Some Thoughts On The Rules...

I think that you've let your dislike of garamet blind you to the point that now not only a poster is fair game (which is fine) but their FAMILY is.

SHOULD it be legitimate to attack a poster's family? If you're married (I'm assuming that you are, but I don't know in actuality,) would it be cricket for me to say nasty things about "Mrs. Number_6" based on trying to annoy you if that was what I wanted to do? Is that legitimate?

I've had people try to get my goat by this tactic, so I know what it's like. I don't react, because quite frankly, they don't KNOW my family and my family's reaction would be rather insulting and funny. I'm the nerd, not them. They could give a rat's ass that some loser Star Trek fan was making fun of them. Boo the fucking hoo.

But still, I guess I think there are some decency boundaries and I must differ from some online. I won't attack people's health. In the old days, Tamar and I fought like cat and dog. She attacked my health at one point, making fun of something I had. I could have easily retaliated (she had several vulnerable points,) and I'm mean enough to put words to paper (or screen) to make someone cry if I have a mind to do so, but to me, that kind of stuff is off-limits and the behavior is something that I can't in good conscience do without diminishing myself as a person.

Now there are some people on here for whom I have little or no respect. I have no problem engaging them, but I would never attack their family members. That's just something that would be out of bounds.

As for her mentioning Jack, why shouldn't she have if she loves the man? I mention my old man here and there, and my kids. I don't give names because I'm on the board not them, but mentioning your lover's name shouldn't open them up to ridicule. And he's a former Star Trek actor. That makes him fair game? What if he was Jack the plumber?

I know that many think that anything goes if they don't like someone (part of which is daft, as none of us really know each other, online is like a modern version of being penpals. We don't necessarily see the real person. We may, IF that person wishes us to and doesn't gameplay online,) but should it be that way? Are people so desperate to "win" some stupid online verbal exchange that they'll lessen themselves by using any tactic?

I know. I should just be a troll like the rest of you, or take on the persona or whatever. Just can't do it. I have the same ethics online that I do offline. Makes it easier for me, if annoying for you.

Saying this...

.....implies that they already do stuff like that. Which I'm not disagreeing with.

My point is that Garamet DOES THE SAME THING.

no u

Real the actual text of the rule. According to the actual text, both of them broke the rule. If that rule has been amended, it should be changed where the rules are posted.

Sorry, I don't have all the time in the world to dedicate myself to this board. I'm just going by the official rules. If the rules have been changed, there should be an announcement somewhere and the official rules should be updated.

Take the time to go back and read my posts and you'll see I've already addressed this.

Pretty damn sure the rule was amended.

Either way, one of the reasons Elwood banned her was because she had done something like this before, and he warned her about it.

I wonder if that wasn't the REAL reason she was banned, and not just warned.

But hey, I guess you skipped over that part too.

Jack, and particularly his advanced age, became a pertinent topic when Margaret decided that she would start addressing us as children, and take a tone of adult contempt for those of us she felt beneath her superior mental abilities.

In doing so, she opened the door to accusations about her sex life with a man in his 80s. If she wants to insult the intelligence of other posters because of their presumed youth, well, the natural response is to insult the elderly for their lack of physical prowess.

Again, Margaret brings this shit on herself. We she not such a stuck-up bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes, you did indeed correct yourself later on.

It clearly wasn't. The entire page has been clearly updated to reflect recent staff changes.

Edit: I'll look for the post that Elwood made where he quoted the rule, because if the mods and admins have a different set of rules by which they moderate the board, that explains a whole shitload of things.

And I'm pretty sure that Elwood hasn't updated it yet.



If you'd actually bother to go read through the Garamet thread where she got banned, you'd understand what happened a little better.

Instead, you just troll up a new thread with this crap when its already been solved.

Yes, reading through that thread where it all happened would probably explain things better.

The staff has had 8 months to update the official rules with that amendment, and they obviously haven't, yet they have had the time to update it to reflect staff changes. I only posted what the official rules are, not my fault they can't keep them up to date.

Yes, because disagreeing with you is trolling.

Again, I don't have entire lifetime to dedicate myself to reading every fucking 15 page thread on Wordforge. I get sick of all the Garamet/KIRK squabbling, why the fuck would I want to read 15 pages of it? I made it a point of avoiding that thread because I saw who posted it.

Why 8 months?

Far as I know...this problem is a week old? Hell, Elwood never even knew about what Garamet had done until Peter posted her hypocrisy in the thread she started.

Asking these questions again for the 15th time is trolling.

Like I said, try to follow along.

So instead you begin asking a bunch of questions? About stuff that you've been avoiding? Okay then.

Wouldn't PMing a mod about this be better than bringing all this shit to the forefront again if you don't like it?

The post where he gave the amendment to the rule was posted in October '07. http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?p=1389157#post1389157

There's nothing about information posted at WF, however. So KIRK should still be banned.

Which question did I ask 15 times?

For the love of GOD, if you have an issue with the rules, post it in the Help Desk and save us this insanity.

Hasn't it been answered? Happy now?

Contact Elwood and ask him to amend the rules to avoid further confusion.

Except his amendment to the rule was regarding information posted in the media, not at Wordforge. As much as it would be nice, Wordforge is not part of the media. Which brings us back to the point I made.

He did post an amendment in one of the threads this was discussed.

Why you even keep bitching about it without talking to him is beyond me.

No. Jack and his advanced age (and I'll cover "age" shortly) did NOT become a pertinent topic because of garamet's way of addressing you. (generic you by the way.) Her OWN age, if you wished, would be fair game, but nothing she has said on this board should have opened up her significant other to abuse. Her yes, him no.

And again, I must disagree. Nothing she says on here should mean an attack on Jack's sexual prowess or lack thereof. He should never be someone to be attacked on this board, anymore than my husband, or your wife, or whatever. Whatever you wanted to say to garamet is fine as she is here and if she said offending stuff, she takes the heat but just because she was condescending and people felt that she treated them as children does NOT mean that her man is fair game.

You've said it. BUT....she brings this shit on HERSELF. Not Jack. Not any of her children. HERSELF.

If we went by being bitches or dicks, most of us on here would be in trouble.

Garamet is responsible for what she says and she may well open herself up for attack. However, just because you (again, generic you) don't like her or what she says, that is no justification for attacking her family.

Edit:

Age. Some on this board, possibly because they are pups, have nothing but contempt for anyone over, say, 30 or 40. People my age are open to snotty little comments from people who have barely lived life. For every condescending comment garamet may have made (and I grant that she makes 'em), I've seen nasty comments on age, especially if a woman is involved. That's bullshit. And it's pretty sad that Star Trek fans, who one might believe to be open and inclusive and not close-minded, are often the worst offenders. Remember Stiles from "Balance of Terror"? That describes many Trek fans.

Well, according to the rule above, Jack being in the 'media' makes him fair game.

Although I do agree that it is lame to use him to get to Garamet.

Precisely. By the rules, Jack is fair game.

Whether or not it is ethical or not is not the question I'm trying to address here. What I'm saying is that Margaret has created a situation in which those who would use Jack against her feel justified in so doing.

So wait, if my child or husband ever makes it into a newspaper, or on TV for some reason, it's fair game to attack me through them?

If he is in the public spotlight....I think, at least according to the rule that was stated above.

I do think it is lame though.

Which is why I would never give out personal information on WF.

According to the rules as they stand, it would seem so.

However, if you don't come in here and tell people what fucking morons they are every time you post, you'll probably be done the courtesy of having your family left alone.

On TK, however . . .

Hold it. It's fair game to use his real name. Nothing more. However, knowing his real name gives people here license to use it to attack garamet?

Ironic that I'm defending garamet as some of her tactics annoy the piss out of me, but I think attacking someone's family should be off-limits.

Doesn't matter what a douche you are, your family should be off-limits. They should be off-limits on TK too, but hell, that's a troll board. Theoretically this is trying to be a legitimate board.