Rules update

http://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/wordforge-rules-faq.108022/

Rule title for #3 has been updated, and Rule #8 (re: the Violet Room) has been removed and replaced.

Please read it over and comment. While I expect disagreement, keep it civil and constructive, as this is the Help Desk and the result of the discussion amongst the staff.

If you limited rule 3 such that RR is considered an exception, I'd be more supportive of it. Of course even then it still is pretty lame because it's simply part of the effort on the admin staff's part to make a fundamental change in what Wordforge has been since before I even joined it.

The new rule three is a bit too vague. If left like it currently is you'd have to agree to ban Baba. It should maybe specify the type of behaviour disapproved of in more detail, such as including deliberate attempts to cause clear board disruption.

No problem with rule 8. Long overdue IMO.

It is a change, but it is a change they are entitled to make.

I also don't think it's a "fundamental" change. This idea that WF was always a no rules free for all is revisionist history. The rules always contained certain restrictions, and it has also long been a provision of the rules that board members are expected to employ common sense. If the mods have any sense they will only implement the new changes in the most extreme cases.

It is much more suitable that the rules are changed and people know where they stand, rather than pre-emptive, scattershot bannings.

Keep in mind the RR will continue to be more loosely moderated than the rest of the board (which should be in the direction you're aiming, @Captain X), but thank you both for this feedback.

I am troubled by #8. We live in a time now where actual , overt, unashamed racism plays a major political role. To separate it from the discussions here increases the echo chambers in the world, and contributes to the creation of spaces where racism goes without opposition: Those other internet venues where it is allowed, and the covert treatment of racism that remains allowed on WF. I would much rather see what people really think, and let them see how other people condemn those thoughts.

In other words, this would either mean banning @Dinner and losing a view on major current events shared by a huge proportion of all of our societies, or allowing him to stay and thus defining just how covert racism has to be for us to claim that we are blind to it.

I don't understand rule 3. I never log into Wordforge. Cookies keep me logged in at all times. Does this mean I can circumvent rule 3, technically speaking?

Dinner does not promote "covert racism", nor does he offer a "major view". He promotes clear, unambiguous hate. It is entirely possible to have a discussion about Islam, migrants and ethnic groups without using intentionally and obvious inflammatory and dehumanising remarks. Your argument is as farcical as saying we should tolerate someone calling black people niggers and coons in every other thread because somehow we need to discuss whether or not it's racist.

Oh ho ho, I've been looking forward to this!

*lights torch*
*grabs pitchfork*

"I'm fine with these rule changes."

*extinguishes torch*
*puts away pitchfork*

Yeah, you felt that, didn't you? What's it feel like from the other side?! Yeah!

I don't like censorship and the goal of both of these rules changes is obviously just that. I would simply stop posting here.

Both are way to open for interpritation and would quickly just become tools to silence the opposition or unpopular views. That seems to be the goal of the mods. As I have said before the cancer remains and Wordforge will lose its historical free speech zone unless it is removed.

Oh look, the racist doesn't like the rule he helped generate. What a surprise...

Here is a perfect opportunity to show if the mods are consistent or not in rules application. Chup just ignored the warning in the OP and flamed me in the help desk. Will he now be banned for breaking the rules or will the current regime continue its normal unequal application of the rules?

We shall see.

What flame?

Calling you a racist is a statement of fact based on your continual racist and bigoted comments. Over 20 people on here agreed that you are a racist. This rule has been brought in following, among other things, complaints over your racism. I am calling you a racist because I sincerely believe you are one and a deeply troubled and hateful man. I am not saying it to insult you.

You know that you flamed and name called after the mods specifically warned not to do that.

Now we see if the mods apply the rules evenly or if they continue only selectively applying them.

Is gturner going to be unbanned?

Please point out the name calling.

True as that is, this ain't the place to get into that.

And Chup is right. Wordforge has never been no-rules. Things have been modified over the years...there was no rule about Blue Room info until 2006, for example until Face went after Tamar's pet of the week Ted Wolf . And despite coming off as something to target him, it's a rule that makes sense to have given the nature of that place.

So what happens to the guy who flamed in the help desk after the mods specifically asked people not to do that? Do the rules apply here or not?

I ask because if such a slam dunk gets selectively enforced then what faith can anyone have that the mods will equally and objectively enforce these broad new powers against free speech?

Honestly you need to shut the fuck up. Seriously consider killing yourself. Something involving a pony.

Excellent point since none of the new rules would address him except under the most contorted of interpretations.

Ted had it coming. Even Tamar had to agree later.

Obviously. But you're not having that discussion with those who spread the actual hatred then, which with no hyperbole will likely include anyone supporting the new US government for the next four years.

Case in point: Perhaps someone from admin can clear up whether rule 8, as intended, means that @Dinner can or cannot continue posting in his recent manner in the RR without being banned?

This is bullshit! You liberal commie cucks have gone too far this time.

These rule changes are unconstitutional. The Internet Constitution says that I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, without any consequences. It also says that the more angry I am, the more right I am. I am angrier than anyone has ever been therefore, I am the most right.

The no racism rule is culturally insensitive. Here in rural Kentucky, we firmly believe that white people are better than brown people, and this is a legitimate part of our culture. Telling me that I can't express that aspect of my culture is hypocrisy in its most dangerous form. You liberals preach tolerance of others but you throw it out the window when those cultures don't believe the same things you do. I've got the government telling me I can't marry my sister, and now I got Wordforge telling me I can't call brown people N-words. There's a word for that, oppression.

Eliteforge is worse than Mussolini. I'm sending an email to Donald Trump telling him what's going on here. He'll take over this place an make it great again.

You know, I wonder what would happen if someone wrote to him about Wordforge, perhaps publicly on Twitter. I am not at all sure he could resist getting into arguments here.

A lot of universities have allowed alt right white supremacists to talk at their schools successfully because it fostered free speech and effectively spotlighted the hate that is subverted the mainstream. Is that allowed under rule 8?

Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.

-Brandeis

Dumb rule changes obviously aimed at certain posters @Volpone .

You guys are in trouble now:

This is not a university campus and the outside public coverage of racist views here is next to zero. It's just the members here who see it, or anyone who looks in and considers joining.

The fact is that @Dinner gets away with his shit because there is little to no rebuttal, and even if one tries any he simply runs away or offers up personal insults. I might be more inclined to listen to what you are saying if wasn't for the fact that it was coming from a person who virtually never gets involved in any debate here and exists almost entirely on the board for the purposes of anonymous trolling, and another person who long since gave up trying to rebutt Dinner and left it down to the rest of us. In fact, the latter of the two of you, @K., might also want to look at the fact that he was quite happy to see gturner pushed off the board, so I find his bellyaching about free speech and discourse rather insincere now and one huge double standard.

You're basically asking them to give Dinner a de facto warning now before giving him a chance to comply.

The very fact that he is already being talked about as the cause should tell you something. Explain to me why, when Dinner advances his "arguments" he can't say things like:-

"I oppose the migration of Muslims because I fear many of them will be a risk due to X, Y, Z reasons" but needs to say "We need to stop all the savage animals coming, because animals do what animals do"?

Or perhaps "I am cincerned that there may be crminals amongst migrants" instead of "all migrants are benefit seeking, lazy rapefugee animals"?

Or "Some cultures in the Middle East and South Asia teach that it is best to use use hands and water for washing their backsides, which I find unhygienic", but needs to say "Arab are dirty savages with shit on their hands"?


Those are the sort of examples that highlight the difference between making an argument rooted in a poor belief and offering a viewpoint, like you claim he's doing, and otherwise just offering up blatant, nasty and inflammatory stereotypes. As I said above, in a comment you have conveniently ignored, you wouldn't expect the owners to tolerate someone whose purpose was just to post multiple times a week that blacks were "niggers". I don't see why Dinner gets a pass because his targets are different....and if you're quite happy to see turner's free speech stifled, you really have no business complaining about this rule, and his output was arguably far less offensive, even if it was more annoying and spammy,

Why would you expect equal application of the rules when it's obvious this is being done to silence alternative views? Also, it's their website, not yours. They can do whatever they wish to.