Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

No problem. I do hope you appreciate I also called you naive, paranoid and anally retentive. This was not banter. This was a personal attack.

Just wanted to be clear.

No, I can assure I insult some people because I believe they deserve it and I find it relaxing. But do I get banned. (I don't think I have been banned.) Do I get infractions? A single infraction for calling Jesus Freak a retard. (Hell, that wasn't even an insult, just an observation.) And perhaps three pms warning me on a point in three or four years. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ophiolite, for a bit now you've been sounding like you're putting a sign on your back saying 'censor me'. Do you -want- your post to be deleted? I'm going to take a very unusual position here and state that technically, the jury is out on whether any of the terms you used should be considered a personal attack; they're certainly not on the 6 term list in the forum rules and I have never seen them censored on sci forums. While I think that the anal one may be a good blacklist candidate, I don't believe that naive or even paranoid should be. This is because some people truly -are- naive and/or paranoid. I definitely don't think that I'm paranoid, but as to naive.. I can't completely rule it out.

Personally, I think that retard should be on the official blacklist; it's not exactly constructive criticism. In any case, because an admin took action in your case, I will add it to the 'you should know that this is a blacklisted term' (irony intended) unofficial list of blacklist terms.

I agree that something is wrong; what I believe is wrong is that the rules concerning what constistutes a personal attack are too vague. However, I think that with your help as well as the help of people such as dMx, it is slowly becoming clearer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you fell right into offys trap dude.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What alleged trap of Ophiolite do you believe I fell into?

 

Wow. You should forward those to Interpol. I'm sure they'll be impressed with your el33t skillz.

 

Very Nice...

Wow, you're a mature one aren't you SkinWalker? FYI- some consider "woo" to be a good thing. Refer to definitions #1 and #19 in the context that I mean:

WEBBISH urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo

Perhaps you could use a little woo #19- you might lighten up a bit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not woo: "woo woo"

 

As in the train whistle... i.e. "look at me!"

 

Well, semantics is a "slippery slope" I'm afraid, Ollie. [L&H reference here]

 

Actually, I believe that the purpose of the old steam locomotive whistles was to say "GET THE HELL OFF THE TRACKS!" to livestock (but that was a little before my time, although I have consulted several that I consider to be reputable sources in this context).

 

Either way, its an appeal to be noticed.

 

The bottom line is that there is no consistency whatsoever in the application of the forum rules. This inconsistency applies both in terms of how moderators apply, misapply or fail to apply the rules, in terms of whom they apply (etc.) them to and in terms of when they apply (etc.) them. That is the heart of what Scott is saying. That is the position I am supporting.

P.S. Thank you for confirming that you are easy to wind up as I have long suspected. Prod. Prod.

No, damn it. Pay attention. I have been reported several times - perhaps numerous times - but mods and admins have chosen not to take action. When I complained that one of my opponents in a debate had been publicly censured for a milder attack than I had delivered to him one of your colleagues explained that I was allowed greater leeway because of the value of my contributions to the forum. (Now, courtesy of your lucid explanation, I now understand he was just blowing smoke up my ass.)
No consistency. No ****ing consistency. A cornerstone of good management is consistency. It is lacking when it comes to the application of rules.

 

I like the fact there is leeway. I'm sure I'd have had my ear tweaked far more else!

 

I am getting fed up to my eye teeth with individuals, such as yourself, who are incapable of understanding simple ****ing English. I am requesting consistency in the application of the rules, not necessarily rigidity. If I had any beefs about Skin's moderating it would not be that it was strict, but that it was not consistent with how the rest of the modeators apply the rules.

If there is any truth to your assertion that I see myself as a "vividly intelligent individual" it only because of such gross examples of sloppy reading, or substandard vocabulary on the part of other members. If you want me to be humble raise your ruddy standards.

Consistency is what Scott is arguing for, though he tries to put it in an oversimplified, formulaic manner. Consistency woman, ****ing consistency.:shrug:

 

Doesn't Ophie have a "retard" to "bash" somewhere? Perhaps Andy will "tag-team" on that one. Beat those "retards" down! [/sarc]

Bottom line- Ophie appears to prefer his fascism consistent, damnit!

 

If you are "fed up to your eye teeth," wouldn't leaving this forum of such individuals be the simplest solution for you, Ophie?

Let's all contemplate on that for a moment...

dM

P.S. I think I just saw a "retard"- he went thataway!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree that with multiple moderators, it is impossible to be 100% consistent. However, I think things would be a lot -more- consistent if the terms on the blacklist of insults was expanded every time a moderator censored someone for using a term that's not on it. I'm fine with leeway given if the term is used in a bantering way. There may need to be something written down in the forum rules as to how banter is defined, as you have already done with me.