19 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyWe don't know how small a number of posts is required, but Godwin's law tells us a lot in this respect...
I'm unaware of any rule, but I think waiting as long as you can stand yields the most satisfaction. It's like that age old mystery "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?" It all depends on how much self control the poster can muster before finally succumbing to the need, and crunching through to that gooey sweetness.
I think it could be usefully modified to reflect what happens in the bubble of a long-extant forum where the same people chase one another round in circles, like a farce set in one of the more obscure circles of hell.
There's probably a wealth of anthropological study to be done in this field...
19 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoDon't you? Besides his profile and about everything else he said? He supported the massacre of the Unitarians some months back!
well, I don't recall any racist posts.
plus, some people get offended easily.
EDIT: And of course you don't remember warnings. I don't think the mods give it publicly.
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzoDon't you?
Don't you? Besides his profile and about everything else he said? He supported the massacre of the Unitarians some months back!
EDIT: And of course you don't remember warnings. I don't think the mods give it publicly.
Not at the point of sending a feedback to the site requesting the ban of some poster.
Besides his profile and about everything else he said?
his profile isn't that extremist. It has a poster of Obama saying "abandon hope", so what?
He supported the massacre of the Unitarians some months back!
I don't recall that either.
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by generalissimohis profile isn't that extremist. It has a poster of Obama saying "abandon hope", so what?
[b]Don't you?
Not at the point of sending a feedback to the site requesting the ban of some poster.
Besides his profile and about everything else he said?
his profile isn't that extremist. It has a poster of Obama saying "abandon hope", so what?
He supported the massacre of the Unitarians some months back!
I don't recall that either.[/b]
I meant the words on it some time ago.
I don't recall that either. He said he agreed with the goals and methods, but he may not have carried it out himself. It was in the thread "DSR Jailed for Murder!" or something.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by znshoBut were you permanently banned? Obviously not.
I was temporarily banned from posting without any warning!
Besides, giving warning is not the same as allowing the accused to explain the deeper issue.
And DSR didn't have a "deeper issue." Frankly, I'm not actually sure as to how he managed to survive this long.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by znshoI've never been banned, temporarily or otherwise and apart from the bot occasionally rejecting one or two of my posts for word choices I think maybe one or two at most of any of my posts may have been modded. Given the fairly broad nature of posts I do make from serious to insane/inane I do take issue with folk who are mystified at having their posts pulled or who are banned.
I was temporarily banned from posting without any warning!
Besides, giving warning is not the same as allowing the accused to explain the deeper issue.
Mods are real people and at the end of the day also have to interpret an *innocent* post within a vast context of a persons body of work. For dSR or anyone to claim that he was somehow set upon unfairly because they cant find any actual specific example of anything racist or discriminatory in what he said, then they are simply not looking hard enough, or they are deliberately ignoring the context of what was being said. Its easy enough for someone to infer or suggest racist statements and yet just go short of actually explicitly making the racist comment. Anyone with a brain can deduce who *they* or *them* refer to, or by the same token, that anyone constantly debating the use of certain words known to have deeply offensive meanings and thinking it was okay to do so as long as they were put in parenthesis made it quite clear that dSR was only to willing to use race as a means to provoke response. His loophole to escape censure was the *clever* but cowardly fashion where he could hide his intentions to be offensive by constantly hiding behind a freedom of speech right to talk of how others were talking about race. It just got old. PersonallyI could have cared less what he said, and I never personally alerted his posts or ever argued in favour of him being banned, but I will say that he tried one too many times to flaunt the spirit of the rules of posting etiquette and at the end of the day no moderating body will allow itself or the TOS to be treated with contempt.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by kmax87Can we have a shorter version for his headstone?
Its easy enough for someone to infer or suggest racist statements and yet just go short of actually explicitly making the racist comment. Anyone with a brain can deduce who *they* or *them* refer to, or by the same token, that anyone constantly debating the use of certain words known to have deeply offensive meanings and thinking it was okay to do so as long ...[text shortened]... the end of the day no moderating body will allow itself or the TOS to be treated with contempt.