Originally posted by leisurelyslothOf course they don't just "toss people" based on the words they use but on the content of the post. You can get a post removed because of use of an improper word, but you'll only get banned depending on 'how' you use it.
The real point here is that the mods toss people not based upon the words they use....they toss them for their disagreement.
Originally posted by leisurelyslothDon't 'put words in my mouth'.
In a Debates forum, you are moderating not based upon the words that are used, but rather upon whether or not you agree with the premise that the author is putting forth. So it's OK to use racial epithets as long as it's in an argument that you agree with. You don't see the conflict here?
The owners of the site have a basic guideline as to what should be allowed in the forums.
The moderators try to enforce their wishes by subjectively judging post context.
It makes no difference whether we agree with the post or not.
Originally posted by CrowleyDon't blame me, Crowley. I didn't put those words in your mouth.
Don't 'put words in my mouth'.
The owners of the site have a basic guideline as to what should be allowed in the forums.
The moderators try to enforce their wishes by subjectively judging post context.
It makes no difference whether we agree with the post or not.
You admitted, now repeatedly, to subjectively judging epithets based upon whether or not you agree with the underlying argument or context. You, or at least one of your team, hands out lifetime bans to those who's arguments you disagree with, but faced with the exact same words in an argument that favors you you give them a wink and a nod.
1 edit
Originally posted by leisurelyslothWhy don't you understand me? Did I use the term incorrectly?
Don't blame me, Crowley. I didn't put those words in your mouth.
You admitted, now repeatedly, to subjectively judging epithets based upon whether or not you agree with the underlying argument or context. You, or at least one of your team, hands out lifetime bans to those who's arguments you disagree with, but faced with the exact same words in an argument that favors you you give them a wink and a nod.
The mods look at posts in context and act according to the guidelines set by admin. That is it.
Again, you put words in my mouth. Whether a mod agrees with an underlying argument has no bearing on action taken.
EDIT: Sorry, seems I did use the term incorrectly. When I say 'subjectively', I meant within the context of the subject matter being discussed. Seems this is not the definition of the word.
Originally posted by CrowleySounds an awful lot like you are parsing words. Context vs. agreement with an argument... ...it works out to the same thing, whether you call it that or not.
Why don't you understand me? Did I use the term incorrectly?
The mods look at posts in context and act according to the guidelines set by admin. That is it.
Again, you put words in my mouth. Whether a mod agrees with an underlying argument has no bearing on action taken.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRe-reading what you've written, and you are somewhat right, I must admit. You've cleverly stuck to cheapshots and insults and managed to avoid overtly taking a firm stand on anything. Very cute.
They're all premised on my making an argument, which I'm not. So how wrong are you?
My face? I need a shave.
1 edit
Originally posted by leisurelyslothNo, it doesn't. In this case, the context on which actions should be applied was defined by Russ and not Crowley. This makes all the difference in the world.
Sounds an awful lot like you are parsing words. Context vs. agreement with an argument... ...it works out to the same thing, whether you call it that or not.
1 edit
Originally posted by leisurelyslothNo, I'm not. Can you really correlate 'context' with 'agreement of argument'?
Sounds an awful lot like you are parsing words. Context vs. agreement with an argument... ...it works out to the same thing, whether you call it that or not.
Say a post comes up where a user calls another poster a "god-damned tree* lover".
The context here is insulting and derogatory, so I hide the post and ban the user according to admin guidelines.
In another thread, a few users are debating whether a journalist should be allowed to use the phrase "god-damned tree* lover".
The context here is a debate about a derogatory term. I possibly don't agree with said poster, but I don't "toss him out because I disagree with him" and neither do I ban him.
I don't hide the post either, since the context here is an actual debate.
* Substitute for suitable derogatory term.
Originally posted by CrowleySo the claim is that Luck used a racial epithet as an insult directed against another poster, resulting in his ban....but Bosse's is OK because it's used not as an insult but as part of a debate?
No, I'm not. Can you really correlate 'context' with 'agreement of argument'?
Say a post comes up where a user calls another poster a "god-damned tree* lover".
The context here is insulting and derogatory, so I hide the post and ban the user according to admin guidelines.
In another thread, a few users are debating whether a journalist should be allo ...[text shortened]... ontext here is an actual debate.
* Substitute for suitable derogatory term.
So it's OK to use bad words as part of a debate but not as an insult?
Originally posted by leisurelyslothDo you understand how to use scare quotes?
So the claim is that Luck used a racial epithet as an insult directed against another poster, resulting in his ban....but Bosse's is OK because it's used not as an insult but as part of a debate?
So it's OK to use bad words as part of a debate but not as an insult?
Originally posted by leisurelysloth*sigh*
So the claim is that Luck used a racial epithet as an insult directed against another poster, resulting in his ban....but Bosse's is OK because it's used not as an insult but as part of a debate?
So it's OK to use bad words as part of a debate but not as an insult?
I give up. Those were hypothetical scenarios. No "claims" were made.
Don't worry man, rather just go back to believing it's a CONSPIRACY!