Recently, an Obama thread was locked because Asguard said that all 'attacks' on Obama be lumped in as posts with Sandy's 'I hate Obama thread'. I like Obama better than the other candidates, but not more than free speech. We don't need to move into an area of cordoned-off 'protest zones' like under the Bush. Unless this policy is consistent across the board, (ie, a single thread each for attacks against all candidates or issues) it smacks of censorship and I strongly oppose it. Plus, to lump what may be viable criticisms under a thread title of 'I hate...' is strongly pejorative and unfairly discrediting - not to mention severely lowers the level of discourse.

Lord, you haven't been here in a while. Sandy has been spamming the forum with her I hate Obama threads. In each and everyone of them she repeated the same talking points. The forum was becoming to cluttered with her redundant threads. The mod was just doing his job..correctly:)

Lord, you haven't been here in a while. Sandy has been spamming the forum with her I hate Obama threads. In each and everyone of them she repeated the same talking points. The forum was becoming to cluttered with her redundant threads. The mod was just doing his job..correctly:)

I can see the merit in all attacks of one type (criticism about one issue) being relegated to one thread, but not criticism or notes of different topics. Besides, the locked thread in question wasn't even begun by Sandy.

Assguard will close a thread if he disagrees with it strongly enough. He will delete your posts if he disagrees with them enough. He closed my "Chinese Cr@p" thread because I tried to keep it on topic. :( He allows people to troll my threads and then closes them. He participates in personal attacks against me. :(

Lord, you haven't been here in a while. Sandy has been spamming the forum with her I hate Obama threads. In each and everyone of them she repeated the same talking points. The forum was becoming to cluttered with her redundant threads. The mod was just doing his job..correctly:)

I don't hate Obama. I despise what he stands for. He is a deceptive abomination.

I don't hate Obama. I despise what he stands for. He is a deceptive abomination.

What on earth is a deceptive abomination? Is it an abomination which is not really an abomination but a blessing in disguise ?

What on earth is a deceptive abomination? Is it an abomination which is not really an abomination but a blessing in disguise ?

Deceptive is dishonest, deceiving...
Abomination is just a horrendous, freak show, loathsome, disgusting, vile POS.

He is a deceptive abomination.

Deceptive is dishonest, deceiving...
Abomination is just a horrendous, freak show, loathsome, disgusting, vile POS.

So you hate him.. ?

So you hate him.. ?

No. I don't hate him. I hate/despise his behavior.

What would you say to Obama if given a one-on-one meeting with him?

No. I don't hate him. I hate/despise his behavior.

But you said he is a deceptive abomination, not his behaviour is deceptive and an abomination..

What would you say to Obama if given a one-on-one meeting with him?

"God help you."

This thread is about censorship. If you want to discuss Obama we should take it to PM or another thread, huh?

But you said he is a deceptive abomination, not his behaviour is deceptive and an abomination..

I mean both. I'm not usually into name-calling a person I don't like but he deserves it. He is vile.

Mod Note: Sorry, if you want to complain about Asguard, do so through PM or in the "Site Feedback (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12)" forum.

Thread moved to "Site Feedback" forum.

umm were do I join "I hate Obama" club?

Hillyer:

Never mind the political content of your thread. You again posted just a link, with no commentary, no question - in short, no point of discussion.

For that reason, it was fine to close it.

What are you talking about? It wasn't my thread that was closed.

Meh. Whatever.

Meh. Whatever.

James. R...everything matters in this world. "Whatever" is wrong way to address issues we all hold so dearly to our hearts...

James. R...everything matters in this world. "Whatever" is wrong way to address issues we all hold so dearly to our hearts...

:roflmao:

Recently, an Obama thread was locked because Asguard said that all 'attacks' on Obama be lumped in as posts with Sandy's 'I hate Obama thread'. I like Obama better than the other candidates, but not more than free speech. We don't need to move into an area of cordoned-off 'protest zones' like under the Bush. Unless this policy is consistent across the board, (ie, a single thread each for attacks against all candidates or issues) it smacks of censorship and I strongly oppose it. Plus, to lump what may be viable criticisms under a thread title of 'I hate...' is strongly pejorative and unfairly discrediting - not to mention severely lowers the level of discourse.

when so many threads were being made by sandy to spread falsehoods and smears bout obama asguard felt that it would clear up the political forum to just lump them together and not have 6 or 7 threads that are more or less the same

Assguard will close a thread if he disagrees with it strongly enough. He will delete your posts if he disagrees with them enough. He closed my "Chinese Cr@p" thread because I tried to keep it on topic. :( He allows people to troll my threads and then closes them. He participates in personal attacks against me. :(

sandy banned for one day.

Reason: This wasn't typo, i.e. Insulting other member(s)

So you ban her for insulting people while ignoring her complaint about being insulted by a moderator?
Are you trying to be funny and ironic? Seems a bit harsh to bring your comedic visions to life and really ban someone for the sake of hilarity, but I respect your committment to the artform.

And you locked my thread pleading that tiassa be held accountable for his actions?
You are good, but a nice touch would have been banning me for abusing my mod powers, that would have been gold.

Actually, Sandy (God, I'm defending Sandy!) merely agreed to reciprocate with the original title of this thread, "Assguard's" whatever, before it was changed. So she didn't deliberately instigate but merely extended a title that agreed with her cause.

These are the type of subtle nuances that should be recognized and respected in an "intelligent" community of communication.

Reason: This wasn't typo, i.e. Insulting other member(s)

Is Asguard's title "Kiss my Dark Side" acceptable?

And what about his avatar? It's hard to tell what exactly is on it, but it looks like Yoda giving us the middle finger.

I think neither should be tolerated in a moderator.

So you ban her for insulting people while ignoring her complaint about being insulted by a moderator?
Are you trying to be funny and ironic? Seems a bit harsh to bring your comedic visions to life and really ban someone for the sake of hilarity, but I respect your committment to the artform.

85% chance any insults directed to her our deserved
and asguard never insulted her

James. R...everything matters in this world. "Whatever" is wrong way to address issues we all hold so dearly to our hearts...

I agree; actually :shrug:

There is a shifting. I applaud the heart given and the response taken to at this point in time.

i have said it once and i will say it again the people who seem to complain about the mods are the ones who break the rules and get punished for it or those the mods wo't let get away ranting complete falsehoods( like sandy)

This forum should be renamed the 'Heed-not' forum.

Meh. Whatever.

Is this a concession, sarcasm, or some other brand of professionalism?

This forum should be renamed the 'Heed-not' forum.

:o agreed

And you locked my thread pleading that tiassa be held accountable for his actions?
You are good, but a nice touch would have been banning me for abusing my mod powers, that would have been gold.

I always thought Tiassa was a women :?

sandy banned for one day.

Reason: This wasn't typo, i.e. Insulting other member(s)

I should be banned for a day too, then. My original title was 'Assguard's Censorship', but, ironically, I see that the title was censored.

I should be banned for a day too, then. My original title was 'Assguard's Censorship', but, ironically, I see that the title was censored.

so your new user quote will be: banned banned ghost

I should be banned for a day too, then. My original title was 'Assguard's Censorship', but, ironically, I see that the title was censored.

I wondered about that. Maybe they thought yours was a typo while hers wasn't:shrug:

I wondered about that. Maybe they thought yours was a typo while hers wasn't:shrug:

Of course, the preferable action would simply be to un-ban Sandy. But in any case the treatments should be equitable for the same alleged 'offence' - an 'offence' against, mind you, a moderator whose avatar is perpetually flipping everyone off).

I gather Plazma wasn't current with the Assguard title being edited. Who corrected it, may I ask a faceless panel?

This thread was begun in the Politics forum, and I didn't notice the title change until it was moved here - so who knows.

Well while i think its hilarious that sandy got banned for name calling, I do actually agree that "assguard" isnt really worth a ban, now if she was banned for trolling that would be totally okay with me.

And what about his avatar? It's hard to tell what exactly is on it, but it looks like Yoda giving us the middle finger.



Ummmm I must take responsibility for his Avatar. We had a contest a while back and I found him that one to replace his old Yoda one. He liked it so much he used it :o

Is Asguard's title "Kiss my Dark Side" acceptable?

And what about his avatar? It's hard to tell what exactly is on it, but it looks like Yoda giving us the middle finger.

I think neither should be tolerated in a moderator.

I find this an interesting counterpoint to how much people complain about the moderation. On the one hand, people get upset when we take action regarding the extreme and inflammatory, yet people complain about ... well, this?

It's almost like people can't tell the difference.

My suggestion, in general, is that if people can't tell the difference, the easiest thing to do would be to turn off the avatars and give you all preset user titles. Because if we're going to be hearing this sort of Puritan complaint in conjunction with complaints about why moderators take action against persistent violative behavior, we should just eliminate the conflict, so as to not confuse people.

• • •


Ummmm I must take responsibility for his Avatar. We had a contest a while back and I found him that one to replace his old Yoda one. He liked it so much he used it

And "Kiss my dark side", I think, was my suggestion. I could be wrong, but for some reason I remember a conversation about it. And, here's the bonus ... I think it was one of our conversations in the faculty lounge.

• • •

As a general consideration, would I be correct to understand that people think when moderators repeatedly warn someone about certain behavior, and that member continues—even escalates—said behavior, we should do nothing?

Maybe we should reward them?

Anyone? Anyone?

I always thought Tiassa was a woman
Everyone did.

Asguard shouldn't be banned for his avatar, and to be honest I don't think he would be capable of producing an insult that was ban worthy.
However, the fact he is a moderator is an insult to everyone here, a real slap across the face, followed by an obnoxious point and laugh, and a provocative "what are you gonna do about it?!!".

He should be gently and courteously stripped of his moderator position, and whoever made him a moderator should be banned for insulting all members.
7 days per member should do it.

I find this an interesting counterpoint to how much people complain about the moderation. On the one hand, people get upset when we take action regarding the extreme and inflammatory, yet people complain about ... well, this?

It's almost like people can't tell the difference.

My suggestion, in general, is that if people can't tell the difference, the easiest thing to do would be to turn off the avatars and give you all preset user titles. Because if we're going to be hearing this sort of Puritan complaint in conjunction with complaints about why moderators take action against persistent violative behavior, we should just eliminate the conflict, so as to not confuse people.

• • •



And "Kiss my dark side", I think, was my suggestion. I could be wrong, but for some reason I remember a conversation about it. And, here's the bonus ... I think it was one of our conversations in the faculty lounge.

• • •

As a general consideration, would I be correct to understand that people think when moderators repeatedly warn someone about certain behavior, and that member continues—even escalates—said behavior, we should do nothing?

Maybe we should reward them?

Anyone? Anyone?Geeze. Talk about attempting to change a topic from Assguard's Censorship to On guard Censorship! Had Tiassa quoted an earlier post prior to the admittance in this thread that the title had been corrected but only after Sandy's already minor faux pas, then perhaps his censure would have had a more significant impact...

Anyway, which moderator corrected the title without telling Plazma about it? —Otherwise Plazma would have understood where Sandy's minor faux pas came from.

Deceptive is dishonest, deceiving...
Abomination is just a horrendous, freak show, loathsome, disgusting, vile POS.

You have no cause to say such things about Obama.

- :bawl: - (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1kg-EFQAHE&feature=related)

Is this a concession, sarcasm, or some other brand of professionalism?

Work it out.

Anyway, which moderator corrected the title without telling Plazma about it? —Otherwise Plazma would have understood where Sandy's minor faux pas came from.

Actually, Ripley, it's beside the point. The ban was executed at my request.

Actually, Ripley, it's beside the point. The ban was executed at my request.So, had the title been Level-headed Asguard's Censorship, and Sandy subscribed to it by beginning her post with Level-headed Asguard, she would have been commended for it?

i think it wasn't because of just this that sandy was banned sandy does troll and insult people oftan so i think this was just the final straw

So, had the title been Level-headed Asguard's Censorship, and Sandy subscribed to it by beginning her post with Level-headed Asguard, she would have been commended for it?

What the hell are you going on about?

Here, try this part again, since you ducked it the first time:

As a general consideration, would I be correct to understand that people think when moderators repeatedly warn someone about certain behavior, and that member continues—even escalates—said behavior, we should do nothing?

Maybe we should reward them?

At any rate, Ripley, give it some thought.

Recently, an Obama thread was locked because Asguard said that all 'attacks' on Obama be lumped in as posts with Sandy's 'I hate Obama thread'.


true or false?

obama is gonna be the next prez

true or false?

hillyer!

you pretentious peasant
here is the word of the day...

....mandingo

What the hell are you going on about?I don't know; I thought I was onto something (thus finally posting a bit more than I have). Onto something like:

As a general consideration, would I be correct to understand that people think when moderators repeatedly warn someone about certain behavior, and that member continues—even escalates—said behavior, we should do nothing?So Sandy has been using Ass to describe Asguard repeatedly?

Maybe we should reward them?Well, one way or another, a grievance against any moderator will still hold regardless of the usage or not of a name-calling. The only difference really is that one of the two approaches spices up one's grievance and puts everyone else at ease, while the other approach is too much like lecturing and gets on everyone's nerves—like, what I'm doing now. Yet, the irony of it: I won't get banned for it. Lol.

At any rate, Ripley, give it some thought.I think I've had enough of this one already.

So. Where's the next spicy grievance to enjoy??

Recently, an Obama thread was locked because Asguard said that all 'attacks' on Obama be lumped in as posts with Sandy's 'I hate Obama thread'.
I agree. All threads critical of Obama should not be lumped into one. He may just be the next president of the US, we really should be free to discuss him and not lump all anti-Obama threads into one.

The thread in question was a hilarious clip of an Obama supporter who, when asked, couldn't name a single legislative accomplishment of Obama! Not only was the clip very amusing, it highlighted a significant point about the Obama campaign. It deserved it's own thread and shouldn't have been buried in a giant "Sandy's I hate Obama" thread.

I agree. All threads critical of Obama should not be lumped into one. He may just be the next president of the US, we really should be free to discuss him and not lump all anti-Obama threads into one.

The thread in question was a hilarious clip of an Obama supporter who, when asked, couldn't name a single legislative accomplishment of Obama! Not only was the clip very amusing, it highlighted a significant point about the Obama campaign. It deserved it's own thread and shouldn't have been buried in a giant "Sandy's I hate Obama" thread.

yes it should have because a it was bs i am sure you could find shit like that for every candidate. and since all the threads were basically the same they should have been lumped together

like, what I'm doing now

Sadly, 'tis true that good faith is not among the obligations of participating in this community.

I agree. All threads critical of Obama should not be lumped into one. He may just be the next president of the US, we really should be free to discuss him and not lump all anti-Obama threads into one.

I think that if Asguard wants to lump all ``I hate Obama'' threads in to one, he should also lump all ``I hate George W. Bush'' threads into one as well.

This could seriously streamline the way things are done around here.

Perhaps I can lump all ``Newton's Laws'' threads into one as well...

Is Asguard's title "Kiss my Dark Side" acceptable?

And what about his avatar? It's hard to tell what exactly is on it, but it looks like Yoda giving us the middle finger.

I think neither should be tolerated in a moderator.

I find this an interesting counterpoint to how much people complain about the moderation. On the one hand, people get upset when we take action regarding the extreme and inflammatory, yet people complain about ... well, this?

It's almost like people can't tell the difference.

My suggestion, in general, is that if people can't tell the difference, the easiest thing to do would be to turn off the avatars and give you all preset user titles. Because if we're going to be hearing this sort of Puritan complaint in conjunction with complaints about why moderators take action against persistent violative behavior, we should just eliminate the conflict, so as to not confuse people.

How am I supposed to respect a moderator who has such an avatar and such a title as Asguard does? How am I supposed to take him seriously?

A moderator should be a person who inspires respect, who is decent and reasonable. An avatar and title like Asguard has, do not speak for that.

How am I supposed to respect a moderator...

Why is that relevant?

Why is that relevant?

Normally, people hope that those in positions of authority are worthy, respectable people.
Otherwise the whole system is doomed to corruption.

How am I supposed to respect a moderator who has such an avatar and such a title as Asguard does? How am I supposed to take him seriously?

A moderator should be a person who inspires respect, who is decent and reasonable. An avatar and title like Asguard has, do not speak for that.

If people's avatars offend you that much, you can just turn off the option to be able to view them.:rolleyes:

If people's avatars offend you that much, you can just turn off the option to be able to view them.

And then there's your avatar ...

You don't care how people view you, but you expect they will respect your authority anyway, right?

I don't hate Obama. I despise what he stands for. He is a deceptive abomination.

So you like men who only stand for things other than what they believe in ...

And then there's your avatar ...

You don't care how people view you, but you expect they will respect your authority anyway, right?

I happen to have had this avatar since, umm, around 2002 and I am very attached to it.

If you have a problem with my avatar (or anyone else's for that matter) or cannot respect "my authority"(:rolleyes:) because of it, then I suggest you disable the 'view avatar' option.

This is an internet forum open to all who happen to want to join. I would imagine the majority who join this forum have at the very least, a semblance of a sense of humour and intelligence and are not offended by a cartoon bending forward with it's pants down. Nor would they be offended by a comical image of Yoda giving the finger.

If you find it offensive to your delicate sensibilities, again, use the disable 'view avatar' function.

Normally, people hope that those in positions of authority are worthy, respectable people.
Otherwise the whole system is doomed to corruption.

Wait a minute... how is the 'system' doomed to corruption if you can't respect a moderator?

Wait a minute... how is the 'system' doomed to corruption if you can't respect a moderator?

People stop caring, they stop taking things seriously, and the quality of their input deteriorates.
Or quality posters simply leave.

The attitude of the group reflects the attitude of the leadership.

I happen to have had this avatar since, umm, around 2002 and I am very attached to it.

If you have a problem with my avatar (or anyone else's for that matter) or cannot respect "my authority"(:rolleyes:) because of it, then I suggest you disable the 'view avatar' option.

This is an internet forum open to all who happen to want to join. I would imagine the majority who join this forum have at the very least, a semblance of a sense of humour and intelligence and are not offended by a cartoon bending forward with it's pants down. Nor would they be offended by a comical image of Yoda giving the finger.

If you find it offensive to your delicate sensibilities, again, use the disable 'view avatar' function.

You are defending a double standard.

If people say "cun t" or "fuc k", the moderators will tend to delete it.

But these same moderators are practically showing a cun t and a fuc k -
but that's okay, right?

You are defending a double standard.

If people say "cun t" or "fuc k", the moderators will tend to delete it.

But these same moderators are practically showing a cun t and a fuc k -
but that's okay, right?

hey i say fuck and derivatives off it all the time and they don't get deleted i get warned yes but they don't get deleted

You are defending a double standard.

If people say "cun t" or "fuc k", the moderators will tend to delete it.

But these same moderators are practically showing a cun t and a fuc k -
but that's okay, right?

You think a cartoon figure of a person bending forward to show his bottom (emphasis added because, as ridiculous as it seems, it is needed) and another with Yoda giving the finger is showing "a cun t and a fuc k"?

Ermm ok.

Having looked at my avatar closely, I cannot see where you are seeing a woman's private bits or a sexual act. I definitely do not see either in Asguards avatar. So what we are left with is the thought that you either failed dismally in biology or you are picking at nothing at all because you are in a 'picking' mood.

People stop caring, they stop taking things seriously, and the quality of their input deteriorates.
Or quality posters simply leave.

The attitude of the group reflects the attitude of the leadership.

I didn't realize that member quality was dependent on their respect of moderators. Clearly people on this forum lack any kind of means to function otherwise.

I feel like we do need to respect moderators, honestly if asguard reprimanded me or disciplined me in any way, I really couldn't take it and I would make it my business to kick up a huge belligerent stink, and sure I'd probably be banned.
My own fault right? Maybe, but why have a moderator that baits people into getting themselves banned? Is there a desire to thin numbers? If there is I think this a really snakey way of obtaining the goal.
Like I said, it feels like an insult, it feels like you're trying to provoke us.
Maybe it was an honest mistake, and you figured we don't need to respect moderators, well as a member I'm telling you that yeah we do, you were mistaken, please rectify this mistake you made, and then put a little more serious thought into the selection of the replacement mod.
It would indicate you have some tiny sceric of respect for the members, and that minor gesture would mean a lot at this stage.

Come on Dr. Lou, take a chill pill.
Let it wash over and move on.
You would surely realise you are no angel. I'd hazard a guess that you post bannable material on a weekly if not daily basis and most of it gets the eyeroll treatment from the mods. and that's all.

Be a big boy, you win some, you lose some.
Take it on the chin and shape up for more of your usual sparring.
Come on sunshine.

My problem with asguard has nothing to do with me being banned, there's no incident I need to cool down over, I actually haven't personally had any problem with him, but thats just luck really. I'm saying if I did, I don't respect him enough to take it on the chin. It would eat away at me untill I did stupid things and got myself banned.

I feel bad talking about it because he's a harmless enough pleasant young fellow, it's not his fault someone made him a mod.
But someone did, and it's beyond a joke.

I suppose I can live with it as long as we arrange some kind of agreement where asguard is forbidden from moderating my posts.
Asguard could be used to moderate the small-talk-posts of orleander and lucifer's angel, etc, that's fine, but it isn't going to sit well with intelligent people when someone who can't spell his own name, litterally, is punishing them for how he incompetently percieves the intentions and meanings of their posts.
It's just totally ludicrous to have him as a mod, it's insulting to all of us, and I can only assume it was intended to be.

why have a moderator that baits people into getting themselves banned? Is there a desire to thin numbers? If there is I think this a really snakey way of obtaining the goal.

Survival of the fittest.
You will only succeed as an Ubersciforumensch.

How am I supposed to respect a moderator who has such an avatar and such a title as Asguard does? How am I supposed to take him seriously?

One of the things I actually appreciate about the nature of some complaints we receive is, frankly, that they're gratifying. Certainly there are issues to handle, but the majority of the complaints tend to involve, at their root, some sort of bitterness. As James R explained in another topic (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1761905&postcount=4), many of our complaints come from "... a small group of members who constantly complain about moderators they personally don't like. More often than not, they do not point to particular grievances, but rather express a generalised dissatisfaction ...." And while the burden of taking these complaints seriously can be annoying at times, the truth is that the histrionics are amazing. I can't believe the vitriol some people aim at us.

Moving beyond those, however, are the gratifying ones. One of the difficult choices we make is whether to be monotonous and robotic, or a bit more human. Do you want us as part of the community, or would you rather have us removed to our temple on high to cast judgments down at the people below?

I prefer to be a part of the community. To hear you express it, we ought to be moral role models for the whole community. "A person who inspires respect"? "Who is decent and reasonable"? Shit, dude. That's too much to ask of our local police departments. And those people carry guns and can throw you in jail. I live in an area where the police beat up the handicapped and plant evidence on them. And compared to Florida, that makes me lucky.

Now, to consider that standard a little more practically, it is impossible to please everyone all of the time. I just had a dust-up in EM&J where I had to choose between numbers and decency. I went with decency, which, of course, gave me a bigger headache. Of course, I kind of lit the fuse by making the point in the first place, but in addition to insisting on making moral judgments about our neighbors, one of our members reminded me, "I reserve the right to not give anyone the benefit of the doubt."

In the end, the disagreement was ferocious, and the one thing the angry parties could not do was give a coherent statement of what troubled them.

To consider that exchange in relation to more reasonable inquiries, frankly, I think you're falling for a ruse, Greenberg. This topic starts out complaining about a moderator's handling of one of our more exploitative members. I don't see the problem with reserving cookie-cutter talking points to a single area instead of letting an insincere hack drown out all other discussions with a pageant of malicious cheerleading.

I would ask that you take a moment and consider what you're complaining about. Asguard's avatar? Bells' avatar? What kind of Puritan standard would you like to invoke? Would you like your moderators to have absolutely no senses of humor? Would you like us to be wooden and robotic without consideration of context?

That's one of the things that gets me about people's complaints of inconsistency or double standards. Few, if any of those complaints, actually show any regard for context. I flip a coin on fuck. I only bother semi-censoring myself ("f@ck") because I have this notion in my head that it's expected of me. Sometimes I don't bother, though. Personally, I'm just fine and dandy with the word. For instance, I recently censored myself (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1756937&postcount=3) on that point:

"Was a time in California when impotence was grounds for divorce, but I really don't think being a lousy f@ck counts anywhere in the United States."

Like I said, flip a coin. And I specifically didn't censor other people. Such as (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1757076&postcount=14):

"I actually think divorcing someone because they are bad in bed is fucking stupid ...."

Or perhaps (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1758657&postcount=60):

"Where the FUCK the enlightenment concept of "Romantic Love" falls in all this, I have not one clue."

And then there was (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1759574&postcount=67):

" I've stopped seeing girls because they were bad kissers, but guess what, I didn't wait two fuckin years to do it; more like after only a few dates."

And hey, here's an occasion that I didn't censor myself (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1760226&postcount=3):

"So I'm aware that it's horribly perverse, by at least one person's standards, to want a lover to fuck to mutual exhaustion."

And even in people's complaints (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1760575&postcount=7):

"You've got to be fucking kidding me....

.... This fucking place is going to hell in handbasket."

And so on (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1760589&postcount=8)—

"As Mods, that is not your fucking role."

—and so forth (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1760623&postcount=11)—

"Fuck it, I'm going to bed."

—et cetera (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1761009&postcount=17)—

"After the whole mess in this thread why even bring it up again, if it is none of our fucking business!!"

—ad nauseam.

And I know I'm not the only one who permits it. Now, the first question is, do you see a basic difference between the uses of the words in the examples above? The second question is, "What's missing?"

Would it be, "Fuck you!" Or, maybe, "You're a fucking cock!"

The third question, then, would be, "Do you see any difference between the examples from people's posts and the examples of what's missing?"

As to showing a cunt and a fuck? Showing? What, you mean like Bells' avatar? Or by our own word selection?

Would you, then, propose that we should eliminate the following emoticons?

• :spank:

• :shake:

I mean, do these offend you? If so, we need to know about stuff like that. And I have to admit, I was surprised to see the shake avatar. Its inflammatory potential is enormous.

In the end, what strikes me is that right now, none of the issues put before us in this discussion are completely independent. At some point, we need to set aside the ridiculous ones—that is, the angry, fuming, poorly-expressed complaints that aren't intended to actually solve anything, but rather to vent personal frustration—and deal with the rest.

And in that context, when you're not jumping on the bandwagon of so many angry, fuming, self-appointed defenders of the rude and downtrodden, would you still be calling down a standard that would see the site's moderation relegated to a Puritan, rigid, robotic role devoid of any contextual—daresay human—consideration?

Would you like your moderators to have absolutely no senses of humor? Would you like us to be wooden and robotic without consideration of context?



Ohh, Ohh!
Can I answer for Greenberg?

Yes!!, Yes!!

Nice post btw.

If the mods were truly biased, we'd be kissing their light side.

Yes!!, Yes!!

Please input query. Thank you for using Mod-o-Matic 3000.

I don't see the problem with reserving cookie-cutter talking points to a single area instead of letting an insincere hack drown out all other discussions with a pageant of malicious cheerleading.

Is this a policy you are suggesting we implement across all SciForums?

I happen to have had this avatar since, umm, around 2002 and I am very attached to it.

This explanation is kind of analogous to:

"I have been molesting children since 2002, and I kind of like it." :)

Disclaimer (for idiots): This is an analogy only.

A moderator should be a person who inspires respect, who is decent and reasonable. An avatar and title like Asguard has, do not speak for that.They're moderators on an internet forum, not members of the Supreme Court or some kind of demigod. If they want to give their Avatars some character, what's the big deal?

Is this a policy you are suggesting we implement across all SciForums?

Maybe. I'm aware that you have a problem with the idea, but I would simply ask that you consider what would happen to forum attendance if we just had party officials come in and write the topics?

The biggest challenge would be dealing with those who can't tell the difference between talking points and political arguments they don't like.

Maybe. I'm aware that you have a problem with the idea, but I would simply ask that you consider what would happen to forum attendance if we just had party officials come in and write the topics?

The issue I have is when it's officials from the opposite party which make decisions about which topics are suitable to discuss :)

I guess it's fairly easy to apply a standard of discussion in the Physics forum, and I thank God that I am isolated from some of the shit some other mods have to deal with. Perhaps my issue is that I don't spend too much time in the Politics forum, or anywhere besides the Physics forums. and to be perfectly honest, I just don't care.

The issue I have is when it's officials from the opposite party which make decisions about which topics are suitable to discuss

That's easy to tell, too, because those party officials will use their own talking points ....

Er, okay. It goes beyond that. In this case, Sandy is known to troll, and for some reason we haven't done much about that. This is a stopgap measure. We should have just banned her months ago, thereby avoiding the situation that led to this discussion.

• • •


This explanation is kind of analogous to:

Thinly analogous. Remotely. Almost fictitiously. For instance, both statements represent justifications.

You might as well be comparing the butcher trimming the fat off your favorite cut of steak with what happened in Rwanda. After all, we called that "butchering", too.