Shades, how long are you going to punish Ludwig?

[_ludwigm]

I see no signs that he had any particular reason to have gone after you

Ehm...

except

That is. I am the exception.

And Shades is not obliged to do ---

--- anything.

And Shades will not lift the ban. Never. This is - became - a prestige thing.
It's no good wasting words on it.

[_Chap]

I see no signs that he had any particular reason to have gone after you

Ehm...

except

That is. I am the exception.

And Shades is not obliged to do ---

--- anything.

And Shades will not lift the ban. Never. This is - became - a prestige thing.
It's no good wasting words on it.

You don't think this came about because of how you chose to act, despite Shades' efforts to get you to act otherwise? OK.

[_ludwigm]

You don't think this came about because of how you chose to act, despite Shades' efforts to get you to act otherwise? OK.

A categorical imperative denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... l_Kant.jpg

[_Blixa]

And Shades will not lift the ban. Never. This is - became - a prestige thing.
It's no good wasting words on it.

You don't think this came about because of how you chose to act, despite Shades' efforts to get you to act otherwise? OK.

I agree with ludwig, Chap. I don't have time to draw out every part of my thinking on this, but I am basing this on the asymmetrical distribution of "punishment" over the history of the board as well as the bizarre attitude toward images in general displayed by the board's "conductor." This has curtailed my own participation here, in fact. I'm really only here for the friendships I've made and more and more I'm finding ways to communicate freely with my friends in other virtual spaces.

[_Eric]

With all due respect, Dr. Shades, I think that the moderator who deletes posts and content is a much bigger issue to be dealt with than Ludwig's image privileges. I've observed, over and over again after the Will Schryver c-word fiasco, this moderator deleting posts without even an attempt to be a clone of you and not, at the very least, use red font when deleting entire posts.

This person either does not care and views him/herself as above your rules and a lone maverick, or does not know how to censor posts as you have instructed (I vote for the former).

Either way, the integrity of this message board (and, possibly, the safety of the identities of the posters who participate) is in serious jeopardy as long as you allow this person moderator access to Mormon Discussions. Ludwig's images, in my opinion, do not pose such a threat.

[_MCB]

Perhaps if Ludwig were to agree to keep those pictures confined to the telestial forum, you could restore his privileges. Telestial is the NSFW forum, anyway. With two new mods, that should not be a problem. Write it into the rules, one month no images for every infraction. It should apply to everyone. I mean, pictures of real art when the focus is on penises don't belong in celestial or terrestrial, either.

IMHO

[_Quasimodo]

No employer of anyone reading his posts could be offended.

So you're the final arbiter of what all employers do or don't find offensive? That's impressive! How did you acquire such knowledge?

By diligently reading this board. All knowledge can be found here if one seeks it.

You're correct, of course, I do not claim to know what all employers would find offensive. Maybe I could reword my statement to say that many, if not all employer's, would not find these cartoons pornographic.

Of course, it may also be true that most employers would object to employees accessing MDB at work, whatever the content.

[_MCB]

Many employers block such fora as this, anyway. Moot point.
Roaming on break-time and lunch time should not be a capital offense, particularly if the employer does not take the trouble to add blocking software.

[Guest]

Perhaps if Ludwig were to agree to keep those pictures confined to the telestial forum, you could restore his privileges. Telestial is the NSFW forum, anyway. With two new mods, that should not be a problem. Write it into the rules, one month no images for every infraction. It should apply to everyone. I mean, pictures of real art when the focus is on penises don't belong in celestial or terrestrial, either.

IMHO

1. I would agree any WRITTEN RULE. Perhaps.
2. Louvre level has the discriminatory authority. Including penises, focused - or covered with fig leaves - doesn't count. (They are terrestrial, SFW. The bandmaster commanded it.)
3. Please describe, which ones are those pictures. Genitals, breasts (male and/or female), simple nudity - then later decapitation, rape or whatever.

.

.

.

Edited to add:
Our government has 2/3 majority. (2/3 is a Trump.)
- They made a lot of bill with retroactive scope. For example, there were people who should have pay back their severance pays they got four years before. For one of their puppy they have made a special bill to not pay back.
- They made a lot of unconstitutional bill. After the constitutional court throw them back, they wrote it into the constitution - then passed it.

I don't know, why do I bother You this local, private things...
Should I always associate?

[_Quasimodo]

Many employers block such fora as this, anyway. Moot point.
Roaming on break-time and lunch time should not be a capital offense, particularly if the employer does not take the trouble to add blocking software.

True. By the way, I've just added 'fora' to my mental list of words when playing Words with Friends (Scrabble).