So what's the point of even having Extra Time if Kevin Airs is just going to be a baby and shut down every thread where people have different opinions to him?

*complains about someone being a baby*

*acts like a baby*

:roll:

So raising legitimate concerns in the feedback section of the forum (where they're supposed to be raised) is somehow babyish?

Grow up.

It's not people I disagree with.

It's not allowing this forum to be a hidey-hole for MRA twats. I won't allow it, just as I won't allow it to be home to racists, bigots, homophobes or holocaust deniers.

I will not let users make people feel unwelcome simply because of their gender, race or religion. Don't do that, and I won't close down your thread.

Simples.

What specific posts were made to justify the deletions?

I didn't delete anything. I locked the threads that are locked.

So if people push feminist agendas those threads will be locked too?

-PB

Rofl so one side of a debate is eliminated because you dont like it? What a sook.

It's not pushing the agenda that is the issue (although that is part of it), it is making the forums an unfriendly place for people of a certain gender, race, etc etc. This is not a male-unfriendly environment.

Its pretty ridiculous equating those sort of things with what was discussed. I agree that rants against one gender or the other are not pleasant but shutting all threads that discuss it is silly. Imo the thread regarding target asked genuine questions regarding equal rights or at least the perception of them, considering a game was withdrawn for violence against women but not for violence against men.

Where was all this white knighting when these forums had users going on daily xenophobic rants (especially aimed at ex-NSL supporters)? :lol:

-PB

A genuine conversation about that may have been fine, but instead it almost instantly dissolved into a rant against women, "Helen Lovejoys", disadvantaged men, and how if men don't complain about men getting beaten to a pulp in a video game, women have no right to complain about women getting beaten to a pulp in a video game.

Grow up. A family-friendly store is choosing not to sell an adults-only videogame. Also, it doesn't sell sex toys. World turns.

People have been banned regularly for breaching these rules.

Maybe KA had to step in because every thread in ET turns into the same shit-fight between the same people.

You're opinion has been noted. And rejected.

:roll:

Ok then, what specific posts were made to justify the locking.

They are there to be read. Ask Siri to read them out loud to you...

Don't care.

Pathetic :lol:

May I make a suggestion in the future that if someone makes an inappropriate post, or a post that contravenes rules, that that person's post is either deleted and/or they receive a ban etc, rather than just lock a whole thread.

As you saw, those threads had people debating the issue on both sides, rather than just a rant fest amongst all posters.

A thread should not be locked just because it discusses gender politics.

Amen

[youtube]7pdWAcK6Eh8[/youtube]

What’s the current record on the shortest amount of time from someones ban ending to being banned again?



With all due respect, Kevin, you’re either full of crap or you’re allowing your reading of the discussion here be tainted by influences you have come across outside these forums.

I would challenge you to provide examples of these discussions being unfriendly for women to take part in.

The pejorative language you use refers to things that have never been asserted on these forums, and you are using the inability for people like Munrubenmuz to argue against polemics without resorting to strawman fallacies or personal attacks as a platform to assert that this discussion is unfriendly to women.

Case in point:


It’s an incredibly simplistic summary of a complex discussion that was generally balanced, both sides giving examples and statistics to back up their comments. There was even consensus from everyone that all kids should be encouraged to explore their interests regardless of gender. Just to quote myself:
It’s not exactly the rhetoric of someone blaming the world for their own issues the way you are suggesting, is it.

Nobody said a thing about straight or white, the discussion was around the way media represents men as slovenly dullards and how this trope is unjustified.




I don’t recall anybody self-identifying as an MRA (Mens Rights Activists, for people that don’t know) on these forums, Kevin, and even if there were MRA’s here how would you possibly justify calling them “twats, losers and saddoes” at the same time as asserting that you will not allow these forums to become an “unfriendly place for people of a certain gender”?

My agenda is equality of opportunity for all humans, which includes women having agency and responsibility for their actions. My snark when arguing this point doesn’t make me a misogynist (misogyny is the ”Hatred of women”, for people that don’t know), and neither does referring to legitimate study and statistics when arguing my point. It’s like saying that an animal shelter that caters for both cats and dogs, but shows statistics that cats are focused on and adopted more than dogs must have a hatred of cats.

It just doesn’t make logical sense, and neither do your unprofessional & libelous outbursts.

I do have something special for Manrub, tho.


Dude, it’s in the exact same thread!


I chose not to address those specific accusations at the time because they were just more strawman fallacies, projecting an argument that I was never making.

I would much rather move forward and make a case for my arguments than look backwards and constantly defend myself from unfounded personal attacks such as “you hate women because you couldn’t get a root”.

By the by, I won’t be modifying my opinions on gender politics because of the attempted shaming tactics employed here. I’ll probably tone down the snark a bit, but I will continue to make the evidence-based case that equality is something that all humans have a right to regardless of ”gender, race, etc etc”. Even straight white men.

Matt, I think I've made it quite clear this debate ends. You have your views. Proselytise elsewhere.

Persist and you'll be banned for a long time.

Banning me would obviously fly in the face of your own comments about the pursuit of an agenda not being an issue, but clearly as the figurehead of a privately owned company you have the right to push away as many active contributors to your community as you wish.

hmm

Geeeezzz how far 442 has fallen from several years ago.

-PB

Maybe they should have just killed off the forums with the new site.