Rule/Etiquette Updates: Prejudicial Language

[Moderator 09]

Hi Everyone,

Up until now, any post content that was disparaging of a group of people (such as racist comments) were handled via our Terms of Service.  When reviewing these reports, we found that the following were all being considered TOS breaches:

• Advocating harm to a group ("We should kill/jail/bomb all X")
• Using slurs
• Sharing prejudiced opinions ("This country is falling apart because all X are greedy/selfish/want handouts")

Based on this, we think we have been moderating prejudicial language too aggressively compared to the rest of our policies.  So we're making the following additions to the Rules/Etiquette:


R6. Hateful Speech.  Hateful speech is speech that advocates harm against a group of people.

Advocating violence against a group is now a rule violation (meaning it adds to Corner time) rather than a TOS violation.  This puts it on par with threatening a member.



E1c) Slurs: Labels used to describe group of people that are generally regarded as hateful and/or offensive.

Slurs are now Etiquette violations, same as insults and directed profanity.


Prejudiced opinions will not be moderated provided they follow the Rules/Etiquette.  Instead, we will leave them open to public discussion and critique.


Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

[Dr H]

Sounds complicated, but reasonable.

[Gnu Ordure]

I see what you're trying to do; seems fair enough, hope it works...




Just to be picky though, I'm not too sure about the wording of the new rule.

R6. Hateful Speech.  Hateful speech is speech that advocates harm against a group of people, e.g. "We should kill/jail/bomb all X".

As that stands, it would catch statements such as:

'All child murderers should be executed by the State'.
'All paedophiles should be jailed, not merely treated in hospitals'.
'We should bomb Syria'.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Yes, we talked about whether to keep it general or to specify things such as race/creed/gender/sexuality.  We opted for the former, which gives us a little more latitude if we have to tweak the rule later.  I think for enforcement purposes we'll be leaning more towards groups people generally don't elect to be members of, but for now it applies to all groups.

My guess (not word of God, but a guess) is that we'll use a FAQ entry at some point to give us a bit more of a framework.

[FGOH]

If we are leaning towards groups people don't elect to be members of then "We should bomb Syria" would still be caught.

Which actually is not a bad thing imo. If someone didn't want to breach rules they would have to think more about what they say when advocating taking action against a county for humanitarian breaches; after all the idea of a government taking action is not to bomb Syria willy nilly but to take specific action. That would make for a more constructive conversation.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Conversation would be more constructive if you left out all swear words, sexual innuendo, and slang. Ditto text "speak". Oh, and don't forget how much more constructive "conversation" would be, if grammar mistakes were rule violations too. Then there is correct punctuation-- man, misplaced commas cannot be tolerated!

Is there no end to your need to control? The forum appears to be imploding as it is. And you want to tighten your death grip on what people are allowed to write?

I cannot wish you good luck with that. Quite the opposite. I hope you fail miserably. Then the forum might survive.

[Inertialmass]

...Then there is correct punctuation-- man, misplaced commas cannot be tolerated!...

There should be a space between the final "n" in "punctuation" and the double dashes.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Is there no end to your need to control? The forum appears to be imploding as it is. And you want to tighten your death grip on what people are allowed to write?

Actually, we want to loosen it.  Up until now people have been reporting them as Terms of Service breaches, which can bring harsh punishments like post moderation.  Now it's just a simple edit and everyone goes on with their lives.

[Gnu Ordure]

One downside, if I understand it correctly, seems to be that if someone now makes hateful slurs, such as referring to gay people as faggots, or black people as n****rs, those slurs can stay posted for up to 24 hours after being reported - whereas previously, the Mods could remove them immediately.

Is that correct?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Correct.  Whether that's an upside or a downside is a value judgment.  I personally think the short-term harm is minimal and that the long-term goal of keeping the overall frequency in posts should be the main focus.  Compare this to something like a threat or sharing personal information, which can lead to short-term harm and possible real-world consequences.

Your mileage may vary, though.  If the terms really offend you, most of the bad ones are in the swear filter (and we could always add more.)

[Dr H]

Yes, we talked about whether to keep it general or to specify things such as race/creed/gender/sexuality.  We opted for the former, which gives us a little more latitude if we have to tweak the rule later.  I think for enforcement purposes we'll be leaning more towards groups people generally don't elect to be members of, but for now it applies to all groups.

My guess (not word of God, but a guess) is that we'll use a FAQ entry at some point to give us a bit more of a framework.

How about simply adopting the generic legal definition of "hate speech":

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.

This is how it's defined by the feds, and the state statues where I live use an almost identical statement.

For purposes of the forum you might want to replace the phrase "provoke violence" with "undermine civil discussion".  That's reasonably definitive, but still allows latitude for interpretation in specific cases.

[Dr H]

Conversation would be more constructive if you left out all swear words, sexual innuendo, and slang. Ditto text "speak". Oh, and don't forget how much more constructive "conversation" would be, if grammar mistakes were rule violations too. Then there is correct punctuation-- man, misplaced commas cannot be tolerated!

Is there no end to your need to control? The forum appears to be imploding as it is. And you want to tighten your death grip on what people are allowed to write?

I cannot wish you good luck with that. Quite the opposite. I hope you fail miserably. Then the forum might survive.

Hi Maggie, welcome back.

I agree with the spirit of what you say -- after all, I'm an anarchist.

But anarchists don't necessarily believe that there shouldn't be any rules; just that the rules should be the result of negotiable social contracts. 
Mooby proposed a rule change, and threw it up here for discussion -- that's the "negotiation" part.

And as always, if you, or I, or anyone else doesn't like the rule that finally results, we are free to go elsewhere. 

If you want no rules at all, try the Usenet newsgroups.  They're about as rule-free as you can get, and still be remotely functional (those that are still functioning).  Personally, I enjoy the anything-goes chaotic Usenet environment.  But I'm also capable of keeping it in my pants for fora like this one, where I find things other than a constant dog-fight to hold my interest.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I am too busy with my own forum to be "back". As long as I have to come here to answer PMs (and surely that will not be for much longer) I will run the risk of being distracted by absurdities. Rules that continue to choke discussion and are scattered in what must be close to a dozen different places now are absurdities. I didn't think anything could top the bone yard for sheer stupidity. I was wrong. They managed it again.

Come get me the first time anyone is dinged for insulting any group considered "right wing". Ditto mocking believers. I will be dead and buried before it happens.

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

[Dr H]

I am too busy with my own forum to be "back". As long as I have to come here to answer PMs (and surely that will not be for much longer) I will run the risk of being distracted by absurdities. Rules that continue to choke discussion and are scattered in what must be close to a dozen different places now are absurdities. I didn't think anything could top the bone yard for sheer stupidity. I was wrong. They managed it again.

Come get me the first time anyone is dinged for insulting any group considered "right wing". Ditto mocking believers. I will be dead and buried before it happens.

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

I will keep your warnings in mind, as I continue to gather my own evidence.

And I will note that your forum also has rules. 

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I like how Maggie's criticizing something that (if memory serves) she never does.  Yes, it's quite absurd that we don't want people running around spouting how much they hate "fags" and "n****rs" on a board that's open to people of all sexualities and races.  I'm more than fine with choking that sort of "discussion."

Come get me the first time anyone is dinged for insulting any group considered "right wing". Ditto mocking believers. I will be dead and buried before it happens.

These rules aren't intended to stop people from insulting the "right wing," "left wing," believers, atheists, or any other group.  You can call liberals "raging f**ktards" if you want, so long as it's not directed towards any specific member of this forum.  However, you can't go around advocating that people start assassinating House Republicans or mail anthrax to Senate Democrats.  There really aren't any slurs against the left or right wings (slurs are more of a gender/race/sexuality thing), so it's unlikely E2c would ever apply to someone insulting the Democrats.

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

This is an announcement thread, not a voting thread.  We encourage in discussion in them because of transparency and because when we look to see how a rule is working, we take into account test cases (early reports without precedents to fall back on) and reference the points of discussion.  In the case of trolling, we did make some minor adjustments to how we enforced it based on those things, but we weren't going to remove it entirely unless it just seemed to be completely not working.

In this thread, potential issues have been raised with regards to Rule 6 being too general, slurs being allowed to stay until they're edited, and improving the wording.  Once we start getting test cases, we can evaluate.

My guess, based off experience, is that the first concern will be the most relevant.  This will probably be the main focus of mod discussions during test cases, which I'm guessing will lead to refinement via FAQ entries, precedent, and possibly a wording tweak if it becomes pervasive enough.  I'm guessing the second one won't be a huge issue if we are processing the reports quickly, especially since etiquette reports tend to get processed faster than TOS reports (meaning in practice they might actually sit around less time.)  The legal wording is a bit more subjective than we usually like to use here, it'd be more appropriate for the TOS than the rules I'm thinking.  Though the TOS already has a clause about "hateful" so it'd be redundant.  But all three are points we can look at, and if something doesn't seem to be working right we could use any of them as a launching point for how to improve the policies.

So yes, Maggie's right in that we're unlikely to completely rewrite or remove the rule due to feedback alone, but she's wrong in thinking that we're not interested in feedback and discussion.

[Dr H]

So yes, Maggie's right in that we're unlikely to completely rewrite or remove the rule due to feedback alone, but she's wrong in thinking that we're not interested in feedback and discussion.

That seemed pretty obvious from the fact that you requested comments. 
Had you simply wanted to make an imperious declaration, you could have posted the announcement and immediately locked the thread.

"Negotiation" has a pretty broad meaning to an anarchist. 

[Airyaman]

Sometimes people don't get what they deserve.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

Sinners deserve to burn in hell for eternity.

That looks like a question, a comment, a concern and a confession wrapped all in one!

[Bordeaux]

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

Sinners deserve to burn in hell for eternity.

Says the man who sins daily. The Irony...LOL

[nateswift]

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

Sinners deserve to burn in hell for eternity.

Says the sinner who sins daily. The Irony...LOL

Clearly it's an attempt to test the guiedline and it fails miserably.  Possibly "sinners should..." but not as written.  Oh, and QM's theology allows him to say that and be a sinner at the same time.....you see he doesn't get what he deserves....

[kevin]

E1c) Slurs: Labels used to describe group of people that are generally regarded as hateful and/or offensive.

Slurs are now Etiquette violations, same as insults and directed profanity.


Prejudiced opinions will not be moderated provided they follow the Rules/Etiquette.  Instead, we will leave them open to public discussion and critique.


Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

atheists are stupid pinheaded gits. their beliefs are s**t.

especially educated athiests. the dumbest things i have ever listened to come from educated atheist assholes, those ones who hate anybody who isn't like them.

please substitute "theist" for "atheist," should you find these observations troubling.

[kevin]

Sometimes people don't get what they deserve.

that's what substitutionary atonement is all about.

[Assyriankey]

QM, try again please.

Kevin, don't waste your time.

[QuestionMark]

Sometimes people don't get what they deserve.

If spoken honestly, this is one of the best arguments for God I've ever heard. I use this on the street with non-atheists, but to a true atheist it should make no sense.

To a true atheist, no one should deserve anything. If anyone deserves anything, then there must be a God.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

please substitute "theist" for "atheist," should you find these observations troubling.

I find them trolling.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I said:

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

Any further questions?

And no, the fact that I don't go around disparaging different groups or casting slurs on people's ethnicity or gender and so will never be charged with this crime was never the point of my criticism. It is telling that you think that I was concerned that I would be caught by yet another of  your "rules".  Not even you could make such a charge stick--even with the help of your pet mod. It isn't the concern of the Great Sage of Ohio, either. But we have let you know what we think of this latest move of yours and have been met with the same disdain for the opinions of the membership that you display whenever you are challenged. That may explain why there are only two (possibly three) who can be bothered to think about these matters and offer real, substantive criticism.

By the way, I think most of us know who will be hit by this the most often. The thing is, he has only overstepped the bounds in any serious way once that I have ever seen. His opinions are colorful and very unpopular but that does not justify them being choked off in a forum that is supposed to be open to discussion. Rather, his right to hold them ought to be defended. I am sorry if the people he insults are so fragile that the opinions he expresses oppress them. But since he is hardly the only one who holds such opinions, exactly what is gained, really, by pretending that they don't exist and that the beslurred has never heard them before?

[Airyaman]

Sometimes people don't get what they deserve.

If spoken honestly, this is one of the best arguments for God I've ever heard. I use this on the street with non-atheists, but to a true atheist it should make no sense.

To a true atheist, no one should deserve anything. If anyone deserves anything, then there must be a God.

Atheism has nothing to do with what people do or don't deserve. It is purely a judgment call.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Why haven't these messages been moved to the bone yard? If you are going to have such a rule, why enforce it so selectively? QM, Airy and Assy need to take it elsewhere.

[Captain Luke]

Posts need to be reported.

[Gnu Ordure]

Correct.  Whether that's an upside or a downside is a value judgment.  I personally think the short-term harm is minimal and that the long-term goal of keeping the overall frequency in posts should be the main focus.  Compare this to something like a threat or sharing personal information, which can lead to short-term harm and possible real-world consequences.

Your mileage may vary, though.  If the terms really offend you, most of the bad ones are in the swear filter (and we could always add more.)

I'm not offended; but then, I'm not a faggot or a n****r. They may well be offended - that's why those words used to be removed immediately, right?

I'm just saying that you guys could cut yourself some slack in continuing to proactively remove the worst examples of unacceptable language.

According to a recent poll I conducted in my head, 96.7% of IGI members wish to engage in civil discourse. So they will accept reasonable efforts on your part to encourage civility.

According to a similar poll: whatever you Mods do, 1.9% of members will accuse you of Stalinist or fascist tendencies; try to ignore them...

[acctnt_shan]

R6. Hateful Speech.  Hateful speech is speech that advocates harm against a group of people.

Why just people?  I happen to find speech advocating harm against animals as offensive too... 

[kevin]

please substitute "theist" for "atheist," should you find these observations troubling.

I find them trolling.

i am not even go to try to figure this new rule out. i find it much more straightforward in this forum to simply say what i want, and take the consequences if it breaks the rules.

you know, i liked IGI's policy of rules-based moderation at first, but recently i find it increasingly byzantine. not every jot and tittle of human behavior necessitates a detailed rule, and the community fails to benefit from an increased interest in micromanaging minutiae.

so either IGI has changed, or i have. hard to say which.

[kevin]

one thing i do like very much about this forum is that i do have the option to not try to figure out the rules.

so long as i stay away from TOS violations, which i find quite clear, i am more or less free to say what i want. i take occasional hits in the corner for it, but sooner or later i'm out, none the worse for the experience.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

R6. Hateful Speech.  Hateful speech is speech that advocates harm against a group of people.

Why just people?  I happen to find speech advocating harm against animals as offensive too...

Tell it, Sister! The rules here are multiplying like rabbits on fertility drugs. We must stop them. A rabbit in every pot, I say! With carrots and onion!

[Gnu Ordure]

By the way, I think most of us know who will be hit by this the most often. The thing is, he has only overstepped the bounds in any serious way once that I have ever seen. His opinions are colorful and very unpopular but that does not justify them being choked off in a forum that is supposed to be open to discussion.

My understanding is that this a relaxation of the rules designed to facilitate discussion of difficult subjects such as race. So I don't see how how anyone is going to be 'hit' by it.

(And I don't know who you're referring to, nor why you don't identify him, or her). 

[Jezzebelle]

This is so hilarious to me.  "More rules"  Maggie you are so amusing.  If you think for one second that you're being some great savior and sticking up for who you're obviously referring to as Steve, then you've lost your mind.  This is exactly what Steve has been BEGGING for for months.  Now, instead of getting dinged for constant TOS violations and being put on post moderation for weeks at a time, someone can just edit their "colorful opinions" and get simple rule/etiquette violations like they do insults.  This is LESSENING the violations for certain comments, that have ALWAYS been not allowed. 

Go trot off on your high horse back to your new inactive forum.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

You have achieved perfection in writing b***hy posts and can now charge money to teach that skill to others. Congratulations on a fine achievement that is sure to look good on your resume.

[Assyriankey]

You have achieved perfection in writing b***hy posts and can now charge money to teach that skill to others. Congratulations on a fine achievement that is sure to look good on your resume.

But Jezz's post actually had substance whereas yours is just taunt.

Ride that horse, baby :D

[Maggie the Opinionated]

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

...
I will keep your warnings in mind, as I continue to gather my own evidence.

Any further questions?

My rules, all of them, will fit on 1, maybe 1.5  sheets of 8 1/2" paper and no one needs a lawyer to parse them. I imagine you could get this new slur rule on that. Nor are they an end in themselves.  Rules, endless new rules aimed at regulating speech, have no place at my forum.

Possibly I will need a second page when my forum is 5 years old. At 6 weeks of age, the forum doesn't need the iron grip that is exercised here-- to the applause of the writers of the stupidest posts and the b***hiest posts on the planet. Really, it is almost worth it to see the two least useful mods/administrator come trotting out breathing their version of fire and brimstone. Thankfully, a good swig of Listerine can take care of that. Nothing can help an innate deficiency of IQ or temperament.. 

[nateswift]

SO...... Jezzebelle could have written her post without the comments on Maggie's attitudes and performance, but the information would have been the same and anyone with a lick of sense could have drawn the appropriate conclusions........  Do it that way, Jezz, it's not as much fun but it cuts down on the vitriolic replies.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Have you ever considered the wisdom of butting out and staying out until you have something of substance to say? The information in her post was beside the point. No, she want to spew and boy did she. She didn't give a damn about not dragging the immediate intended target of the rule into this "discussion" on which he has not expressed an opinion. So much for respecting another valued member.

She didn't understand, nor do you apparently, that making the rule less harsh than a TOS violation is not the point either. It is the proliferation of rules, more and more rules, rules with more and more clauses to make violating them easy that is the point. I made the point subtly, so she didn't get it, of course. Kevin made it more plainly. For his pains, he got called a troll by the forum owner. Oh no, Mooby didn't break one of his sacred rulez. Heaven forbid! He called Kevin's remarks trolling. But that is almost as disgraceful as Belley's b***hy posts. Circumlocution doesn't change a thing.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Kevin made it more plainly. For his pains, he got called a troll by the forum owner. Oh no, Mooby didn't break one of his sacred rulez. Heaven forbid! He called Kevin's remarks trolling.

I did neither.  You need to read my post again.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Once was more than enough. You were your usual gracious self accepting criticism you would do well to heed.

Heaven help us!!! I used the word "remarks" instead of "observations". Well don't that beat all? And it changes everything! Everything!

[nateswift]

Have you ever considered the wisdom of butting out and staying out until you have something of substance to say? The information in her post was beside the point. No, she want to spew and boy did she. She didn't give a damn about not dragging the immediate intended target of the rule into this "discussion" on which he has not expressed an opinion. So much for respecting another valued member.

She didn't understand, nor do you apparently, that making the rule less harsh than a TOS violation is not the point either.

Actually, Maggie, the point she made is what it is all about and is in direct contravention to your perceptions.  You might understand that if you were not so wrapped up in your rebellion against the Forum for not kowtowing to your perceptions about what you considered trolling in your archaeology thread.  The simple fact is that the person in question should have been banned for numerous TOS violations, and would have if the admin team had not bent over backwards to find a way to allow him to continue as a valued member.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Once was more than enough. You were your usual gracious self accepting criticism you would do well to heed.

Heaven help us!!! I used the word "remarks" instead of "observations". Well don't that beat all? And it changes everything! Everything!

Try reading it again. You clearly still don't get it.

[Dr H]

To a true atheist, no one should deserve anything. If anyone deserves anything, then there must be a God.

What makes you an authority on what constitutes a "true atheist," and what do you imagine the qualities of such a creature to be?

[Dr H]

i am not even go to try to figure this new rule out. i find it much more straightforward in this forum to simply say what i want, and take the consequences if it breaks the rules.

kevin, the more I read from you the more I like you. :

you know, i liked IGI's policy of rules-based moderation at first, but recently i find it increasingly byzantine. not every jot and tittle of human behavior necessitates a detailed rule, and the community fails to benefit from an increased interest in micromanaging minutiae.

so either IGI has changed, or i have. hard to say which.

I get the distinct sense that this discussion is referencing a history that I, as a realtive newbie, am unfamiliar with.  Because I understood Mooby to be sayingthat he was looking to alter the rule in such a way as to lighten up on it, yet some people seem to be reacting as if he were tightening it down instead.

So, I'm going to stick by your first statement: 'do what thou wilt,' and deal with the consequences, if any.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Actually, Maggie, the point she made is what it is all about and is in direct contravention to your perceptions.  You might understand that if you were not so wrapped up in your rebellion against the Forum for not kowtowing to your perceptions about what you considered trolling in your archaeology thread.  The simple fact is that the person in question should have been banned for numerous TOS violations, and would have if the admin team had not bent over backwards to find a way to allow him to continue as a valued member.

  Nothing penetrates does it? Nothing at all. My perceptions are completely accurate. Yours? Not so much I am afraid. Thus, I repeat. Butt out.

[Dr H]

My rules, all of them, will fit on 1, maybe 1.5  sheets of 8 1/2" paper and no one needs a lawyer to parse them. I imagine you could get this new slur rule on that. Nor are they an end in themselves.  Rules, endless new rules aimed at regulating speech, have no place at my forum.

Maggie, your Mission Statement says:

"Seeking the Kingdom exists to give believers of all sorts a place to talk without the distraction of hostile debate; particularly debate about the existence of God. That is taken as a given here and will not be argued."

Forbidding debate about the existence of God in a forum ostensibly centering around religion is a pretty severe blanket restriction of speech.

As I've already made clear, I stand by your right to have such a rule for your own forum, but please don't try to pretend that it's not restrictive.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I get the distinct sense that this discussion is referencing a history that I, as a realtive newbie, am unfamiliar with.  Because I understood Mooby to be sayingthat he was looking to alter the rule in such a way as to lighten up on it, yet some people seem to be reacting as if he were tightening it down instead.

No one is reacting like that. We who have been here awhile know exactly what this is about and at whom it is primarily aimed. For now. There is no mystery there. Yes there is a history of which you are unaware. One outcome of that history is that some of us are growing more and more weary of rules. Rules. Rules. Rules! Rules that cover every possible eventuality up to and soon to include when you can blow your nose. Rules that are applied capriciously and against which there is no defense. If you try, you will be accused of lawyering-- a really ironic charge here.

So no. None of the "rebels" are unaware that this rule is supposed to benefit one person and I will personally be glad if that proves to be the case. It will soon be misused to harm other members. You can take the mod out of WWGHA. You can't take WWGHA out of the mod. Or out of the administrator.

Let's hope that I haven't been corrupted. I would hate to think that I would ever impose layers of rules on the members of my forum. Of course it is little and inactive--or as inactive as a six week old forum carved out for a half dozen people here might be expected to be. Still, we have picked up members along the way and the temptation to lord it over them cannot be discounted. It must, however, be resisted.

[Airyaman]

Maggie, you seem to be the only one making a big deal about this. Perhaps it is as you say, but it also appears that you think we have way too many rules here. This obviously makes you unhappy, but I do not think anyone is going to take your words here seriously. It is beginning to look like a rant as opposed to "constructive criticism".

Perhaps you should focus on your small but growing forum instead. There you can discuss things, over here it looks like you just want to fight about things.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

My rules, all of them, will fit on 1, maybe 1.5  sheets of 8 1/2" paper and no one needs a lawyer to parse them. I imagine you could get this new slur rule on that. Nor are they an end in themselves.  Rules, endless new rules aimed at regulating speech, have no place at my forum.

Maggie, your Mission Statement says:

"Seeking the Kingdom exists to give believers of all sorts a place to talk without the distraction of hostile debate; particularly debate about the existence of God. That is taken as a given here and will not be argued."

Forbidding debate about the existence of God in a forum ostensibly centering around religion is a pretty severe blanket restriction of speech.

As I've already made clear, I stand by your right to have such a rule for your own forum, but please don't try to pretend that it's not restrictive.

The rules of the chess club are restrictive if you are hell-bent on playing football.

Even though you accurately state that your quote comes from our mission statement, you don't seem to understand that a mission statement is not the rules. It is a statement of purpose. You also conveniently left off the following sentence: Seeking the Kingdom exists to give believers of all sorts a place to talk without the distraction of hostile debate; particularly debate about the existence of God. That is taken as a given here and will not be argued. However, questions about why we believe what we believe are welcome, so long as they do not demean belief or believers. See the attempt to preclude hostility? You will have to look at the rules to find out what happens if drawing your attention to the mission statement isn't enough.

You seem to hunger for that hostile debate but most of us think there are enough venues for that. To let people know that we will not argue the existence of God does nothing to prevent you from trying to. We will not respond but we will also not ban you for trying. You are not breaking a rule; you are misunderstanding the nature of reality. If enlightenment ever dawns, we will discuss with you why we believe what we do.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Maggie, you seem to be the only one making a big deal about this. Perhaps it is as you say, but it also appears that you think we have way too many rules here. This obviously makes you unhappy, but I do not think anyone is going to take your words here seriously. It is beginning to look like a rant as opposed to "constructive criticism".

Perhaps you should focus on your small but growing forum instead. There you can discuss things, over here it looks like you just want to fight about things.

Why not think about why that is. Perhaps looking at the reaction of the mods might give you a clue. I will not be silenced by belley's b***hy posts or Assy's stupid ones. Both of them should have kept their mouths shut. They injected the hostility into this thread applauded by Mr Live in Love himself. There is no one here who has any excuse for hoping that I will back down just because a pack of pit Yorkies is nipping at my heels. Have I ever? They can disrupt an honest discussion and prevent it from taking place (indeed, they already have) but they cannot make me back down either. This place is imploding. Every time I have looked today or over the last few weeks, there has either been nobody or 1 person + the ever faithful baidu online during the day. You do better as quitting time approaches but there still isn't the number of members that used to be here. This place is imploding and you all don't even see it. But by golly, nothing stops the admin from multiplying rules and actively inciting hostility.

All those rules and soon there will be no one to obey them. It would make a stone weep.

[Tom]

Maggie,

Rules grow because people get their ?rocks? off trying to beat them such that you need more and more expansive rules to cover the nit picking that these people go on about.  It becomes an unofficial sport for them to participate in

I am on another board where there was no administrator for a long time and self regulation worked well and it still does when the members are happy to exhibit responsibility for what they post and why they post.  Administrators/mods became necessary to control the marketing trolls and once they began to operate a member or two required them to become their stooges to do their dirty work to get rid of those whom they had a dislike for because some other members dared to disagree with them and their own self righteousness.

The right to "free speech" has associated with it responsibility to communicate in a manner where we do not inflame a situation simply because we can.  We sometimes have to choose to pull in our horns and let the other people be the other people and allow them to have their opinion until they become hoarse or bored with the topic and it is possible to enter into the conversation again.  When we do this we have to let go of the past history and begin posting again with a clean slate.

Unfortunately there are one or two members that believe that only their opinion has any value and anyone who posts differently is a fool.

Maggie, it would seem that it is time for you to permanently move on as your forum will begin to take on a heavy administration role because of all the people that you have upset with your style and attitude who just might begin to inhabit your form site just to cause it to fail.  For them it will become a sport.  It will become ?them against you? and you will be swamped by the increasing work load and burn out will come a knocking at your door like it did here before the new management sign was put up. 

Maggie let go and Let God do what you are trying to do.  You may be surprised what God will do if you are able to show Him that you actually do trust Him just a little to deal with the situation.  At present, it seems that you have the same issues as King David had when Nathan the prophet came to bring correction to him.  Adultery was not the issue that God wanted to deal with in David.  It was something more disturbing which many people even today fall into.

Now if God has called you to run a ?religious discussion forum,? then embrace that calling and let ?God? be ?God? here.  He is not imaginary, even here.

Shalom

Tom

[Airyaman]

@ Maggie, yes this place has slowed down quite a bit, but I notice the same about similar boards (atheist heavy with theist participation). WWGHA has slowed way down, and ATT is practically dead. The Happy Atheist Forum seemed to be more active at one time too. Who knows the real reason? It could be that such discussion has seen a lull or that people have moved away from forums to other forms of online communication like Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I really do not think it is the rules that have driven people away. And if I read the OP correctly, all of the rules were already there, they just happened to be more severe and will now be less so.

[Jezzebelle]

And if I read the OP correctly, all of the rules were already there, they just happened to be more severe and will now be less so.

ding,ding,ding!  winner, winner chicken dinner


but shhhh, don't let all that logic get in the way of a good rant.  one has to get their hate-filled posts out somewhere when they spend all day pretending to be nice and delightful in other places on the internet.

[Dr H]

The rules of the chess club are restrictive if you are hell-bent on playing football.

True, but I note that you recognize that they are, nonetheless, restrictive.

My point was that there are rules, and then there are rules.  Having a lot of rules doesn't necessarily make for a more restrictive environment than having a few rules; it depends on what the rules are.  I can have a club that has a phonebook full of rules specifying what styles of shoes, cars, toothpaste, and music members should like, and still not have a club as exclusive as one that has the single rule "No blacks, Catholics, or Jews allowed."

Not allowing debate about the existence of God is a very restrictive rule in a religious forum.

Even though you accurately state that your quote comes from our mission statement, you don't seem to understand that a mission statement is not the rules. It is a statement of purpose.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that providing an example implies a lack of understanding about matters not directly connected with the example.

That said, a "mission statement" is the primary rule of an organzation, in that it drives all other rules.  Any and all other rules are designed to support the goal expressed in the mission statement -- at least that's the way it works if the mission statement is actually held to be meaningful, and not just words crafted to make the organizaation look good in Standard & Poor's Register.

If you actually mean to allow debate on the existence of God in your forum, then why state in your mission statement that the point "will not be argued"?

You also conveniently left off the following sentence: Seeking the Kingdom exists to give believers of all sorts a place to talk without the distraction of hostile debate; particularly debate about the existence of God. That is taken as a given here and will not be argued. However, questions about why we believe what we believe are welcome, so long as they do not demean belief or believers.

If you are suggesting that I left it off to convey a false impression, I did not.  I quoted only as much of the mission statement as was germane to the point I was trying to make.  When I use a dictionary definition to make a point in an argument, I don't quote the entire page of the dictionary on which the definition appears, either.

See the attempt to preclude hostility?

Yes, I do.  And as I told you, I think it's reasonable -- for your forum.

Be aware, however, that limiting hostility is also a form of restriction.
Again, it's your prerogotive to have such restrictions if you like, but it is disingenuous to pretend that they are not, in fact, restrictions.

You seem to hunger for that hostile debate but most of us think there are enough venues for that.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.  I am neither thin-skinned, nor shy, nor lacking in colorful vocabulary that I am fully capable of employing as I deem fit. 
However, I almost never deliberately seek hostile confrontations.  But if and when presented with such I sometimes tend to respond in kind, with roughly the same level of vitriol I feel has been flung at me.  Some people don't like that, but that's too bad; it's my nature.  As the general run of on-line discussion goes, my degree of control is pretty damned good -- but I am human, so of course it's not perfect.

Maybe someday, if I'm reborn as a Vulcan... 

To let people know that we will not argue the existence of God does nothing to prevent you from trying to. We will not respond but we will also not ban you for trying. You are not breaking a rule; you are misunderstanding the nature of reality. If enlightenment ever dawns, we will discuss with you why we believe what we do.

OK, that's a fair distinction.  Perhaps we'll see how it plays out in reality.

At any rate, I acknowledge your high philosophical ideals, and wish you the best of luck in maintaining them. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

@ Maggie, yes this place has slowed down quite a bit, but I notice the same about similar boards (atheist heavy with theist participation). WWGHA has slowed way down, and ATT is practically dead. The Happy Atheist Forum seemed to be more active at one time too. Who knows the real reason? It could be that such discussion has seen a lull or that people have moved away from forums to other forms of online communication like Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I really do not think it is the rules that have driven people away. And if I read the OP correctly, all of the rules were already there, they just happened to be more severe and will now be less so.

The rules play their role and it is/was totally unnecessary, though I mostly agree with your assessment. This forum was born out of discontent with the moderation of another forum, as I recall. Ironic isn't it that it has become a forum about its own rules. How long has it been since there has been a really enjoyable thread here?  Who needs to have mom constantly nattering in the background? Who needs an overaged teenaged gauleiter making threads even more repellent in order to feel important? Why was it necessary to multiply posts in this one instead of weighing the original responses and moving on? Well, when nothing else is happening, I guess a fight is as good as it gets these days.

[Airyaman]

I dunno, I enjoy some of the threads. I have started memberships on two different atheism boards, and while I initially enjoyed the change, I found that most of the posters on those boards were simply there to insult theists (mostly Christians). Some of those Christians gave back as much as they got, but that is beside the point.

I too wish IGI would pick up steam again. It has been my "Internet home" for several years now because most of the discussions have been civil imo. I'm not about to start discussing religious topics on Facebook, so this will likely be my last refuge.

[Dr H]

This place is imploding. Every time I have looked today or over the last few weeks, there has either been nobody or 1 person + the ever faithful baidu online during the day. You do better as quitting time approaches but there still isn't the number of members that used to be here. This place is imploding and you all don't even see it. But by golly, nothing stops the admin from multiplying rules and actively inciting hostility.

All those rules and soon there will be no one to obey them. It would make a stone weep.

You know, I can't help but chuckle at this.  I've seen the same prediction made -- often in very similar words -- in dozens of fora over the years.  It happened in many of my favorite Usenet newsgroups as regularly as once or twice a month.  Somebody would get a bone up their butt about some real or imagined affront they had received at the hands of other newsgroup members, take their toys, and stomp off to another newsgroup (or start their own).  But somehow they just couldn't let it go, so they would come back like clockwork to harangue the denizens of the old group, predicting the immanent demise of the group for its transgressions.

And some groups did die, although it was almost never immanent, and sometimes took as long as 5-10 years or more.  Such is the way of forums; they come; they go.

Usually the doomsayers came to be regarded by most of the persistent regulars as something akin to court jesters in the group.  A few people got off on poking sticks at them when they showed up, but mostly they were ignored, like the Viagra? spam, in pretty much the same way you'd ignore a fire hydrant in the middle of a frequently-taken sidewalk:  you know it's there, but you really don't pay attention to it anymore; you just walk around it.

Word to the wise(?):  the effort you waste, is your own. 

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I get the distinct sense that this discussion is referencing a history that I, as a realtive newbie, am unfamiliar with.  Because I understood Mooby to be sayingthat he was looking to alter the rule in such a way as to lighten up on it, yet some people seem to be reacting as if he were tightening it down instead.

The perception is that these new rules/etiquette were put in place to deal with one specific member who has been known to make racially insensitive comments, and that the rest of the forum is burdened with extra rules for that member's benefit.  That is simply not true.  We had been addressing that particular issue for over 2 years, and had an adequate framework in place for it.  There was no compelling need for us to change rules to that member's benefit.  Yes, that member will likely benefit from this change, but that member was not the reason for the change.

In reality what happened is that a couple threads that became racially charged generated a few reports that got us talking casually about our own views on the subject.  What we found was that several staff members (myself included) had a more narrow view of what constituted "hate speech" than what was being enforced at the time, and as we chatted further it became clear that "hate speech" was an umbrella term covering everything from flat-out encouraging people to kill someone of another race to racially biased political views, and everything in-between.  In essence, encouraging hate crimes was equally punishable (and equally bannable) to politically incorrect theories about welfare demographics.

We felt this policy was suboptimal, so we started a formal discussion on the matter.  We made a list of everything we meant by "hate speech," and then discussed whether each of the four components should be addressed by the TOS, Rules, Etiquette, or not at all.  We looked at the views of the original forum founders, the reasons for the addition of "hate speech" to the TOS under the last forum owner, and our goals for the future direction of the forum.  We looked at multiple threads including posts from at least 5 different members, and in the end decided the best approach was a combination rule/etiquette, reserving the TOS for extreme cases.

kevin and Maggie raise a good point about the addition of more rules adding to bureaucracy.  More rules means more complexity, which can make them harder to navigate.  However, having the TOS act as Rules 2.0 adds much higher complexity, as it requires someone to know information not present in the standard Rules/Etiquette and to know a different set of penalties.  By moving hate speech into the Rules/Etiquette we reserve the TOS for extreme cases and thus remove it from what members need to know for day to day posting.  Hate speech acts like threats for groups.  Slurs act like prejudiced insults.  So although the new rule/etiquette add complexity through words, letters, and numbers, they remove it by narrowing our scope and acting more like the rest of the day to day rules.

kevin made a comment about just posting what he wants and taking the consequences.  Which, in practice, is how most of the rules are designed to work: you can make 1 major rule mistake and unlimited minor etiquette mistakes (if you're willing to edit) each month and never get punished.  The rules are not for those who don't need them; they're for those who do.  They're for those who would otherwise trample all over the forum if there was no limit to how disruptive they could be.

Are we more bureaucratic than other forums?  Yes.  Part of that is due to time.  New problems requires new solutions, which means that over time most forums will add new rules.  At our peak, we had 16 rules and 8 etiquette with a total of 28 moving parts; we streamlined that to 4 rules and 4 etiquette.  Since then, we've grown to 6 rules and 4 etiquette with a total of 23 moving parts.  Perhaps at some point in the future it will be necessary to streamline again, but for now I think we still have some room to grow.  Maggie rightly points out that her forum has considerably less rules, but her forum is also newer/smaller and has not encountered as many unique situations yet.

The other part is that many other forums use more general guidelines and boot out anyone who doesn't follow them.  They can afford to have fewer rules because anyone who does something the staff feels contradicts the goals of the forum gets banned.  For better or worse, we have historically provided a home for those who do not fit in at other forums, and as a result need more defined rules to handle those who will press them more often.  Many of our members with long Corner sentences due to habitual breaking of our longer rule list would have been quickly banned on most forums with a shorter list (and many of them have been banned on several such forms.)

Lastly, there's concern that this will somehow be used to silence the viewpoints of right-wing theists.  But this is silly, because some of the key people involved in this discussion are right-wing and/or theists.  In addition, we've explicitly decided not to moderate negative opinions concerning race, sex, orientation, etc. that are a bit more common among conservatives and theists than other groups, when before we felt obligated to consider every little negative remark about these groups as possible violations of the TOS.

So really, I do think that kevin and Maggie raise some legitimate concerns, but I also think they're a bit overestimated and offset by the actual implications of the change.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I too wish IGI would pick up steam again.

It'd certainly be nice.  However, in most communities the greatest period of growth is at the beginning, with new registrations slowing as time goes on.  While the core group keeps a site going, members of that group will eventually leave for various reasons and need to be replaced by newcomers.  We're at the point now where most of the people who want to find us have already done so, and we're picking up the trickle of those who haven't.  This could always change with a new influx (such as the Otters) or if we found new ways to advertise (in the past we've mostly used Facebook groups), but over the long haul we're looking at a plateau into an eventual decline if nothing changes.

Firing all the staff and replacing them with the hypothetical greatest admin in the world would probably increase retention, but it wouldn't do anything to improve acquisition.  We've tried a couple different ideas in the past to get our name out there but none so far has really had a huge effect.  For-profit sites with the ability to change format often to offer fresh content (like Facebook) are able to keep the new influx going longer, but eventually even that starts to plateau (like Facebook.)  We don't really have that flexibility.

It's just the life cycle of a forum.  I still like posting here though.  As long as there are good users here I'll keep paying for it, so you don't need to worry about it disappearing for a while.

[kevin]

Rules. Rules. Rules! Rules that cover every possible eventuality up to and soon to include when you can blow your nose.

being curious . . .

It's illegal to blow your nose in Portland

The City of Portland's new rules designating "prohibited conduct" officially take effect today. Recent amendments to the city code, many of which have been controversial, are now in place on the city's website; you can read them here.

I'm surprised that it's drawn so little attention, but the new code makes it illegal to blow your nose anywhere within the city limits. Here's section 20.12.030 of the city code:

    No person shall urinate or defecate in any park except in a convenience station designed for that purpose; or blow, spread, or place any nasal or other bodily discharge; or spit, urinate, or defecate on the floors, walls, partitions, furniture, fittings, or on any portion of any public convenience station or in any place in such station, excepting directly into the particular fixture provided for that purpose; or place any bottle, can, cloth, rag, or metal, wood, or stone substance in any of the plumbing fixtures in any such station.

As you can plainly see, the law against "blowing nasal discharge" is not limited to parks, or to any other location, for that matter. Thus, one can only assume that it applies throughout the city.

If you don't like this law, you have the First Amendment right to pick it.

and of course . . .

Related laws:

    Picking your nose on Saturday is forbidden.

    It is illegal to let your pig run free unless it has a ring in its nose.

    The Fire Department may blow up your house.

    It is illegal to cook Fugu (Blow Fish) for more than 80 seconds. Fugu contains deadly poison in the organs. Despite of the risk, fugu dishes are considered special feasts in Japan.

    Blow guns are not allowed to be used within the city limits.

[kevin]

kevin made a comment about just posting what he wants and taking the consequences.

maybe i should point out that this works for me because i also consciously impose filters on my speech. in spite of what it sometimes appears to be. there's lots of stuff that doesn't get past my internal measuring sticks, so it isn't like i have no control over my mouth.

[nateswift]

^Indeed, and the point is that most of us do and some of us learn to after spending some time in jail.
Sometimes some of us need to learn the lesson all over again, but that's what we get for dealing with people.

[Assyriankey]

Some great insights above.

I'd rather post on a forum with 50 well-considered members than a forum with 500 f*ckheads.

I think predictions of IGI's demise are somewhat premature but even if/when that happens it's still been a successful and worthwhile endeavour and one that anyone involved in running the show over the last 6 or so years can feel at least a little proud of.

Maggie obviously feels threatened at the moment but this is quite understandable in the circumstances.  It is pure coincidence that the forum's best attempt so far to define troll posts seems to read like a technical analysis of her typical posting behaviour.

[Assyriankey]

Maggie,

Rules grow because people get their ?rocks? off trying to beat them such that you need more and more expansive rules to cover the nit picking that these people go on about.  It becomes an unofficial sport for them to participate in

I am on another board where there was no administrator for a long time and self regulation worked well and it still does when the members are happy to exhibit responsibility for what they post and why they post.  Administrators/mods became necessary to control the marketing trolls and once they began to operate a member or two required them to become their stooges to do their dirty work to get rid of those whom they had a dislike for because some other members dared to disagree with them and their own self righteousness.

The right to "free speech" has associated with it responsibility to communicate in a manner where we do not inflame a situation simply because we can.  We sometimes have to choose to pull in our horns and let the other people be the other people and allow them to have their opinion until they become hoarse or bored with the topic and it is possible to enter into the conversation again.  When we do this we have to let go of the past history and begin posting again with a clean slate.

Unfortunately there are one or two members that believe that only their opinion has any value and anyone who posts differently is a fool.

Maggie, it would seem that it is time for you to permanently move on as your forum will begin to take on a heavy administration role because of all the people that you have upset with your style and attitude who just might begin to inhabit your form site just to cause it to fail.  For them it will become a sport.  It will become ?them against you? and you will be swamped by the increasing work load and burn out will come a knocking at your door like it did here before the new management sign was put up. 

Maggie let go and Let God do what you are trying to do.  You may be surprised what God will do if you are able to show Him that you actually do trust Him just a little to deal with the situation.  At present, it seems that you have the same issues as King David had when Nathan the prophet came to bring correction to him.  Adultery was not the issue that God wanted to deal with in David.  It was something more disturbing which many people even today fall into.

Now if God has called you to run a ?religious discussion forum,? then embrace that calling and let ?God? be ?God? here.  He is not imaginary, even here.

Shalom

Tom

Quoting all of that ^ in the hope that anyone who skimmed over it earlier will read it properly this time round.

Tom, +1, great post.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Some great insights above.

I'd rather post on a forum with 50 well-considered members than a forum with 500 f*ckheads.

I think predictions of IGI's demise are somewhat premature but even if/when that happens it's still been a successful and worthwhile endeavour and one that anyone involved in running the show over the last 6 or so years can feel at least a little proud of.

Maggie obviously feels threatened at the moment but this is quite understandable in the circumstances.  It is pure coincidence that the forum's best attempt so far to define troll posts seems to read like a technical analysis of her typical posting behaviour.

Is there anyone less self-aware on the planet than you? Surely such a thing is not possible. That lack of ability to recognize reality leads you into some very odd places. You have completely missed the point, made up some sort of story that you like and off you go, oblivious to reality. Just exactly what is threatening me? Just exactly what circumstances provoke this feeling of being threatened? Can you come up with something that won't make a dying man laugh? I am skeptical.

I continue to hold that the truth is better than a polite lie. Perhaps if you had been regularly slapped down for your foolish posts and received the ridicule they deserve, you would have learned to try to post something of value. As it is, you can't. I have never seen you contribute a sensible word to any thread. You are simply there hurling the occasional insult.

Funny thing. I had the pleasure of welcoming another IGIer to my forum yesterday. One of the earliest members mentioned recently that he wanted to encourage certain others to join up. I said no-- I was not going to go poaching on someone else's territory. Even so, some of them come. Most of them don't post here any more or do so very rarely. What do you make of that? My little, inactive forum might yet become an interesting place to visit and chat with old friends in. The question is why? Why isn't the mothership welcoming them back? While you can't answer that, your attempt, should you be brave enough to undertake it, will be highly amusing.

[Assyriankey]

Maggie, what's your opinion of Tom's sentiment, that it's time for you to move on?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Who is Tom and why should I care about his opinion? I think this place would do better if it were about something more than the rules and scolding people for their faults. That is why I edited my last message. I value truth but it is most useful to those who can benefit from it. I don't think you can.

[Assyriankey]

Tom's just another valued member of IGI, nothing special beyond that.

You don't need to consider him personally when reading his opinion.

Well, you've already read his post, of course.  What I should say is that you don't need to consider him personally when trying to assess his post for merit.

But you know this.

So, what's your opinion of what he actually wrote?

[Shawna]

I have never seen you contribute a sensible word to any thread. You are simply there hurling the occasional insult.

I've seen you contribute a sensible word to a thread before, Assy.  Rumors of your worthlessness are greatly exaggerated.

So, um, Maggie's gone?  She only comes back now and then to hurl the occasional insult?  She has her own sandbox to pee in now, and she mostly stays there?  Inquiring minds want to know.

[Assyriankey]

I've seen you contribute a sensible word to a thread before, Assy.

I have very fond memories of that post, thank you for remembering :D

Welcome back, x

[Captain Luke]

Yay, Shawna! That should add fuel to the fire. 

[Shawna]

It was a great post, Assy.  I remember it well.

Hi, Luke!  What kind of combustibles are you looking for?  I have some fireworks around here somewhere........      (<-- No fireworks emoticons!.... but this is me and kevin and the kids getting ready to light them.....)

[Captain Luke]

I think that you are quite enough "hot stuff" for this thread. Carry on!

[Shawna]

I consider that flattery, Luke, and as always I reward flattery unashamedly.  +1

OK, back to the discussion at hand.....   how about I just write whatever I think is appropriate, and edit it (or not) when someone fusses?  I can work with that.

Carry on.

[Assyriankey]

how about I just write whatever I think is appropriate, and edit it (or not) when someone fusses?  I can work with that.

That's okay but you are foregoing yet another opportunity to distance yourself from kevin (he said something similar above).

While I advocate never letting a chance go by, it's not as if you will lack for future opportunities so yeah, carry on :D

[Shawna]

That's okay but you are foregoing yet another opportunity to distance yourself from kevin (he said something similar above).

While I advocate never letting a chance go by, it's not as if you will lack for future opportunities so yeah, carry on :D

Yeah, we all know you desperately want me to leave Kevin, move to Oz, and marry me yourself......  (Like you'd survive a month....)   

I haven't read everything in this thread, so apologies for not realizing that I was siding with my husband.  :)

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Tom's just another valued member of IGI, nothing special beyond that.

You don't need to consider him personally when reading his opinion.

Well, you've already read his post, of course.  What I should say is that you don't need to consider him personally when trying to assess his post for merit.

But you know this.

So, what's your opinion of what he actually wrote?

I have no opinion. I haven't read him. I am sure he is a very nice man, although if you approve of him, I probably need to rethink that. But I don't read lengthy posts from people who don't interest me. It is as simple as that. Since I do not know who he is and don't recall ever reading anything by him, I will pass. But I will say that if what you report is accurate, he needs to butt out, as do you.

[Assyriankey]

Thanks Maggie, you can go now.

I read you like a book.

[Shawna]

Tom is a wonderful patient and kind man who has been on this forum for years.  He and I don't always agree, but he is always worth reading, if only because he is so thoughtful.  I am surprised Magpie doesn't recognize his name.  (Yes, Tom.....   I remember your council about not calling her Magpie..... just once for old times' sake....)   

[Assyriankey]

I'm a little torn, even ripped maybe :D

Either Maggie is taking ad hominem to a whole new level (i.e Tom's argument is not worthy because I can't discredit him personally) or she is introducing a brand new logical fallacy called "Argument from non-authority".

[nateswift]

It's the forum that's imploding, right?

[Shawna]

no, just my brain.

[Assyriankey]

Tom is a wonderful patient and kind man who has been on this forum for years.  He and I don't always agree, but he is always worth reading, if only because he is so thoughtful.  I am surprised Magpie doesn't recognize his name.  (Yes, Tom.....   I remember your council about not calling her Magpie..... just once for old times' sake....)   

^ read Tom's posts to Maggie in her corner thread, ignore his taunts to associated members.

[Shawna]

Tom is a wonderful patient and kind man who has been on this forum for years.  He and I don't always agree, but he is always worth reading, if only because he is so thoughtful.  I am surprised Magpie doesn't recognize his name.  (Yes, Tom.....   I remember your council about not calling her Magpie..... just once for old times' sake....)   

^ read Tom's posts to Maggie in her corner thread, ignore his taunts to associated members.

LOL!  He learned that from me.

[nateswift]

It's the forum that's imploding, right?

I keep hearing someone crying, "I'm melting....I'm melting!"

[Shawna]

Um, actually, what you keep hearing is someone saying, "You're melting! You're melting!"  Oh what a world.

[Jay]

Lol. What are the complaints now? Come on peeps, find something better to do in life than b***h about the rules on a forum.

All this change does is prevent some posts from getting caught up in A TOS violation.  That's really it.

[nateswift]

Lol. What are the complaints now? Come on peeps, find something better to do in life than b***h about the rules on a forum.

All this change does is prevent some posts from getting caught up in A TOS violation.  That's really it.

Spoilsport.  It's more fun to b***h because a new rule isn't enforced the way you want it to be in your pet thread and then b***h about a perceived proliferation of rules which probably wouldn't  be enforced the way you  want them to be either.

[rickymooston]

I see what you're trying to do; seems fair enough, hope it works...




Just to be picky though, I'm not too sure about the wording of the new rule.

R6. Hateful Speech.  Hateful speech is speech that advocates harm against a group of people, e.g. "We should kill/jail/bomb all X".

As that stands, it would catch statements such as:

'All child murderers should be executed by the State'.
'All paedophiles should be jailed, not merely treated in hospitals'.
'We should bomb Syria'.

Good points.

[Gnu Ordure]

To Assy:

Is there anyone less self-aware on the planet than you?

Well, let's think... 

There's a member here making complaints about the stringency of the new rules - but she is the most frequent breaker of the old rules.

There's a member here complaining about the lack of respect and politeness which might be expected in a civilized forum - yet she consistently violates the etiquette rules and thus occupies hours of the moderators' time.

There's a member here complaining about the slowness of the mods' response to her own Reports, not appreciating that they're all busy dealing with the avalanche of Reports about her.

And they're all the same person...



I think that beats Assy.

[kevin]

Hi, Luke!  What kind of combustibles are you looking for?  I have some fireworks around here somewhere........      (<-- No fireworks emoticons!.... but this is me and kevin and the kids getting ready to light them.....)

as i recall, you lectured me on fire safety the day before yesterday for igniting all those rolls of starbuck's capgun ammunition on the stove burners to see what would happen.

[kevin]

.

[Tom]

Tom's just another valued member of IGI, nothing special beyond that.

You don't need to consider him personally when reading his opinion.

Well, you've already read his post, of course.  What I should say is that you don't need to consider him personally when trying to assess his post for merit.

But you know this.

So, what's your opinion of what he actually wrote?

I have no opinion. I haven't read him. I am sure he is a very nice man, although if you approve of him, I probably need to rethink that. But I don't read lengthy posts from people who don't interest me. It is as simple as that. Since I do not know who he is and don't recall ever reading anything by him, I will pass. But I will say that if what you report is accurate, he needs to butt out, as do you.

Maggie, I joined IGI on 11th March 2010 at the invitation of a friend of mine, Johnny Cope, who sadly is no longer with us.  I post about once every two days on average so the likelihood is that you do know who I am even though you are denying it at the moment.

We have interacted before and you probably have turned on the "ignore Tom button" but then the question would be, ?Why you did that??  Is it because I was too close to the "truth" for you in what I said and you simply refused to consider what I had openly written to you? 

Now Shawna, I had forgotten that I had even communicated that suggestion to you.  I am glad that you appreciated my counsel at that time and that it was worth acting on.

One of the issues that I have on this site is that the American members do not have a very active funny bone which can be tickled occasionally and as such they miss the dry wit along with the considered thoughts that other cultures may bring. 

Tradition has become the norm and when that tradition is nudged in a direction that becomes uncomfortable, the cries of fear and rage rises up and PMs and reports are generated in an effort to stop the very slight change in course through an avalanche of unnecessary words against the one who dared to be different to explore a new world. 

It seems that once the "new World" was discovered that there was no need to continue looking for an expansion of that ?new world? for all to be able to inhabit.  So tall hats with cut outs for the eyes to see through are regularly donned and torches and wood carried to another ?kangaroo court? where the offender is ceremonially dealt with/cooked to satisfy the blood thirsty onlookers.  The Roman Blood Arena is still very much alive.

Perhaps this forum is dying from the established traditions that you Maggie and others like you {on both sides of a particular proposition}. may have forced onto it in your collective efforts of self preservation.

In an ideal world, ?rules? are not necessary when we are able to regulate our own responses but sadly Maggie, neither you nor I are a Saint and we do fall down in this area and we will cop ?abuse?/contrary views to what we post and in particular to the character that we put out there on display on this forum.  Some people do get us.  Others may be too dumb to understand the importance?s of what is being said. 

It seems to me that you have a knack of put people offside from the opening letter of your considered posts/responses.

Perhaps if you understood why this is so, it might help you bring correction into your life.

It is an exercise that I try and do regularly but not always successfully but if at first you do not succeed it is best to try and try again until you do.

As suggested above, it is possible. 

I had better stop before there are too many words in an arranged complexity that is beyond you as you have stated above.

Shalom

May you be successful in your objectives on your own site?

Tom

[Shawna]

as i recall, you lectured me on fire safety the day before yesterday for igniting all those rolls of starbuck's capgun ammunition on the stove burners to see what would happen.

As I recall, the fire safety lecture was justified.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Well, there is no one online so I might as well have some fun with Gnu. What? You didn't know that was possible? Oh my yes. When his posts are at their oleaginous best, he is hilarious. Let's see:

There's a member here making complaints about the stringency of the new rules - but she is the most frequent breaker of the old rules.

Stringency and frequency are not the same thing. Overlooking the semantic blunder, we press on to the factual blunder. I have not complained about the stringency of the new rules. I have complained about the growing number of them.

And then she complains about the slowness of the mods' response to her own Reports, not appreciating that they're all busy dealing with the avalanche of Reports about her.

  Just when I think there is not a shred of humor to be wrung out of you! Let's overlook the fact that I haven't complained about the slowness of the mods' response to anything in this thread so this is off-topic.

Who took it upon himself to review the last 30 days of my posts not too long ago, in order to find etiquette violations to report? Who would have gone back 60, 90, 120 days, if only they were not past the statute of limitations? I start to guffaw helplessly when I think of you scrutinizing my posts for violations and having to study my opinions on a variety of subjects. I can only imagine how much you must have learned despite yourself! 

I don't know if the mods appreciated your efforts but I sure did. They don't have enough to do without your help, clearly. The busier you keep them, the less time they will have for interfering with the forum. That is a definite service for which you are to be commended.

This story will always tell your tale wherever you go. 

[Assyriankey]

...  I have complained about the growing number of them.

"... their growing number."

Darling, you really need a break.

[Jay]

[Shawna]

I thought she was gone.  Didn't she say she was gone?

[Inertialmass]

I thought she was gone...

+0/-1 karm for this message

Nope.

[Jezzebelle]

^ exactly.  And now we all know why she edited her message to Assy above, even though she originally posted in said message that she would not be editing.... She can't stand to go back the corner and lose her smiting ability again.   

[Emily]

It seems that this thread has become her main priority for this forum. It seems that she just pops in to see what's going on in this thread and then leaves, making an occasional comment, perhaps an occasional smite... Yeah, she has every right to do so since she is a member of this forum but when a single thread such as this becomes one's sole purpose for logging onto a forum it's probably time to move on with the forum, at least for a week or two in order to let things simmer down.

The purpose of this thread seems to have been lost. Jay said it nicely here:

Lol. What are the complaints now? Come on peeps, find something better to do in life than b***h about the rules on a forum.

All this change does is prevent some posts from getting caught up in A TOS violation.  That's really it.

But of course Maggie is not the type of person to just ignore what is being said about her. I guess that's honorable in a way, but after a while it turns into a flame war, or just a war of disagreement with how the forum is being run. I'm not blaming the members such as Jezz, Assy, Shawna, Gnu for fueling the flame. I am thinking of one member in particular but that member's name shall not be spoken.

Maggie, good luck with your forum. You'll see that as your forum grows you're going to be adding to the rules, changing some current rules, etc, As said, your forum is still young and as it grows you'll quickly find out that it's time to do something about your current rules so that the forum is just how you decided it would function at it's inception.

For example: What's your stance on sock puppetry? I see nothing in the rules about a single user having multiple accounts but on almost every forum I've been a member of that has not been allowed. So, there's an example: revamp your rules to making it against forum policy for a single user to have multiple accounts registered. What about using proxy servers? What about spamming? Links to other websites which may be harmful? NSFW content? With only four rules for a forum (and as I see no etiquette guide) eventually all hell will brake loose to that point where it'll seem like it turned into something like 4 chan. So what gets done: more rules get added to address situations that arise that you didn't think of when you first formulated the current rules, or TOS.

So as it stands with your forum I can join using two accounts, from a proxy server, spam (create multiple threads with the same content), and post a picture of some chick giving a blow job to a horse. Is all that allowed within your current rules of your forum? I see nothing against it in the rules. Don't take this the wrong way Maggie but it seems that when it comes to running a forum you're a n00b.

And what happens if you do start banning users who have multiple accounts logging on from a proxy posting spam and GIF images of a girl giving a horse a blow job, as per your current set of rules? Ban the user? Allow it? Delete the thread? But there is nothing in your rules that says it's not allowed. So, if I, as a user, get banned for posting such content I change my IP and make a new account protesting the admin's decision to ban me because there was no rule against my posts in the first place to get me banned.

So to try to make everyone happy what happens? You change the rules. It's an obvious solution to an obvious problem. A problem was found in the TOS by the staff of this forum and the staff of this forum fixed it.

This thread seems to be your only interest on this forum since you haven't posted in any other thread recently (last I checked your most recent posts it was 17 comments, all in this thread). Perhaps you are viewing other thread and just wish not to post in them. IDK since you seem to have had your account hidden as being online so I don't know if you are viewing other threads and just don't want to post in those threads.

What is your interest with this forum now, anyways? What do you wish to accomplish here? Do you wish to just post in this thread alone? All the people who have posted in this thread have posted in other threads but you haven't. You just keep on coming back to this one whenever you are online. If that's the case and your attitude with the IGI forum it's probably better to just step away from the forum for a bit.

Let things simmer down. Relax.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

...  I have complained about the growing number of them.

"... their growing number."

Darling, you really need a break.

You really need lessons in the English language and how to write it euphonically.

Does anyone want to explain his blunder to him or shall I?

[Emily]

...  I have complained about the growing number of them.

"... their growing number."

Darling, you really need a break.

You really need lessons in the English language and its usage.

Does anyone want to explain his blunder to him or shall I?

Does his "blunder" negate what his comment says?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Yes. Now butt out. All an increase in the number of Pit Yorkies snapping idiocies at me is going to do is cause me to dig my heels in. For as long as I can bother.

[Emily]

Yes. Now butt out. All an increase in the number of Pit Yorkies snapping idiocies at me is going to do is cause me to dig my heels in. For as long as I can bother.

If you disagree with a member's comment because he "needs a lesson in the English language and its usage" then your standards are way to high as to what constitutes a meaningful response.

[nateswift]

"Pit yorkies"   Whatever else, ya gotta give Maggie credit for imagery.

[Dr H]

Can't help but notice that my "negative karma" has doubled since Maggie came back.

Coincidence?   

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

There's really no need to compare Maggie's forum to ours; she's going for a tone that's completely different.  Also, it's still in the early stages of growth, so it's hard to tell exactly how it'll turn out once it gets going.

IMO STK is a welcome addition, as our sister forums now range from pro-theist to pro-atheist.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Yes. Now butt out. All an increase in the number of Pit Yorkies snapping idiocies at me is going to do is cause me to dig my heels in. For as long as I can bother.

If you disagree with a member's comment because he "needs a lesson in the English language and its usage" then your standards are way to high as to what constitutes a meaningful response.

Emily, I am going to say this as gently as I can. You are not helping; you are just prolonging a completely unnecessary b***hfest. The entire discussion was over on page one and would have ended there if the usual trouble makers hadn't decided to start a fight.

As for you, you must know that giving unwanted and unneeded advice is fraught with peril at the best of times. But you didn't let that stop you. You have breathed fresh life into a thread that should have died days ago. Assy's idiot comments beg to be ridiculed and I am glad to be the one to oblige. But he cannot be taken seriously and so is not the real problem.  Alecto and Tisiphone and their b***hy posts are. And you decided you just had to play Megaera to complete this unpleasant trinity!  Now, I suggest that you let your two "sisters" continue to poison the thread. It has to die either naturally or unnaturally. They have decided that creating more trouble and more vitriol is more fun and certainly more important than letting go.

Don't give them the pleasure of a convert.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Can't help but notice that my "negative karma" has doubled since Maggie came back.

Coincidence?   

No. You butted in where you had no business butting in. I smite two things. Malice and stupidity. Guess where you failed.

[Dr H]

Can't help but notice that my "negative karma" has doubled since Maggie came back.

Coincidence?   

No. You butted in where you had no business butting in. I smite two things. Malice and stupidity. Guess where you failed.

The world is my business.  Sorry if that bothers you. 

[Gnu Ordure]

^ exactly.  And now we all know why she edited her message to Assy above, even though she originally posted in said message that she would not be editing.... She can't stand to go back the corner and lose her smiting ability again.   

Ah yes, the smiting...

Maggie, did you see my post at the end of your Corner thread? I reproduce it here in case not:

An observation.

Over the past twelve months, my received applaud/smite ratio has been about 4:1. For every 80 applauds, I got 20 smites.

I noticed back in early September that the frequency of the smites I was receiving fell off dramatically. So I kept an eye on the numbers, and of my next 100 hits, 97 were applauds and 3 were smites, a ratio of 32:1.



What might have happened in early September, or late August, or even mid-August, which might explain this sudden change?




No, I'm drawing a blank.

Any ideas, anyone?

And now my smites are suddenly going up, 6 in the last few days...

Which all goes to show that your constant complaints that you're the victim of a gang of 'silly smiters' is simply a projection, and another example of your lack of self-awareness. The only silly smiter on this forum is you.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

When, oh when are you going to stop whining about being smited? Don't earn the smite and you won't get one.

Time to drag this out again--

The Mad Smiter

I smite and I smite; as is my good right.
I smite all the day, I smite through the night.
Whether it's right or even if wrong,
I smite and I smite all the day long.
I smite right and left, I smite up and down, I smite
if you laugh and I smite, if you frown.
I smite both the dull, as well as the bright
Tis nobler to smite than to pick a big fight.
Some say it is wrong to take such delight,
in the click of the button that admin'sters the smite.
Piffle, say I, I stand on my rights
to cast judgment on those who whine about smites!

[Assyriankey]

...  I have complained about the growing number of them.

"... their growing number."

Darling, you really need a break.

You really need lessons in the English language and how to write it euphonically.

Does anyone want to explain his blunder to him or shall I?

Definition of EUPHONY
1
:  pleasing or sweet sound; especially :  the acoustic effect produced by words so formed or combined as to please the ear
2
:  a harmonious succession of words having a pleasing sound

Maggie, do you think other members read your posts out loud?  You trying to denigrate my command of the English language is hilarious.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

     Somebody please help this poor soul out. He almost got it with the "read aloud" comment but alas ...

[Assyriankey]

Maggie, what's your opinion of what Tom said above, about you leaving IGI?

No need for you to know who Tom is, just read his words, aloud if you must, and give me your opinion.

Are you really striving to be like Jesus?

d**k and Harry want to know.

[Gnu Ordure]

When, oh when are you going to stop whining about being smited?

When, oh when are you going to wake up and smell the roses?

[Airyaman]

Who knew that relaxing rules and announcing such would turn into a 4 page discussion? The oddest things we talk about.

Um...we are still talking about the rules, aren't we?

[kevin]

it's the principal of the matter, you dimwit

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Um, no. The 2nd tier is definitely having trouble finding anything else to do. For once we are in agreement. There isn't a single currently active thread  that is worth the trouble of clicking on. When the pickin's are this slim, even a desiccated donkey and a geriatric cow seem tasty.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Err, what? What principal? Principle? Is it the principal who is your pal all the way through school? Or the principle that pulls you back from the ethical abyss?

[Assyriankey]

Who knew that relaxing rules and announcing such would turn into a 4 page discussion? The oddest things we talk about.

It's like everyone slowing down to look at a bad car crash.  We all want to look the other way but Maggie is just too damn attractive.

[nateswift]

Besides, where ELSE are we gonna find "pit yorkies?"

[Shawna]

Alecto and Tisiphone and their b***hy posts are. And you decided you just had to play Megaera to complete this unpleasant trinity!

  Oooh, ooooh!  Can I be Alecto?!

[FGOH]

When, oh when are you going to stop whining about being smited?

When, oh when are you going to wake up and smell the roses?

Ain't no roses to smell in this thread. Shame, coz there's plenty of fertilizer.

[Dr H]

Who knew that relaxing rules and announcing such would turn into a 4 page discussion? The oddest things we talk about.

Um...we are still talking about the rules, aren't we?

Wait . . . there are rules here??

[Dr H]

When, oh when are you going to stop whining about being smited? Don't earn the smite and you won't get one.

Time to drag this out again--

The Mad Smiter

I smite and I smite; as is my good right.
I smite all the day, I smite through the night.
Whether it's right or even if wrong,
I smite and I smite all the day long.
I smite right and left, I smite up and down, I smite
if you laugh and I smite, if you frown.
I smite both the dull, as well as the bright
Tis nobler to smite than to pick a big fight.
Some say it is wrong to take such delight,
in the click of the button that admin'sters the smite.
Piffle, say I, I stand on my rights
to cast judgment on those who whine about smites!

I haven't much used my karma powers, because I mostly find such things silly.  But I did give you a +1 on that, if only because it instgated several smites. 

Have you set it to music?

[Mr. Blackwell]

This thread isn't about Maggie or anyone else. It is an announcement of changes in the rules. She and many others have stated their opinion. Any further discussion about member conduct, prior or current, is tangential and off topic.

This thread has run it's course.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Who knew that relaxing rules and announcing such would turn into a 4 page discussion? The oddest things we talk about.

Um...we are still talking about the rules, aren't we?

Yes, we can't stop.  We WON'T stop.

[Shawna]

This thread isn't about Maggie or anyone else. It is an announcement of changes in the rules. She and many others have stated their opinion. Any further discussion about member conduct, prior or current, is tangential and off topic.

This thread has run it's course.

Oh, don't be a poopyhead.  Everyone knows that thread doesn't have legs.

[Assyriankey]

This thread isn't about Maggie or anyone else. It is an announcement of changes in the rules. She and many others have stated their opinion. Any further discussion about member conduct, prior or current, is tangential and off topic.

This thread has run it's course.

Don't be so anal.

This forum has always tried to allow for as much independent thought and consideration as possible - it is a core consideration underpinning every single rule and etiquette here.

[Dr H]

This thread has run it's course.

So, um... how's the weather there? 

[Gnu Ordure]

I thought I'd re-post a recent judgment on this rule. I'm obviously not clear how it works.


A member said this:

The people in Africa are too damn lazy to grow a garden and work to grow food.

I reported that as an E1c (Slurs: Labels used to describe group of people that are generally regarded as hateful and/or offensive), because my understanding is that applying the label 'lazy' to Africans is offensive.

I'm not alone, Teaspoon said the same thing:

-1 Steveox for a post I found very offensive and disturbing.

When I asked why it was found not guilty, Mod 10 replied:

The racial slurs thing is supposed to cover the "n" word and suchlike, rather than low level racist comments.

Prejudiced opinions will not be moderated provided they follow the Rules/Etiquette.  Instead, we will leave them open to public discussion and critique.

Just to be clear, I'm not appealing the decision. Just curious as to what people think...

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Which group of people does "lazy" specifically describe?

If I walked into a crowd and shouted, "I'm sick and tired of all those lazies," roughly what percent of the crowd would understand that I am using a hateful/offensive term towards people in Africa?

[Captain Luke]

Just to be clear, Gnu: Captain Luke replied, not Mod 10.

Mod 10 is communicating the staff consensus. Captain Luke might spout any old s**t.

[kevin]

"african" is not a race, not an ethnic group, and not a nationality.

[billet-doux]

"african" is not a race, not an ethnic group, and not a nationality.

Tis the poor man's Carioca ... the Continental

[Gnu Ordure]

"african" is not a race, not an ethnic group, and not a nationality.

'African' refers to an identifiable group of races, ethnicities and nationalities. But I'm not sure that that makes any difference, Kevin. Even if the original remark had been "Afro-Americans are too damn lazy to grow a garden and work to grow food", thus referring to a sub-group of Africans, it would still have been permitted under the new rules - whereas the same sentence with 'Afro-Americans' replaced by the n-word would be a violation.

Is that correct, Mods?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Yes, the n word is a slur.

[Gnu Ordure]

And so are 'dirty Jew', 'stupid Pole', 'Russian pig'... and 'lazy Black'.

The Wiki article on Pejorative (my bolding) :

A pejorative (also term of abuse or derogatory term) is a word or grammatical form of expression that expresses contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and/or disrespect. A term can be regarded as pejorative in some social or cultural groups but not in others, e.g., <snip>. Sometimes, a term may begin as a pejorative and eventually be adopted in a non-pejorative sense in some or all contexts, e.g., <snip>

Name slurs can also involve an insulting or disparaging innuendo, rather than being a direct derogatory remark. In some cases, a person's name can be redefined with an unpleasant or insulting meaning, or applied to a group of people considered by the majority to be inferior or lower in social class, as a group label with a disparaging meaning. Also, an ethnic slur or racial slur can be used as a pejorative to imply people of those groups are inferior or deficient.

Click on the link to the Ethnic Slur article (more bolding):

The following is a list of ethnic slurs (ethnophaulisms) that are, or have been, used as insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnicity or to refer to them in a derogatory (critical or disrespectful), pejorative (disapproving or contemptuous), or insulting manner in the English-speaking world. For the purposes of this list, an ethnic slur is a term designed to insult others on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality. Each term is listed followed by its country or region of usage, a definition, and a reference to that term.

Ethnic slurs may also be produced by combining a general-purpose insult with the name of ethnicity, such as "dirty Jew", "Russian pig", etc. Other common insulting modifiers include "dog", "filthy", etc. Such terms are not included in this list.

I conclude from that that the statement, Afro-Americans are too damn lazy to grow a garden and work to grow food, is a racial/ethnic slur, which many if not most Afro-Americans would find offensive.

[kevin]

just look at these n****rs:

[kevin]

just look at these bark-eating nordic yabos:

[kevin]

just look at these:

[kevin]

these ^^^ are just talking points.

i'm not trying to make work for anybody.

[Tom]

Kevin I thought that you had posted a picture of a "mole" on the right but on closer examination I discerned that it was really an infestation of spittle on my screen.

[nateswift]

Once again Steveox skirts around the rules while displaying his vicious ignorance.  I say it's time to either put him back on moderation or boot him entirely.

[Pastafarian]

Interesting.

As an "African" I was pissed by the remark. But not because I felt it was directed at me. I was pissed at the ignorance.

In South Africa a white person says "I'm ALSO  an African". It feels strange...rebellious...like I'm claiming something I should, but don't have a right to.
In South Africa, black people are African. Everybody else is not. Unless you ask a proud white person.

The ruling doesn't bother me though. It allowed me to share some of the experience of one whitey African and the struggles our country is going through.

"...I feel offended by that. Well so f**king what?"
Steven Fry.

EXITED: clarity of last paragraph.

[Assyriankey]

The new rule and etiquette is, once again, a compromise between allowing for freedom of expression while trying to minimise insult and offense.

Compared to SteveOx's previous racial hating statements, his most recent example is way tame.

Yep, it still gets up our noses but I don't see any nosebleeds.

[Pastafarian]

+1 for making the forum awesome, and the time it takes behind the scenes to keep it that way.

[Kiahanie]

Yup, and another +1 for emphasis.

[kevin]

you think we have problems.

http://www.friatider.se/shocking-photos-shows-swedish-minister-of-culture-celebrating-with-niger-cake

[Dr H]

I love it:  somebody gave me a -1 for giving Maggie a +1.   

So much for "karma".

ROTFLMAO.   

[Pastafarian]

LOL. If I gave a s**t (and could see/give Karma on Tapatalk) I'd smite you for +1ing Opinionated.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Have you posted anything since you returned that does not contain a cheap shot at me? I have responded to none of them nor have I smited you, though you richly deserve it. Well, I am in a very bad mood and I am very tired of you. Your bad luck. I guess now we will have to listen to you squeal like a little girl about being smited.

-1 and as many more as I can remember to dish out every time I see that you have posted.

[Shawna]

Don't you have a forum to go run, Mags?