Bullshit. I've offered multiple explanations in response to specific questions. But ask yourself this: are you satisfied with a board that openly allows jokes and images regarding lynching? I'm not, and if you are, then shame on you. That's the bottom line. If people think that needs to be explained with a rule, then they are part of the problem. Nevertheles, since I believe our rules do forbid it, I'm happy to provide that answer, too.
Just for clarity, you're not saying there is some substantially different perspective on Ramen's thread to consider here, right?
No, it's not an argument that's going to fly because you are too insufferably arrogant to listen to any argument from anyone otherwise yourself or those you have either not fallen out with or gotten substantial disagreement from. Only an idiot or a complete wanker would dismiss out of hand any discussion on how to make the rules and moderation as fair and as consistent as possible. Only someone who thinks he knows what's good for the rest of us idiots, would have the audacity to claim that this current, uneven scattershot approach is somehow a better method of moderation than a consistent, clearly communicated system - and that, worse still, such an approach is just what we need after the most recent clusterfuck. If you think this is just about giving your majesty a hard time, ask Krieg to send you the PM I just sent him (before your post) as to why this is not a good approach at all - if you have the balls to read it.
I disagree with what Ramen said. I "self-moderated." I told him it was not acceptible. I want to be a part of a board where PEOPLE are free. Not a board that is artificially nice because of the threat of bannings.
Expecting people to govern themselves probably does sound ridiculous to someone from Kommunist Massachusetts.
Do you have any idea how much you confirm what I and others say about you when the only part of the post you bother to address is that? It is that very attitude that displays why I would doubt you would read it, because I think you're so up your own arse with believing you know best that you would not bother to read input from someone you hate, and if you did would dismiss it entirely out of had or simply ignore it, just as you do with any suggestions and comments I make on board. I know for a fact that many of the suggestions I have made have merit, because often what I say comes out in the wash, like my objections to discouragement or the poor handling of the recent clusterfuck (which generated numerous backtrackings, even from your holiness). Do you think after your recent, fucked up knee jerk banning of Face I am supposed to sit here and listen to you treating my suggestions with contempt when you have openly displayed how you can't be trusted to properly operate a "ban now, think later" policy? It is the testament to how bad you are as a mod that you let your own personal grudges and dislikes prevent you from considering any suggestions on how to make your own role easier. Appalling attitude.
I think your effort at macho posturing is pathetic, actually. The way you always accuse people of cowardice when they disagree with you tells reasonable people that you aren't among us.
You don't disagree. You offer no articulated disagreement at all. You just ignore the content or dismiss it out of hand. That's what gives you away, and if you think I'm about macho posturing, you should probably take a long hard look in the mirror. People in glass houses....
Probably because "racist" is a lot of people's go-to word because they apparently forget the word "bigot" exists, which, yes, even I feel applies to you.
In today's terms, racist and bigot are practically interchangeable. Like how "literally" is used to death by millenials.
Which is stupid and inaccurate and in my view illustrates the idiocy of whoever uses it in this manner.
Dinner has gone beyond migrant hate and religious bigotry. That's way I actually deliberately use racist as a description for him. When, as Dinner has, you start to pick on cultural differences and use them to denigrate races likes Arabs and Indians (South Asians before you get upset again) and refer to them as disgusting, unhygienic and backward, that's when you're not just promoting bigotry based on adherence to a religion, you're going much further and stereotyping based on race and culture. I fear that Dinner has exclaimed "I only have a problem with Islam" so often you believe it. But if you read his vile rants with any regularity you start to see the cracks in this claim.
Then go build one. Newsflash, WF is private property and it' s very much "their gaff, their rules." There may be things I disagree with, but in terms of freedom, this is a very tolerant board with the RR allowing for a lot of latitude. You've got to be gunning for a banning, or desperately stupid, to get one.
What, like all the people threatening to move to Canada? Fuck that. The point is to try to save the Wordforge we've come to care about rather than let it be turned into a mini-TrekBBS.
Here's what we get if we try to write specific rules about the kind of shitbaggery that got Ramen and Volpone banned: "Why can't I post a picture of a lynching? Is it because it's a dead person? Well, can I post a picture of a plane crash? There are dead people in that, aren't there? Would it be OK if I posted that picture of Nguyen Van Lem getting his brains blown out by a South Vietnamese policeman? That's history too, isn't it? Is it because I named Anna? What if I just say 'Here is a very interesting historical picture I found' and post lynching pics in three or four different threads? What if I simply want to ask Anna's opinion about lynchings? Can I put gul's name in a thread about lynchings instead?" Or: "People have said the word 'nigger' before and not gotten in trouble. Is it because of the number of times I said it? How many times is OK ... Three? Four? Five? What if it's part of the name of a character in a book that I just coincidentally at this exact moment decided I wanted to have a discussion about? Who are you to say that it wasn't just a coincidence? How many coincidences are acceptable? One? Two? Three? You can't ban every word that sounds or looks like it, can you? What if I want to start a bunch of threads about how naggers have been annoying me at work? That's totally legitimate, isn't it? Or maybe I want to talk about Niger! Is starting threads about countries unacceptable now? Then you'd better ban Dayton for that thread about Mexico! Or what if I just really, really, really want to talk about watermelon, and share some interesting drawings I found of people eating it?" (Note that we've gotten some of this already.) Or ... we could say "don't be a complete shitbag."
We don't have to write a specific rule to cover Volpone and Ramen. But taking rule 3 and stretching it to apply to them is a bad thing. What's to stop Gul from taking any rule and twisting it to git rid of a poster?
There's nothing to prevent that. Same as it ever was. And every owner has banned people on the basis that they aren't going to tolerate something about that person's behavior. What you have right now is a promise that bans are agreed to by all owners. That's more than you can get at a lot of places, but ultimately, it comes down to you as a poster. Do you prefer a place with a racially hostile atmosphere? If so, this is not the place for you. If you prefer a place without that atmosphere, we're trying to achieve it.
Probably. Hell, I was, and it wasn't even directed at me. He posted an image of someone who was murdered at the hands of racists and suggested this was something he'd like to see happen to Anna. Not saying I would have taken it down, but it's not a point I'd be willing to argue all that hard over. Nor am I going to argue over Ramen's resulting temp-ban.
meh- they're suspended, not banned. and much like how I found myself in chorus with traditional opponents here over the VR/GT saga, many of them have stated that both volp and ram-men crossed the line. Frankly, their recent BS has made me miss the simple obtuseness of Gtardo. yeah, it's punitive, and neither one of'em will change when allowed back. Doesn't matter... it's the long established reaction to repeatedly escalated actions, and a reasonable use of "administrative discretion". Let'em feel like it matters that they can't post for a few days.
