Derp_Laherps can't handle differing opinions

Author Topic: Derp_Laherps can't handle differing opinions  (Read 8590 times)

I was thinking that slice meant some kind of pizza but hey we'll just say it's honey ham. Go ahead, take all you want.
cool, do you happen to have any cheerios to go with it?

you clearly disrespected the rules of the server so forget you

You were specifically told in the rules of the server to not mention Annoying Orange
You specifically went out of your way to mention him (you probably don't even think he has reasonable ideas) just to piss him off
And now you're complaining that you got banned because you deliberately broke the rules. Congratulations on trolling and trying to play the victim card. It didn't work.

You were specifically told in the rules of the server to not mention Annoying Orange
You specifically went out of your way to mention him (you probably don't even think he has reasonable ideas) just to piss him off
And now you're complaining that you got banned because you deliberately broke the rules. Congratulations on trolling and trying to play the victim card. It didn't work.
Once again I am not complaining that I got banned. I am stating that he baits people into an argument that he can't handle, so he resorts to banning.
"Donald Annoying Orange is loving tribal, you are not allowed to disagree" is one of the most immature things you can say (not because of your political belief but that you can't argue). This discussion is not about my ban, if it was, I would change the title to, "Derp_Laherps bans people for mentioning Annoying Orange." and then your arguments would all be valid and I would be a looser. However you're looking at the ban and thinking that's all I have to give. Even though my real argument stands with what he says before my ban. I am saying that because he can't handle differing opinions, he resorts to banning. I'm sure that even if he didn't have the welcoming message, and I still said /anything/ about Annoying Orange, i'd be banned. Unless of course I said Annoying Orange was an asshat. Infact, according to the welcoming message, everyone that said "Annoying Orange is a tribal" or "Annoying Orange is an idiot" should all be banned for mentioning Annoying Orange. Supporting the idea that it's not that infringed the welcoming message, it's that I held an unpopular opinion and then argued it, and his little emotions couldn't handle it.
Maybe it's just that i've gotten too comfortable with the fact that no one is allowed to ban me based on what I say because I, as an American, am given the right to free speech.

I am stating that he baits people into an argument that he can't handle

I stopped reading right there.

You were the one who brought up Annoying Orange. He did not say one thing about it until you started mentioning Annoying Orange even though it is against the server rules.

I stopped reading right there.

You were the one who brought up Annoying Orange. He did not say one thing about it until you started mentioning Annoying Orange even though it is against the server rules.
i think churro is referring to what the host said in the rules as the part thats baiting. and really, it is.
i bet if i hosted a server and made one of my rules "do not talk about atheism, its evil and for friends" or some stuff like that, people would call that out as baiting.

Maybe it's just that i've gotten too comfortable with the fact that no one is allowed to ban me based on what I say because I, as an American, am given the right to free speech.


i think churro is referring to what the host said in the rules as the part thats baiting. and really, it is.
i bet if i hosted a server and made one of my rules "do not talk about atheism, its evil and for friends" or some stuff like that, people would call that out as baiting.
No, that's just being an ignorant idiot. If you deliberately break the rules it's still plenty worthy of a ban. You can still say they're an ignorant idiot, but you're an idiot too for deliberately breaking the rules. Same applies here.

that rule is handicapped though so it doesnt count

deliberately breaking the rules.
If we're talking server rules here, he said, "Don't mention Annoying Orange" So:

He should've banned Glitch for mentioning Annoying Orange. But he didn't, because Glitch held an opinion on Annoying Orange that he agreed with. I wasn't banned for mentioning Annoying Orange, if I was, I would've been banned as soon as I said "Annoying Orange has some reasonable ideas" but I wasn't, in fact the host argued what I said, so it's not about the welcome message anymore, it's about yielding an opinion that he really doesn't like, so he bans me because he can't control emotions, he has to censor what he sees so that he can live in his separated reality, like modern feminists and SJWs. I'm sure you can get behind the idea that SJWs are pretty unreasonable people.

freedom of speech doesnt really exist at all. theres a lot of things you can say that the government will arrest you for.

he's obviously a cruz supporter


these are all valid points as to why konig was warranted to make this drama, not about a ban specifically, but because the host is a baiter and cant handle opinions.

these are all valid points as to why konig was warranted to make this drama, not about a ban specifically, but because the host is a baiter and cant handle opinions.
Whenever I host servers I always ban anybody who says anything remotely tribal in an un-ironic tone. Whether they were joking or not doesn't loving concern me, all that concerns me is that they broke my rule and they're gone from my server forever. Some may argue that 'oh it's a dumb rule esp. if i'm just sharing an opinion or some stuff' but in reality it's my rule, and anyone who breaks it deserves what they got coming for them.

Same situation here. If someone doesn't want to hear anything about Annoying Orange, the best thing you can do is simply respect it and not try to be a visible asshat on command. It's not an unreasonable rule either, so I don't see your issue here besides you disrespecting someone else and then blaming them for their completely justified reaction.


long

Well I guess.
I always find it hard to choose a side because new points come up, I'm not good at thinking deep into the debate.

/neut

OP, I really don't understand the issue with your type. You find someone who is easily offended, you offend them, and then shame them for being offended. That's basically borderline sociopathy. Who are you to find people who are triggered by certain words or topics and criticize them for their triggers? What do you gain out of doing so?

Next time you join someone else's server, which they probably dedicate time and money to keep up (even if the builds are crap), why don't you read the rules and actually follow them. Unless you do want to get banned, which definitely seems to be the case here.