MAP Forum

Jim Burton recently wrote the following before locking the relevant thread:

Before accusing users of being Nazis, it would be appreciated if forum users point us to the content violating our rules against this via the report function. Do not complain in thread, nor accuse users of anything that violates our rules in thread, as this escalates drama.

Given the context, should I understand that we are forbidden from making any references to past instances where other users actually broke the rules, even if we were the ones specifically targeted?

A user did break the rules by calling me disgusting (I don't care) and implying that most men in my family should die (I do care). That person received a warning but remains largely unapologetic. What exactly am I supposed to do?

Rather than see it as a strict matter of rules, I prefer to see it as a matter of attitude. As Jim's final point says, the goal should be avoiding escalating drama.

We'll lock topics if we feel they aren't achieving anything productive.

Rather than asking "is it forbidden" how about "did referencing it make the discussion more productive"?

After a user is warned but remains hostile, you can report further infractions. If they're not crossing the line into actual rule breaking you can just avoid them.

It's very rare that someone continues being hostile with an interlocutor that avoids them and tries to de-escalate conflict.

I'd actually recommend everyone read this blog by Arden:
https://optimisticapologist.site/self-a ... unication/

Improved communication will not only help internally, but will also prove a valuable asset when we take our message to the outside world.

I'm a bit at a loss as to how to make that particular person understand the error of their ways. I know some of my words have been harsh, but I have tried "softer" approaches to no avail.

I don't think they mean harm, but they ought to realize that some of the views they expressed are utterly unacceptable, especially on this forum. As far as I'm concerned, any variation on "we should kill all the undesirables!" is worth being called out in the strongest possible terms. Am I wrong in thinking so?

They have received one warning and a topic they started has been locked with us keeping a close eye out for further violations.

We do primarily rely on reports in deciding whether to implement warnings or bans, though. Generally if the people involved in a heated discussion are happy with the level of heat, it'd be overly heavy handed to interpose ourselves into the middle of that.


As for a more specific discussion of my personal opinion (taking off my moderator hat):

We also want to recognize that on sensitive topics people are prone to making statements based on emotion. "I wish all X were dead", "we should kill all X" and "I want to kill all X" are very different statements.

As someone who has spent 4 months in a cage already for a sex-based crime and is looking at another 2 years I definitely feel attacked by "we should kill anyone convicted of a sex crime". But the reality is that many in society feel that way, and refusing to engage with someone because of that kind of language won't help us achieve anything.

Just like supporting age of consent reform doesn't imply law breaking, supporting the death penalty for certain crimes doesn't imply actively threatening that group.

Fragment wrote: Sat Mar 29, 2025 5:53 am We also want to recognize that on sensitive topics people are prone to making statements based on emotion. "I wish all X were dead", "we should kill all X" and "I want to kill all X" are very different statements.

As someone who has spent 4 months in a cage already for a sex-based crime and is looking at another 2 years I definitely feel attacked by "we should kill anyone convicted of a sex crime". But the reality is that many in society feel that way, and refusing to engage with someone because of that kind of language won't help us achieve anything.

That is why I do not wish to ignore/avoid that person. I understand that their statements were rooted in emotion, and thoroughly irrational. The issue is that they clearly do not realize that, and even less how they would be perceived as an attack for many if not most of us. I would point out that the language used wasn't merely abstract and included an explicit statement saying that a beloved family member should die "in the most gruesome ways".

My aim is to make that person realize that their stance is irrational and hurtful towards this community. That is the reason I resorted to a colourful "neo-Nazi" metaphor. It doesn't seem to have reached the target audience, and it was certainly a stretch to think it might, but again, I don't know what exactly it is that I should say.

WavesInEternity wrote: Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:15 am

Fragment wrote: Sat Mar 29, 2025 5:53 am We also want to recognize that on sensitive topics people are prone to making statements based on emotion. "I wish all X were dead", "we should kill all X" and "I want to kill all X" are very different statements.

As someone who has spent 4 months in a cage already for a sex-based crime and is looking at another 2 years I definitely feel attacked by "we should kill anyone convicted of a sex crime". But the reality is that many in society feel that way, and refusing to engage with someone because of that kind of language won't help us achieve anything.

That is why I do not wish to ignore/avoid that person. I understand that their statements were rooted in emotion, and thoroughly irrational. The issue is that they clearly do not realize that, and even less how they would be perceived as an attack for many if not most of us. I would point out that the language used wasn't merely abstract and included an explicit statement saying that a beloved family member should die "in the most gruesome ways".

My aim is to make that person realize that their stance is irrational and hurtful towards this community. That is the reason I resorted to a colourful "neo-Nazi" metaphor. It doesn't seem to have reached the target audience, and it was certainly a stretch to think it might, but again, I don't know what exactly it is that I should say.

Don't take the bait.

We are talking about a poster claiming to be 13 when obviously they are not.

Manstuprator on BoyChat constantly tries to troll me, and I just ignore him. He must be getting quite frustrated!

BLueRibbon wrote: Sat Mar 29, 2025 7:30 am We are talking about a poster claiming to be 13 when obviously they are not.

Manstuprator on BoyChat constantly tries to troll me, and I just ignore him. He must be getting quite frustrated!

I do admit to having a lot of trouble distinguishing between trolls and honest fools. There are so many of the latter.

I remember talking to confirmed teenage girls that made very little sense in several respects, and they all had in common that they were self-contradictory, impulsive, and emotionally unstable, although none ever used hateful language. I once met an actual 13-year-old girl online who was interested in BDSM—a submissive masochist who seemed very compatible with me sexually—and obviously that piqued my interest to the highest extent... but we chatted for only a few days before her impulsiveness and nonsensical behaviour got on my nerves and I said farewell.