Originally posted by NordlysExactly. Ragnorak - our desire is to see a more open set of Forums. Your 'solution' is for people to wall themselves off in smaller Forums where the full range of views will not be given.
If it's a warning towards getting a longer ban, it should at least be explained. If I hadn't continued complaining and asking for an explanation, I still wouldn't have any idea what I was banned for.
I am not going to start another clique. It shouldn't be necessary to start a private clan just to discuss language, and it excludes many people who might also be interested in the topic.
Do you now see why your solution is not attractive to us (at the risk of putting words in Nordlys' mouth)?
Originally posted by NordlysFINE!
If it's a warning towards getting a longer ban, it should at least be explained. If I hadn't continued complaining and asking for an explanation, I still wouldn't have any idea what I was banned for.
I am not going to start another clique. It shouldn't be necessary to start a private clan just to discuss language, and it excludes many people who might also be interested in the topic.
I'll write a letter for you:
Dear Management,
Can you please satisfy Nordlys and let her obfuscate swear words so that we can discuss "language" without fear of moderation? And please, if you decide that she needs a banning for some reason. Give her a warning first. It's only polite. I'm sure you can see how this is not a waste of time and should be brought to your attention immediately.
In Uptomyearsincrapship,
Darvlay
I'm outta this thread FOREVER!
Originally posted by ivangriceObviously, your definition of "heated" differs from the Site Admins. When you have your own chess site, you may impose whatever rules, or no rules, as you please. In the interim, you have to come up with some better reason for them to change their policy than "inconsistency".
'Heated' in this context - that people will get emotional and perhaps use swear words. In the press the use of the phrase 'heated discussion' is up there with 'frank exchange of views'.
It means profanity, and lots of it! What does it mean to you?
Originally posted by darvlayYour letter to the management actually asks for resonable things - why do you mock what she's asking for?
FINE!
I'll write a letter for you:
Dear Management,
Can you please satisfy Nordlys and let her obfuscate swear words so that we can discuss "language" without fear of moderation? And please, if you decide that she needs a banning for some reason. Give her a warning first. It's only polite. I'm sure you can see how this is not a waste of time a ...[text shortened]... tion immediately.
In Uptomyearsincrapship,
Darvlay
I'm outta this thread FOREVER!
Originally posted by ivangriceThen stop being obtuse; say " I want NO moderation at all in the Forums". If that's what you want, say so and stick to it rather than blabbering about "inconsistency". That's what you and Noodles are doing and that Noodles is why you are "insincere".
Exactly. Ragnorak - our desire is to see a more open set of Forums. Your 'solution' is for people to wall themselves off in smaller Forums where the full range of views will not be given.
Do you now see why your solution is not attractive to us (at the risk of putting words in Nordlys' mouth)?
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd now we get to the nub of the matter. 'Heated' is too vague an expression - it means different things to different people. In the absence of clear guidelines, where is the line drawn?
Obviously, your definition of "heated" differs from the Site Admins. When you have your own chess site, you may impose whatever rules, or no rules, as you please. In the interim, you have to come up with some better reason for them to change their policy than "inconsistency".
If it's too difficult to provide guidance...then what on earth is the point of moderation? (It's OK, I don't expect you to answer that; I know you don't care).
Moderation must be there to serve a purpose. If that purpose was clearly stated then consistency could be applied and we would all know where we stand. If it does not serve a clear purpose - why have it at all?
Originally posted by no1marauderI want no moderation at all in the Forums. I don't know where I haven't been clear on that (see earlier where I stated this in more or less the same words THREE TIMES IN THE ONE POST).
Then stop being obtuse; say " I want NO moderation at all in the Forums". If that's what you want, say so and stick to it rather than blabbering about "inconsistency". That's what you and Noodles are doing and that Noodles is why you are "insincere".
You are the one being obtuse, I feel.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivangriceApologies again. I thought you were fighting for the rights of profanity etymologists everywhere, who I would have thought would have fit nicely into a private clan forum. 😉😉
Exactly. Ragnorak - our desire is to see a more open set of Forums. Your 'solution' is for people to wall themselves off in smaller Forums where the full range of views will not be given.
Do you now see why your solution is not attractive to us (at the risk of putting words in Nordlys' mouth)?
D
[EDIT] 😛😛😉
Originally posted by ivangriceNo1 - please read.
I'm not sure people are calling for tighter moderation. I think the point is being made that it's either black or white - no moderation vs. tightly controlled moderation. I find the current 'compromise' solution a little unpredictable and inconsistent.
I would very much prefer no moderation - I think that's what a lot of us advocate. I can't emphasis ...[text shortened]... profanity in a crass, unclever, unamusing way it would inform my assessment of that post.
I really feel I need to restate my position, as it appears to be being wilfully misinterpreted as this thread progresses.
I believe the Forums should be moderation-free. Apparently everyone here should be 13 or over, and I cannot believe that there are many 13-year-olds out there that would be shocked by rude words.
I do not advocate the use of profanity for the sake of it; posts that subscribe to this view are rightly rejected as crass by thinking people, and the unintelligent use of profanity simply devalues the post.
The current situation is inconsistent, and I find that unacceptable given no-one can tell me what the purpose of moderation is on this site.
I do not believe that the lifting of moderation will result in the meltdown and consequent destruction of the Forums - do we really believe that some people swearing will destroy the community we have here? Is it really that fragile?
Originally posted by ivangriceWhy don't you? It's been pointed out to you, ad nauseam, that there is no way that there will be no moderation in the Forums here given the attitude of the Site Admins. It's been pointed out, and proven by recent events, that blubbering about "inconsistency" in moderation gets you consistency - consistent censorship. I have no idea why that simple truth about the facts of life at RHP cannot penetrate the lead encasing in your skull. I've had this same argument with other people and you either cannot or will not accept the truth. That's your problem.
No1 - please read.
I accept that there is going to be moderation here, so I shoot for as little as possible. If the Site Admins feel extreme profanity is toooooooooo offensive but most everything else goes, that's acceptable to me. If you find that "inconsistent", I don't care. It leads to a minimal restriction on speech here. Sometimes the mods screw up IMO and I'm not shy to say it, but I don't want rigid rules that will invariably severely limit speech. That is all your bitching is likely to get.
Originally posted by ivangriceSo you're happy for RHP to become the new KKK hangout?
I do not believe that the lifting of moderation will result in the meltdown and consequent destruction of the Forums - do we really believe that some people swearing will destroy the community we have here? Is it really that fragile?
D
BTW: You read my posts as being hostile. I read yours as being intellectually snobby. 😉
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1 - for God's sake take a position on something and stop just arguing for the hell of it.
Why don't you? It's been pointed out to you, ad nauseam, that there is no way that there will be no moderation in the Forums here given the attitude of the Site Admins. It's been pointed out, and proven by recent events, that blubbering about "inconsistency" in moderation gets you consistency - consistent censorship. I have no idea why that simple truth ...[text shortened]... will invariably severely limit speech. That is all your bitching is likely to get.
Originally posted by no1marauderIvangrice has been going on and on about saying that he wants NO moderation at all in the forums, and he has never contradicted himself about that point. My opinion about this is a bit different, I think a certain amount of moderation may be necessary, and in some cases (when no interesting content is lost due to moderation) I don't care one way or the other. If you think I have ever said something else, it's most likely a misunderstanding. And inconsistency has never been what I have been most worried about, I know it's not possible to be entirely consistent.
Then stop being obtuse; say " I want NO moderation at all in the Forums". If that's what you want, say so and stick to it rather than blabbering about "inconsistency". That's what you and Noodles are doing and that Noodles is why you are "insincere".
1 edit
Originally posted by ivangriceWTF??????????????????
No1 - for God's sake take a position on something and stop just arguing for the hell of it.
I've been arguing the position I just espoused before you were even a subscriber at RHP.
EDIT: Correction - I misread your profile. I've been arguing the position I just espoused for about a year and a half.