• An addendum to Rule 3 regarding fan-translated works of things such as Web Novels has been made. Please see here for details.
  • We've issued a clarification on our policy on AI-generated work.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Does this joke break any rules?

Treble

Treble

Connoisseur.
Joined
Sep 2, 2020
Messages
32,410
Likes received
80,184
Megaolix said:
Did it perhaps not occur to you to PM the 'joke' first to staff instead of posting THEN asking?

Notice to everyone else: Doing it like this WILL result in a warning if we are unamused enough.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, which is why I thought it's worth it to ask. Deleted it since the answer is exactly what I feared.
 
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here. Is it just a conflict with the Current Politics rule? I would have figured that religious extremists are an issue that get a pass on account of having existed for more than 20 years.
 
Last edited:
Kurohime said:
Jeez, looking at the moderator post above makes me not want to ask anything. Seems passive aggressive
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think the main issue is that the mod assumed this was Treble posting something he knew was dubious and then asking about it after the fact, rather than posting something he thought was fine and then asking the question after someone said they'd report it. Still, Lady Naga is right, it probably should have been a PM, and it's not like the mods were gonna do anything more than say "don't do it again" anyway.
 
Cherry Lover said:
I think the main issue is that the mod assumed this was Treble posting something he knew was dubious and then asking about it after the fact, rather than posting something he thought was fine and then asking the question after someone said they'd report it. Still, Lady Naga is right, it probably should have been a PM, and it's not like the mods were gonna do anything more than say "don't do it again" anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm afraid I don't see what was wrong with the post. What rules did it violate? They basically just said that Nasu didn't do justice to a Zoroastrian god, right?
 
Mingo said:
I assumed "attacked by religious extremists" meant attacked verbally rather than physically, so that explains my confusion
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This still confuses me? They are religious "extremists". I don't mean to be racist or classiest or whatever the fuck it may be but extremists are the definition of going overboard in there actions. The paragraph doesn't say regular believers are gonna kill the dude. Also I'm confused what about this is against the rules? Was it done on the sfw side?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ASM
The way I read it, the joke sounded fine to me, but by publicizing it in a thread, it called out the staff into the court of public opinion, which they would naturally see as a challenge to their authority.

It's a bit like how, in a baseball game you'll have a batter at the plate, and the count is 3 and 1, and the next pitch comes in low outside. Batter watches it go by, drops the bat, and starts walking to first, and just because he did that and didn't wait for the umpire's call, the ump calls it a strike. Like, "No no, it's my call not yours, back to the plate you go".

Probably the better action would have been to just let it be reported and whatever the staff say, they say. It's a grey area. If the umpire calls it a strike and you thought it wasn't... bow respectfully, and keep playing.
 
humon said:
The way I read it, the joke sounded fine to me, but by publicizing it in a thread, it called out the staff into the court of public opinion, which they would naturally see as a challenge to their authority.

It's a bit like how, in a baseball game you'll have a batter at the plate, and the count is 3 and 1, and the next pitch comes in low outside. Batter watches it go by, drops the bat, and starts walking to first, and just because he did that and didn't wait for the umpire's call, the ump calls it a strike. Like, "No no, it's my call not yours, back to the plate you go".

Probably the better action would have been to just let it be reported and whatever the staff say, they say. It's a grey area. If the umpire calls it a strike and you thought it wasn't... bow respectfully, and keep playing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So it's more of a power play than a actual issue on the rule? Sure the pitch was a ball but the ump felt like being a dick cause you didn't wait for him to talk so he wants to call you out for not waiting for approval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top