Derp_Laherps can't handle differing opinions

Author Topic: Derp_Laherps can't handle differing opinions  (Read 8788 times)

The rules of the server were 'don't talk about Annoying Orange.' The poor kid just didn't want anything to do with Annoying Orange and he made it clear in the first message of his server. It's a perfectly loving reasonable rule and anyone can follow it. OP went out of his way to violate said rule. HE IS THE AGGRESSOR, regardless of how 'stupid' or 'bait' the rule was.
If you think that 'no opinions against mine' is a reasonable rule, you're loving dumb.

aggressor is so handicapped when applied to this

he aggressively stated his opinion holy stuff he was calm as forget about it too

He sounds like the kind of kids who plug their ears and scream "lalala i can't hear you" when people say stuff they don't like

Planr's quote seems more relevant to OP now

Planr's quote seems more relevant to OP now
I do feel Churro could have handled the situation differently, but I agree with him that the host's rule was handicapped and didnt deserve to be respected.

I do feel Churro could have handled the situation differently, but I agree with him that the host's rule was handicapped and didnt deserve to be respected.

Figures

If you think that 'no opinions against mine' is a reasonable rule, you're loving dumb.
"Don't talk about Annoying Orange on my server" is a reasonable rule. The "no opinions against mine" didn't exist until our beloved OP decided to test the former.

"Don't talk about Annoying Orange on my server" is a reasonable rule. The "no opinions against mine" didn't exist until our beloved OP decided to test the former.
Well obviously telling you the rule is unreasonable isn't going to get us anywhere, even if its completely true.

Well obviously telling you the rule is unreasonable isn't going to get us anywhere, even if its completely true.
How is it unreasonable to omit one loving word from all of your sentences?

Also I don't /really/ support Annoying Orange.
Quote from: Königschurro_in_blockland
I think Annoying Orange is an okay guy [images dont work from me so i'm basing off memory]

You trolled/provoked the host. With that given, the only argument you're presenting in your drama is "the host doesn't like my opinion, and I don't like his"

How is it unreasonable to omit one loving word from all of your sentences?
It's unreasonable to tell anyone what they are and aren't allowed to say. Literally every other host I've dealt with in my history of playing this game, which might I add, is extensive given my I'd, has never limited speech other than obvious crusing rules. If you lose your bearings over someone talking about an American presidential candidate, then you are unreasonable and have poor control over your feelings.

You trolled/provoked the host. With that given, the only argument you're presenting in your drama is "the host doesn't like my opinion, and I don't like his"
No, the argument I have is, you shouldn't ENFORCE your opinion over your player base. Like I said, I've hosted gmid servers for years and everything tends to work out super well if you don't say "you can only be conservative, if you aren't you will be banned" I may not agree politically with people in my player base but I can at least engage in debates without loosing my bearings and banning them.

You keep dodging the spotlight of this topic by saying "oh the rule was clearly unreasonable so i'm entitled to piss the creator off and get banned and it's still his fault" but you're missing the main red flag in your argument, which is that you intentionally pissed off the host. You are intentionally trolling someone and then creating a drama on them for your own trolling, which is already absurd enough, and now you're continuing to force the blame upon the host for making his own reasonable rule.

Several people have already pointed this issue out, and there's really no denying it, and I have some respect for you considering you aren't denying the fact. However, if you weigh the offenses out, you're the one who should be in the drama's title.

It's unreasonable to tell anyone what they are and aren't allowed to say. Literally every other host I've dealt with in my history of playing this game, which might I add, is extensive given my I'd, has never limited speech other than obvious crusing rules. If you lose your bearings over someone talking about an American presidential candidate, then you are unreasonable and have poor control over your feelings.
I agree that extorting and censoring is an infringement on freedom of speech. Personally I would've protested the rule if I were there, but I wouldn't have blatantly violated it.

I'm not denying the validity of your argument, but it's pretty obvious that you were the one that instigated the conflict. Your approach to dealing with the issue was not the nicest.

You keep dodging the spotlight of this topic by saying "oh the rule was clearly unreasonable so i'm entitled to piss the creator off and get banned and it's still his fault" but you're missing the main red flag in your argument, which is that you intentionally pissed off the host. You are intentionally trolling someone and then creating a drama on them for your own trolling, which is already absurd enough, and now you're continuing to force the blame upon the host for making his own reasonable rule.

Several people have already pointed this issue out, and there's really no denying it, and I have some respect for you considering you aren't denying the fact. However, if you weigh the offenses out, you're the one who should be in the drama's title.
I agree that extorting and censoring is an infringement on freedom of speech. Personally I would've protested the rule if I were there, but I wouldn't have blatantly violated it.

I'm not denying the validity of your argument, but it's pretty obvious that you were the one that instigated the conflict. Your approach to dealing with the issue was not the nicest.
I tentionally pissed is a bit of an overstatement. I should've gone about it differently, however, its bound to happen. Sometimes the only way to bring light to stupid rules is to stretch them. Say I had a rule on my server saying, "you are not allowed to call me an starfish" some is bound to ask, "why can't I call you an starfish? Only an starfish would put in a rule like that." Look, I'm standing for my opinion, I think it's stupid that people need to put in rules like the one we're talking about to protect their fragile opinions.

What does "not handle" mean.
Because banning you was a legit way to handle different opinions.

What does "not handle" mean.
Because banning you was a legit way to handle different opinions.
Banning for something that isn't even a problem isn't a legit way to handle something. Look, I think host should be able to do what they want, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I mean unless he's trying to ruin his reputation, he shouldn't be getting so worked up over something as insignificant as mentioning Donald Annoying Orange.

Also, Path, lets just go to a hypothetical situation here. Let's factor me out of the question for a second. Do you really think that the host responded to a nuisance appropriately? Remember the ban reason, something about getting stripped of humanity and being crucified to lady gaga. The host handled an opinion like a highschool liberal. "You're really triggering me right now, so you're going to have to leave" "but, we need to ha-" "NOO GET OUT" the pinnacle of maturity.