Is it time to change the Statler and Waldorf policy?

Quote: Mission146

Here's a good example, that would be an ad hominem attack. You could speak to the nature of such posts rather than making comments about the individual who happened to be the target of same and your post would be better for it. Not that your post is bad or disallowed under the current Rules, it's fine under the current Rules.

I believe my opinion would be borne out by an impartial review of the record. I have never attacked nor defended Hot Blonde. In fact, I avoid her.

Quote:

Ambiguity is disagreement and dissention. I prefer unity and cohesion, by having a hard and firm set of Rules, we will be able to ensure a certain minimum posting standard here that will enhance the quality of the Forum.

Humanity is messy. Good rules allow for that, bad rules don't.

Ain't got time to read all this. Gotta take grand kids to park.

One quick question : What are my chances of not being suspending if I reply to Josh's F+++ this and F+++ that and middle class shitbags like teachers, fireman, working people etc?

I think we may be focused on the challenge of creating ironclad rules, but in so doing, are losing the focus of the actual goal.

I believe the original goal was to create a forum where civility is expected, and typical forum juvenile behavior is discouraged, and ultimately, is not tolerated.

However, by creating too many rules to try and cover all of the various situations, which cannot be done, it actually requires MORE work by the admins. Some violations are very obvious, and easily handled. But many more are on the edge, and require interpretation on intent. The other impediment I believe is the forced martingale penalty system which forces an admin to ignore a relatively minor offense, OR penalize the member and possibly have to hand out a severe suspension, for a relatively minor indiscretion.

I think you can achieve all of this with three rules.

1.) This forum has one rule. You are to remain civil at all times.
2.) What is not civil is decided by admins, who may choose to admonish posters, OR may suspend posters who do not seem to be able to abide by Rule #1.
3.) This is my house. Play nice, or play somewhere else.

We have an active forum. If you sanitize it too much, you will lose value. Much like allowing non-gambling conversations allows the forum to be more educational.

When someone crosses the line, tell them to knock it off, or cool their heels for a few days, whatever strikes your fancy. There is nothing that requires this to be fair. Life is not fair. If someone does not seem to be getting the message, nuke them. If a poster is using civil words, but is also bullying, warn them, or suspend them.

Quote: Wizard

I'm reading all the posts and am still processing all the ideas. Keep the discussion going.

I think the insults and name calling makes this forum less professional and casts you in a bad light. I say the stricter the better.

Quote: sodawater

I don't need anyone or anything in my real life to protect me from "insults," and I certainly don't need anyone or anything to protect me from being insulted on a silly Web forum.

Relaxing the policy would also have an added bonus of cutting down on so much of the drama that revolves around the "suspension list."

Public perception of Forum quality, very rarely is this done as a protective thing.

Quote: FinsRule

I think the insults and name calling makes this forum less professional and casts you in a bad light. I say the stricter the better.

Yes!

Quote: Mission146

The former, debatable. The latter, far from an arrest or being told explicitly, "You are not legally permitted to do this."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The store is not Congress or the government. They would have every right to boot someone harassing their customers. The cops would not be infringing your right to "free speech." They would probably explain anti-stalking laws and disturbing the peace statutes to you.

The charges might not stick, but they would be able to arrest on disorderly conduct so as to remove a person doing this. If the person never came back the charges would probably be dropped. If they showed up making comments to passing women again they would probably get another visit to the local JP.

Now back to topic.

I'm going to elaborate a bit on my opinion, which has not changed, so feel free to scroll down if you're simply looking for different POV's. I do make a suggestion towards the end, however.

This forum is genuinely unique in my experience. It is very valuable and well-appreciated by me and others like me who like the concentration of very intelligent and well spoken people on a subject that's been a hobby of mine for decades, (and recently became a source of revenue, DIRECTLY because of the quality of the participants on this forum) as well as a variety of other topics. Thank you all for that, and especially thank you, Wizard, for providing the venue, which would not exist without your continued thoughtful moderation. The quality people would not continue to participate without constant stimulation, new content, and lively conversation.

We are mostly strangers to one another, despite the forum meetups available. There were about 20 people at the G2E WoV event, out of more than 4000 forum members. So all we know about each other, for the most part, is how we present ourselves here. Yes, there are a few people who constantly test the limits of insults and attacks. Yes, there are several who are sometimes blunt to the point of rudeness (me, I think). And yes, there are some who take umbrage, either when goaded into it, or by misunderstanding teasing or honest statements as insults. But everyone on here is responsible not just for what they say, but how they perceive what is said to or about them (especially when it's not about them).

Written communication is about 10-30% of all communication, missing tone, intonation, facial expressions, body language, and context. So there's an awful lot of room for miscommunication in every post here. I would like to see the forum continue with its present moderation level on a case-by-case, with perhaps some consideration for 2 things; intent as the poster becomes known for a body of statements (which already happens to a large extent), and assuming positive intent from forum members when there's some question about how they meant something that could reasonably be seen as ambiguous by a third party. A question/offer to allow them to edit/suggested apology-retraction could be either PM'd or posted, with an acknowledgement from the offender (and action as appropriate) changing the infraction from a ban to a warning. Repeat offenders could still cross the line too much and earn a ban over their demeanor/intent. Those who stood their ground on something offensive could still get the ban.

There has to be room, too, for the moderators to disagree with someone who finds something offensive. I don't know what the default position is, whether how offended someone is can bring a ban when the moderator themselves are neutral or don't see why someone's offended. I would guess the default is that the moderator acts as a neutral third party and they'll look at a complaint and only act if they agree, but if there were a half-way step as suggested in the previous paragraph, intent could be clarified and ruffled feathers smoothed short of a black-and-white ban. There's really only an offense if someone chooses to be offended, and we all have that choice, even about 3rd party disagreements.

Quote: AZDuffman

The store is not Congress or the government. They would have every right to boot someone harassing their customers. The cops would not be infringing your right to "free speech." They would probably explain anti-stalking laws and disturbing the peace statutes to you.

The charges might not stick, but they would be able to arrest on disorderly conduct so as to remove a person doing this. If the person never came back the charges would probably be dropped. If they showed up making comments to passing women again they would probably get another visit to the local JP.

Now back to topic.

I'm not questioning the store's right to do so, I'm saying that I don't know that every store necessarily would do so without giving the person a warning first. Here's another example, what if it is a restaurant, but it's your absolute best customer who rents out the entire establishment two days a week such that you would profit just with him but lose money without him.

The charges for Criminal Trespass would stick if they asked you to leave and you did not comply.

Are we talking about "no personal insults" or "no ad hominem"? The two are not the same.

For example, if I were to claim that I had a system for predicting the next number rolled in craps, and EvenBob were to say, "That's impossible! The rolls are all random and independent!", and I were to say "How can you say that? You claim to have a bet selection system for roulette!", my last comment is ad hominem, but not an insult. (Obviously this exchange will never actually happen).

Also, if someone were to say that they thought that Volkswagons were great cars, and I said, "yeah, that's also what the nazis thought", that is also ad hominem, but not a personal insult.

In retrospect, I might have said, "Limited ad hominem," but then I'm back to things being subjective. Certainly, "No ad hominem," would be ideal for the presentation of the Forum, but would be a major stumbling block for anyone uneducated in formal argument.

I am for a Rule of, "No personal insults whatsoever," though.

Quote: Mission146

I'm not questioning the store's right to do so, I'm saying that I don't know that every store necessarily would do so without giving the person a warning first. Here's another example, what if it is a restaurant, but it's your absolute best customer who rents out the entire establishment two days a week such that you would profit just with him but lose money without him.

Clearly it would depend on the store and manager on duty at the time. In my first job I saw a guy cut off a woman at the checkout and called her an "old bag" with the manager right there. The manager seemed to figure it was best just to get the guy out the door as peacefully as he could.

In your example would likewise be a manager's call. Of course unless the store could profit with *only his business* they *should* boot him because he will eventually drive the rest of the trade away and they will lose money anyways.

"Bar Rescue" has had a few episodes like this. Bar gets afraid to drive off the immature power-drinkers because they are the regulars driving the business. But because they are such jagoffs new customers may come once but never return. Catch-22.

Quote: Mission146

I am for a Rule of, "No personal insults whatsoever," though.

I voted for "no ad hominem at all", but this ("no personal insults") is what I assumed was meant by that.

Quote: Mission146

In retrospect, I might have said, "Limited ad hominem," but then I'm back to things being subjective. Certainly, "No ad hominem," would be ideal for the presentation of the Forum, but would be a major stumbling block for anyone uneducated in formal argument.

I am for a Rule of, "No personal insults whatsoever," though.

Thought I was done, but guess not.

Is it possible to let each starter of a new thread set the degree of civility on the first post. Someone who wants no personal attacks at all in the thread can set the High civility and it is indicated on the first post. Whereas if a thread has no indicator, it's as it is now.

Quote: Wizard

It is our goal to keep the forum a friendly place to have intelligent discussion primarily about things related to gambling.

(emphasis mine)

Now, this is a rule that I would like to see.

Quote: rxwine

Is it possible to let each starter of a new thread set the degree of civility on the first post. Someone who wants no personal attacks at all in the thread can set the High civility and it is indicated on the first post. Whereas if a thread has no indicator, it's as it is now.

Inefficient, I'd have to re-read the OP of every single thread just to Administrate it, lest I forget what the Rules for that thread are.

I think the rules are just fine as they are, the world will always have extremist. You can't try to please just the minority while forgetting about the majority.

Granted I understand all too well what kind of strain this puts on a moderator, which by the way, this forum is by far one of the best moderated I have ever been on. I believe if anything, not a change of rules is necessary, but another moderator added. There is a very large number of posters here and very few moderators, you cannot expect to have nothing fall through the cracks.

Also this is the internet, yes it would be ideal to keep this board professional, but if you cannot handle what someone may say about you on the internet, you may not belong on the internet. Allowing someone with no bearing on your life to cause you emotional distress is a sign of a much greater psychological problem that may need professional help and a break from the internet might be beneficial to those people.

Quote: Mission146

Inefficient, I'd have to re-read the OP of every single thread just to Administrate it, lest I forget what the Rules for that thread are.

Hmm. How about in the title of the thread. For instance:

(HC) About craps at Bozo's casino < -----(HC) being the indicator.

vs

About craps at Bozo's casino.

Quote: Transcend

Granted I understand all too well what kind of strain this puts on a moderator, which by the way, this forum is by far one of the best moderated I have ever been on. I believe if anything, not a change of rules is necessary, but another moderator added. There is a very large number of posters here and very few moderators, you cannot expect to have nothing fall through the cracks.

Thanks for the compliment to Administration, as a whole!

If you think about it, stricter and stricter rules is how we wind up with "three strikes" laws and grade school kids getting expelled for drawing pictures of guns. Rules are written to try to remove gray areas, when in reality the world is all gray and rules try to discern degrees of black and white.

Leave the rules where they are and allow some discernment. I suggest removing the Martingale as a hard rule for offenses, it doesn't allow any flexibility and it is already applied situationally anyhow. Allow the moderator to decide the severity, ranging from an edit and PM warning to nuke, depending. No sense banning a drunkpost, no sense giving a troublemaker a second chance.

The more rules you make, the more difficult it becomes to administer them.
As a Chief Shop Steward I got guys paid for their suspension , more often than not. Managements written rules were my best friend.

Let's take a hypothetical case. ( finger off the trigger, Mission )

If I were to say " I think Josh Axelrad is an egotistical bastard."

INSULT

If I were to reply to Babs welcoming Josh to the form and I said
" He wont be back, his ego has been sufficiently stroked "

Not exactly an insult, and since I do not know this to be true, you could suspend me for being untruthful, I guess.

But in that case, what if I were to post " Before reading his interview, I thought Josh was a stand-up guy, but afterwards I would not piss on him if he was on fire. "

Now that is the truth. And I assume I could say PISS, since he dropped f bombs in his interview. To say nothing of calling the middle class shitbags. To say nothing of the sons and daughters of
those shitbags who died in the service to protect his freedom of speech.

PLEASE leave things as they are. People can block posts and threads. This is not a schoolyard, although some people act like it is.

Mikes House Mikes Rules Who doesn't understand that ?

Quote: 1BB

"The purpose of this site is to be an informative travel guide about Las Vegas. It is also a spinoff of the casino odds site WizardOfOdds.com with an emphasis on the gambling scene in Las Vegas". That's what it says when you click the "about" link at the top of this page and that's what it was when I joined in July of 2010. Yes, that is my join date.

My, how things change. Politics, LBGT, religion, videos of scantly clad young women ordering pizza. Who has the best truck, the fastest car or bike, who's gay, who's not. If the site remained as intended we wouldn't need all these all these rules but change is good. Right?

Yet you are still hear reading all the other stuff.

Quote: Beethoven9th

The current rules are fine. Some members take things way too seriously, including those who "protest" another member's suspension by refusing to post themselves. (That one really cracked me up) This is a freakin internet forum, guys. Not Selma or Vietnam. lol

Did it work? Protesting would be voicing my opposition to the suspension or complaining on the unfairness of it. I did neither of those nor did I encourage anyone else to do so. I was merely showing my support for Roger. Did you serve in Vietnam?

I am relatively new here, so my opinion may not carry a lot weight. I voted too strict, but was leaning toward other.

I was reading the discussion of the suspension list, which prompted me to post here. I do not understand why HotBlonde was suspended for telling someone they are not nice. And I essentially agree with Sodawater's entire analysis; other comments may have warranted a suspension. Roger's aborted suspension made no sense to me, as he was not suspended for anything he said. He was suspended for the perceived tone of this post, and possibly excessive use of punctuation. It should not be punishable for thinking something (and we can never actually know what someone is thinking with certainty)...only acts should be punishable. "Probably not" is not an insult, a trolling, or any other offense. When there are standards like that, they are no standards at all. I did not go back far, so maybe that is not how it usually works. At best, it is an imperfect system, and I know that every system is imperfect. And though there is a concern about no rules and degenerating into a visitorless site, from the looks of things, this is the strictest site I have ever visited. I think it is a far-cry from being in such a poor state.
The main problem I have ran into on forums is noise. Not insults or trolls. Any stable adult can handle an insult from a stranger on the internet without it hurting them a tiny bit; it may actually add to the conversation, reduce noise, and add to the intellectual conversation by decreasing the ability for poor ideas to proliferate. I am not sure I see the difference suggested between ad hominem attacks (that are suggested as worse) and direct personal insults. Ad hominem would be an illogical argument, whereas a personal insult would be pointless abuse.
I think that if something warrants the attention of moderators, because third parties are pointing it out or because it is grotesque or because it is patently disruptive, then that should be the standard. Jaywalking should be legalized, or at least turned a blind-eye (if you catch my meaning). I hope what I have said adds to your conversation. Good luck.

I would like to reiterate what a couple of others have already said.

The reason for the rules isn't really so poor johnny won't get insulted. We have the rules because we want this to be a valuable place to exchange ideas and information, and avoid all the juvenile crap. A forum that is professional, and one for which a member is proud to be a participant. Finally, a civil forum certainly stands out from the many others on the net.
We have casino personnel joining in the discussions here, plus other well known names, and I think many people enjoy reading their perspectives. Would they be so willing to post, especially identifying themselves, if this was a typical name calling forum?

Whether you agree with a poster, or not, is irrelevant. If they are writing bullshit, you should be able to call it bullshit, but do so nicely.

When I started this thread I thought "no ad hominem attacks" was a fancy way of saying "no personal attacks." However, I see now that may not be the case and the "ad hominem" standard may confuse people, including me. So, going forward it is safe to equate the choice for "no ad hominem attacks" to represent "no personal attacks/insults."

I agree that more good moderators would be a good thing. Any long-time members may apply to be secret admins and secret admins may apply to be full admins at any time.

No way I could be a secret administrator. Cause I know what I am really thinking when I post and would be suspending myself a lot more than Mission for sure.

Quote: Sonuvabish

I am relatively new here, so my opinion may not carry a lot weight. I voted too strict, but was leaning toward other.
I was reading the discussion of the suspension list, which prompted me to post here...
I did not go back far, so maybe that is not how it usually works.... this is the strictest site I have ever visited. I think it is a far-cry from being in such a poor state.
The main problem I have ran into on forums is noise. Not insults or trolls. Any stable adult can handle an insult from a stranger on the internet without it hurting them a tiny bit; it may actually add to the conversation, reduce noise, and add to the intellectual conversation by decreasing the ability for poor ideas to proliferate...

My apologies for removing parts of your post. I do not believe I have altered the intent of your words.

Your post is exactly why we are having this discussion. As a newbie you think it is very strict, but many of us have felt the decorum of the forum has slipped dramatically from what it was, and we would like to see things improve, back to where it was before.

Poor ideas do not need to be attacked with insults or name calling. What one person considers to be a poor idea, may not be a poor idea. Discussion of the topic will generally bear out how the majority of the people feel about the topic. And if it is truly a poor idea, the masses will judge it as such.

Some of the recent suspensions you probably would not understand, as there is a long history behind some of the posters which I am sure has had an impact in the suspension decisions.

Well my apology to Mission 146, I believe we need a secret administrator who has a bit more experience in life. A compassionate person, yet one who is not afraid to enforce the rules. A person respected and even admired by most forum members. Therefore in the hopes of promoting peace and harmony, I hereby nominate EVENBOB>

Quote: Wizard

When I started this thread I thought "no ad hominem attacks" was a fancy way of saying "no personal attacks." However, I see now that may not be the case and the "ad hominem" standard may confuse people, including me. So, going forward it is safe to equate the choice for "no ad hominem attacks" to represent "no personal attacks/insults."

I agree that, "No personal attacks," would be a better rule to have than the Statler and Waldorf Standard, but was actually suggesting, "No ad hominem attacks," when I said it.

Ad hominem is when a person attempts to argue or belittle another person by referencing something about that person, usually a personal characteristic, rather than strictly attacking a person's argument. It's a logical fallacy. I see that no ad hominem attacks as a Rule would be too strict, especially considering that many people don't actually seem to know what it means.

Basically, if something is a personal insult it is almost automatically an ad hominem attack, but not every ad hominem attack is necessarily a personal insult, it could just be a logically fallacious comment about a person made in place of logically meaningful counterargument. I suppose the latter would be too strict.

Forget that! Just got a PM saying he already has that title. And he suspended me because of my Dumb Blonde remark. Can't trust anybody.

Quote: Buzzard

Well my apology to Mission 146, I believe we need a secret administrator who has a bit more experience in life. A compassionate person, yet one who is not afraid to enforce the rules. A person respected and even admired by most forum members. Therefore in the hopes of promoting peace and harmony, I hereby nominate EVENBOB>

lol.

If we are nominating people (seriously), I think that Babs would be a great choice.

Quote: AZDuffman

I think the best thing to do is realize that a private forum is not subject to needing everything quantified. Maybe instead of/in addition to S&W policy the admins could take the famous Supremes definition of pornography being "I know it when I see it." No need to over-codify things.

Think of it as a "Gentlemen's Club" where men (just for the example, I know there are women here) might come to socialize. A new member comes in and is loud in the bar area, uses foul language, and does not put away his towels in the sauna (yes, it is a really nice club!) So instead of booting him an elder takes him aside and says, "hey, son, let me explain how we behave around here." When the kid says, "I don't see that in the rulebook!" the old guy says again, "we don't have a rule for everything, there are some things gentlemen don't do because they are things gentlemen don't do, get it?"

I for one prefer "soft rules" to a rule for every last thing.

S&W were funny. Keep the current policy. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Is Even Bob Statler or Waldorf?

I'll say it again: the administration of this forum is great. There will be phases when the decorum will be less than desired, but honestly, it gives a bit of flavor to the site. I think Mike liked JJs presence on the forum as it gave it spice. And I also think that he doesn't like it when people feel unwelcome in the forum, which is not what he is looking for.

And honestly, it's the threads like HB weight loss challenge and ObamaCare that help the site get hits from Google, and more traffic = more revenue (I hope).

No personal insults is already a rule on this site, and it is being enforced I think fairly reasonably. We have a thread where we can discuss the merits of suspension.

Keep up the good work. Nothing to see here, move on!!!

I voted other.....Can't we all just get along?
Most of the insults here would never be said face to face so why can't we just use that to help us judge offenses against others?
Wizard/Mission and any other admins are doing the best they can to run a free and awesome forum.
I have learned a great deal from you all and your life experiences.
I was reading everyones thoughts and posts way before I joined. A few years ago it used to be alot better than it is on here.
Let us get back to the way it was by using common courtesy and sense.
Would you say it to their face? Ask yourself this question before your keyboard gets diahrea.
Also,don't get so offended,it is only someone elses opinion.
There are alot of things that each of you have stated that I disagree with.
I mean form The Wizard at the top and all the way down you folks have said some things that have offended me.
Instead of huffing and puffing I ponder what has been communicated and try to establish how this interaction will help me rather than offend me.
Stop being so thin skinned and soft. It is ok to have a backbone on here but don't go for the throat.
Get Real.Respect each other.Stop all the unneeded bickering.Poke fun at one another tastefully.

Thanks to Michael and the admins that run this free site.I really enjoy this forum.Don't let a few bad apples ruin the bunch.

KB1

Quote: 1BB

Did it work?

To be perfectly honest, I don't think it had any effect on the Wizard's decision to unban RogerKint. Also, I honestly did not remember who had protested by not posting (I believe there were 2 members total) when I wrote that, and I do apologize if my post sounded like it was aimed directly at you guys. It was meant to be about the group as a whole including everyone who has posted about it here.

To everyone: People, this is a freaking internet forum. Someone got banned and unbanned. Is this really some grave issue that deserves 90 posts in the past few hours? lol

BTW, I voted Bigot. ;)

Quote: RaleighCraps

Poor ideas do not need to be attacked with insults or name calling. What one person considers to be a poor idea, may not be a poor idea. Discussion of the topic will generally bear out how the majority of the people feel about the topic. And if it is truly a poor idea, the masses will judge it as such.
.

I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. As an AP, I am frequently the only one out of a thousand people in the building who have any clue as to what I am doing. 100 of those people will hold the same incoherent beliefs as one another, and God help me if a group of them happen upon each other and all sit at my table. The majority is often taken by poor ideas, and is very difficult to convince otherwise. This is a fact that extends beyond gambling and internet forums. In the formation of our government, judicial review was crafted to protect the minority from the bad ideas the majority held. It is still used today.
I do not think that it is necessary for name calling, but sometimes it can be frustrating when the minority is correct and the masses are judging incorrectly. When I did something stupid as a child, my dad would call me a retard and threaten me with the back of his hand. My mom would basically ignore it, maybe make a comment. In operant conditioning, they would say my dad used punishment whereas my mother used extinction. Who do you think had the more convincing argument that I should not do whatever I was doing?

Why not change it to the obscenity policy? "I know it when I see it."

I generally think that this forum is presided over well, but one of the more distasteful things about it is the discussion over policy every time someone says something stupid or intemperate and gets themselves suspended. That is when the tenor of the board goes from largely palatable to middle school sniping and a bunch of "but he said...but she said" nonsense.

No ad hominem might be a bridge too far, but I wouldn't really mind that too much either. I would just prefer that every suspension didn't have to become a 5 page discussion on the merits of that suspension. We are all adults here. We can recognise for the most part when someone goes too far, and if we disagree, well, it isn't our forum. It is Wizard's.

I just think that the constant discussion of what constitutes proper behavior takes this board from an intelligent place to a childish one in a hurry. I wish suspensions would be handled in silence, and if a suspended member had a problem or question about their suspension, it could be addressed off the board via PM with mods.

Heck, my Celtic-Spartan backside once got the gavel on here simply because I refered to members as "cats", and I had the temerity to ask how many hands of baccarat constituted the "long run". So, I figured that moderation on here was already plenty tight, hey hey.

Come to think of it - isn't the "I'm a bigot" option sort of an attack on Nareed?

I mean, I guess originally mocking the poll in question would have been an attack on what she said, but making it a meme like this does feel far enough from the original poll that I'd have to call it a form of personal attack.

Quote: soxfan

Heck, my Celtic-Spartan backside once got the gavel on here simply because I refered to members as "cats", and I had the temerity to ask how many hands of baccarat constituted the "long run". So, I figured that moderation on here was already plenty tight, hey hey.

Well by cats, you obviously were referring to the P-word. But I think your point might be, even with an obscenity standard, if you loophole passed it being obscene, then it is not obscene by definition. So obviously, this site's policy is more strict than an obscenity-like standard because you can't dance around it.

Quote: Sonuvabish

Well by cats, you obviously were referring to the P-word. But I think your point might be, even with an obscenity standard, if you loophole passed it being obscene, then it is not obscene by definition. So obviously, this site's policy is more strict than an obscenity-like standard because you can't dance around it.

The "cat" reference has nothing to do with the p-word. It is simply a term of reference, as sometimes I will refer to a person as a serious cat, a shrewd cat, etc, hey hey.

Quote: 24Bingo

Come to think of it - isn't the "I'm a bigot" option sort of an attack on Nareed?

I mean, I guess originally mocking the poll in question would have been an attack on what she said, but making it a meme like this does feel like an attack on her overall attitudes.

Bingo! To me the vile hatred of the last "N word" thread should have led to being nuked. All Christians were attacked but you know who is a you know what. No excuse at all for this thread, I see no S&W here.

Quote: 24Bingo

Come to think of it - isn't the "I'm a bigot" option sort of an attack on Nareed?

I mean, I guess originally mocking the poll in question would have been an attack on what she said, but making it a meme like this does feel far enough from the original poll that I'd have to call it a form of personal attack.

I always wondered where the bigot reference originated...can you direct me to that thread?

Quote: 24Bingo

Come to think of it - isn't the "I'm a bigot" option sort of an attack on Nareed?

Did you even read that thread?? In it, you either support gay marriage, or you're a bigot.

Quote: aceofspades

I always wondered where the bigot reference originated...can you direct me to that thread?

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/14387-good-news/

Quote: soxfan

The "cat" reference has nothing to do with the p-word. It is simply a term of reference, as sometimes I will refer to a person as a serious cat, a shrewd cat, etc, hey hey.

So you basically made fun of people so much for using the term dawg, that calling people cats became habitual?

Quote: Sonuvabish

So you basically made fun of people so much for using the term dawg, that calling people cats became habitual?

Back in the 50's and 60's it was common to refer to people as cats, and it wasn't a putdown. Did you never see the original Ocean's Eleven, they all refered to each other as "cats" in that flick, hey hey.

Quote: soxfan

Back in the 50's and 60's it was common to refer to people as cats, and it wasn't a putdown. Did you never see the original Ocean's Eleven, they all refered to each other as "cats" in that flick, hey hey.

Why would you refer to everyone on the forum as a bunch of nondescript cats? Your tone would imply a cut-down, and your explanation is hard to swallow, respectfully.

Quote: aceofspades

I always wondered where the bigot reference originated...can you direct me to that thread?

There's this also

Looks familiar.