Rules and Moderator information

[Cultellus]

Good morning Res-Man!

That's way too much mustard on that dog - like 5 gallons too much!

That's a very reasonable and palatable amount of mustard on that dog - like the perfect amount.

Yeah, I think the Lem harassment needs to stop too (I also hope it does stop.) It's inappropriate and it crosses the line (by a lot in my opinion)

One dog - Really good. The other dog, yucky. (That's 500 and that get's you in the MLB Hall Of Fame - So that's pretty good)

Thanks, Ceebs. I'll take .500 any day. The terrorist analogy was (intentionally) over the top, as sometimes principles are easiest to see in extreme cases. The reason we often say "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is to avoid communicating that we will not reward bad conduct, even by simply agreeing to negotiate, because it encourages more harmful conduct. Mike's approach to the board, from the beginning, has been to engage in what he knows is disruptive and unacceptable behavior, offering to stop only if someone will "negotiate" with him. It's like hostage taking, with the hostage in this case being the discussion forum. I don't use the analogy to claim that Mike is as evil as a hostage taking terrorist. I use it to illustrate the tactic and to explain why his offer to "negotiate" doesn't give him the moral high ground he seems to be claiming.

But I care more about the second hot dog than the first, so I'm happy you find it tasty. And I appreciate the feedback.

Now we are talking. You are speaking my language.

You acknowledge Atlanticmike's terms. But, do you acknowledge your terms? Do you acknowledge the cabal's terms? Do you acknowledge the terms that are being offered to Atlanticmike or anyone else? It seems to me that participating on this board means accepting the generalized insults of anyone that disagrees with the so-called left ideology. I know that Atlanticmike accepted those terms and responded accordingly. The terms are - this board insults non-believers and non-members of a specific ideology, if you are not compliant we will insult you and we will use generalizations to insult many more people like you. If Atlanticmike accepts those terms, and responds as a disrupter (which he did) is he not a taker of your/board conditions?

Further, the terms of engagement here are - be entertained. If Atlanticmike is entertained by his strategy, he is accepting the terms. There is not an exclusion rule for certain types of behavior.

While you make a good point about the disruption you do not make a point that disruption is either not allowed or against the rules.

I think we have resolved the issue at hand. There is no need for rule modifications or moderator interference. Carry on. If you do not like the response you get on the board, solicit different responses the best way you know how.

[Res Ipsa]

Mike, you’ve told us several times that you hate politics. But you also see everything here through the lens of politics, leading you to draw conclusions that are spectacularly wrong.

First, I’m going to deal with stuff I didn’t say. I didn’t say anything to you about “pink vagina hat.” To the extent I’ve discussed that phrase in this thread, I’ve communicated the view of the mod team that the phrase as used in reported posts is not R rated and can stay in Paradise. That’s not being a “good progressive.” That’s applying the rules, as written, as evenhanded and as dispassionately as the three of us can. As a moderator, I don’t have the luxury of having a team or a tribe. That’s not my job.

I also asked Jersey Girl questions about a proposal she was making so that I could understand exactly what she wanted to happen and figure out what role, if any, I as a moderator would have in that process. And I was as civil and polite with her as I have been with you when I’ve talked with you in the red (shorthand for in my official capacity as a moderator.

With respect to “hitting back,” I’ve told you what your remedy is here, now that we have a functioning mod team again: if you see something that breaks the rules, click on the report button. You don’t get to use someone else’s bad behavior as an excuse for your own bad behavior. And, in your case, you respond to bad behavior with over the top bad behavior, which makes you the worse offender every time. You’ve been bragging about how you’ve stopped folks here from mistreating certain individuals, but you haven’t modified your behavior at all. So, were you really a white knight defending the honor of conservatives, or was that just a flimsy excuse for bad behavior?

You’re not the only poster who has contacted me and invited me to PM them if I see a problem with their posts. That’s my preferred way of handling moderation issues. And while I give you full credit for stopping certain behaviors when asked, I give you zero credit for using that fact as license to ignore the rules until you get a specific request from a mod to stop.

And, last, you haven’t extended your hand in friendship here. Not even close. Friendship isn’t empty words — it’s action. Your behavior here has more closely resembles that of a terrorist who bombs a hospital and then smiles and says “let’s negotiate.” Or a mobster running a protection racket.

With all that underbrush cleared away, here’s what I did talk about: your harassment of Lem. Do you disagree that what you’ve been doing is harassing her? That’s what you’ve done would legally constitute sexual harassment if done in the workplace? That you’d take a swing at a guy who treated your daughters this way? Can you explain to me in which universe that conduct is excusable?

That’s what I’m talking about when I say I hope you stop. Only Shades can ban words. Over the course of decades, he’s banned two or three. Everybody gets to have their say, but, convincing a person who places a high value on free speech to ban words or phrases has their work cut out for them. The references to LDS Faqs are refer to a special case that has occurred only once since the board was created. Again, applying rules created to handle a specific case to a situation that is not pretty much identical is always a hard sell. But, again, people here get to propose things to Shades and what happens is up to him. There’s a process and the issues will get handled.

But the harassment needs to stop, and that is what I hope you’ll do.

Great closing argument counselor! But this isn't the work place and what I said isn't sexist. You gotta remember you've already told me you're a hard left PROGRESSIVE which means you already view the world through a lens that finds fault with just about everything. Progressives can and will paint any, and I mean any situation as homophobic, transphobic, sexist or racist. You guys have weaponized those words. That's all you're doing counselor! All ya gotta do is start reading older post, post before I got here to realize this PROGRESSIVE victimhood bullxxxt was here way before I came along.

Why are you conveniently forgetting to mention that 90% of the conversations on this forum would be frowned upon in the work place? Your lawyer talk won't work on me sir! Bring it!

Could you call someone a mushroom dick in the work place? How bout a Nazi? How bout telling someone their frontal lobe is under developed? Would any of those fly in the work place? How bout posting pictures of people who are probably most definitely part of the LGBT community just to evoke a certain response among conservatives, because that's what Doc Cam does, I guess you don't see that as homophobic? How bout posting pictures of interracial couples for the soul purpose of evoking a response, is that not racist? You see! You're cherry picking like every good lawyer has been trained to do. You're not going to blow smoke up my ass counselor.

Mike, all you're doing here is what you accuse the rest of us is doing. It's pure projection. You're judging me based on a bigoted cartoon you've created of what it is to be a progressive, rather than reacting to what I say. It's you, not me, who can't keep himself from politicizing everything he looks at.

You've got access to thousands of my posts. Go on. Show me posting in the way you accuse me of behaving. You won't be able to because your imagined cartoon of me is close to delusional.

Your basic problem is the same as its been since you first got here. You assign the responsibility for your own bad behavior to others. You can't talk about your own behavior without putting responsibility on someone else. You can't justify it because you know it's not excusable, so you hide behind someone else. Didn't you ever absorb the basic lessons that two wrongs don't make a right? You don't get to deflect responsibility for your own behavior by pointing at someone else and saying "but look what he did." If you can't justify your own behavior without reference to something someone else did somewhere and sometime, you're not taking responsibility for your own conduct. It's that simple.

And of course your harassment of Lem is sexist. You troll Lem in particular, and others you've identified as women, with sexist comments specifically because you're hoping to get a reaction from a woman. It's hard to get more sexist than that.

All those past posts you keep hiding behind? The key word is "past." What you are doing is not a "past" problem. It is a "present" problem that I shouldn't have to spend five minutes on. I only have to because you've decided your personal grievances against PROGRESSIVES justifies you in crapping all over this forum until someone makes you stop, in which case you'll play the same whiny victim card that you accuse others of playing.

But I get it. I made a wish. It wasn't granted. And, while I'm disappointed, it's your decision. It's not the first time my wishes haven't come true and it won't be the last. I'll step back into red mode on this issue and see where it goes.

[canpakes]

If you do not like the response you get on the board, solicit different responses the best way you know how.

Cool idea. But it assumes that the nature or content of your post will dictate how another person responds to you. But, it can’t. Nor does it dictate how often, or with what intensity, others respond.

This point has been proven to you, repeatedly. And yet, you keep trying to shift the blame from a given poster and their action/reaction - their response - to someone else, on the basis of, “they made me do it”.

[ceeboo]

Thanks, Ceebs. I'll take .500 any day.

You're welcome, friend.

The terrorist analogy was (intentionally) over the top, as sometimes principles are easiest to see in extreme cases.

While I understand, I think these types of analogies (especially when directed at a human being posting on a message board) are more than simply over the top. I think they have real consequences and greatly impact the conversation. Truth be told, I would have expected that kind of thing by some folks here but I was surprised to see you author it. You are better than that - way better in my opinion.

But I care more about the second hot dog than the first, so I'm happy you find it tasty.

Yeah - I care more about the second hot dog too.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Ceebs. I'll take .500 any day. The terrorist analogy was (intentionally) over the top, as sometimes principles are easiest to see in extreme cases. The reason we often say "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is to avoid communicating that we will not reward bad conduct, even by simply agreeing to negotiate, because it encourages more harmful conduct. Mike's approach to the board, from the beginning, has been to engage in what he knows is disruptive and unacceptable behavior, offering to stop only if someone will "negotiate" with him. It's like hostage taking, with the hostage in this case being the discussion forum. I don't use the analogy to claim that Mike is as evil as a hostage taking terrorist. I use it to illustrate the tactic and to explain why his offer to "negotiate" doesn't give him the moral high ground he seems to be claiming.

But I care more about the second hot dog than the first, so I'm happy you find it tasty. And I appreciate the feedback.

Now we are talking. You are speaking my language.

You acknowledge Atlanticmike's terms. But, do you acknowledge your terms? Do you acknowledge the cabal's terms? Do you acknowledge the terms that are being offered to Atlanticmike or anyone else? It seems to me that participating on this board means accepting the generalized insults of anyone that disagrees with the so-called left ideology. I know that Atlanticmike accepted those terms and responded accordingly. The terms are - this board insults non-believers and non-members of a specific ideology, if you are not compliant we will insult you and we will use generalizations to insult many more people like you. If Atlanticmike accepts those terms, and responds as a disrupter (which he did) is he not a taker of your/board conditions?

Further, the terms of engagement here are - be entertained. If Atlanticmike is entertained by his strategy, he is accepting the terms. There is not an exclusion rule for certain types of behavior.

While you make a good point about the disruption you do not make a point that disruption is either not allowed or against the rules.

I think we have resolved the issue at hand. There is no need for rule modifications or moderator interference. Carry on. If you do not like the response you get on the board, solicit different responses the best way you know how.

OK. Speaking the same language is progress.

I'm not sure I understand how you are using "terms." I would label my description of Mike's behavior as a "tactic" or "gambit."

I strongly disagree with your description of the forum as it currently stands. The board's "terms" as it were, are set by Shades and are found in his published rules. Both generalized and specific insults and personal attacks are permitted, as long as they occur in the specified area of the forum. The board's "terms" do not favor one ideology over another. I think you are conflating the advantages of numerical majorities with the "terms" of the board. Currently, faithful Mormons and Trump supporters are numerical minorities and, as in all free speech forums, that puts them at a comparative disadvantage in terms of volume of insults they can dish out.

Although the board offers entertainment, it is not a "term" of the board. No one is required to be entertained. Neither does entertainment override the actual "terms," which are stated in the rules.

There is a rule that applies to disruption. It is Universal Rule 8:

Do not make threats or take actions to disrupt the smooth operation of this message board, either through hacking, spamming, frivolous complaints, lawsuits against the board or its moderators, or any other means. Please do not do this via e-mail or private message, either.

As you can see, "disrupt" is right there in the rule.

I can't find a reasonable construction of the term "resolved" that applies here. Several issues have been placed on the table. Most of these are requests to Shades. They will be "resolved" only when he resolves them. And the mod team may have some issues that it still needs to resolve. So far, all we've done is discuss.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Ceebs. I'll take .500 any day.

You're welcome, friend.

The terrorist analogy was (intentionally) over the top, as sometimes principles are easiest to see in extreme cases.

While I understand, I think these types of analogies (especially when directed at a human being posting on a message board) are more than simply over the top. I think they have real consequences and greatly impact the conversation. Truth be told, I would have expected that kind of thing by some folks here but I was surprised to see you author it. You are better than that - way better in my opinion.

But I care more about the second hot dog than the first, so I'm happy you find it tasty.

Yeah - I care more about the second hot dog too.

Occupational hazard, I suppose. I operate in a world in which extreme examples can be used to clarify and are not understood as personally insulting.

[Jersey Girl]

This is not a workplace.

This isn't a movie theater either and yet, that's what our forum descriptions are based on.

[Jersey Girl]

Yeah - I care more about the second hot dog too.

Ceebs what is up with the food refs? Do we need to talk?

[ceeboo]

Occupational hazard, I suppose. I operate in a world in which extreme examples can be used to clarify and are not understood as personally insulting.

No worries - I just offered my opinion to you because it was you - meaning, I had/have great confidence that you would allow for it and consider it.

[ceeboo]

Yeah - I care more about the second hot dog too.

Ceebs what is up with the food refs? Do we need to talk?

Ha!

I have been a really bad boy!