Debates forum suspended temporarily

I understand true vulgar comments.

They have no place anywhere.
Reporting facts should always be allowed.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think perhaps the chap saying black people were disgusting might actually have been a factor, hey?

It is also not okay to make constant defamatory comments about other posters, especially when unsubstantiated. This is not something we would tolerate elsewhere in life.

Yes, Pete pointed out how bad it would be if, say, a black teenager came onto the forum - what would they think of the chess community?

And I reiterate that if a new system is implemented, there should be a strike system with a reset, which is sufficient but not draconian enough to stifle free speech.

@ashiitaka said
Limiting subs posting would give them an incentive to pony up if they really thought unlimited posting here had worth.

It's good economics not to encourage free riders.

Ahh, so now you are pivoting away from your evident belief that discriminating against non-subs would improve the quality of the forum (it wouldn't) and instead are saying that everyone should h ...[text shortened]... eart of the community" ) started becoming depopulated because of absurd and illogical posting rules?

I hate to break it to ya, but the same thing can have two favorable consequences.

Limiting non-sub posting would both improve the quality of the forums AND cause those who were seriously enamored of unlimited posting to subscribe. Granted, there won't be many of the latter but one can always hope.

Were you as outraged when Russ "discriminated" against new members by not allowing posting until they had made 10 moves? https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/announcements/full-forum-posting-privileges-only-after-10-moves.183179

Is that an "absurd and illogical posting rule" that would tend to "depopulate" the Debates Forum?

@russ said
When it returns, the process for alerting posts will be improved and open to all, rather than just subscribers.

I would encourage all to alert posts that they find objectionable when it returns.

So what are the forum rules aboit what is not allowed?

Is it that another person finds it objectionable? Or is it that the person broke tos?

@eladar said
So what are the forum rules aboit what is not allowed?

Is it that another person finds it objectionable? Or is it that the person broke tos?

You agree to not use the Service to:

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

https://www.redhotpawn.com/myhome/termsofservice.php

Debates had gotten to be a sewer of "hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;" posts.

I tried to get people to play nice with my "Forum Posting Guidelines" but it obviously didn't work.

@no1marauder said
You agree to not use the Service to:

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

https://www.redhotpawn.com/myhome/termsofservice.php

Debates had got ...[text shortened]...
I tried to get people to play nice with my "Forum Posting Guidelines" but it obviously didn't work.

Ah, so if it is objectionable in another person's eyes.

I wonder if this rule will be held up equally. I expect that if I find it objectionable, my objection will be upheld.

Anything that at all puts down whites or Christians or conservatives will be reported.

By the way the spirituality forum needs this update too.

@joe-shmo said

Moderator Alerted!

Thank you.

@no1marauder said
I tried to get people to play nice with my "Forum Posting Guidelines" but it obviously didn't work.

With all due respect, no1, you didn't exactly always stick to your guidelines. While you're certainly more chilled than you were in 2010ish, your style can hardly be described as "playing nice."

You know what Justice Brandies said about leading by example.

@no1marauder said
You agree to not use the Service to:

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

https://www.redhotpawn.com/myhome/termsofservice.php

Debates had got ...[text shortened]...
I tried to get people to play nice with my "Forum Posting Guidelines" but it obviously didn't work.

Don't act like you are innocent. You once told me to Go F...Myself because I called you out on misinterpreting a graph. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as hateful or otherwise objectionable rhetoric.

@uglytoproll said
I understand true vulgar comments.

They have no place anywhere.
Reporting facts should always be allowed.

One person's "facts" are often rational people's fiction.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You don't want to be called a racist, then don't be a racist.

Simple as.

@uglytoproll said
@Earl-of-Trumps

Who decides?
A leftist?
They ignore facts to save face lest they be called racist.

Just stop it.

You keep lying even in the face of a forum shutdown, and then claim you love the site.

The fact is that all the money you've spent on this site has basically been a bribe to Russ to keep you on. Otherwise you'd be only a memory in the history of this site, as you should be.

@uglytoproll said
@Earl-of-Trumps

Who decides?
A leftist?
They ignore facts to save face lest they be called racist.

🚩

@eladar said
That was not sarcasm. I would like the right to report posts.

Most of the time it is sarcasm, but I like the update.

This would explain a lot of your posts