A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[charlou]

I don't know what on earth that was about, but I'll post what I was planning to.

The way people are claiming certain kinds of "censorship" are "wrong" in this thread strikes me as bizarre. If many of you are subjectivists or relativists, as you claim to be, you're not saying anything more significant than that you prefer one way over another. Yet you then go on to claim one way is more rational than the other. The point of a subjectivist account of normativity (at least the way many of you phrase it) is that isn't a domain of rationality. I'm sorry, but it just comes off as an attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

It's more an attempt to get people to understand that everyone should be allowed to have their cake and eat it. IOW, let people express their views and debate those views rather than veto, censor or repress them.

[Bella Fortuna]

Wonderfully considered and appropriate responses to what was quite clearly an abberation by one member after nearly 30,000 posts.

While I think Pappa's post completely uncalled for, who among us has not thrown the occasional emotionally-heated post out there (maybe even with a few swear words! ) ? None of us is perfect, nor dispassionate robots (I'm pretty sure on the latter, anyway).

[Spinozasgalt]

I don't know what on earth that was about, but I'll post what I was planning to.

The way people are claiming certain kinds of "censorship" are "wrong" in this thread strikes me as bizarre. If many of you are subjectivists or relativists, as you claim to be, you're not saying anything more significant than that you prefer one way over another. Yet you then go on to claim one way is more rational than the other. The point of a subjectivist account of normativity (at least the way many of you phrase it) is that isn't a domain of rationality. I'm sorry, but it just comes off as an attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

It's more an attempt to get people to understand that everyone should be allowed to have their cake and eat it. IOW, let people express their views and debate those views rather than veto, censor or repress them.

I understand that's the prevailing view here, whereas our rules seem more teleological, but I was more suggesting that "rational" in that context doesn't seem to denote anything.

[Pensioner]

Wonderfully considered and appropriate responses to what was quite clearly an abberation by one member after nearly 30,000 posts.

While I think Pappa's post completely uncalled for, who among us has not thrown the occasional emotionally-heated post out there (maybe even with a few swear words! ) ? None of us is perfect, nor dispassionate robots (I'm pretty sure on the latter, anyway).

Well said Bella, Pappa acted like a human being instead of a robot which is always good to see in management.

[Rum]

This is a case of 'management' having a communal wank as far as I am concerned and confirms what I already know about the moderation system. It is self indulgent leaves a bad taste.

Off for a bit.

[devogue]

Wonderfully considered and appropriate responses to what was quite clearly an abberation by one member after nearly 30,000 posts.

While I think Pappa's post completely uncalled for, who among us has not thrown the occasional emotionally-heated post out there (maybe even with a few swear words! ) ? None of us is perfect, nor dispassionate robots (I'm pretty sure on the latter, anyway).

Well said Bella, Pappa acted like a human being instead of a robot which is always good to see in management.

It's not good to be spoken to the way he spoke to starr, but as I said it was an abberation - he's posted 30,000 times and apart from this one instance he has been patient, good-humoured, fun, tolerant and excellent online company. If he made a habit of posting the way he did earlier today I, and many others here, would have nothing to do with him. But he won't post like that again, and I'm sure now that he has calmed down he regrets what he did. If anyone deserves a bit of slack it's Pappa.

If people want to go ballistic and leave the forum over one completely out of character post then that's fair enough.

[maiforpeace]

It's a pity that everyone - Starr, Mazille and Theses95 asked, or are asking to have their accounts suspended. I'm as frustrated as the next person with how this discussion has been going - but open dialogue can't happen when you shut down, whether it's having your account suspended or locking a thread.

I want to apologize for any part I may have had in driving you all away - Starr, I hope you are reading this because I am sincere when I say this. I'm very sorry if your feelings and sensibilities have been hurt or if you have felt attacked in any way, it was not my intention.

I wonder if it's possible for everyone to just take a break from this thread and let things calm down a bit? You are all valued members of our community - please don't go.

[Bella Fortuna]

I think Mai's right on the money on all of that.

[kiki5711]

Wonderfully considered and appropriate responses to what was quite clearly an abberation by one member after nearly 30,000 posts.

While I think Pappa's post completely uncalled for, who among us has not thrown the occasional emotionally-heated post out there (maybe even with a few swear words! ) ? None of us is perfect, nor dispassionate robots (I'm pretty sure on the latter, anyway).

Well said Bella, Pappa acted like a human being instead of a robot which is always good to see in management.

It's not good to be spoken to the way he spoke to starr, but as I said it was an abberation - he's posted 30,000 times and apart from this one instance he has been patient, good-humoured, fun, tolerant and excellent online company. If he made a habit of posting the way he did earlier today I, and many others here, would have nothing to do with him. But he won't post like that again, and I'm sure now that he has calmed down he regrets what he did. If anyone deserves a bit of slack it's Pappa.

If people want to go ballistic and leave the forum over one completely out of character post then that's fair enough.

Do gooder!

[Robert_S]

It's a pity that everyone - Starr, Mazille and Theses95 asked, or are asking to have their accounts suspended. I'm as frustrated as the next person with how this discussion has been going - but open dialogue can't happen when you shut down, whether it's having your account suspended or locking a thread.

I want to apologize for any part I may have had in driving you all away - Starr, I hope you are reading this because I am sincere when I say this. I'm very sorry if your feelings and sensibilities have been hurt or if you have felt attacked in any way, it was not my intention.

I wonder if it's possible for everyone to just take a break from this thread and let things calm down a bit? You are all valued members of our community - please don't go.

Did you see what Posse did to the "Yes it is, No it isn't" section?

I put myself in the group that can't see it after that.

[Don't Panic]

Wonderfully considered and appropriate responses to what was quite clearly an abberation by one member after nearly 30,000 posts.

While I think Pappa's post completely uncalled for, who among us has not thrown the occasional emotionally-heated post out there (maybe even with a few swear words! ) ? None of us is perfect, nor dispassionate robots (I'm pretty sure on the latter, anyway).

Well said Bella, Pappa acted like a human being instead of a robot which is always good to see in management.

It's not good to be spoken to the way he spoke to starr, but as I said it was an aberration - he's posted 30,000 times and apart from this one instance he has been patient, good-humoured, fun, tolerant and excellent online company. If he made a habit of posting the way he did earlier today I, and many others here, would have nothing to do with him. But he won't post like that again, and I'm sure now that he has calmed down he regrets what he did. If anyone deserves a bit of slack it's Pappa.

If people want to go ballistic and leave the forum over one completely out of character post then that's fair enough.

I have avoided this thread for the past 900 posts because I didn't want it clogging up the top of my view your posts page, but I have to say Pappa did step over a very big line with that post, it is never OK for admins to respond to someone like that, even if it is a one-off occurrence, you agree to the job, you agree to the rules, even more so than everyone else.

But I will offer one little thing in possible defense of Pappa's action, as some of you know he's currently in Iceland, at a stag do for one of his friends(Ghatanoa), and as most of us know, Pappa is a fucking lightweight when it comes to drink, not an excuse to respond to someone in that manner, but possibly a reason for why he snapped back at Starr.

[Tigger]

This is a case of 'management' having a communal wank as far as I am concerned and confirms what I already know about the moderation system. It is self indulgent leaves a bad taste.

Off for a bit.

What the fuck are we supposed to have done now? Pappa made a mistake and has been suspended for 24 hours, several stages down the usual route of disciplinary action, and not at the beginning with a warning. What the fuck are you on about?

[LaMont Cranston]

Charlou, I haven't heard anything more from you or anybody else about that post you were going to report, but I am curious about what part of what I said to The Mad Hatter was over the line. Was it the part about him jerking off on the internet? Was it the part about how often he gets laid? Was it the part where I said that myself (and other) would be shocked to find out that he had a girlfriend?

Hey, at least I didn't say or even implying that he was packing his own fudge.

[maiforpeace]

Charlou, I haven't heard anything more from you or anybody else about that post you were going to report, but I am curious about what part of what I said to The Mad Hatter was over the line. Was it the part about him jerking off on the internet? Was it the part about how often he gets laid? Was it the part where I said that myself (and other) would be shocked to find out that he had a girlfriend?

Hey, at least I didn't say or even implying that he was packing his own fudge.

Well, let me do it to you.

Yes LC, you were warned along with TMH here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 25#p573417

[charlou]

Charlou, I haven't heard anything more from you or anybody else about that post you were going to report, but I am curious about what part of what I said to The Mad Hatter was over the line. Was it the part about him jerking off on the internet? Was it the part about how often he gets laid? Was it the part where I said that myself (and other) would be shocked to find out that he had a girlfriend?

Hey, at least I didn't say or even implying that he was packing his own fudge.

Your posts in this thread annoy me.

Maiforpeace has answered your question.