If it’s not clear, I’m totally clueless about 90% of what everyone is arguing about. I’m not even sure who is on what team.
It’s possible that I have used UK bros, and if I did it was in a totally non-derogatory way. I have definitely used Canadabros or something like that. Again meant no offence. Sorry, Canadabros.
It’s because yuv is generally a good poster, and while rightfully offended, didn’t make it into his personality for years online. He moved on.
Ok, but I feel like this is still a slight misunderstanding of the concept. I had a big argument with Fly on the previous site because he called Yuv a Kapo and many people couldn’t think anything other than I thought the very word “Kapo” was not supposed to be uttered. The point here is not using the term “UK bros”, it’s using it in the commission of an insult. Jokingly saying “Canadabros” isn’t going to offend anyone, because you were joking.
“Failed” as in mods didn’t have complete control over it?
What if the people participating in the thread enjoyed it? What business is it of the mods to shut it down?
I’m just being practical based on my view of how politics works. It’s hard to separate politics from the personal. A rule against personal attacks ends up being a rule against political attacks. Do we want this site to debate using rules of Senate decorum?
I advocate personal attacks in political campaigns. I just consider them part of politics, so I can move on from them instead of carrying grudges because I can compartmentalize politics from other parts of my life.
I don’t think your vision of what this place ought to be is workable above a certain size. I want robust rules that consider the possibility that this place grows above that size.
60 is way too low imo. If 39% of voters actively want someone here they should be here.
Crunchy was making a proposal, not referencing past rules or situations.
You don’t understand how saying that the only grievance they have is being called “captains” is offensive? You basically confirmed that no one read the 10ks posts about this. Not surprising and understandable, but surely you can see why it’s offensive.
Ironically enough i think two of the worst criminals are considered to be marty and jal and they pretty much hate each other.
I was part of this, was caught up making a new and different place, but I think the whole rule process that started on exiled was a huge mistake and it’s especially clear now when it’s apparent that this place is not likely to grow above the aforementioned size.
I remember Kapo-gate extremely well. And I think you were 100% right about that.
I also admit that I’m almost certainly misunderstanding the context for what you were referring to. There were very likely specific uses you were alluding to and, I’m sure I don’t remember any of them.
My use of Canadabros wasn’t even a joke exactly. The last time I used it, was something like me asking a question about something Canadian and wondering if any of the “Canadabros could help me out”.
You used ‘Canadabros’ not a joke maybe, but not in a mean spirited way. On a mostly American board having people call a subset of 2 or 3 people UK bros as a negative thing bothered some people from the UK who had nothing to do with forum wars and now they don’t post here anymore.
I think the negative connotation toward “UK bros” is being very overblown here out of narrative. It was used in a slightly pejorative way because smacc, Marty, jal and fidget repeatedly were on the same side of a feud. They weren’t grouped together pre feud, and people on both side probably prefer the UK to the USA politically. There is no negative connotation towards the UK.
There are others like swanky, strontium, Pyat and Flynn who it’s totally wrong to lump in with the group you’ve named.
You need to stop othering people like now.
The term created the clique. Marty and jal can barely stand each other a lot of the time. Smaac is one of the nicest least fighting people this site has ever known.
Yeah, definitely not mean-spirited on my part. In fact, I think the Canadabros, are, as a group, generally excellent posters. And very nice (which, of course, as Canadabros is expected).
As for the actual topic - i support the idea because i regret my support in banning sabo simply because i hated his thread and poll.
But in general i dont think anyone permad user other than sabo even wants to return here so its not actually a big deal
Isn’t jman’s avatar specifically to troll the UK bros?
The ghetto blaster debate was a bad look. I don’t think he’s a racist, but don’t really think it was out of line for someone to wish to say that at the time.
No and those are the kinds of posts that temp-bans were intended to prevent.
Yea I meant grievances in terms of what people said about them. Those are the ones that are often referenced. I understand that the main grievance is the bannings.