Brothers in arms.Quote: 1BBAre we related?
Refresh mine - why do some threads not appear in recents? Is it the category "Free Speech Zone"?
Quote: 1BB
I am none of the things that I have been falsely accused of. I harbor no vendettas and I hate no one past or present.
I wouldn't worry about it.
Everyone has a "thing". Mine is hockey and guns. Mention them and I can't help but post. Yours seems to be rules. I'd bet you have more responses to rules than anyone. And who cares? You have opinions, you have questions, and you air them. That's kind of the point of a forum. I wish I could find more people to be critical of me.
I think this is just a case of Letter of the Law vs Spirit of the Law. The spam rule came because many were multi-posting nonsense. Some easy to find question, or easily answerable question, or outright spam of outside products and/or services. Obviously, we didn't want that here. Babs' however dealt with a forum friend, one whose services are used by many here. One who went through some deal that might make him hard to find. The multi-post wasn't only beneficial to him, but to any member in the distant future who might have a need of his services. Looking at it, I can see the benefit of having it in more than one place.
I will admit it kind of caught me off guard, and had it been anyone else, I might have hastily nuked one thread and reminded them of the spam rule. But both the content and the author made me think about it, and after doing so I don't see a problem with it.
Quote: 1BBNow everyone do a good deed or a random act of kindness today. It will feel good. I promise.
I got the croup but am gonna suck it up and take my boy trick or treating. That will have to do for today =p
It's not the rules, of which many are vague, it's the uneven administering of them as well as the appearance of favoritism that concerns me.
Nothing against Attorney Newman. In fact, if he says the word I'll be happy to put his information in my signature for the month of November. It has to come from him directly or through an administrator.
Quote: 1BB
It's not the rules, of which many are vague, it's the uneven administering of them as well as the appearance of favoritism that concerns me.
I understand, and I don't think anyone took it as a jab at Mr. Newman. I just don't think there's a better way.
As it stands, we all work autonomously. It's been like that since the jump. In the two years I've been modding, I can think of maybe two incidents we handled as a group; both involved an intended harsh punishment of a long time member which garnered a lot of member responses. All others we just digest and react upon individually.
This of course creates "unfairness", as we all have different personalities. Wiz seems to be touchy about profanity, whereas I both hear and use it all day long. Say "shit" in front of Wiz and you'll likely get a break. Say it in front of me and I'll just hope you stop, maybe with a request to tone it down. This, of course, is unfair.
But I hate authoritarianism, I hate censorship, I hate punishment for punishment's sake. And the only way I can think to make things "fair" is to take all thought out of punishment. Petroglyph just now referred to something political as "bullshit". When Buzz returned from his last break, he appeared to be poking the dragon what with his constant ads about sporting apparel. Nearly everyone in a political or world events based conversation quotes and links without giving credit to the original author. In order to make things "fair", I presume the only course would be to nail everyone for everything. Not only that, but what about those who purposely skirt that line to inflame others? If there's no rule broken, and we're not allowed to think, they have free reign to disrupt to their heart's content. I posit that that type of atmosphere would be far, far worse than what we have now.
But, of course, this again is my own personal opinion based on my own personality. Maybe you feel differently or have an idea that I'd have never thought of. If you do, I'd hear it. If not... how would you make it better? How do you raise the fairness without also raising the number of mindless punishments?
Why aren't blondes good at robbing banks?
Because they tie up the safe and blow the guards.
Surely no one is offended by a joke that has an offhand reference to fellatio, especially in a thread where the first post calls for the slaughter of innocent pregnant women and their infants.
Quote: SonuvabishAre racial epithets and hate speech directed at other forum members allowed in the FREE SPEECH zone? Or is it more like the content-regulated, 1st Amendment doesn't really exist zone?
Mike is probably best suited to answer this, but I think this was an attempt to corral the hot-button topics like politics and such before DT was created. Personally, I would admin it as a place where obscenities, fringe ideas and ugly speech would be tolerated, but personal insults towards members would still be subject to suspensions.
Quote: SonuvabishOr is it more like the content-regulated, 1st Amendment doesn't really exist zone?
This, mostly.
The FSZ was created before we had rules, mods, or an offshoot "anything goes" forum called DT. Wiz wished for WoV to remain gaming and Vegas, but is ever reluctant to silence people or otherwise censor their thoughts. The FSZ came about as an outlet for topics like religion, politics, and sex to land.
Over time it got a little too filled with conspiracy theories, a little too heated for what he was trying to accomplish. It was removed from Recent Threads to sort of draw attention away from it, to little avail. A dust up resulted in Wiz closing the sub-forum to new posts.
So no. It wasn't created to serve as a cesspool of hate. And now, it is all but dead.
"The way is shut" - Dead Men of Dunharrow
Quote: Face
So no. It wasn't created to serve as a cesspool of hate.
LOL. Aw...BBB said yes (except for personal insults). So since 'mom' said yes, can I just ignore what you said?
Quote: SonuvabishRacial slur pending moderator approval
??
Quote: SonuvabishAre racial epithets and hate speech directed at other forum members allowed in the FREE SPEECH zone? Or is it more like the content-regulated, 1st Amendment doesn't really exist zone?
It looks like it's allowed as long as it's not directed at forum members.
Forum Rule 8 says don't post anything that would violate the laws of Nevada or the United States.
The heading of the Free Speech Zone says that posts will not be busted, as long as they don't violate Nevada State law or Federal law. It doesn't say that no one will be suspended, it just says the post won't be busted.
Why Nevada law? Isn't this forum from New South Wales? Do we have to be lawyers to know what's illegal? For example football pools. Legal? Sending money across state lines for said pools. Legal?
Let's put the Free Speech Zone back under Recent Threads. What harm could it do? Were all adults here. It's probably a moot point anyway once the new owners revamp this forum to fit their business model.
Quote: Sonuvabishwho's right, u or face? I personally think the free speech zone is meant to be a cesspool of hate.
Quote: 1BBIt looks like it's allowed as long as it's not directed at forum members.
Forum Rule 8 says don't post anything that would violate the laws of Nevada or the United States.
The heading of the Free Speech Zone says that posts will not be busted, as long as they don't violate Nevada State law or Federal law. It doesn't say that no one will be suspended, it just says the post won't be busted.
Why Nevada law? Isn't this forum's owner from New South Wales? Do we have to be lawyers to know what's illegal? For example football pools. Legal? Sending money across state lines for said pools. Legal?
Let's put the Free Speech Zone back under Recent Threads. What harm could it do? Were all adults here. It's probably a moot point anyway once the new owners revamp this forum to fit their business model.
It wasn't my intention to overrule Babs. I've simply been here long enough that I remember the long ago.
The FSZ was never intended to be said cesspool. That isn't something Wiz would ever encourage. As I said, the FSZ is basically what DT is now; a place for the fringe. It predates the Religion sub forum, it predates the LGBT forum. It was supposed to be a catch-all for these types of discussions, discussions that could get heated.
As this place evolved, it became obsolete. Religion gained enough of a push that it got its own subforum. Nareed's efforts got her the LGBT forum. The only thing left was politics, and as you can see, politics goes everywhere unchecked. The FSZ no longer had a use, so it was closed.
Were it still viable, these political posts (there's what, 7 active right now?) would contain shouts of "Take it FSZ!", same as some threads still receive the "Take it to DT!" admonishment. But those posts, were they to go to FSZ, would live on in the same fashion regardless of where they stood. Going to FSZ didn't mean you were all of the sudden allowed to call someone a #^$% or a $^%& or a (*$^@## little $%^&#@!. It just meant you were allowed to talk about topics that were usually discouraged otherwise.
Quote: FaceIt wasn't my intention to overrule Babs. I've simply been here long enough that I remember the long ago.
The FSZ was never intended to be said cesspool. That isn't something Wiz would ever encourage. As I said, the FSZ is basically what DT is now; a place for the fringe. It predates the Religion sub forum, it predates the LGBT forum. It was supposed to be a catch-all for these types of discussions, discussions that could get heated.
As this place evolved, it became obsolete. Religion gained enough of a push that it got its own subforum. Nareed's efforts got her the LGBT forum. The only thing left was politics, and as you can see, politics goes everywhere unchecked. The FSZ no longer had a use, so it was closed.
Were it still viable, these political posts (there's what, 7 active right now?) would contain shouts of "Take it FSZ!", same as some threads still receive the "Take it to DT!" admonishment. But those posts, were they to go to FSZ, would live on in the same fashion regardless of where they stood. Going to FSZ didn't mean you were all of the sudden allowed to call someone a #^$% or a $^%& or a (*$^@## little $%^&#@!. It just meant you were allowed to talk about topics that were usually discouraged otherwise.
OK, you're not overruling Babs. And the Wizard not encouraging a cesspool of hate isn't the same as prohibiting it. Anyway, hate speech is free speech! What's love, without hate?! So with that in mind, let's take 1BB's thoughts and do a hypothetical.
If I said "I hate (insert racial slur)" in this thread for no comprehensible reason, does that get a suspension?
And are slurs directed at others personal insults, since they are intended to insult others based on a group characteristic? Personal insult: X is stupid (obvious personal attack). Slur: X is a {racial slur} = X is a YYY-American. The only difference is the terminology; they have the same definition--one of which, is obviously not an insult.
To expand that further, hypothetically I say "X is a (racial slur)", but X does not belong to race. But Y, a member of that race, is offended. Is that a personal insult?
Quote: SonuvabishOK, you're not overruling Babs. And the Wizard not encouraging a cesspool of hate isn't the same as prohibiting it. Anyway, hate speech is free speech! What's love, without hate?! So with that in mind, let's take 1BB's thoughts and do a hypothetical.
If I said "I hate (insert racial slur)" in this thread for no comprehensible reason, does that get a suspension?
And are slurs directed at others personal insults, since they are intended to insult others based on a group characteristic? Personal insult: X is stupid (obvious personal attack). Slur: X is a {racial slur} = X is a YYY-American. The only difference is the terminology; they have the same definition--one of which, is obviously not an insult.
To expand that further, hypothetically I say "X is a (racial slur)", but X does not belong to race. But Y, a member of that race, is offended. Is that a personal insult?
I don't see anything prohibiting racial slurs but the rules allow a lot of creativity for the enforcers. One could argue that infanticide is illegal yet the advocation of it is allowed here. What about the legality of betting on football, weight loss or nugget consumption and sending funds across state and international borders? No problem with any of that but don't you dare call anyone a troll, whatever that's supposed to be.
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate". Cool Hand Luke.... 1967.
Quote: 1BBI don't see anything prohibiting racial slurs but the rules allow a lot of creativity for the enforcers. One could argue that infanticide is illegal yet the advocation of it is allowed here. What about the legality of betting on football, weight loss or nugget consumption and sending funds across state and international borders? No problem with any of that but don't you dare call anyone a troll, whatever that's supposed to be.
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate". Cool Hand Luke.... 1967.
"a lot of creativity for the enforcers"...you can say that again.
I hereby advocate infanticide of all {insert racial slur} so as to further propagate a superior Race. Diversity yesterday, purge tomorrow.
Still waiting on whether we are free to use racial slurs...you might think this inquiry is silly, but I'm pretty sure journalists, movie producers, or the Framers of the Constitution would not think it's silly.
I agree. They would just think it is asinine. And rightly so !
Quote: Buzzard" I'm pretty sure journalists, movie producers, or the Framers of the Constitution would not think it's silly. "
I agree. They would just think it is asinine. And rightly so !
Asinine means silly. Your jokes are so X-rated and cutting edge...for the 1850s.