None of the Mods have been enforcing this especially for those couple of special offenders that have clearly been posting such after following my every post.
Be interesting to see if any "action" occurs.
Cursing at or about someone is actionable not for reasons of the profanity; rather, it is actionable for the reason that it is an insult and a personal attack.
Verbal Abuse
Profanity has its place in matters of personal expression, but verbal abuse has no place in mature discussion. Profanity alone is not verbal abuse, but the use of profanity as a means to enhance the mental effect of verbal abuse is well understood.
Example of acceptable profanity in P&N (by current global ATF posting guidelines):
Example of unacceptable profanity in P&N (gratuitous profanity):
Acceptable profanity in P&N (by current global ATF posting guidelines) but unacceptable personal attack (verbal abuse):
Verbal abuse, bullying, has no place in a mature audience or discussion. It is a hallmark of immaturity in and of itself.
Administrator Idontcare
I am confident Anand had no intentions of his name adorning a website that gives safe harbor to intentionally derogatory terms the likes of "teabaggers" and "libtards"; the existing posting guidelines (quoted above) would have not have been codified as they were if this weren't the case IMO.
Thoughts?
fuck this place
So if you can even handedly moderate this type of stuff, then it would be for the better.
Do you report any of the posts for which you expect to see "action"?None of the Mods have been enforcing this especially for those couple of special offenders that have clearly been posting such after following my every post.
Be interesting to see if any "action" occurs.
The support for the British caste system, racism, and religious discrimination.
Me too, I was brought up with that same value, as well as, "Profanity is the product of a lazy mind". I personally rarely use profanity, especially in writing. I recognize, however, for better or worse, that's a bit of an old-fashioned ideal. The English language is continually evolving. Many people, and especially younger people, do not view profanity nearly so negatively. It is much more a part of everyday discussion, adding flavor but not shock. I fear taking a heavy-handed approach to moderation would suppress natural discussion and add a lot of moderator workload that could IMO be more productively focused on cleaning up noise.
Houston, we have a serious problem.
Bowfinger and myself are on the same side of the fence for another time.
Please advise
Anatomically impossible goal.
Do you report any of the posts for which you expect to see "action"?
If everyone who saw a burning building decided it was someone else's job to call the fire department, the building will burn to the ground while the fire department is completely unaware.
Report the posts, that's what the feature is for.
I think part of it is we never know if the person was chastized for it...well, sometimes we do, but many times a non-public punishment is given for the behaviour and the reporting person never knows if something was done.
Human nature than pops in and most people will assume nothing was done. Is the solution to always make the punishment public? I dunno...has pros and cons to it. The pro is that others see the punishment and hopefully learn from it, as well as the reporter knowing something was done. The con is that others will then use that punishment in logical fallacies later on.
Be aware that some of the time, I've looked at posts that have been reported as being racist, but felt that they were so borderline that taking action would be rather heavy-handed. There are differing degrees to offenses; and occasionally perceived racism may be open to interpretation. Even just yesterday, there was a person given an infraction. I communicated to the two moderators that I questioned whether they were certain of the way the person meant it; maybe it should have been just a warning at the most? Within 2 PMs, they provided me with enough background and evidence to make it pretty clear that it was a typical attitude of the offender. Had it been a one time thing, for that particular offense/post, I certainly wouldn't have felt comfortable giving the infraction. But, given the history, an infraction was warranted.Just don`t be surprised if what you believe to be racism is not what the mods believe to be racism!
I think part of it is we never know if the person was chastized for it...well, sometimes we do, but many times a non-public punishment is given for the behaviour and the reporting person never knows if something was done.
Human nature than pops in and most people will assume nothing was done. Is the solution to always make the punishment public? I dunno...has pros and cons to it. The pro is that others see the punishment and hopefully learn from it, as well as the reporter knowing something was done. The con is that others will then use that punishment in logical fallacies later on.
Wow. If I ever start to feel I have no life, I will refer to that flow chart. It is an amazingly well done flow chart...but it is also proof you need another hobby.
I hope I am not coming across as being argumentative or such, I am just trying to flush things out so myself and others will not bring them up later as having not been thought about. Trying to shine the flashlight into the corners looking for chametz, so to speak.
I take fairness quite serious, and a cornerstone of fairness is consistency.
Consistency requires documentation and a repeatable transparent process.
I'll be as frank and candid as possible here to ensure everyone's questions are answered to satisfaction.
Administrator Idontcare
How about an Official List of actual Moderators.
There are many that act like Moderators and seem to have Moderator powers.
For example are Doppel, JediYoda, Jono Wono Moderators?
My only beef is this: if a person post something worth neg. points or a banning - should they not be asked to change their statement before said action occurs?
Administrator Idontcare
All moderators, 100% of them, have the "moderator", "administrator", or "forum director" in their user titles.
There are no covert or unlisted moderator account holders here.
And there is one class of moderators you will see who no longer have their moderator privileges - aka Moderator Emeritus. These are past mods who have resigned and are now members with no mod privileges but retain the title Emeritus.
All moderators, 100% of them, have the "moderator", "administrator", or "forum director" in their user titles.
There are no covert or unlisted moderator account holders here.
The penalty for violating posting rules is always something that comes down to member's history. A first time offender is obviously going to get a mulligan or two versus the guy who has already been warned or infracted half a dozen times for the same violation.
This isn't meant to be used as some draconian method for banning people on the sly, this is not Sparta, sorry Folks will have plenty of grace period to be eased into the gray area.
When you have someone acting as if they are a Moderator is that considered an actionable violation especially when it is consistent and following the posts of a member?
In your dreams maybe!!
Acting as a moderator....and being a moderator are two different things.
Obviously you have issues and as such you are trying to silence your critics.
In fact it is laughable that you want special treatment...you want the mods to make in an actionable violation when your critic speaks out.......
So maybe you should worry about how you are going to handle any change that takes place...
It`s pretty obvious that you will have major issues.
It`s obvious that you will get angry at the mods when they get tired of your insesant crying. In fact you will probably report anybody who dares criticize you.
What I want to know is will the Mods make falsely reporting people a actionable offense?
Seems fair to me...
You are not a Mod as per Administrator IDontCare
STFU