people and generally act in annoying ways? Eventually you're gonna get kicked out. Would you then complain about "missing impartiality" the same way you're complaining here? Have some common sense, man.


Here you even admit to being an annoying prick:

B1rd wrote:

And it wasn't even about "me being an ass" (which is completely subjective, btw). The reason was literally because I was posting Trump memes, not directed at anyone, and a vocal minority were complaining about their safe space was being invaded and that certain forms of politics be banned from Tuuba's ITT. That is why I mocked those two and they definitely deserved it.
Yeah, you being an ass is subjectiv, that's the whole point! It's subjective to THEM, so THEY banned YOU because THEY don't want to deal with ASSES.

But to sum this up: You broke the rules by posting politics in a place where it wasn't wanted. In other words: You were being annoying, even more so after mocking them afterwards. Now you double down on it by basically calling them all pussies who need "safe spaces" (very patronizing). Charming as always.

Are you really surprised that they wanted to get rid of you?

But this is the kicker:

B1rd wrote:

I only provoked other people because I needed to verify the "rules".
who on earth does something like that? Being annoying on purpose to verify the rules, excuse me what? No wonder they banned you, lol.

Do you not have any experience with RL social interaction? Are you a sociopath? What's going on here?




I really don't dislike you that much, in my book you're just one hell of a weird guy. But damn this looks like you really need to get out of your cave. You got banned on fucking tuuba my man. If that's not a sign that you need to reconsider your life choices, then I don't know what is.
Your post is wrong in many areas. Read all sides, not just one PM from a biased individual.

You are wrong because

-I didn't get banned, I left
-free speech is an ideal that has more implications than only being about state protection for individuals
-there was no collective "them", my posts were deleted by one person, and there were only three people who that were being vocal against my posts. There were people that support/supported me. I was always arguing for a democratic system to decide matters instead of an autocratic system. A majority ruling on conduct I could have accepted
-there were no formal "rules" put in place. Only the server administrator saying I should do this as the drama came up but there was no mention of formal ruleset which I must obey. The suggestions of one individual, whether he owns the server or not, isn't rule of law


The argument was over a specific set of political content, Trump memes, because that very specific content offended a minority of left-wingers who said they were feeling emotionally fragile because of the election, while I was feeling jubilant. I wasn't seeking to cause controversy, only share my feelings on a momentous event such as is the purpose of such forums. If Hillary had won, no doubt they would be ecstatic and be posting about it in ITT, and no doubt I would be feeling depressed, yet I wouldn't ever think to try and ban them from posting because it hurt my feelings. Just because a minority is offended by something, doesn't give said minority the right to enforce their special interests upon the majority. It's the same as you hear with the feminists constantly escalating standards of behaviour on the majority ad nauseum: trigger warnings, how men sit in trains, what people are allowed to joke about, what haircuts and Halloween costumes people are allowed to wear, et cetera. This behaviour is the very definition of a space space and I refuse to take part in a forum which institutes a safe space. The people were free to go to any other part of the forum besides a general thread specifically for general and all-purpose discussion, and I wouldn't have posted anything that offended them there. As I've pointed out many times, having a small minority of people be able to ban content they don't like is a completely illogical and dysfunctional system to put in place. If they were able to ban things that offended them, why weren't I allowed to call for bans on content they posted that offended me and other people? It's a completely logically inconsistent way to run a forum, but I have received no rebuttal to this point. It's a shining example of having a general rule (no political content) that is inconsistently applied and thus a mark of corruption in which one special interest group is allowed to oppress another group they don't like. IppE himself stated that he never was against all political content, only a certain type of political content, and the criteria that defined which political content wasn't allowed seemed to be determined solely on whether it offended a certain minority group.
To have well-functioning system of governance of any kind, it is essential to have impartiality as a corner stone, and this was not present in Tuuba.


The reason I put a provocative post - which was not just edgy and offensive, but which some Tuuba members said was funny, it was satirical and relevant - was because I don't operate in environments with threats looming above my head. I had to see whether the statements were actual threats or just suggestions, the latter of which I can respect.

I get sick of your bias against me in all matters. It is tedious. In this instance I'm right, it was nothing short of a betrayal; I helped found the forum, I donated money to help with the server costs, I was an active member who tried to contribute in the ways that I can, and I helped draft the rules and I worked in my position as a moderator as much as I could to advocate for and to maintain an environment that featured a diverse range of high-quality discussion, in which everyone's right to post was respected and which was mutually beneficial for everyone. I noted all my experiences of how forums work, how good discussions in a forum spring up and are maintained, and tried to implement that in a practical way. But it was trying to achieve that end - trying to inject some integrity into a forum rather than have it devolve in to a petty autocracy as is so common with forums and people with power in forums - that I was ousted. Indeed, maybe I can be overly-provocative at times and need to keep that in mind so I don't needlessly create an unpleasant environment for other people, but I don't take back anything I said (that I can remember), because there were indeed some whiny people who wanted a safe space and deserved to be the target of satire and banter, such as is common in any social environment. No matter which way you cut it, I'm the one who was treated unfairly here.


I implore you to read what I wrote carefully, because in this instance I'd rather not provoke antagonism but rather want to make people aware of what really happened.
posted
I feel like if you and a few other people really couldn't stand seeing certain types of posts, and conplined to the admin about it, then that admin quarantining those posts types to a particular thread is a fairly reasonable thing to do. That's all this situation was, really.


I also think you should take a step back and stop with the constant "safe space" mockery- let's not communicate in 4chan memes here, these are real people who just didn't want to see a type of content in ITT since it would often derail discussion.

Remember that "they deserved it" is entirely subjective on your end, too.
posted
Safe spaces are real concepts, unironically pursued by some people. Not just a 4chan meme. I've never been a poster on 4chan by the way.

I know what your position on free speech is. But I think most people would agree that generally that it's better if everyone can post something even if offends a minority group, than for every minority to be able to stifle the speech of the majority for arbitrary reasons until pretty much no one can posts about anything. How do we determine if someone is genuinely offended or not? It's arbitrary and ambiguous and not a good rule. And I'm not sure you'd be consistent about your approach on that since what the "other" group was talking about was transexual stuff, which wasn't pleasant for me and other people to listen to. If you just say that the opinion of the LGBT group has by default more importance than the conservative Christian values group, (which let's be honest, you probably would), then you're just arbitrarily favouring one group over another. And I think most people would agree that codes of conduct on speech shouldn't be based on identity politics, but rather should be universal for everyone.

Also, it's impossible to derail ITT. It's a general topic for everything. People will not post in this ITT thread for a week and then complain because a couple people talked about politics in it. It's silly, really.
posted

B1rd wrote:

Also, it's impossible to derail ITT. It's a general topic for everything. People will not post in this ITT thread for a week and then complain because a couple people talked about politics in it. It's silly, really.

B1rd wrote:

I wonder if it's quiet because you alienated half the userbase

hmm...
:)
posted

Tupsu wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Also, it's impossible to derail ITT. It's a general topic for everything. People will not post in this ITT thread for a week and then complain because a couple people talked about politics in it. It's silly, really.

B1rd wrote:

I wonder if it's quiet because you alienated half the userbase

hmm...
:)
Yes, by the mere act of posting something we're oppressing other people and stopping them posting about what they want to post about, exactly the same as banning people and deleting posts. Right. Impeccable logic.
posted

B1rd wrote:

Also, it's impossible to derail ITT. It's a general topic for everything.
Feels like a challange.

Let's to turn this thread in a counting thread.
Please sign in to reply.