General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0

So rather than deal with the original insults - which you yourself have acknowledged here; therefore you've managed to recognize them - it'd be better to just punish everybody? Why is it that the person who made the original insults is so sacrosanct as to be above even the mildest admonishment as an individual?The only reason that "threads on gay issues have a long history here of careening out of control" is because certain idiots are allowed to hurl unsubstatiated insults against gays, while the admin tag-team concentrates all its efforts on defending those making the unsubstantiated, unjustified insults against any reproach by those who justifiably consider themselves insulted.If these people want to say they consider gays immoral then fine, let them say it flat out. But stop with the insulting comparisons to rapists and pedophiles. Why are they necessary? And why the hell is it that those responding to the insults are always considered to be the trouble-makers by the admin tag-team here?The only thing that clearly wasn't working here is the old rule that allows this situation to exist: the one that says individual members cannot be insulted but that groups of members can be. Changing that rule to forbid insults against both individual members and groups of members has never been tried here, and apparently never will be. It would probably work, but it would clearly be so out of character for this forum that I can see why it has never occurred to you.

The problem with sensoring out this national hot topic issue is that it is the demands for unprecedented status and respect favoring a lifestyle having long been deemed devious in our culture which becomes relevant in some social topics.They emerged out of the closet a few decades ago. Now they want to dominate the parlor.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Yeah, and they also want to use the bathroom. Better put a bar of anti-kootie soap in there.”HM

Because there's a close correlation between bigotry and creationism and we have a shortage of creationists. If we get rid of the bigots, there won't be any creationists left and we might as well call the site E.It's complicated by the fact that one of the most outspoken and vilest bigots is also one of the most articulate creationists and an admin (and we need creationist admins, so the mantra goes).The double standard is there by design.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

It seems to be your position that creationists will not participate on this forum unless they are allowed to compare gay people to rapists and pedophiles. I'm not sure I understand why that would be. Can you explain it a little more?And for the record, I never said anything about "getting rid" of anyone.

No, that's the position of the management (though they won't put it quite that bluntly). Understood. And if Nemesis_Juggernaut - to pick a random example - was admonished for his bigotry, I don't think it would chase him away from the rest of the board. But that seems to be the official fear.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

We do have free speech. And IMHO it is far better to let the bigots have their say so that those reading the forum can see that they are bigots.Are you saying that something like those people can actually offend you? Do you really give them that much credit?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

see, there you go again. and again. NJ, nearest i can tell, is arguing that allowing homosexuality opens the door for other forms of sexual deviations that he feels are wrong. his logic may be flawed and his connotation insulting... but you're directly calling him a rapist and a pedophile. do you honestly not understand the difference? yes, actually, it is about how you're phrasing your argument. when you phrase it as an attack on your opponent, it is an ad hominem. and he has said repeatedly that this is not what he's trying to do. perhaps you feel he is, but you are rather basically misrepresenting his argument... and then attacking him for it. yes, but one of them is against the forum rules, and the other is a bigotted position you should argue against as opposed to flinging poo. yes, rrhain, everyone who expects you to behave yourself like an adult is a baby-raper. you know, it's rather hard to claim to have the moral high ground when you're content to sling mud down in the gutter with the worst of them. i don't care if you think your mud is cleaner, or that it's justified. just try to behave yourself and not attack other forum members.

---

that's really all i'm saying. rrhain doesn't seem to understand that this behaviour is totally inappropriate, and comes whining here when an admin tells both him and NJ to cut it out. christianity has a very small definition of what is morally accepted sex. they tend to feel that if the state opens the door for one of the things they consider unacceptable, the rest will come through with it. perhaps the thread could argue against that position instead of merely attacking the person who feels that way. if that's the case, that's for the moderators to say. but hate-speech in return is not the answer.

---

Hey, come on now...Look, as an outside observer, I would agree that brenna gets cranky. Hey, we're all prone to it at times.But I know you two are friends outside of this place, and I'd hate to see you two getting mad at each other over something that could be spoken about quietly outside of this place.I don't wanna see you two in a tiff.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

nah. we're cool. like that was supposed to say, she doesn't take this place too seriously, and sometimes she just needs to be reminded of that and not get so worked up over stuff.besides, we're kinda strange people who communicate jokingly through insults. strange sense of humor, but it fully allows for her to tell me when i'm being a fucktard and vice versa.

---

AdminPD responds to me:

quote:

---

My job is to moderate according to the Forum Guidelines in an attempt to keep the threads on track and civil.

---

And declaring that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists is "civil"?Once again, I ask you directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists?If not, if you truly are concerned with maintaining the guidelines and keeping threads on track and civil, then you would stop the person who is being uncivil and throwing things off.Since you don't in the case of NJ equated gays to incestuous, pedophilic rapists, one has to wonder if you don't agree. Therefore, I ask you directly for the third time:Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't blink when someone makes that claim.

quote:

---

Based on the Forum Guidelines and my understanding of what the originator wanted for the thread, your comments were off topic.

---

The originator hasn't spoken and you haven't enforced any guideline at all. The last time this was brought up, you did the same thing directly against the wishes of the originator.So once again, I ask directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't act when someone makes such a claim.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jar writes:

quote:

---

We do have free speech. And IMHO it is far better to let the bigots have their say so that those reading the forum can see that they are bigots.

---

So why are we not allowed to call them out on their bigotry and turn it around back on them? Can what we say actually offend them? Do they really give us that much credit?It's the double-standard, jar, that is the problem. NJ can call people incestuous, pedophilic rapists without comment but somehow to reflect that back upon him is unacceptable?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This is not a debate thread. Your question is off-topic for this thread.

---

Yawn.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!