A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[Gallstones]

I got banned permanently from one board. Not everybody is at Gallstones' level of maturity, but we should expect members to get there.

[LaMont Cranston]

You guys can say all you want about RatSkep, but I will always be the first person who was perma-banned from that forum. We're #1! We're #1! We're #1!

[Durro]

I have a feeling I am about to be fast tracked to suspension if not banning.

Really ? Those bastards...

And just how many formal warnings and/or suspensions have you received so far ?

I has been done before, that's why I used the term fast track. The thing is I don't feel that I am welcome to be an "active" member. See, it is how I feel.

Mmmmm, but is perception reality ?

Let's see, you've either inferred or directly accused the Mods at Ratskep of being liars, biased, playing favourites, sanctioning & being unfairly punitive against certain members and/or being incompetent.

And in response, just how many formal warnings and/or suspensions have you received from these intolerant, unfair, biased fucking bastards who are (allegedly) out to get you ?

Zero.



Fast track to banning indeed...



As FBM so wisely said just earlier

I don't really see a problem or understand why people are arguing in this thread. Variety is the spice of life, eh? If every forum was a carbon copy of every other forum, the whole shooting match would be boring. As it is, if you in the mood for more tightly regulated, on-topic discussions of serious issues, go to RatSkep. If you're in the mood for a little more relaxed, permissive joking around with like-minded atheists (more or less), come here. If you're in the mood for a wild shit-slinging, dick-waving contest, go to TR. I've settled in here, but that doesn't mean that I have any animosity or disregard for the other places. It just means that this is what I'm in the mood for most of the time.

If you ask me, this one deserves

[FBM]

[Robert_S]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

That was crazy. I don't know how it ended up, but virtually all of us on mass just ignored that rule, and as far as I know, no one else got pinged for it.

But there was still a rule against attacking a group that one can freely join or leave. I understand that it came from a more general rule against group attacks, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

This is how that came about.

The socialists and liberals were getting bent out of shape over Seth's comments about socialists and liberals. He was not attacking RDF persons, just those political groups because they are the bane of his existence. To keep everything copacetic and fair that meant that no political groups for which a member knowingly identified could be subject to negative comments as that would be considered an attack on said known members--as the socialists and liberals wanted it to be.

Therefore, I enforced that standard as requested and as discussed and decided on by a quorum of the staff.

Imagine my surprise when there were cries of "foul" when some were advised they could no longer post negative comments about libertarians or tea baggers.

I know. It's funny.

Somehow I think it's more OK in most circumstances to make fun of someone for belonging to a party than for having a set of convictions.

[Gallstones]

I have a feeling I am about to be fast tracked to suspension if not banning.

Really ? Those bastards...

And just how many formal warnings and/or suspensions have you received so far ?

I has been done before, that's why I used the term fast track. The thing is I don't feel that I am welcome to be an "active" member. See, it is how I feel.

Mmmmm, but is perception reality ?

Let's see, you've either inferred or directly accused the Mods at Ratskep of being liars, biased, playing favourites, sanctioning & being unfairly punitive against certain members and/or being incompetent.

And in response, just how many formal warnings and/or suspensions have you received from these intolerant, unfair, biased fucking bastards who are (allegedly) out to get you ?

Zero.



Fast track to banning indeed...



As FBM so wisely said just earlier

I don't really see a problem or understand why people are arguing in this thread. Variety is the spice of life, eh? If every forum was a carbon copy of every other forum, the whole shooting match would be boring. As it is, if you in the mood for more tightly regulated, on-topic discussions of serious issues, go to RatSkep. If you're in the mood for a little more relaxed, permissive joking around with like-minded atheists (more or less), come here. If you're in the mood for a wild shit-slinging, dick-waving contest, go to TR. I've settled in here, but that doesn't mean that I have any animosity or disregard for the other places. It just means that this is what I'm in the mood for most of the time.

If you ask me, this one deserves

The second in command likes to threaten me with trolling in PMs.

And there are favorites. And there has been unfair punitive treatment of Seth.

[pErvinalia]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

That was crazy. I don't know how it ended up, but virtually all of us on mass just ignored that rule, and as far as I know, no one else got pinged for it.

But there was still a rule against attacking a group that one can freely join or leave. I understand that it came from a more general rule against group attacks, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

This is how that came about.

The socialists and liberals were getting bent out of shape over Seth's comments about socialists and liberals. He was not attacking RDF persons, just those political groups because they are the bane of his existence. To keep everything copacetic and fair that meant that no political groups for which a member knowingly identified could be subject to negative comments as that would be considered an attack on said known members--as the socialists and liberals wanted it to be.

Therefore, I enforced that standard as requested and as discussed and decided on by a quorum of the staff.

Imagine my surprise when there were cries of "foul" when some were advised they could no longer post negative comments about libertarians or tea baggers.

I see you conveniently missed my point above concerning the fact that it was the tea-partiers themselves who adopted that name. It is what they call themselves!

[Robert_S]

I see you conveniently missed my point above concerning the fact that it was the tea-partiers themselves who adopted that name. It is what they call themselves!

That doesn't stop it from being a derogatory term though.

[pErvinalia]

And there has been unfair punitive treatment of Seth.

Bull-fucking-shite! He's a nasty abusive poster who derails just about every thread he gets invovled in. He got banned from RD.net. He's about one warning away from being banned from RS.org. There's a pattern there, you know? To think that he is being unfairly targeted is the stuff of conspiracy theories. He gets warning after warning to change his posting style, and he refuses to do it. He's only got himself to blame. What a fucking load of shite.

[Gallstones]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

That was crazy. I don't know how it ended up, but virtually all of us on mass just ignored that rule, and as far as I know, no one else got pinged for it.

But there was still a rule against attacking a group that one can freely join or leave. I understand that it came from a more general rule against group attacks, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

This is how that came about.

The socialists and liberals were getting bent out of shape over Seth's comments about socialists and liberals. He was not attacking RDF persons, just those political groups because they are the bane of his existence. To keep everything copacetic and fair that meant that no political groups for which a member knowingly identified could be subject to negative comments as that would be considered an attack on said known members--as the socialists and liberals wanted it to be.

Therefore, I enforced that standard as requested and as discussed and decided on by a quorum of the staff.

Imagine my surprise when there were cries of "foul" when some were advised they could no longer post negative comments about libertarians or tea baggers.

I see you conveniently missed my point above concerning the fact that it was the tea-partiers themselves who adopted that name. It is what they call themselves!

So? I have nothing to do with that anymore. This is not a present tense issue. I was explaining what did happen. And one tea party member objected. That was enough.

It all started with socialists and liberals taking offense. That is where it started. That offense was accommodated, but it had to be accommodated for all groups.

[Gallstones]

And there has been unfair punitive treatment of Seth.

Bull-fucking-shite! He's a nasty abusive poster who derails just about every thread he gets invovled in. He got banned from RD.net. He's about one warning away from being banned from RS.org. There's a pattern there, you know? To think that he is being unfairly targeted is the stuff of conspiracy theories. He gets warning after warning to change his posting style, and he refuses to do it. He's only got himself to blame. What a fucking load of shite.

I disagree.

[Ronja]

As FBM so wisely said just earlier

I don't really see a problem or understand why people are arguing in this thread. Variety is the spice of life, eh? If every forum was a carbon copy of every other forum, the whole shooting match would be boring. As it is, if you in the mood for more tightly regulated, on-topic discussions of serious issues, go to RatSkep. If you're in the mood for a little more relaxed, permissive joking around with like-minded atheists (more or less), come here. If you're in the mood for a wild shit-slinging, dick-waving contest, go to TR. I've settled in here, but that doesn't mean that I have any animosity or disregard for the other places. It just means that this is what I'm in the mood for most of the time.

If you ask me, this one deserves

With that I do concur.

[Gallstones]

I have a feeling I am about to be fast tracked to suspension if not banning.

Really ? Those bastards...

And just how many formal warnings and/or suspensions have you received so far ?

I has been done before, that's why I used the term fast track. The thing is I don't feel that I am welcome to be an "active" member. See, it is how I feel.

Mmmmm, but is perception reality ?

Let's see, you've either inferred or directly accused the Mods at Ratskep of being liars, biased, playing favourites, sanctioning & being unfairly punitive against certain members and/or being incompetent.

And in response, just how many formal warnings and/or suspensions have you received from these intolerant, unfair, biased fucking bastards who are (allegedly) out to get you ?

Zero.



Fast track to banning indeed...



As FBM so wisely said just earlier

I don't really see a problem or understand why people are arguing in this thread. Variety is the spice of life, eh? If every forum was a carbon copy of every other forum, the whole shooting match would be boring. As it is, if you in the mood for more tightly regulated, on-topic discussions of serious issues, go to RatSkep. If you're in the mood for a little more relaxed, permissive joking around with like-minded atheists (more or less), come here. If you're in the mood for a wild shit-slinging, dick-waving contest, go to TR. I've settled in here, but that doesn't mean that I have any animosity or disregard for the other places. It just means that this is what I'm in the mood for most of the time.

If you ask me, this one deserves

Where did I imply or say that someone was a liar?
Where did I say or imply that anyone was incompetent?

[charlou]

And there has been unfair punitive treatment of Seth.

Bull-fucking-shite! He's a nasty abusive poster
*snip*
What a fucking load of shite.

[pErvinalia]

So I wouldn't be allowed to make a post saying 'Fat people are awful' without getting a warning?

I guess the question is, why would you want to generalise and denigrate a group of people?

Even if he were wrong in thinking so, shouldn't he be able to say what he thinks? It's only than that opposing views can be presented. In the exchange, he may very well discover a better way to think. That would be using the forum to help its members learn and progress in their reasoning abilities. I'm not suggesting that hate speech be allowed, but differing and minority opinions are potentially valuable.

Sure, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere (well, there doesn't have to be, but most people agree that a line does need to be drawn). I think it's just too ignorant and too irrational, as well as being hateful, to be given any airtime on a site devoted to rationality. And let's be honest here, most people who hold racist and/or sexist and/or other discriminatory views like that aren't likely to be swayed by a good argument. They get off on trolling. There's plenty of other places on the net were they can be a troll. Why should we suffer them?

That said, the way RatSkep is run doesn't bother me in the least, as I rarely post there. The founders have the right to design the place to match the sort of forum they wanted in the first place, eh?

I don't really see a problem or understand why people are arguing in this thread. Variety is the spice of life, eh? If every forum was a carbon copy of every other forum, the whole shooting match would be boring. As it is, if you in the mood for more tightly regulated, on-topic discussions of serious issues, go to RatSkep. If you're in the mood for a little more relaxed, permissive joking around with like-minded atheists (more or less), come here. If you're in the mood for a wild shit-slinging, dick-waving contest, go to TR. I've settled in here, but that doesn't mean that I have any animosity or disregard for the other places. It just means that this is what I'm in the mood for most of the time.

Well said.

And the titties. We can post titties.

Yes, you do have that over us poor souls over there. Mmmmm, bacon.....

bacon_tits.jpg

[/quote]