Discussion about the Suspension List
Quote: 1BBIf someone mildly, or even moderately, insults me I don't want them suspended. I'm not talking about stalking or anything like that, just off the cuff remarks. I may be offended at the time but I'll get over it very soon.
You can't always get a handle on the written word which is why I think that if many of these so called insults were made face to face they would blow over in a minute. It would be a non issue and the parties involved wouldn't dwell on it.
I wouldn't go that far. If I don't like the person, I want him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law so I can revel in the glee of it all. But basically, what your saying is the way I feel. The person being attacked should be required to flag it. Then it should have to pass both an objective and subjective test. Is it reasonable to consider this as an insult? "Not nice" as Nareed, likes to point out so often, fails the objective test. I think at minimum, this has to be implemented--no more stretching it into an insult. The subjective test is--does the person actually feel insulted, or is he trying to get the person in trouble. Excessive drama and/or history with the opponent should be considered; and so should the fact that this is an online forum with strangers whose thoughts and words are estranged to our emotions and daily functioning. Decorum should also be considered here, but so should that fact be balanced against moderators' power to delete--excessive bad posts should be the main decorum consideration. Many would fail here.
Just my opinion.
Quote: AZDuffman3. 7 day suspensions or nukes have to go to the wizard or at least the star chamber you described. Think nuclear sub keys and the reason for them.
Don't really care what method is preferred, but I do think quibbling over 7 day or less suspensions is more wasted time then useful management.
Unless management prefers the discussion that goes on for this. Then as they say, whatever is good for management is fine by me. I ain't paying for the site either way.
Quote: rxwineDon't really care what method is preferred, but I do think quibbling over 7 day or less suspensions is more wasted time then useful management.
Unless management prefers the discussion that goes on for this. Then as they say, whatever is good for management is fine by me. I ain't paying for the site either way.
Don't say we never agreed on anything ever again! :-)
Thank god..
Quote: AZDuffmanDon't say we never agreed on anything ever again! :-)
I met my quota for the year then! (quota system joke)
Quote: EvenBobThis thread finally beats out the Hot Blond thread.
Thank god..
Beats that thread in quality...or quantity ?
Quote: michael99000Beats that thread in quality...or quantity ?
I hated that thread. It was a low point for the
forum. More people got suspended there than
any ten threads combined.
Quote: EvenBobThis thread finally beats out the Hot Blond thread.
Thank god..
I was thinking of commenting on the size of the thread for no particular reason, if I am making sense...would that have been a personal insult by insinuation, or is ambiguity permitted?
Quote: rxwineI met my quota for the year then! (quota system joke)
No use waiting until the last minute, eh?
Quote: Mission146The main reason for having additional Moderators is because I couldn't be on all of the time. On my days off from work, for example, I'm on maybe once that day and sometimes not at all. I'll be in Vegas from 4/13-4/18, might not be on at all while I am there, it'd be the only time in three years my wife and I have required more than one laptop, (so we only have one) but she's at school and posting from my phone is a pain.
If I were the only Administrator, I would probably make it a point to be on at least once per day while in Vegas, but that's not the point.
Here's a compromise: Out of myself, Wizard, BeachBumBabs and Face, generally three of us are on every day, so what if we had, "Temporary Suspensions," in which a Member could be Suspended and the Suspending Administrator PM'ed the other Administrators with the Suspension and proposed ban length, unless at least one other Administrator agrees within twelve hours, (and both the original Administrator and Assenting Administrator make public their opinion) the ban is automatically lifted.
Would something like that work? It seems the main issue people are having is that they don't see the consistency in Moderation that there once was here...and of course there will be slightly less consistency...because you no longer have one person doing 90% of the Suspensions!
Why is JB never mentioned when it comes to suspensions and these discussions? Isn't he a mod as well?
Quote: GWAEWhy is JB never mentioned when it comes to suspensions and these discussions? Isn't he a mod as well?
He is busy on other projects.
Quote: WizardHe is busy on other projects.
I figured so. I just wasn't sure if he is an active admin on the site or if he is more in the development and data gathering part of your business.
Because YOU don't find it funny doesn't mean it IS not. "One does not speak of rope in a hanged man's home", they say. Implying you can in any other house... I always find it weird how some people want to impose THEIR view of what is funny or not.Quote: thecesspitRape jokes are not funny.
Quote: kubikulannBecause YOU don't find it funny doesn't mean it IS not. "One does not speak of rope in a hanged man's home", they say. Implying you can in any other house... I always find it weird how some people want to impose THEIR view of what is funny or not.
Of course it's 'my opinion'. As humour is subjective, of course, then it's clear my statement is about my own views. I have no need or desire or intent (and I think that's quite clear) that I am not imposing my view on anyone else. It would be very hard to say something was -objectively- humourous. Doubly so to say that the violent sexual assault of someone is a laugh a minute.
Moreover, the phrase you give does not mean it's okay in another house. It just means that it's a particularly offensive to make certain comments in certain places. Sure, if the Wizard and the mods don't want to crack down on rape jokes, that okay. I have the right to be offended.
So my point still stands as a POINT I made.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceMeh. It will never be consistent. Besides, we are all gamblers here.
I like the current way of doing things where people get suspended and then other people complain about it. the mods are all pretty reasonable people and sometimes they even change their minds.
Totally agree, the mods are reasonable and do a great job! It seems now that a few individuals may have or may not have stepped over the invisible line, they took that risk by getting close to it to begin with. Let's not turn this into a moderator witch hunt.
Quote: MidwestAPTotally agree, the mods are reasonable and do a great job!
Some of them do.
Quote:Let's not turn this into a moderator witch hunt.
Suddenly I'm reminded of a Simpson's Halloween special set duting a witch hunt where Marge implores "Please, we're turning this with hunt into a circus!"
Quote: NareedSome of them do.!"
Your opinion. Mine is all of them do what is a reward less job. As far as I know they don't get paid and do it because they care about this forum and most of the members here. It really is simple, either follow their rules or leave. And most of us can figure out when we either cross or get close to crossing the line. 3 day suspensions for good members help keep all of us on our toes when we cross that line and most learn from it. And again, as far as I know, no one has been permanently harmed by a 3 day suspension.
Quote: FaceI suspect the other mods may want to answer for themselves, so I'll remind you that this is just my opinion with no outside influence. But several points have been brought up, some of which I think I can answer for and will do so now.
First, on the perceived unfairness. Like boymimbo just offered, there is a bias involving membership length. Handed down by Wiz himself, he stated the longer you are here, the shorter your leash. I think it would be fair to say that he believes that having been here for a spell means you should have no question as to what is expected regarding conduct. As boymimbo stated, he himself got dinged for a relatively mild comment, and said suspension was precisely because of his tenure.
Also, keep in mind the job we few in green are asked to perform. In many ways, it reminds me of my days in Surveillance. You have a thousand things going on and only 3 people manning a room. Obviously, you'll not catch everything immediately, and some things you won't catch it all. Proof of this was a recent suspension I handed down. I noticed what I believed to be an insult, yet didn't notice the response from the insult which itself contained an insult, until another member pointed it out. That's just the nature of the beast. Not to mention that in addition to being admins, we're also members. While I wished to "give back" and help with keeping this place tidy, I still like to read, write, and argue my own positions. As such, I'm not always "on the clock". I miss stuff. We miss stuff. We're not perfect.
Of course things aren't going to be fair. We don't have a large body of police. We don't have a 100 page document full of lawyer speak to denote the rules and regs. We don't have tens of unbiased, trained judges to hear every case. It's not a democracy. If you've been here awhile, you'll notice Wiz rarely but occasionally goes on banning sprees just because he's in a bad mood and has low tolerance. Personally, I don't like to ban, period, rather choosing to speak to the person in an attempt to defuse the situation. But like Wiz, I sometimes feel the condition of the forum reaches a sort of critical mass, where there's just too many little fires here and there, and I can't take that same care that I normally would. That change in my patience, that lack of my ability to sort everything out, only adds to the unfairness as people get dinged on Tuesday for something that someone else got away with on Sunday. It's not fair. But it is what it is. The best way to avoid having an issue is, again, to steer clear of the rules instead of tip toeing that line.
Regarding your examples posted of similar infractions that received no action, that is a result of the evolution of the rules. As you'll see if you read the rules, the no insult policy was amended on 2/23/14 to state that no insults will be tolerated whatsoever. Just like you, I had questions as what exactly that meant. Does intent matter? Malice? If two guys are just busting on each other in jest, "guy talk", is that still an insult? It wasn't until 3/17/14 that LarryS engaged Wiz in a conversation here that Wiz spelled out exactly what he meant and PM'd me (and I assume all mods) that this was the policy. As you can see, all your examples posted of similar insults occurred previous to that clarification, whereas yours occurred after. I could understand if you think that's unfair, that no large announcement was made, but I'll say it again... steer clear of the line, and there would be no problem.
Now, I'm gonna take a risk here. You and I have spoken in private, I believe we have each other's mutual respect. As I'm sure you saw, I embarrassed myself heavily yesterday. But I still wished for input and critique, no matter how agonizing, so I could learn and move forward. I will do the same here for you, not to put you on blast, but as an exchange of information to hopefully make us all better in the future.
I personally agree with boymimbo's opinion of your posting technique. I don't mind that you are argumentative, a fire starter, or a pot stirrer. In fact, I rather enjoy it. You certainly inspire a lot of dialog and discussion. But what put you on my radar from an admin perspective is the tactics you use. It all comes down to the whole "attack the writing, not the writer" rule.
If you engage rxwine and you believe he is avoiding your point by going off on a tangent, you absolutely should address that to bring it back on point. You can state that his counterpoint is a tangent not related to the topic, you can state he never addressed your question. But referring to him as "Mr. Tangent" is sort of childish and insulting. It's beneath someone who has the intelligence to make a good, strong argument. Ditto that for Twirdman. Believing that he shifts the topic is well within your right to address, and you can do so similar to the example I posted about rxwine. You should address failures to answer your argument and defend your points. But calling him "shifty" is in that same vein of inappropriateness. And when it comes to sexuality, someone's offering of a personal detail does not necessarily mean it's open season on it. I think you were well within your rights to question it, as he brought it up. However, his statement that he did not wish to speak on it further should be the end of it, completely. Continuing to pester him, referring to him as "the asexual", or bringing it up in future posts at random serves no purpose other than to rile and inflame.
Again, it is not my desire to put you on blast or otherwise single you out. There are plenty of other examples of members skirting the line, and I suspect their future transgressions will be addressed in a similar matter. But, since you asked for a sort of clarification, and since I believe we have a previous mutual respect, I hoped I could just point out exactly what I felt without having you take it personal. I also hope it serves to inform everyone else of how at least this admin would hope things run in the future.
It is my inclination to move on, but the Wizard asked me last night to make some further comments specifically addressing Beethoven's concerns. I am quoting Face because he and I are exactly in agreement and he said most everything I would have, at length, and very well. So I would ask that anyone concerned first read what he said.
Additionally, I do appreciate constructive criticism. I have sought it out from each of the other moderators and a couple of members who I respect and admire, as well as reading those of the members both by PM and within threads. And I will continue to refine and hopefully improve my moderation skills as we go forward.
Simultaneously with my and Face's "rise" to green, the rules tightened considerably on this forum. There is necessarily an evolutionary period of change and disruption before stabilization as those rules are enforced. We were also encouraged to use tools more often than the members had seen (or at least were aware of) in the past, such as warnings, thread closures, and individual redactions, as well as suspensions. I have used all of those in trying to address each issue at the lowest possible penalty that could resolve the problem, also taking into account the longevity of the member(s), tone of the thread, severity of the language, and amount of umbrage felt by the injured party, among other things.
There are so many variables that there are, again, necessarily grey areas both in how the issue should be addressed and in the diversity of opinion about the effectiveness or appropriateness of the remedy. I will also note that nearly all actions I have taken have not been at my initiative; I have been receiving several PM's per day about specific issues other members have, and in some cases taking action, in others replying to the affected/insulted member without taking action. In short, we as a group will never universally agree on any moderation solution; not the admins (though I think we are all very much on the same page as to guidelines), and definitely not the members.
It is also important to reiterate that the forum is run by the Wizard and is not administered by popular sentiment or as a democracy. I'm working as a disciplinarian, not running for Homecoming Queen, and while I prefer to be friends and part of the group with the members here, I have accepted the burden of being the Bad Guy at the Wizard's request, and he has been very supportive of my efforts, as have the other moderators. I do not think that so far I have made any decision based on being female, either; that part is simply perception, opinion, or misdirection from a couple of individuals, depending on the intent and context of the person and comment casting that aspersion. I have taken care to be specific as to why I've done what I've done each time, and gender-neutral.
In one specific example, the LGBT shower thread (to which I was directed by insulted members), s2dbaker made the sarcastic rape comment, within the context of some negative generalizations that were made from a singular situation reported by another member, on an explosive political subject with a long history of angry discussion in various threads, going back years, during this transition time. This did not happen as an isolated incident, and there were angry, insulted, mocking, and disparaging posts in that thread from several people, not just s2d. As I said at the time, if I were to isolate those posts as individual infractions, I would have had to suspend at least 6 people, which I thought was excessive, given the tone and content, and in light of the rules transition. Instead, I closed the thread, and warned 2 people specifically.
In the larger consideration of that thread, I noted that it was started by Beethoven9th, as an inappropriate addition to another thread that was off-topic enough to be split into its own. The referenced link was inflammatory, political, and started the discussion which generated the anecdote from djatc, the response from s2d, and the other negative posts that resulted in thread closure. Beethoven9th posted numerous times in that thread, in a typical (for him, as generalized above by Face and others; not really singling him out, but in trying to answer his specific complaints about his penalty) manner that, by any objective standard, further inflamed the tone and elevated the rhetoric.
In the thread for which B9 was suspended (to which I was directed by insulted members), he continued the same argument and tone as the closed thread, with subtle but clear insults and slurs. It was my intent in closing the first thread and warning the participants that there would be no further toleration of the escalated rhetoric on that subject. B9 did not heed that warning, and instead escalated his comments closer to (and across) the line by making more directly personal insults and offending other members. So he received a suspension.
In his review of the situation, the Wizard concurred with all actions taken to that point, except he escalated s2d's warning to a suspension (after a belated complaint of equity from another member, but related to the topic), and put a message of support for my actions into the thread for which B9 was suspended. So, taking that validation of his authoritative decision forward, as well as consideration of the comments both pro and con in this thread, I expect to continue to moderate in like fashion. I expect everything will continue to be decided in a case-by-case basis, and the validity of the umbrage taken and intention of the perceived offender will have to be considered as objectively as possible, since perceptions are colored by personalities and individual experiences on all sides.
Parsing individual comments for hidden agendas, taking them out of context, overlaying comments with perceived bias by the reader, misattributing or twisting intentions or motivations when expressing umbrage or opposition, testing the moderation by deliberately making questionable comments for sport, questionable comments that go un-noticed by a moderator by dint of sheer volume unless directed there by an offended participant: all those things add to the complexity and difficulty of providing an equitable forum. I expect all of them to continue to happen, and will continue to resolve those problems at the lowest available level, but more importantly, in accordance with the Wizard's expressed standards and schedule of penalties.
Thank you to those, including Beethoven9th, who have provided constructive criticism. Thank you especially to those who support the Wizard's efforts, through me and the others, in keeping the standards of the forum as high as possible.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: FaceI suspect the other mods may want to answer for themselves, so I'll remind you that this is just my opinion with no outside influence. But several points have been brought up, some of which I think I can answer for and will do so now.
First, on the perceived unfairness. Like boymimbo just offered, there is a bias involving membership length. Handed down by Wiz himself, he stated the longer you are here, the shorter your leash. I think it would be fair to say that he believes that having been here for a spell means you should have no question as to what is expected regarding conduct. As boymimbo stated, he himself got dinged for a relatively mild comment, and said suspension was precisely because of his tenure.
Also, keep in mind the job we few in green are asked to perform. In many ways, it reminds me of my days in Surveillance. You have a thousand things going on and only 3 people manning a room. Obviously, you'll not catch everything immediately, and some things you won't catch it all. Proof of this was a recent suspension I handed down. I noticed what I believed to be an insult, yet didn't notice the response from the insult which itself contained an insult, until another member pointed it out. That's just the nature of the beast. Not to mention that in addition to being admins, we're also members. While I wished to "give back" and help with keeping this place tidy, I still like to read, write, and argue my own positions. As such, I'm not always "on the clock". I miss stuff. We miss stuff. We're not perfect.
Of course things aren't going to be fair. We don't have a large body of police. We don't have a 100 page document full of lawyer speak to denote the rules and regs. We don't have tens of unbiased, trained judges to hear every case. It's not a democracy. If you've been here awhile, you'll notice Wiz rarely but occasionally goes on banning sprees just because he's in a bad mood and has low tolerance. Personally, I don't like to ban, period, rather choosing to speak to the person in an attempt to defuse the situation. But like Wiz, I sometimes feel the condition of the forum reaches a sort of critical mass, where there's just too many little fires here and there, and I can't take that same care that I normally would. That change in my patience, that lack of my ability to sort everything out, only adds to the unfairness as people get dinged on Tuesday for something that someone else got away with on Sunday. It's not fair. But it is what it is. The best way to avoid having an issue is, again, to steer clear of the rules instead of tip toeing that line.
Regarding your examples posted of similar infractions that received no action, that is a result of the evolution of the rules. As you'll see if you read the rules, the no insult policy was amended on 2/23/14 to state that no insults will be tolerated whatsoever. Just like you, I had questions as what exactly that meant. Does intent matter? Malice? If two guys are just busting on each other in jest, "guy talk", is that still an insult? It wasn't until 3/17/14 that LarryS engaged Wiz in a conversation here that Wiz spelled out exactly what he meant and PM'd me (and I assume all mods) that this was the policy. As you can see, all your examples posted of similar insults occurred previous to that clarification, whereas yours occurred after. I could understand if you think that's unfair, that no large announcement was made, but I'll say it again... steer clear of the line, and there would be no problem.
Now, I'm gonna take a risk here. You and I have spoken in private, I believe we have each other's mutual respect. As I'm sure you saw, I embarrassed myself heavily yesterday. But I still wished for input and critique, no matter how agonizing, so I could learn and move forward. I will do the same here for you, not to put you on blast, but as an exchange of information to hopefully make us all better in the future.
I personally agree with boymimbo's opinion of your posting technique. I don't mind that you are argumentative, a fire starter, or a pot stirrer. In fact, I rather enjoy it. You certainly inspire a lot of dialog and discussion. But what put you on my radar from an admin perspective is the tactics you use. It all comes down to the whole "attack the writing, not the writer" rule.
If you engage rxwine and you believe he is avoiding your point by going off on a tangent, you absolutely should address that to bring it back on point. You can state that his counterpoint is a tangent not related to the topic, you can state he never addressed your question. But referring to him as "Mr. Tangent" is sort of childish and insulting. It's beneath someone who has the intelligence to make a good, strong argument. Ditto that for Twirdman. Believing that he shifts the topic is well within your right to address, and you can do so similar to the example I posted about rxwine. You should address failures to answer your argument and defend your points. But calling him "shifty" is in that same vein of inappropriateness. And when it comes to sexuality, someone's offering of a personal detail does not necessarily mean it's open season on it. I think you were well within your rights to question it, as he brought it up. However, his statement that he did not wish to speak on it further should be the end of it, completely. Continuing to pester him, referring to him as "the asexual", or bringing it up in future posts at random serves no purpose other than to rile and inflame.
Again, it is not my desire to put you on blast or otherwise single you out. There are plenty of other examples of members skirting the line, and I suspect their future transgressions will be addressed in a similar matter. But, since you asked for a sort of clarification, and since I believe we have a previous mutual respect, I hoped I could just point out exactly what I felt without having you take it personal. I also hope it serves to inform everyone else of how at least this admin would hope things run in the future.
It is my inclination to move on, but the Wizard asked me last night to make some further comments specifically addressing Beethoven's concerns. I am quoting Face because he and I are exactly in agreement and he said most everything I would have, at length, and very well. So I would ask that anyone concerned first read what he said.
Additionally, I do appreciate constructive criticism. I have sought it out from each of the other moderators and a couple of members who I respect and admire, as well as reading those of the members both by PM and within threads. And I will continue to refine and hopefully improve my moderation skills as we go forward.
Simultaneously with my and Face's "rise" to green, the rules tightened considerably on this forum. There is necessarily an evolutionary period of change and disruption before stabilization as those rules are enforced. We were also encouraged to use tools more often than the members had seen (or at least were aware of) in the past, such as warnings, thread closures, and individual redactions, as well as suspensions. I have used all of those in trying to address each issue at the lowest possible penalty that could resolve the problem, also taking into account the longevity of the member(s), tone of the thread, severity of the language, and amount of umbrage felt by the injured party, among other things.
There are so many variables that there are, again, necessarily grey areas both in how the issue should be addressed and in the diversity of opinion about the effectiveness or appropriateness of the remedy. I will also note that nearly all actions I have taken have not been at my initiative; I have been receiving several PM's per day about specific issues other members have, and in some cases taking action, in others replying to the affected/insulted member without taking action. In short, we as a group will never universally agree on any moderation solution; not the admins (though I think we are all very much on the same page as to guidelines), and definitely not the members.
It is also important to reiterate that the forum is run by the Wizard and is not administered by popular sentiment or as a democracy. I'm working as a disciplinarian, not running for Homecoming Queen, and while I prefer to be friends and part of the group with the members here, I have accepted the burden of being the Bad Guy at the Wizard's request, and he has been very supportive of my efforts, as have the other moderators. I do not think that so far I have made any decision based on being female, either; that part is simply perception, opinion, or misdirection from a couple of individuals, depending on the intent and context of the person and comment casting that aspersion. I have taken care to be specific as to why I've done what I've done each time, and gender-neutral.
In one specific example, the LGBT shower thread (to which I was directed by insulted members), s2dbaker made the sarcastic rape comment, within the context of some negative generalizations that were made from a singular situation reported by another member, on an explosive political subject with a long history of angry discussion in various threads, going back years, during this transition time. This did not happen as an isolated incident, and there were angry, insulted, mocking, and disparaging posts in that thread from several people, not just s2d. As I said at the time, if I were to isolate those posts as individual infractions, I would have had to suspend at least 6 people, which I thought was excessive, given the tone and content, and in light of the rules transition. Instead, I closed the thread, and warned 2 people specifically.
In the larger consideration of that thread, I noted that it was started by Beethoven9th, as an inappropriate addition to another thread that was off-topic enough to be split into its own. The referenced link was inflammatory, political, and started the discussion which generated the anecdote from djatc, the response from s2d, and the other negative posts that resulted in thread closure. Beethoven9th posted numerous times in that thread, in a typical (for him, as generalized above by Face and others; not really singling him out, but in trying to answer his specific complaints about his penalty) manner that, by any objective standard, further inflamed the tone and elevated the rhetoric.
In the thread for which B9 was suspended (to which I was directed by insulted members), he continued the same argument and tone as the closed thread, with subtle but clear insults and slurs. It was my intent in closing the first thread and warning the participants that there would be no further toleration of the escalated rhetoric on that subject. B9 did not heed that warning, and instead escalated his comments closer to (and across) the line by making more directly personal insults and offending other members. So he received a suspension.
In his review of the situation, the Wizard concurred with all actions taken to that point, except he escalated s2d's warning to a suspension (after a belated complaint of equity from another member, but related to the topic), and put a message of support for my actions into the thread for which B9 was suspended. So, taking that validation of his authoritative decision forward, as well as consideration of the comments both pro and con in this thread, I expect to continue to moderate in like fashion. I expect everything will continue to be decided in a case-by-case basis, and the validity of the umbrage taken and intention of the perceived offender will have to be considered as objectively as possible, since perceptions are colored by personalities and individual experiences on all sides.
Parsing individual comments for hidden agendas, taking them out of context, overlaying comments with perceived bias by the reader, misattributing or twisting intentions or motivations when expressing umbrage or opposition, testing the moderation by deliberately making questionable comments for sport, questionable comments that go un-noticed by a moderator by dint of sheer volume unless directed there by an offended participant: all those things add to the complexity and difficulty of providing an equitable forum. I expect all of them to continue to happen, and will continue to resolve those problems at the lowest available level, but more importantly, in accordance with the Wizard's expressed standards and schedule of penalties.
Thank you to those, including Beethoven9th, who have provided constructive criticism. Thank you especially to those who support the Wizard's efforts, through me and the others, in keeping the standards of the forum as high as possible.
Good grief, Face and Babs. Give us a break, I'm not
going to read all that and I'm sure not the only one.
Here's a quote to take to heart:
“I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter." Blaise Pascal
Another:
"Be brief, be brilliant, be gone."
And one in gambling terms:
Get in, get it done, and get out.
Not to beat a dead horse and needlessly prolong this discussion, but I feel that I need to point out that I've been publicly accused of making "slurs" twice now. Just to clarify, here are examples of "slurs":Quote: beachbumbabsIn the thread for which B9 was suspended (to which I was directed by insulted members), he continued the same argument and tone as the closed thread, with subtle but clear insults and slurs.
1) the N-word directed toward black people
2) the K-word directed toward Jewish people
3) the P-word directed toward Pakistani people.
I'm sorry, but I have never used any type of "slur" whatsoever on this (or any other) forum. "Mr. Tangent" (which I haven't even used since the forum rules were amended) isn't even close to a "slur". Just wanted to state that publicly.
Also, I did a pretty thorough job of citing direct quotes/posts regarding moderator behavior. I guess those concerns won't be addressed at the moment, but maybe that's all for the better since this finally seems to be dying down now.
Quote: rxwineYou should have looked up "slur" first before you posted.
What other members have been accused of making "slurs" here?
Quote: Beethoven9thWhat other members have been accused of making "slurs" when being suspended?
No, the definition of slur is broader than your examples. It doesn't have to be an ethnic or racial slur to be a slur.
God, you fell into the trap faster than I thought. ;)Quote: rxwineNo, the definition of slur is broader than your examples. It doesn't have to be an ethnic or racial slur to be a slur.
I love how your side will break out the dictionary, scrutinize every word, and "parse individual comments" whenever you're talking to me, yet when I write something as thorough as my initial post, I am accused of doing the exact same thing and get criticized for it.
Amazing. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thGod, you fell into the trap faster than I thought. ;)
I love how your side will break out the dictionary, scrutinize every word, and "parse individual comments" whenever you're talking to me, yet when I write something as thorough as my initial post, I am accused of doing the exact same thing and get criticized for it.
Actually, I just now read your post. Your trap comment was meaningless to me.
Quote: Beethoven9thNot to beat a dead horse and needlessly prolong this discussion, but I feel that I need to point out that I've been publicly accused of making "slurs" twice now. Just to clarify, here are examples of "slurs":Quote: beachbumbabsIn the thread for which B9 was suspended (to which I was directed by insulted members), he continued the same argument and tone as the closed thread, with subtle but clear insults and slurs.
1) the N-word directed toward black people
2) the K-word directed toward Jewish people
3) the P-word directed toward Pakistani people.
I'm sorry, but I have never used any type of "slur" whatsoever on this (or any other) forum. "Mr. Tangent" (which I haven't even used since the forum rules were amended) isn't even close to a "slur". Just wanted to state that publicly.
Also, I did a pretty thorough job of citing direct quotes/posts regarding moderator behavior. I guess those concerns won't be addressed at the moment, but maybe that's all for the better since this finally seems to be dying down now.
What is the P-word?
At the very least, slur implies something stronger than an insult, colloquially. The accusations of slurs is a slur against you, by the broad dictionary definition. This term is not being applied to every case of insults, but instead is being applied selectively to certain insults to give them a different flavor, which is likely to damage your reputation. How do you like that, guy who said Beethoven doesn't know what a slur is?
Quote: rxwineActually, I just now read your post. Your trap comment was meaningless to me.
That's OK, I expected it to be meaningless for you anyway. lol
Now that you've shown that you like to "parse individual comments" (while I'm criticized for doing the same), let me humor you by bringing up a different point. Let's say that we're operating under the dictionary definition of the word "slur" here. Tell me, what other members have been accused of making "slurs"? Am I the only one? If so, why do you think that is?
As someone who knows nothing about any of the current conflict under discussion, I read a statement like that as essentially calling another person stupid and taking the extra dig with "lol." There are many ways to dig at people online that hurt one person while appearing innocuous to others.Quote: Beethoven9thThat's OK, I expected it to be meaningless for you anyway. lol
Oh well. I don't know who some of these posters are, I just decided to drop in on this conversation. But, wow. Apologies if I have it totally wrong.
It's the first 4 letters of their country of origin. It doesn't sound like a big deal if you're not familiar with it, but Pakistanis consider it a huge insult. (I wasn't aware of this myself until a Pakistani guy told me)Quote: SonuvabishWhat is the P-word?
+1000!Quote: SonuvabishAt the very least, slur implies something stronger than an insult, colloquially...This term is not being applied to every case of insults, but instead is being applied selectively to certain insults to give them a different flavor, which is likely to damage your reputation.
A moderator had earlier advised a member to "please at least label it [RE: sarcasm] as such if you must say it in the first place". I was just following directions with the "lol".Quote: teliotI read a statement like that as essentially calling another person stupid and taking the extra dig with "lol." There are many ways to dig at people online that hurt one person while appearing innocuous to others.
Also, take a look at the member I had replied to and look down at his sig. It's a perfect example of which you speak. :) And that's been his sig for at least 5 months now. :)Quote: teliotThere are many ways to dig at people online that hurt one person while appearing innocuous to others.
The world is not fair, nor has it ever been. Lots of people break lots of rules and very seldom get caught. Some people seem to never get caught. Others feel like they get caught too often and feel picked on. Suck it up boys and girls. If you do the crime (whether you think it is a crime or not), be willing to do the time or pay the fine - it is the price of living on the edge. If you can't hack it, take a few steps back into a safer zone. Whining about it does no good unless you are looking to annoy others and make yourself look like a fool. Just sayin'.
Beethoven9th, possibly some of this spawns from many of your comments being short and pointed so each word will be parsed with great care. Longer posts such as this one speak more comprehensively for themselves and tend not get so dissected for wording. I saw a couple comments on its length but those are no surprise they also happen after others make long posts as well. IIRC I don't remember anyone criticizing the wording of that one.Quote: Beethoven9thI love how your side will break out the dictionary, scrutinize every word, and "parse individual comments" whenever you're talking to me, yet when I write something as thorough as my initial post, I am accused of doing the exact same thing and get criticized for it.
Amazing. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thAlso, take a look at the member I had replied to and look down at his sig. That's a perfect example of which you speak. :)
I considered facepalming with all those random ridiculous pictures insulting and trolling. If admins want to me to remove it I will. But that's where I stand on that.
Quote: endermikeBeethoven9th, possibly some of this spawns from many of your comments being short and pointed so each word will be parsed with great care. Longer posts such as this one speak more comprehensively for themselves and tend not get so dissected for wording. I saw a couple comments on its length but those are no surprise they also happen after others make long posts as well. IIRC I don't remember anyone criticizing the wording of that one.
I don't mind at all if people parse my statements, but they can't tell me in the very next breath that I can't parse theirs.
Quote: rxwineI considered facepalming with all those random ridiculous pictures insulting and trolling. If admins want to me to remove it I will. But that's where I stand on that.
So you finally admit you're trolling in your sig?
My submission for post of the year. In fact, I'm considering making it my sig line.Quote: Beethoven9thSo you finally admit you're trolling in your sig?
Sure, just make sure you give me proper credit. ;)Quote: endermikeMy submission for post of the year. In fact, I'm considering making it my sig line.
lol....j/k :)
Quote: Beethoven9thSo you finally admit you're trolling in your sig?
It's a protest against trolling. I'm not calling anyone crazy in my sig.
Quote: rxwineIt's a protest against trolling. I'm not calling anyone crazy in my sig.
So a veiled insult in a sig about a forum member being a troll is NOT trolling?
...and there's only an issue when the pots get suspended while the kettles roam free.Quote: boymimboThere are plenty of pots and kettles in here, and they're calling each other the same colour.
Let me point out: I keep hearing about how rule violations will slip through the cracks occasionally and get past the mods. That's fine, I understand that.........but something in a sig????
You can't tell me that a regular member's freakin sig has been continually missed for over 5 months now (which is how long he's had that sig) !!
*EDIT: Just wanted to add, I'm not complaining at all about the sig. In fact, I couldn't care less about it. I'm only bringing it up after being accused of making "slurs" on the board.
Quote: Beethoven9thSo a veiled insult in a sig about a forum member being a troll is NOT trolling?
If you think objecting to mocking is an insult in itself, I can't be bothered to argue. I challenged you once if you would start using that kind of responses on the Wizard, whether he would find it insulting. I can link to that post again, if you like.
Why don't we bet that the Wizard has to terminate one of us depending on what he decides about it. Nuked off the board forever.
You can object by trolling, or you can object by not trolling. What's so hard to understand about that?Quote: rxwineIf you think objecting to mocking is an insult in itself, I can't be bothered to argue.
Moot point. Neither he nor 99% of the other members here reply to people's arguments out of the blue and then go off on tangents. I can link to those posts, if you'd like.Quote: rxwineI challenged you once if you would start using that kind of responses on the Wizard, whether he would find it insulting.
Quote: rxwineWhy don't we bet that the Wizard has to terminate one of us depending on what he decides about it. Nuked off the board forever.
How 'bout we don't?
Why in the world would you want to subject the administration to "picking a side"?
How many cans of worms do you wish to have open at one time?
If B9 thinks your tag line is an insult, then it is. When I first see it, it looked like and obvious dig on him. I just thought, he thought it was funny because, well, it is funny. No matter what you or anyone says it is making fun of him. You are indicating he is a troll.Quote: rxwineIf you think objecting to mocking is an insult in itself, I can't be bothered to argue. I challenged you once if you would start using that kind of responses on the Wizard, whether he would find it insulting. I can link to that post again, if you like.
Why don't we bet that the Wizard has to terminate one of us depending on what he decides about it. Nuked off the board forever.
Quote: Beethoven9thBefore I get into that, let me quickly provide an explanation about:
Quote: beachbumbabs(next post to bw) And what else did I say in that post, Einstein? Oh, that's right...you didn't read the rest of it!
Reminds me of this:
