Zone1 When are the fucking coward maudes going to own their "?" actions?

[BlueGin]

We have no lists of banned words other than those contained in the SiteWide rules. I call people Bullwinkle, Grinch or SpongeBob quite a bit. Cant open that can of worms without being like dozens of other message boards with mods that DONT AGREE on what policy and interpretations are but have the power to enforce their OWN list of "banned words" or INVENT illegal content.

That's why I came here. And that's why I've stayed.., Same reason a lot of members are here.

So insinuating incest with family members is a okay then?

 

[flacaltenn]

Took it up with Coyote. She said she couldnt “interpret what their intentions were”. And allowed it.

You should -- in general take issues to mod staff with 2 or more moderators. Just for timing and concurrence. But variations on a board name -- in the RIGHT FORUMS -- (like not in Zone1) are likely not something we can START enforcing unless you got a SIMPLE IDEA on how to draw a line.

We LIKE ideas.

 

[flacaltenn]

So insinuating incest with family members is a okay then?

THAT'S a good angle. Didn't even occur to me. That's what I mean by going to mod staff.

If it was used in the context of a thread or discussion about "incest" or family -- I think there's a good case.

 

[Ropey]

We LIKE ideas.

You however like to make your own up as you go ... along with the left to protect those who support teaching adult sexuality subjects to children and who espouse same on this forum.

Can't be calling them groomers (teaching adult sexuality subjects to children). . . while they support grooming on the forum... says flaca.

 

[BlueGin]

You should -- in general take issues to mod staff with 2 or more moderators. Just for timing and concurrence. But variations on a board name -- in the RIGHT FORUMS -- (like not in Zone1) are likely not something we can START enforcing unless you got a SIMPLE IDEA on how to draw a line.

We LIKE ideas.

So implying incest with family members is okay then?

 

[BlueGin]

THAT'S a good angle. Didn't even occur to me. That's what I mean by going to mod staff.

If it was used in the context of a thread or discussion about "incest" or family -- I think there's a good case.

So…they could just constantly address me as Blewkin as long as it’s not during a discussion about “ incest”? Do you know how dumb that sounds?

You are playing fast and loose with board rules. As per usual.

 

[Foxfyre]

When the furor over "groomers" was first discussed -- it was CLEARLY stated that members were INVITED to bring accusations of groomers/pedophile member to us for review on a case by case basis. What your issue with that?

I found out that MANY members would call ANY lefty a groomer. I asked the question -- THEY ANSWERED -- it's in this forum. That violates the rule requesting that the 3 NUCLEAR flames of attacking family, bestiality, and pedophiles be uniquely excluded from the warchest of flames for MEMBER on MEMBER combat. *(that could be an ugly and ironic analogy -- LOL)

Kinda like a reasonable ban on rocket launchers.

Asking YOU to report each instance to mod staff for review is the fairest way to handle this. But you need to make a FACTUAL case based on the board content. We dont want members who brag or actively advocate for pedo/grooming.

I don't know what are the burrs under saddles on either side re 'grooming'.

But let's use that as an example.

I suspect there is a difference between arguing why you don't think things like transgender studies and such is not pedo/grooming and advocating pedo/grooming? Certainly it should not be okay to accuse a member of being a pedo or pedo groomer or any other criminal activity, but there is a difference between that and saying a person's position is soft on or forgiving of or supportive of that which results in criminal activity.

I constantly train newbies on Twitter to get it said when it is important to say, but take care in how you say it. There is a huge difference in objecting to a vote that would make pedophilia a lesser crime and accusing a person of being a pedophile.

It is one of those subjective nuances mods have to use all the time in these situations.

 

[flacaltenn]

So implying incest with family members is okay then?

No -- it's never OK -- but then again we need to see the material content.

Contact mod staff -- include one of the Sr. mods. We'll take a look.

 

[BlueGin]

No -- it's never OK -- but then again we need to see the material content.

Contact mod staff -- include one of the Sr. mods. We'll take a look.

Been there done that. It was allowed. Like I said.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't know what are the burrs under saddles on either side re 'grooming'.

But let's use that as an example.

But I suspect there is a difference between arguing why you don't think things like transgender studies and such is not pedo/grooming and advocating pedo/grooming? Certainly it should not be okay to accuse a member of being a pedo or pedo groomer or any other criminal activity, but there is a difference between that and saying a person's position is soft on or forgiving of or supportive of that which results in criminal activity.

I constantly train newbies on Twitter to get it said when it is important to say, but take care in how you say it. There is a huge difference in objecting to a vote that would make pedophilia a lesser crime and accusing a person of being a pedophile.

It is one of those subjective nuances mods have to use all the time in these situations.

You got it. We're not even sensitive to attacking PUBLIC figures on their judgements about bestiality or pedo. It's a matter of "disarming" those 3 nuclear flames so that people HAVE to think about "how far" the flaming that is allowed on USMB can go. We want YOU to draw a line SOMEWHERE.

The confusion about "public officials or other public figures" and these 3 nuclear flames is USUALLY about excluding them in Titles or Oposts under "clean start".

 

[flacaltenn]

Been there done that. It was allowed. Like I said.

Was it more than one moderator?. PM me with details. Not saying the result was wrong, just want to understand the context and process of "allowing it".

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm sure this could go on and on about any number of inquiries or complaints. But the original scope of the thread is long since faded away. Closed.