Forum Moderation

Originally posted by no1marauder
Caused offense to whom? A few members of the TSM?

Probably one person, and the moderator himself.

I'm down with family friendly forums, but sometimes it is good to discuss racism.

Of course, this topic has been discussed ad nauseum

Originally posted by Draxus
Thanks for validating what I was trying to say 🙂

Personally, I think Kirksey is just trying to be confrontative and difficult. Obviously pornography was thrown into the mix, so it isn't that hard to figure out why I was talking about it.

It was "thrown into the mix" by catfoodtim in the second to last post on page 7.

It remains ridiculous to categorize a still photo of a partially nude woman as "pornography".

Originally posted by no1marauder
It was "thrown into the mix" by catfoodtim in the second to last post on page 7.

It remains ridiculous to categorize a still photo of a partially nude woman as "pornography".

I don't view it as pornography either, but we don't get to make those rules. When a father wants his kid to play chess but doesn't want his kid to see a breast, we need to respect his decisions. He may be an idiot, he may be religious, I don't care and it doesn't matter.

I don't agree with him, but I agree with his right to parent how he feels. This is a site even for that guy and his kid.

Originally posted by Natsia
My eyes are blinded by the brilliant radiance that is you, Darvs.
You're just too damn cool.
:'(

That's the nicest thing any nerd or geek has ever said to me.

Who says we can't get along?

😳

Originally posted by Draxus
I don't view it as pornography either, but we don't get to make those rules. When a father wants his kid to play chess but doesn't want his kid to see a breast, we need to respect his decisions. He may be an idiot, he may be religious, I don't care and it doesn't matter.

I don't agree with him, but I agree with his right to parent how he feels. This is a site even for that guy and his kid.

I repeat what I said on the last page:

notice that you and the others ignored my point about the TOS having an explicit provision regarding that users have to be of legal age to make a contract (unlike, ironically, Playboy.com) to wit:

In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract.

This is predictable intellectual dishonesty. BTW, where on the site does it say that this site is for a "13+" audience (of course to you that means everything has to be at a 13 year old's level)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I repeat what I said on the last page:

notice that you and the others ignored my point about the TOS having an explicit provision regarding that users have to be of legal age to make a contract (unlike, ironically, Playboy.com) to wit:

In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a bindi ...[text shortened]... a "13+" audience (of course to you that means everything has to be at a 13 year old's level)?

Whoa, them were some personal attacks.

Discussion over, I won't "debate" with someone who can't refrain from the ad hominem.

Too bad too, because there were some decent points in there.

Originally posted by Draxus
Thanks for validating what I was trying to say 🙂

Personally, I think Kirksey is just trying to be confrontative and difficult. Obviously pornography was thrown into the mix, so it isn't that hard to figure out why I was talking about it.

Do you think the very first post of this thread was me trying to be confrontive and difficult? Please read it and tell me what you think. Thank you.

Originally posted by darvlay
That's the nicest thing any nerd or geek has ever said to me.

Who says we can't get along?

😳

... You've secretly electrified the water, haven't you?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Do you think the very first post of this thread was me trying to be confrontive and difficult? Please read it and tell me what you think. Thank you.

Nope, I'm talking about your last post to me. if you weren't trying to be difficult, you wouldn't have conveniently forgotten that pornography was (and still is) being mentioned in this thread.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by Draxus
Whoa, them were some personal attacks.

Discussion over, I won't "debate" with someone who can't refrain from the ad hominem.

Too bad too, because there were some decent points in there.

The post was directed at catfoodtim.

Join the crowd anyway; no one wants to discuss why the Mods have adopted a "Forum acceptable to the most conservative parent of the most sheltered 13 year old" policy when the TOS clearly insists that only users above the legal age to form a contract (i.e. at least 18 in the US and UK) are supposed to be here.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The post was directed at catfoodtim.

Then why leave in the personal attacks?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The post was directed at catfoodtim.

Join the crowd anyway; no one wants to discuss why the Mods have adopted a "Forum acceptable to the most conservative parent of the most sheltered 13 year old" when the TOS clearly insists that only users above the legal age to form a contract (i.e. at least 18 in the US and UK) are supposed to be here.

Please, no1, this forum hardly fits that description.

What is it you say? You're being shrill and emotional, Mary?

Originally posted by Draxus
Then why leave in the personal attacks?

There weren't any to remove. Saying someone's argument is "intellectually dishonest" is not a "personal attack".

Originally posted by no1marauder
There weren't any to remove. Saying someone's argument is "intellectually dishonest" is not a "personal attack".

Especially from you. (No offence).

Originally posted by no1marauder
There weren't any to remove. Saying someone's argument is "intellectually dishonest" is not a "personal attack".

"of course to you that means everything has to be at a 13 year old's level"