Originally posted by NordlysYou were given an explanation, and still don't get it. Since this topic keeps coming up with you, I will post what I told you and see if the other RHP users can understand it....
Is there a law against discussing the etymology of swear words in England? Or what are you trying to say?
First off, you were one of many users removed from the forums for cussing. You didn't understand why, you claim.
Next, when you came back you started posting about the same word. Some posts were removed (no ban yet!). Next, you posted a link to a site with cuss words all over it, even though it had been removed from the site.
You were again removed for violations of the forum rules, and posting info that was already removed. I'm not sure what you expected, or what is so confusing about this.
Some people will never understand why the sky is blue, no matter how you explain it. You just don't understand how this forum is moderated, and never will regardless of how many times it is told to you, and how clearly it has been stated over and over and over and over again.
P-
Originally posted by ivangriceI said that Phlab has to deal with idiots. You decided that the shoe fit yourself, so who am I to argue?
I want predictability. Why is that so draconian? It appears to me that you want it both ways - let's keep things relaxed until someone is punished for overstepping an unknown line.
As far as you're concerned the use of asterisks (Asterix is a Gaul) was never allowed. Well, that's great for you and your little world, but asterisks were allowed. I saw ...[text shortened]... lling anyone an idiot (but I did like the ad hominem attack re animal porn...classy).
As for asterisks. Cussing using them was never allowed, a blind eye was turned to it. Russ has reiterated that using them to hide a cuss word isn't allowed. Scan through the forums and you'll notice that there are a lot of words hiding behing asterisks, so nothing has really changed, in my world anyway.
I'm sorry, I just can't comprehend the following sentence. Would you mind reposting it please? "I don't understand how the actions 'Cackhead' (who he?) did have a bearing on this discussion." Please try to keep in mind grammar and sentence structure this time. Cheers.
All the best,
D
Originally posted by PhlabibitI didn't really want to get into this anymore, but you are wrong on several points, and I can't let this stand like this.
You were given an explanation, and still don't get it. Since this topic keeps coming up with you, I will post what I told you and see if the other RHP users can understand it....
First off, you were one of many users removed from the forums for cussing. You didn't understand why, you claim.
Next, when you came back you started posting about the sam ...[text shortened]... told to you, and how clearly it has been stated over and over and over and over again.
P-
"First off, you were one of many users removed from the forums for cussing. You didn't understand why, you claim."
Yes, I was pretty surprised about the ban, because I could see that much worse things than the word I used seemed to be okay with the moderators. I expected it to be deleted by robomod, but I didn't really expect that the moderators would bother with that thread at all as the swear words used there were not used in an insulting or abusive way. However, I knew that it wasn't entirely okay, so I am willing to accept that ban as somewhat fair. It would have been nice to get an explanation, though.
"Next, when you came back you started posting about the same word."
Not true. I haven't used it one single time since my first ban.
"Some posts were removed (no ban yet!)"
I don't know anything about that, I guess they must have disappeared before I had read them. They were not by me.
"Next, you posted a link to a site with cuss words all over it, even though it had been removed from the site."
Someone else posted the link, and a quote from that article, which was about the etymology of that word. So far, you are the only one I have talked to who thinks that an article about etymology is inappropriate material if it contains a swear word. That seems to be a rather unusual point of view, so I had no idea anyone would see it that way. I quoted the post because I expected it to get deleted by robomod because of the quote, and I wanted to keep the content available for other language-interested people. If I had known that the moderators might find the post inappropriate, I wouldn't have quoted it. Both the original post and mine disappeared almost immediately, so I assumed they had both been robomoded, mine because I had forgotten to take out the quote from the article from the quote of the post. When the link was reposted without the quote, but unfortunately replying to another post containing that word, I quoted it again to clear it from everything which might be seen as inappropriate. At that point I still had no way of knowing that someone might object to the article the link was leading to.
So I was seemingly (I didn't get an explanation from the moderator who actually gave the ban, so I can't be entirely sure) banned for quoting a post containing something which was seen as inappropriate. My problem with this is that I had no way of knowing that it might be seen as inappropriate at that time. Now that it has been explained to me that this word isn't allowed even in the context of etymology, I would understand if I got a ban for doing this (although I still think it's sad that language-enthusiasts like me are not allowed to discuss something like that). But how am I supposed to follow rules if I have no way of knowing what they are?
Originally posted by Phlabibit
First off, you were one of many users removed from the forums for cussing. You didn't understand why, you claim.
Actually, I believe Nordlys has stated that she does understand why she was banned the first time.
Next, when you came back you started posting about the same word. Some posts were removed (no ban yet!). Next, you posted a link to a site with cuss words all over it, even though it had been removed from the site.
I think it's worth pointing out that (as I recall) this was part of a discussion about the particular word and why it was considered offensive, which I don't think in and of itself is an offensive conversation. I made the original post with the link to a website that discussed at length the etymology of the word. I did that in a way that I thought was innocuous and inoffensive. I didn't stick around for the discussion that followed, so I missed out on what subsequent posters posted. Apparently, though I started something that got at least a couple more folks banned (I don't even know if I got banned because I was out of town for a few days and didn't return until their bans had been lifted - if I was banned, I can't imagine why).
You were again removed for violations of the forum rules, and posting info that was already removed. I'm not sure what you expected, or what is so confusing about this.
If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that my post got deleted, and she re-posted it and that's why she was banned again. Did I get that correct?
Some people will never understand why the sky is blue, no matter how you explain it. You just don't understand how this forum is moderated, and never will regardless of how many times it is told to you, and how clearly it has been stated over and over and over and over again.
Is it possible that you're being a little bit inflammatory with your rhetoric? Is that the kind of behavior you think is appropriate for someone who is supposed to be a moderating influence on the forums?
Originally posted by The PlumberWell, it was Dr Strangelove's post I re-posted (or quoted), and it wasn't deleted before I re-posted it. But the article Dr Strangelove linked to was somewhat similar to the one you posted. Your post was still there when all this happened, as far as I recall.
Originally posted by Phlabibit
If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that my post got deleted, and she re-posted it and [b]that's why she was banned again. Did I get that correct? [/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysIt apparently got tossed out with the rest, even though it was harmless.
Well, it was Dr Strangelove's post I re-posted (or quoted), and it wasn't deleted before I re-posted it. But the article Dr Strangelove linked to was somewhat similar to the one you posted. Your post was still there when all this happened, as far as I recall.
I'm still curious to know if I was banned....
Phlab is catching way too much flak over this crap. He's not the only moderator in this place but he's by far the most accomodating and patient compared to the others. Not only does he put up with being the vocal target for everyone's frustration with moderation but he also puts forth the effort to explain himself and periodically speak for other moderators when he is under no such obligation to do so.
So c'mon now, three cheers for Phlabibit!
Originally posted by NordlysBut surely if you tried to keep the link in one post, then another and then another, and the posts kept disappearing, then surely you must have thought..."hang on. I must be doing something here that the mods don't want. I better desist".
I didn't really want to get into this anymore, but you are wrong on several points, and I can't let this stand like this.
"First off, you were one of many users removed from the forums for cussing. You didn't understand why, you claim."
Yes, I was pretty surprised about the ban, because I could see that much worse things than the word I used seemed to ...[text shortened]... how am I supposed to follow rules if I have no way of knowing what they are?
If I was a mod, and realised that somebody was trying to battle me by continually reposting content that I had removed, then I reckon I'd lash out a ban to stop the user purposely wasting my life.
Just my humble opinion. I'd prefer to see people purposely going against the wishes of the mods in the manner that it sounds you did to get banned, rather than having a list of words/topics we're not allowed to use, and an inflexible, impersonal mod system which would ruin the forums, imo.
D
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayI was one of Phlabby's fans until he started insulting people - just not what I expected from him....🙁
Phlab is catching way too much flak over this crap. He's not the only moderator in this place but he's by far the most accomodating and patient compared to the others. Not only does he put up with being the vocal target for everyone's frustration with moderation but he also puts forth the effort to explain himself and periodically speak for other moderators when he is under no such obligation to do so.
So c'mon now, three cheers for Phlabibit!
1 edit
Originally posted by The PlumberHes always been Phlab to me. He speaks his mind and if he's got a problem with ya, he lets you know it without hesitation. He's had to put me in line with some harsh words more than a couple times and I respect that. Just because he's a moderator, you can't expect him to be completely void of personality and act like a robot. He loses his temper just like anybody else would. He's not Christ, you know.
I was one of Phlabby's fans until he started insulting people - just not what I expected from him....🙁
Originally posted by RagnorakDidn't you read my post? I had reason to believe that the posts would be robomoded, and they were. I had no reason to believe that a moderator would want to remove them. So I tried to make the post un-robomodable.
But surely if you tried to keep the link in one post, then another and then another, and the posts kept disappearing, then surely you must have thought..."hang on. I must be doing something here that the mods don't want. I better desist".
If I was a mod, and realised that somebody was trying to battle me by continually reposting content that I had re ...[text shortened]... ed to use, and an inflexible, impersonal mod system which would ruin the forums, imo.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakThere is a place for moderation on the part of a moderator.
But surely if you tried to keep the link in one post, then another and then another, and the posts kept disappearing, then surely you must have thought..."hang on. I must be doing something here that the mods don't want. I better desist".
If I was a mod, and realised that somebody was trying to battle me by continually reposting content that I had removed, then I reckon I'd lash out a ban to stop the user purposely wasting my life.
Back when I was new here, I was playing around (don't even remember the details), and Phlabby sent me a PM to let me know that I was trying his patience. It was a kind thing to do, only took a second, and I apologized for my behavior and that was that.
Sounds like handling it that way in this instance (whomever the moderator was) would have served the Nordlys and everyone else far better than what was done. Just my opinion....
Originally posted by darvlayI agree, and I think I give him as much latitude as I'd want if I were in his shoes. Lately, however, I think he's gone overboard on several occasions. Just my opinion....
Hes always been Phlab to me. He speaks his mind and if he's got a problem with ya, he lets you know it without hesitation. I respect that. Just because he's a moderator, you can't expect him to be completely void of personality. He loses his temper just like anybody else would. He's not Christ, you know.
Originally posted by The PlumberIf the word is banned, why do you think that a link to a whole site dedicated to the word would be wanted here? End of the day, if a parent doesn't want their 13 year old child reading profanity in the forums, why does it suddenly become acceptable if the profanity is presented in an educational manner and is off site?
I think it's worth pointing out that (as I recall) this was part of a discussion about the particular word and why it was considered offensive, which I don't think in and of itself is an offensive conversation. I made the original post with the link to a website that discussed at length the etymology of the word. I did that in a way that I thought was ...[text shortened]... nd didn't return until their bans had been lifted - if I was banned, I can't imagine why).
Think of the worst word you can think of for the female genitalia. Now, do you think it'd be ok for me to post a link to the history of that word? Maybe with some images to back up the words. If not, why not? What's different to your scenario?
Anyway, I don't really care. I'm mostly posting because I don't agree with people calling for tighter moderation, and to try to deflect some of the flak from Phlab who is nearly as vital to the site (well the forum side of it anyway) as Russ and Chrismo. The only difference is that Phlab has no financial rewards for doing the work that he does.
D