Ratskep discussion split from "What use is..." thread

[Gallstones]

Are you able to provide evidence for this?

She's been slandering the fuck out of the moderators over there.

Emphasis would be on fitting my content to the definition of slander.

My evidence was provided in the feedback threads I started.
I can't access those. You can.

I'm talking about the slandering you have been doing here.

You don't read except what you want to I guess.

What slander?

[pErvinalia]

Are you able to provide evidence for this?

She's been slandering the fuck out of the moderators over there.

Emphasis would be on fitting my content to the definition of slander.

My evidence was provided in the feedback threads I started.
I can't access those. You can.

I'm talking about the slandering you have been doing here.

You don't read except what you want to I guess.

What slander?

[Seth]

Yes, I'm sure, Warren. I've got no doubt LIFE will have her extradicted to Germany to face charges if she does.

Believe it or not, some people actually believe in keeping their word, even if they woouldn't get punished for breaking it.

She's been slandering the fuck out of the moderators over there. Why is that acceptable, but showing some damn evidence to back up her slanders isn't? Strange ethics if you ask me.

The truth is an absolute defense to a charge of slander.

So you say. But without evidence, it is nothing more than hateful slander.

No, sorry, you have it completely ass-backwards, as usual. We get to say absolutely anything it pleases us to say, and if you feel slandered, you get to file a lawsuit and then prove that the statements were both slanderous in nature and untrue.

Slander Law & Legal Definition

Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.

The basic elements of a claim of slander include;

1. a defamatory statement;
2. published to third parties; and
3. which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

Slander is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. If the slander unjustly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the court or jury can assess the damages. For other types of slander you generally must prove some actual damage to be able to recover.

Slander of title is a common law tort involving a disparaging remark regarding ownership of property. It affects the owner's ability to transfer the property, resulting in a monetary loss.

Try again.

[Warren Dew]

To be fair, I don't think misrepresentation is against the rules - only blatant quote mining.

It was more clearly worded in the earlier FUA, but the current one disallows....

I stand corrected. I'm not surprised at how it's being enforced.

Why any atheist forum needs anything beyond your basic personal attack rule, some rules against racist, sexist, or anti-gay comments, and the obligatory legal stuff, is beyond me. With so many ambiguous, amorphous, malleable rules piled on to one another, ideologically driven moderation is an inevitability.

I think even rules against "racist, sexist, or anti-gay comments" make such moderation inevitable. The old Richard Dawkins Forums didn't have them when I joined, except when the comments rose to the level of incitement to violence, and that was actually much better: by getting these attitudes out into the open, they could be examined rationally, and the underlying misconceptions addressed. The thread on race and intelligence, in particular, managed to get some people to recognize environmental influences that at first they wouldn't admit to.

The rules changes to ban comments short of incitement quashed that kind of productive discussion, which just serves to perpetuate peoples' existing prejudices. I don't think that's the right direction for a forum that wants to promote rational, intelligent discussion.

And as if to further the proof you have no fucking clue, no moderators (except perhaps starr and LIFE), moderate on their own.

You seem to be making an unjustified assumption here.

[pErvinalia]

Believe it or not, some people actually believe in keeping their word, even if they woouldn't get punished for breaking it.

She's been slandering the fuck out of the moderators over there. Why is that acceptable, but showing some damn evidence to back up her slanders isn't? Strange ethics if you ask me.

The truth is an absolute defense to a charge of slander.

So you say. But without evidence, it is nothing more than hateful slander.

No, sorry, you have it completely ass-backwards, as usual. We get to say absolutely anything it pleases us to say, and if you feel slandered, you get to file a lawsuit and then prove that the statements were both slanderous in nature and untrue.

Slander Law & Legal Definition

Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.

The basic elements of a claim of slander include;

1. a defamatory statement;
2. published to third parties; and
3. which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

Slander is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. If the slander unjustly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the court or jury can assess the damages. For other types of slander you generally must prove some actual damage to be able to recover.

Slander of title is a common law tort involving a disparaging remark regarding ownership of property. It affects the owner's ability to transfer the property, resulting in a monetary loss.

Try again.

Well given we aren't a court of law, nor even trying to be one, nor even suggesting that we should invoke one, this post of yours is thoroughly silly.

[pErvinalia]

And as if to further the proof you have no fucking clue, no moderators (except perhaps starr and LIFE), moderate on their own.

You seem to be making an unjustified assumption here.

WTF?!? You should really just stop now. How the hell would YOU know what the rules are over there? Read my fingers: You have no clue what you are talking about. Starr herself has stated what I said. Maybe you should just butt out of things you have no idea about?

[Warren Dew]

WTF?!? You should really just stop now. How the hell would YOU know what the rules are over there? Read my fingers: You have no clue what you are talking about. Starr herself has stated what I said. Maybe you should just butt out of things you have no idea about?

Starr herself has ignored the rule, as well. Maybe you should just butt out of things you have no idea about?

[pErvinalia]

WTF?!? You should really just stop now. How the hell would YOU know what the rules are over there? Read my fingers: You have no clue what you are talking about. Starr herself has stated what I said. Maybe you should just butt out of things you have no idea about?

Starr herself has ignored the rule, as well. Maybe you should just butt out of things you have no idea about?

How do you know the rule applies to starr? How do you know any of the invective you spew? Starr is the senior moderator. If anyone should be able to mod on their own, it should be her. I suppose to you that's just further evidence of a fascistic conspiracy.

[Gallstones]

Holding a position does not equate to competence in that position.

[devogue]

I'm not having a go at the girl or trying to stir up shit (much), but why is starr the top mod on Ratskep? She seems to have risen from nowhere within the wider RDF community to a position of almost Timonenesque power. How did that happen?

I don't get it, and I think that her personality and personal compass have had a massive effect on the Ratskep vibe (I remember starr being fairly reactionary and conservative here as lbon). Can you imagine how different it may have been if Topsy, sciwoman or someone even slightly more relaxed had been in the driving seat?

[Bella Fortuna]

I'm not having a go at the girl or trying to stir up shit (much), but why is starr the top mod on Ratskep? She seems to have risen from nowhere within the wider RDF community to a position of almost Timonenesque power. How did that happen?

I don't get it, and I think that her personality and personal compass have had a massive effect on the Ratskep vibe (I remember starr being fairly reactionary and conservative here as lbon). Can you imagine how different it may have been if Topsy, sciwoman or someone even slightly more relaxed had been in the driving seat?

Overcompensating for not getting to show naked pics there?

[Warren Dew]

Starr is the senior moderator. If anyone should be able to mod on their own, it should be her. I suppose to you that's just further evidence of a fascistic conspiracy.

Certainly the difference between your take and mine seems to reflect a real philosophical difference.

To me, starr is the senior moderator, not the site dictator. That means that if anyone should be setting a good example by strictly following the rules, it should be her.

But I guess the difference in expectations comes right back to my having libertarian beliefs in ethics and personal responsibility, whereas your position seems to reflect a progressive belief in privilege.

All this is assuming that you're correct about the site still having that rule, of course.

[Gallstones]

I'm not having a go at the girl or trying to stir up shit (much), but why is starr the top mod on Ratskep? She seems to have risen from nowhere within the wider RDF community to a position of almost Timonenesque power. How did that happen?

I don't get it, and I think that her personality and personal compass have had a massive effect on the Ratskep vibe (I remember starr being fairly reactionary and conservative here as lbon). Can you imagine how different it may have been if Topsy, sciwoman or someone even slightly more relaxed had been in the driving seat?

There was a poll. The staff voted on who they felt would make the best second in command. Starr did not get the vote but she is who LIFE wanted. I have no idea why he bothered with the poll.

[Warren Dew]

There was a poll. The staff voted on who they felt would make the best second in command. Starr did not get the vote but she is who LIFE wanted. I have no idea why he bothered with the poll.

One can learn from a poll without being bound to the single top vote getter.

Personally, I have to say that letting that staff choose their own leader could well have been worse.

[Bella Fortuna]

I'm coming in late to this discussion so I apologise if it's been discussed previously, but any idea what separates a "senior" mod from a regular one, or is it just meaningless hierarchy?