A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[pErvinalia]

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.

He abuses other posters personally, not their arguments. There's a difference.

[FBM]

[pErvinalia]

I like your new avatar by the way.

[FBM]

I like your new avatar by the way.

Gracias. It takes a while to get through, but it's worth the wait, IMO.

[NineOneFour]

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.

Oh, go get yourself some Sethlove and leave the rest of us in peace.

[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.

He abuses other posters personally, not their arguments. There's a difference.

Yes, abusing arguments is so much more constructive.

[Trolldor]

Because it's hate speech.

Then does that not make it all the important that you combat it rather than crawl away in to your little kindergarten holes for fear of offending some undefined person?

Tell me, who were the members being attacked, which of your members fall under the 'obese' category?

[pErvinalia]

I like your new avatar by the way.

Gracias. It takes a while to get through, but it's worth the wait, IMO.

It actually goes a bit fast for me , but I'm going to save it to my desktop to view it all.

[JimC]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

[FBM]

I like your new avatar by the way.

Gracias. It takes a while to get through, but it's worth the wait, IMO.

It actually goes a bit fast for me , but I'm going to save it to my desktop to view it all.

The full-size version is in the 'Korean War~.gif' thread.

[95Theses]

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.

Hang on a minute here, it was you as a mod that pushed for a rule to ban attacks on groups of people, it was you that suggested and then implemented the rule that 'You can attack ism's but not ist's'

It was you that insisted on being the one and only sole mod for P&CA (the busiest forum on the site) in fact so much so that when other mods were appointed to help you deal with the reports on that forum, and offset accusations that as the sole mod you were being biased towards certain people, you chucked the toys out of the pram and quit being a mod.

All of this is fair enough, but to now come over here and make posts about how terrible the moderation rules are when you pushed for and implemented the rule in the first place is more than a little disingenous I think. If you have changed your mind and you think the rule should be changed then by all means state that you have changed your mind and you think the rule should be rescinded, but please don't run about trying to cause drama elsewhere about how shit the moderation rules are.

[leo-rcc]

Deleted a double post by 95Theses.

[charlou]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

Good question.

[pErvinalia]

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.

He abuses other posters personally, not their arguments. There's a difference.

Yes, abusing arguments is so much more constructive.

Do yourself a favour and acquaint yourself with some Seth. If you haven't killed yourself after reading the nth derail into Socializm!!11!!1!! and Kommunizm!!!1!!111!!, then get back to me and we'll talk then.

[Hermit]

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.

LOL. What goes around comes around.

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

Would that be the 'Senior Moderator With Star'?

While people register with forums once in a while purely to stir, charges of trolling are more frequently than not bandied about because someone does not like a particular opinion. It happens on every forum. I think you were one of three moderators and at least half a dozen other members who accused me of said offense.


Although I still look in on Ratskep from time to time - mainly when clicking on a link to it in this forum - I have not posted there for over four months between yesterday and the previous time. RDF MarkI became increasingly restrictive in regard to what could be posted, and RDF MarkII is continuing with that trend, to the point where the atmosphere has become thoroughly standoverish.