Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
With r-word it's a continuation of a long on-going to and fro...
I've asked this Q of you several times, without ever getting a direct answer. Do you feel the r-word is especially special? Do you feel it is problematic to such a significant degree, that as a practical matter, rules wise it needs to be handled as a special case?
FWIW, I think the the answers are an emphatic "yes". So far, however, I've gotten zero traction trying to make this point.
Quote:
... It doesn't compare to your example which suggested the 'fight' was just starting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
... If these people weren't instigating then there would be no reason for Will to respond. You need to lay the blame were it is deserved. Blame the instigater not the responder. Blame the criminal, not the cop. Etc etc.
It wasn't my example, and the example wasn't about the r-word. It was
mongidig's example regarding a hypothetical "Will". Remember, please, this thread is a meta-discussion about discussions. Please don't inadvertently derail this discussion by speculating on who this hypothetical "Will" might remind you of, or any imagined backstory you may fancy regarding our hypothetical "Will".
If you wanna sever the examples that use the r-word from
mongidig's hypothetical 'taunting', that's fine with me. However, you would need to explicitly make that call as discussed above.
So, back on topic...
- Do you feel, as long enshrined in the rules of Alta, that only the Taunter should possibly be subject to sanctions... and that the Triggered Special Snowflake should always be held 100% blameless.
- I assume you don't feel, as was previously the policy of Baja, that neither party should ever be subject to any sanctions... since you yourself changed that policy. Am I correct?
- What are you thoughts on rules that would possibly subject both parties to possible sanctions?
- What are your thoughts on rules that would only possibly subject the Triggered Special Snowflake to sanctions?