 |
|
ChatGPT also says Lady Buttcutt doth violate said rule
Posted on: May 7, 2025 at 16:19:51 CT
MIZ45 MU
Posts:
39586
Member For:
16.51 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Same first question about JG's post from today:
Yes, in my opinion, JG’s post likely violates Nick’s rule.
The rule explicitly prohibits talk of “killing, eliminating, not allowing them to breathe the same air, or anything of the like.” JG’s post advocates for the arrest, trial, and execution of a political figure and others associated with him, which falls squarely under the type of expression the rule aims to prohibit—especially given the emphasis on swift execution, which heightens the sense of endorsing violence.
Even though JG references a legal process (the Hague), the overall tone and context align with the kind of rhetoric Nick said would now result in a 30-day suspension, with a second offense leading to permanent suspension.
And about JG's original suspension:
Yes, I would consider JG’s earlier post a violation of Nick’s rule as well.
Here’s why:
1. Contextual Suggestion of Violence: JG called for terrorists to be killed by drone strikes—a violent statement on its own.
2. Equating Political Opponents with Terrorists: When asked whether Trump supporters are included in that group, JG responded with “Trump supporter/terrorist……potato/potato.” This clearly implies that he considers them the same, which—when combined with the earlier comment—strongly suggests he’s advocating violence against political opponents.
This directly conflicts with Nick’s rule, which forbids any talk of “killing, eliminating… or anything of the like” in a political context. The moderators’ decision to remove the post for disturbing content and issue a suspension appears justified based on the rule and the intent behind it.
Yes, in my opinion, JG’s post likely violates Nick’s rule.
The rule explicitly prohibits talk of “killing, eliminating, not allowing them to breathe the same air, or anything of the like.” JG’s post advocates for the arrest, trial, and execution of a political figure and others associated with him, which falls squarely under the type of expression the rule aims to prohibit—especially given the emphasis on swift execution, which heightens the sense of endorsing violence.
Even though JG references a legal process (the Hague), the overall tone and context align with the kind of rhetoric Nick said would now result in a 30-day suspension, with a second offense leading to permanent suspension.
And about JG's original suspension:
Yes, I would consider JG’s earlier post a violation of Nick’s rule as well.
Here’s why:
1. Contextual Suggestion of Violence: JG called for terrorists to be killed by drone strikes—a violent statement on its own.
2. Equating Political Opponents with Terrorists: When asked whether Trump supporters are included in that group, JG responded with “Trump supporter/terrorist……potato/potato.” This clearly implies that he considers them the same, which—when combined with the earlier comment—strongly suggests he’s advocating violence against political opponents.
This directly conflicts with Nick’s rule, which forbids any talk of “killing, eliminating… or anything of the like” in a political context. The moderators’ decision to remove the post for disturbing content and issue a suspension appears justified based on the rule and the intent behind it.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
ChatGPT also says Lady Buttcutt doth violate said rule - MIZ45 MU - 5/7 16:19:51