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

[SassyIrishLass]

Seems like it was timely, your post was 161, and mine was 164.
I sure am hungry for a ham sammich for some reason.

Whatever... now run along

 

[MisterBeale]

Why the hell would you accept that? I mean really

Is this question, addressed at me? Did you not comprehend my post? Was it not clear?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Is this question, addressed at me? Did you not comprehend my post? Was it not clear?

Yeah it was and if you had trouble understanding then maybe... well you know

 

[Ropey]

I am nothing if not a blathering blatherer, pince gringo.

You spelled abject follower wrong.

 

[Ropey]

Thats not.

A complete sentence.

Both are sentences in a singular context, follower.

Your response, not so much, water muddier.

 

[Natural Citizen]

When your thread gets moved...




Heh heh heh...

 

[Ropey]

Do you want a moderator who doesn't follow the rules? Aren't you complaining about that?
Or are you just trying to be insulting again? In which case, bless your heart you're just a hot mess aren't you!

Did someone rub your fur the wrong way.

 

[BlueGin]

I'm sure you remember how they ran interference for Delta4Embassy.

He was SUCH an obvious pedophile, but nobody could even dare to object to any of his pro pedophile language. The only thing I wonder is how many children he molested during the time they were protecting him?

He wasn’t the only repeat rule breaker they protected with questionable mod decisions constantly.

 

[Foxfyre]

Put it in the rules then....Mr Mod.

And include enabling, hop to it instead of blabbering

Have you ever sighed at the tediousness of pharmaceutical commercials in which every possible known side effect was required to be listed no matter how rare or unlikely? When is the last time you listened carefully to every single one of those listed side effects?

I have been in several professions in which I was charged to write policy and believe me those writing pharmaceutical ads have a cakewalk compared to writing policy that covers every possibility.

To include a clause in policy that covers EVERY possible subject or action or situation that can come up in a large, diverse operation would rival the content of the Library of Congress.

And it doubles the problem if you list some situations and not all. Those criticizing the policy or enforcement of it will invariably point to the omissions more than they point to what is specifically included.

The best any policy can do in a forum as widely diverse as USMB or any other message board is to set some general guidelines for those responsible to use and that of necessity must allow some discretion in how to enforce those guidelines as our language and how we express it is constantly changing, even sometimes day to day. Yes sometimes the mods probably get it wrong, but oh well. They get it right a whole bunch too.

When there is obvious intentional discrimination, i.e.:
Member A says Member B is a wife beater.
Member B says Member A is a wife beater.

Member A is censured but member B is not,
then we obviously have justification to point out the double standard.
We are justified in questioning why a certain action was taken, and nobody has censured me when I grumbled that my thread was moved which of course I thought was unfair but probably nobody else did.

None of our mods, I don't think, have claimed to be Jesus Christ, so not one of them is incapable of questionable or bad judgment. And every now and then somebody gets on the team who is too often vindictive, punitive, unfair, unreasonable, but hopefully those don't last long. So far most have been good to hear us out when we have gripes. We won't all get our way in every case of course, but I think those who accept the rules as reasonable mostly get along here pretty well.

My observation is most do the best they can, they aren't getting paid to do what they do, and despite some error in perception now and then, they for the most part make this a very pleasant place to hang out and express our opinions about things. USMB would be a hellish place without them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Rules are rules. You start warning about say enabling...then people start to wonder about you. I know I would

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.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yeah it was and if you had trouble understanding then maybe... well you know

So you are saying you don't like this forum? You hate it?

I don't understand? If you hate it so much, what do you post here?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

He wasn’t the only repeat rule breaker they protected with questionable mod decisions constantly.

Yep.

They use the same bias in the race forum.

 

[flacaltenn]

Put it in the rules then....Mr Mod.

And include enabling, hop to it instead of blabbering

We like the RULES to be the size of a postcard and something less than a 4 minute read. THere are NOT that many issues as complex as this one.

Let's compromise. How about footnotes in a separate section regarding the POLICY enforcement details?

 

[BlueGin]

Been over this. It's CONTEXT. Groomer has several meanings. You on the right dont want to use that flame as "dog groomers" or Marine recruit groomers. You want to use it in the context of pedophilia or diddling the brains and bodies of young children. And in THAT context -- "grooming" IS an undeniable primary tool of pedophiles.

The RULE is in plain site when USED AGAINST MEMBERS. Does NOT apply to orgs/govt agents/teachers unions and such. I have PAGES of personal content attacking THOSE targets as "groomers of kids" BECAUSE the evidence and facts are there.

Interesting that you ( and your other mods) can somehow interpret intentions on the “ groomers” comments. But can’t somehow interpret intentions when your pet posters used to address me as “ blewkin” regularly breaking board rules. Funny how that works.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

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.

What is wrong with using a rocket launcher in the middle of any argument?

I swear the older you get the less fun you are!

Now as for kids, families and mocking mods, well leave kids and families out of the discussion.

 

[flacaltenn]

He wasn’t the only repeat rule breaker they protected with questionable mod decisions constantly.

Contact staff members to discuss. Not gonna do names of active members in this forum. There very well COULD be actions and sanctions that you're not familiar with.

 

[MisterBeale]

Put it in the rules then....Mr Mod.

And include enabling, hop to it instead of blabbering

It is already there.

Not All Rules and Regulations are written. Not every circumstance can be foreseen. Moderator Discretion does apply. When in doubt, PM an Administrator or Moderator.

 

[BlueGin]

Contact staff members to discuss. Not gonna do names of active members in this forum. There very well COULD be actions and sanctions that you're not familiar with.

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

 

[BlueGin]

? yea i don't understand whats thats supposed to mean.

They were insinuating incest. Stop intentionally playing stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Interesting that you ( and your other mods) can somehow interpret intentions on the “ groomers” comments. But can’t somehow interpret intentions when your pet posters used to address me as “ blewkin” regularly breaking board rules. Funny how that works.

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.