11-27-2023, 12:16 AM
if "issues" are defined as people taking one side or the other, this could cause problems. What if all of chat started discussing trump building the wall, and everyone agreed that was a good idea. This definition would mean that r7 would not be broken in this context.
In regards to trap's response to point #3, are sa victims blamed for their own sa because they wore reveling clothing? I don't think so. Similarly, I personally think that anyone attacking someone for their beliefs, the attacker is purely at fault, regardless of what the victim said before hand.
If the definition of discuss and discussion includes another party, than anyone could monologue in the chat to avoid breaking r2 and r7. I feel a better definition is warranted here.
I feel like we should be allowed to discuss disagreements. Conflict is human. Would discussion about what key to compose music in be banned if we had one side that believed major keys were the best, and another side that argued for minor keys being the best? What if conflict arose when discussions about the best music genre came up?
In regards to trap's response to point #3, are sa victims blamed for their own sa because they wore reveling clothing? I don't think so. Similarly, I personally think that anyone attacking someone for their beliefs, the attacker is purely at fault, regardless of what the victim said before hand.
If the definition of discuss and discussion includes another party, than anyone could monologue in the chat to avoid breaking r2 and r7. I feel a better definition is warranted here.
I feel like we should be allowed to discuss disagreements. Conflict is human. Would discussion about what key to compose music in be banned if we had one side that believed major keys were the best, and another side that argued for minor keys being the best? What if conflict arose when discussions about the best music genre came up?