StarGateWars Forums

I agree 100% with Nostra here, this kind of talk should not be used in any situation joking or not, besides that i thought Jason wanted the forums to be kept PG 13 which this clearly is not.

in circumstances where one of the parties is in any way offended, then this would indeed be very wrong. But should neither party be offended, then it is basically not wrong.

Had it been a physically occurring event, it would also have been wrong. Very wrong.

But if it was, as we've understood it to have been, solely here on forums, and both sides found it acceptable, then nothing is wrong about it. (wrong within them maybe, but not wrong otherwise)

Someone getting offended on another's behalf when he/she/it is not offended him-/her-/itself, is more wrong we'd say.

Mind you, these are personal opinions of ours, not official admin decrees.


As for the PG-13 silliness... That was revoked within a week of its implementation, because it is not compatible with online forums.

Making a joke about it, while keeping clear it is a joke, is ok. Describing such acts, is not ok.

Nostra wrote:

[BoT] Jack wrote:You're splitting hairs, Jim.

If someone said that to my son in real life, look at my son and tell him jokingly how disappointed I am he had to pay her.

If it were my daughter I'd look at the boy and ask "you lookin to die, son?" But only half serious.

If you have a problem with that, oh well. I wouldn't feel the need to take any serious actions in either situation, assuming it's a joke. As in this situation.

Exactly, I would simply block the forum.

You misunderstand, no harm no foul. There is no problem here.

Clarkey wrote:Hmmm

A 16+ boy has sex with an under 15 girl = rape.
A 16+ girl has sex with an under 15 boy = abuse.

It already is sexist. Either way should be rape, but just like life it's not fair.

P.S. I didn't see the post that juliette made so won't comment on that.

The post:
[spoiler]

Juliette wrote:

Andy! wrote:Some of you may remember me, My name is Andy, I'm 14 and just restarted to play the game.

So yeah, I'm Andy, hello!

Being a pretty lady I do remember you. You still owe me 50 bucks for taking your virginity.


Whoops.


You're 14.


My mistake. Must have been your evil uncle Jack.






Seriously though, welcome Andy. I know another good chap by that name, and if you're half the person he is, you'll do great here.

[/spoiler]
I see nothing inappropriate in this post. It is obvious by the "seriously though" at the end that the beginning was meant in jest. Based on this post, I would assume Juliette is referring to being the first player to attack Andy, or something similar. My mind does not immediately jump to a sexual reference. Harch "popped my modding cherry". Am I being inappropriate by saying that?

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:if it had been a male mod talking to a female that way, I would hope an warning and proper action would have been taken.

I don't see why one party involved being a mod makes it a more serious offense. Mods are held to the same standard as every other member of the forum. If you feel a post like this is not appropriate, then it should not be appropriate for anyone. Also, what if a male said this to another male, or a female to another female? Is it less serious because the two parties have the same sex? So it is automatically assumed to be a joke if it's same-sex?

Given the context of the post, I would say there is nothing truly inappropriate being said. If the context and situation were different, I would rethink my opinion of such a post.

Zeratul wrote:in circumstances where one of the parties is in any way offended, then this would indeed be very wrong. But should neither party be offended, then it is basically not wrong.

Had it been a physically occurring event, it would also have been wrong. Very wrong.

But if it was, as we've understood it to have been, solely here on forums, and both sides found it acceptable, then nothing is wrong about it. (wrong within them maybe, but not wrong otherwise)

Someone getting offended on another's behalf when he/she/it is not offended him-/her-/itself, is more wrong we'd say.

Mind you, these are personal opinions of ours, not official admin decrees.


As for the PG-13 silliness... That was revoked within a week of its implementation, because it is not compatible with online forums.

Making a joke about it, while keeping clear it is a joke, is ok. Describing such acts, is not ok.

It doesn't matter if it offended either party Z, its wrong and i'm sure Jason would agree having children of his own, whats not compatible is that kind of talk joking or not on a forum that Jason wanted kept/used as a family friendly place.

Zeratul wrote:in circumstances where one of the parties is in any way offended, then this would indeed be very wrong. But should neither party be offended, then it is basically not wrong.

...

Someone getting offended on another's behalf when he/she/it is not offended him-/her-/itself, is more wrong we'd say.

Mind you, these are personal opinions of ours, not official admin decrees.

.....

Those are your personal opinions too zera

You obviously dont have kids.

true on both counts, Nostra.

While we do not have kids, we can also understand why you speak as you did... had it been anything except that obvious jest, it would have been very wrong.

while tasteless, this jest isnt wrong when it is just a jest.

I stand by my boss. So, since Andy was not offended (he replied since in as much of a jocular fashion), I really hope you won't go and try to convince him to be upset about it now, that would be a low trick (and entirely obvious).

Zeratul wrote:in circumstances where one of the parties is in any way offended, then this would indeed be very wrong. But should neither party be offended, then it is basically not wrong.

Had it been a physically occurring event, it would also have been wrong. Very wrong.

But if it was, as we've understood it to have been, solely here on forums, and both sides found it acceptable, then nothing is wrong about it. (wrong within them maybe, but not wrong otherwise)

Someone getting offended on another's behalf when he/she/it is not offended him-/her-/itself, is more wrong we'd say.

Mind you, these are personal opinions of ours, not official admin decrees.


As for the PG-13 silliness... That was revoked within a week of its implementation, because it is not compatible with online forums.

Making a joke about it, while keeping clear it is a joke, is ok. Describing such acts, is not ok.

Zeratul wrote:true on both counts, Nostra.

While we do not have kids, we can also understand why you speak as you did... had it been anything except that obvious jest, it would have been very wrong.

That opinion would lay in the eye of the beholder ...

The people involved may laugh ... a parent reading his kids activity may see the jest, and simply block.

Cos psyko, when a parent would see and understand its a moderator talking like that, they would simply deem the entire staff might be the same ... and block the site pre-emtpively.

Parents tend not to argue with people involved with disputable behaviour online when it comes to their childs upbringing. They simply prevent any further riscs of further involvement of their child.

I would.


And julliete, you and Andy might not be offended, parents might definatly think otherwise.
Mind you, the parents are the legal gaurdians, their childs personal opinion of a grown up women appraoching them like that, is of no concern to them. They will do what they feel is right for their child.

Juliette wrote:I stand by my boss. So, since Andy was not offended (he replied since in as much of a jocular fashion), I really hope you won't go and try to convince him to be upset about it now, that would be a low trick (and entirely obvious).

Zeratul wrote:in circumstances where one of the parties is in any way offended, then this would indeed be very wrong. But should neither party be offended, then it is basically not wrong.

Had it been a physically occurring event, it would also have been wrong. Very wrong.

But if it was, as we've understood it to have been, solely here on forums, and both sides found it acceptable, then nothing is wrong about it. (wrong within them maybe, but not wrong otherwise)

Someone getting offended on another's behalf when he/she/it is not offended him-/her-/itself, is more wrong we'd say.

Mind you, these are personal opinions of ours, not official admin decrees.


As for the PG-13 silliness... That was revoked within a week of its implementation, because it is not compatible with online forums.

Making a joke about it, while keeping clear it is a joke, is ok. Describing such acts, is not ok.

im sure andy wont be or be perswaded to be upset. i get what both sides are saying and agree juliette meant it in jest. but i also understand the concern as sexual content towards the young is wrong and can lead to dark places. but not in this instance so lets move on people and learn from this case

As you might see, Nostra, we do not oppose your opinion there...

It is any parent's right to block pages they find inappropriate.

Warning for the case here would be wrong, but it would also be for the best if such cases do not occur again. While innocent here, it is very easy for someone to interpret it differently.

Zeratul wrote:As you might see, Nostra, we do not oppose your opinion there...

It is any parent's right to block pages they find inappropriate.

Warning for the case here would be wrong, but it would also be for the best if such cases do not occur again. While innocent here, it is very easy for someone to interpret it differently.

Agreed. ~T~ Out.

Nostra wrote:Cos psyko, when a parent would see and understand its a moderator talking like that, they would simply deem the entire staff might be the same ... and block the site pre-emtpively.

If I were a parent (and thank goodness I'm not because that would make me another statistic), I wouldn't care if it were a moderator or another forum member. I'd be upset anyways (if I didn't understand the context).

The post is just as serious whether a mod made the comment or another forum member did. If a regular member said it, how does that not give the impression that the entire forum membership is the same, as it apparently does if a mod says it?

Zeratul wrote:As you might see, Nostra, we do not oppose your opinion there...

It is any parent's right to block pages they find inappropriate.

Warning for the case here would be wrong, but it would also be for the best if such cases do not occur again. While innocent here, it is very easy for someone to interpret it differently.

I agree too ^_^

~Thamuz~ wrote:

Zeratul wrote:in circumstances where one of the parties is in any way offended, then this would indeed be very wrong. But should neither party be offended, then it is basically not wrong.

Had it been a physically occurring event, it would also have been wrong. Very wrong.

But if it was, as we've understood it to have been, solely here on forums, and both sides found it acceptable, then nothing is wrong about it. (wrong within them maybe, but not wrong otherwise)

Someone getting offended on another's behalf when he/she/it is not offended him-/her-/itself, is more wrong we'd say.

Mind you, these are personal opinions of ours, not official admin decrees.


As for the PG-13 silliness... That was revoked within a week of its implementation, because it is not compatible with online forums.

Making a joke about it, while keeping clear it is a joke, is ok. Describing such acts, is not ok.

It doesn't matter if it offended either party Z, its wrong and i'm sure Jason would agree having children of his own, whats not compatible is that kind of talk joking or not on a forum that Jason wanted kept/used as a family friendly place.

And i would have to agree with Thamuz here as well, regardless of the parties involved this forum and game is for ages 13+, that shouldn't be aloud to slip under the radar whether its a past joke between the two or not. Its like blocking naughty words on the forum, we do it for the young ones, im pretty sure we could handle them if they weren't blocked.