Banning People for NOT Swearing???

[Delldude]

I don't think pictures and gifs are part of the rule...

TDS patient

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've no time to look at this stuff right now but adding the term "certain types" sounds to only compound the ambiguity of the rule, not clarify it. This place needs someone who knows how to translate ideas into cogent written language, like me.

But I thank you for your help in the matter.

Certainly, do contact me when you have the time.

 

[toobfreak]

Then your first step should be contacting me in DMs.

We shall see. PM/DM--- I guess what you are saying is that you need me to PM you so that you can invite other staff aboard the discussion. No time now, but maybe later tonight or tomorrow we can pick up on this (in PM/DM).

 

[TemplarKormac]

We shall see. PM/DM--- I guess what you are saying is that you need me to PM you so that you can invite other staff aboard the discussion. No time now, but maybe later tonight or tomorrow we can pick up on this (in PM/DM).

Sounds like a plan.

 

[citygator]

Stop it CG. You are trolling. You are just being deliberately obtuse and argumentative.

I refer you to the gif in post #136

 

[sparky]

Who is running the show here? Can one person with authority actually show up and explain things before this thread is again closed down prematurely without anything actually being gleaned nor established?

how is anyone expected to play by rules they can't understand?

~S~

 

[Harry Dresden]

Hmm, good question.

We'll find out eventually.

you sure?....those guys hardly ever post here....one of them should show up periodically to field questions.....but then i asked elchorizo(sp?)when we first got here how the point system works here....he said he had no idea...so there is that...

 

[The Duke]

**** **** shit piss
^test

 

[Natural Citizen]

I stand with Walter...

 

[Bitterhook]

Then I would ASK. This is bullshit. Whoops! Am I going to get banned for saying that? Will a moderator throw me off a roof? Beat me with his sandals? Issue a fatwa against me? Send me to attitude retrainment camp?

Look, I've worked for multi-billion dollar corporations, I've been in charge of men's lives. This is not rocket science.

This is why I've both never offered to moderate here nor no longer donate money. THIS IS EASY STUFF.

Who is running the show here? Can one person with authority actually show up and explain things before this thread is again closed down prematurely without anything actually being gleaned nor established?

They are not going to give you a definitive answer if they use any discretion in adjudicating the offense.
You want them to give you a "yes" or "no" answer, when it is quite possible the answer is "sometimes" and measured to the degree they feel actions are in violation.

It is clear some would like a more definitive answer, but again, it could be an issue of "my castle, my rules".
If the filter provides enough protection to satisfy the "king", then that is as far as it needs to go, however they may write policy that reserves the right to determine punitive actions in situations where the filter and/or policy have been circumvented,

Meaning policies and corrective actions are the structure, while enforcement is a liberty they may choose to reserve, and an explanation is not necessary when considering people have no choice in the decision outside of how they choose to tailor their own activities.

Likewise, if people are worried about whether or not they may be in violation, then that is merely an indication where they can choose to approach the issue differently themselves, instead of getting permission to engage the issue in a more questionable manner.

You are correct, it is easy or rather simple, and there is no reason to make it any more complicated than it already is.
There is a difference in running around trying to keep an execution squad busy and simply sending a stern warning for people to tighten their mess up as a matter of their own determination or discretion.

Do you want "police" and a "goon squad" enforcement mentality, do you need the "law" to tell you what you can do, or can you simply get the message that the administration would like you to do a better job of policing your own activities, instead of figuring out a way to "clog the courts" with what should be unnecessary arguments?

 

[Oddball]

Meanwhile, the blatant and obvious abuse of the reaction score system continues unabated.

 

[Oddball]

you sure?....those guys hardly ever post here....one of them should show up periodically to field questions.....but then i asked elchorizo(sp?)when we first got here how the point system works here....he said he had no idea...so there is that...

None of them GAF....The forum is just a cash flow for them.

 

[Bitterhook]

Meanwhile, the blatant and obvious abuse of the reaction score system continues unabated.

Especially when people fail to understand that the "reactions" are not "scored" outside of the idea that any reaction amounts to a participation trophy in scoring.

 

[toobfreak]

They are not going to give you a definitive answer if they use any discretion in adjudicating the offense.

Nah, I disagree. Well-thought out and worded rules usually end up being far more effective in accomplishing its mission while likewise making less work for everyone involved by both minimizing violations along with easing enforcement.

Thing is, anyone can throw a few sentences on a board, so usually, what appears adequate to the author proves confusing and contradictory to the reader. Just pick up most any instruction manual for proof of that.

 

[playtime]

Sausage man did this? It's a net negative, IMO.
It's like PC in 2026. WTF?!
It's an impediment to freedom of expression.

i wonder if just writing the letter F will be next? after all.....................

we all know what it stands for

 

[toobfreak]

Meanwhile, the blatant and obvious abuse of the reaction score system continues unabated.

Maybe it would work better if "reactions" were broken up into positive and negative ones instead of scored all as one. This way, you wouldn't have people with a zillion negative reps leading the list, instead, a negative rep would pull you down not up and there'd be an incentive then for getting more positive reactions.

 

[toobfreak]

None of them GAF....The forum is just a cash flow for them.

Probably, but then, happy members both donate more in support as well as post more to give advertisers and bots more to read/charge for.

 

[Delldude]

None of them GAF....The forum is just a cash flow for them.

If it's such a huge cash flow, why are they using a Volkswagen server package?

 

[playtime]

A week or so ago middle of the night?

kinda like when we bomb bomb bombed iran.

 

[Bitterhook]

Nah, I disagree. Well-thought out and worded rules usually end up being far more effective in accomplishing its mission while likewise making less work for everyone involved by both minimizing violations along with easing enforcement.

Thing is, anyone can throw a few sentences on a board, so usually, what appears adequate to the author proves confusing and contradictory to the reader. Just pick up most any instruction manual for proof of that.

Well, it is correct that people often fail to understand each other.
But at least you answered my point and are more interested in the necessity of enforcement than personal responsibility.

Of course, you are also correct in suggesting expecting personal responsibility to outweigh the lack thereof is often not very effective, the standard individual has a hard time figuring things out and you might just have to spell it out for their simple little minds to actually grasp.

Chances are they will still try their best to avoid the words.