Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Rules/Infractions Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Nov 4, 2009#1

Dave

Here's the rules. This is your chance to amend, ask questions and let me know if we need to add/subtract things. Yes, they will look familiar to some as I stole from places like Something Awful, Forumopolis, etc.

Okay, I've done some work on the rules and stuff, but want to know what you guys think.

Infraction points - Users will be given infraction points, which will determine in most cases their ban level. In most cases the person will start with a simple warning but that does not have to be the case. Bans will happen automatically based on infraction level. Please note that infraction points will drop off after 1 month so if you give 5 points in 1 month those 5 points will disappear.

1 Hour Ban - 5 Points
24 Hour Ban - 10 Points
1 Month Ban - 20 Points
PermaBan - 50 Points

So if you give someone a 3 point infraction then they are closer to a 1 hour ban than just giving 1 point. If you give someone a 1 hour ban then they also get 5 points automatically. If this takes them up to 10 points then the ban automatically moves to 24 hours.

Rules:

[FONT=&quot]Child Porn[/FONT][FONT=&quot] – [/FONT]Anyone posting images, either photographic or drawn, of boys and girls who appear underage in sexual or suggestive situations, OR tell stories or events that advocate child pornography or sexual abuse will be permabanned immediately. This is non-negotiable[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Arguing with Infraction – [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a mod assesses an infraction point or points and you do not agree, you have the right to send that mod or the admins a PM or email to discuss. Whining will probably get you nowhere. If you decide to create a thread or take your complaint public be ready to take 5 points and a 1 hour ban.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Hate Speech [/FONT][FONT=&quot]– We are a very open community and have many, many walks of life. We have people from many races, sexual orientations and religions. Knowing this, hate speech will not be tolerated. Racial epithets or slurs against sexual orientation are not going to be tolerated. If these are reported we will take action. At the very least a warning and 1 point infraction will be assessed, although it is up to the discretion of the mod to give more.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]NSFW Material –[/FONT][FONT=&quot] We have a NSFW area for these things. If you think it’s something that is pertinent to the discussion then please put it in spoiler tags with a note that it’s NSFW. As this is one of those open areas which offend some and not others please use discretion if in doubt. If a mod is forced to spoiler it for you then it’ll result in a 1 point warning. This includes such things as graphic nudity, porn, victim pics, etc. Again, if in doubt - PM a mod.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Warez/Drugs/Other Illicit Activities –[/FONT][FONT=&quot] May be discussed on an academic basis or in passing. No instruction, detailed accounts, or the like will be tolerated. Doing so will get you 5 points and a 1 hour ban. If in doubt, take it to PMs.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Spam - [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Members who register and immediately start posting spam links will be banned. If an existing user wants to pimp their page or advertise something that’s more than fine. If it gets out of hand we’ll ask you to stop. Only after that will any points be assessed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Trolling -[/FONT][FONT=&quot] We have no problems with heated discussion, but require you keep it to the subject at hand. If you're making uncalled for personal attacks or simply posting to get a rise out of another member, you will get very little warnings before there will be repercussions. As a corollary to this, do not randomly attack a poster who has not even contributed to the discussion yet. This is also considered trolling and will be met with the same punishment. Please note that we will take into account who submitted the report as some people take offense too quickly. It will be up to a mod’s discretion whether to assess a point with the warning or to just send a PM.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No alt trolling.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Creating an alt can be fun & is allowed. However, creating an alt specifically to troll will result in a 1 point infraction and warning for the primary account and a deletion of the alt account. Also, no registering a new account because you have a bad reputation or multiple points. Creation of an alt to circumvent infractions will automatically bump you up to the next level of infraction.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Cite your sources.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Do not paste quotes from other sources without attribution, especially doing this as a way to post offensive statements with the defense that you were only quoting someone else. In this situation, be prepared to deal with the consequences of having your posts taken at face value. No infractions will be given, you'll just look like a prat.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do not try and play the rules lawyer.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Continually skirting the line between rule-breaking and not is unacceptable. The spirit of the rules is important as well as the letter. Basically, don't be a dick. If a warning needs to be given then it will.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thread Tags.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] When creating a thread, please remember to choose a tag appropriate to the subject. Generally, using a tag for comedy purposes is acceptable. However, tags that break other rules such as trolling or racist/personal attacks will be deleted and the person putting them in will get a warning at the very least. Tags are NOT anonymous to the mods so be aware we know who put them in. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Spoilers.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] A \"spoiler\" is a statement or piece of information that gives away information about the story of a book or film. An Ambush Spoiler is a spoiler in a thread which does not use our spoiler tag in a thread that has not been marked as having spoilers. There is a certain statute of limitations on what can and cannot be spoilered. Things which are common knowledge (IE: Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father, Hamlet dies at the end of the play, etc.) can safely be left unspoilered. Basically if it's over a year old it should be safe.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To use spoiler tags...
If you type this: [.spoiler.]This is a spoiler which folk may not want to read[./spoiler.](without the periods in the tags)
Your post will show with: [/FONT]

This is a spoiler.

[FONT=&quot]
To read the spoiler, simply click the spoiler button.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Not using spoilers will not result in a warning, unless it is done so in a way that is obviously trolling.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bannings[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you're banned, do not create new accounts to get around it. This will increase the length of the ban and may lead to a permanent banning. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you're banned, don't argue about it pointlessly. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No posting on behalf of a banned member. Discussion of the member is permitted; being a loudspeaker for them is not.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Plagiarism -[/FONT][FONT=&quot] This includes (but isn't limited to) both writing and drawing. The basic definition is taking credit for other people's work, or trying to pass other's work off as your own (partially or wholly). For more on plagiarism, visit http://www.aug.edu/sociology/plagiarism.html or http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mod Discretion –[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Mods will oversee the community and will make decisions in regards to keeping the community functioning and working well.[/FONT]

Nov 4, 2009#2

Gusto

Sounds fair, and like common sense.

In before someone going for the high score.

Nov 4, 2009#3

AshburnerX

Please clarify how old something needs to be for Spoiler Tags to not be needed. I had some people get on my case about revealing some stuff about Sisko in DS9, despite the show being off the air for ten years, so some clarification needs to be made. Is it 5 years? 10? Or are you basing it on how obscure the source material is?

Nov 4, 2009#4

fade

I don't really like number 2. Feels a little oppressive.

Nov 4, 2009#5

Gusto

Heh, yeah, spoilers will always be an issue of contention.

I assume I'm allowed to post Mass Effect spoilers in the Mass Effect 2 Anticipation thread still right?

Nov 4, 2009#6

Krisken

fade said:
I don't really like number 2. Feels a little oppressive.

I actually like #2. It means every time someone gets a point we won't have an endless forum debate about it. What's the point of mods if we don't trust them to moderate?

Nov 4, 2009#7

Bones

I think if the show is more then say 5 years old or is considered a "classic" in any sense you should not need a spoilers tag, some stuff is crazy like whining about stuff like citizen kane being spoiled for example

Nov 4, 2009#8

Dave

AshburnerX said:
Please clarify how old something needs to be for Spoiler Tags to not be needed. I had some people get on my case about revealing some stuff about Sisko in DS9, despite the show being off the air for ten years, so some clarification needs to be made. Is it 5 years? 10? Or are you basing it on how obscure the source material is?

Done. Over 1 year does not have to be spoilered but still could be a nice thing to do.

Nov 4, 2009#9

Gusto

Dave;289706][quote=AshburnerX said:
Please clarify how old something needs to be for Spoiler Tags to not be needed. I had some people get on my case about revealing some stuff about Sisko in DS9, despite the show being off the air for ten years, so some clarification needs to be made. Is it 5 years? 10? Or are you basing it on how obscure the source material is?

Done. Over 1 year does not have to be spoilered but still could be a nice thing to do.[/QUOTE]

Can we safely assume spoilers are fair game if we mark the thread title with (spoilers) or something?

Nov 4, 2009#10

Dave

Gusto;289708][quote=Dave;289706][quote=AshburnerX said:
Please clarify how old something needs to be for Spoiler Tags to not be needed. I had some people get on my case about revealing some stuff about Sisko in DS9, despite the show being off the air for ten years, so some clarification needs to be made. Is it 5 years? 10? Or are you basing it on how obscure the source material is?

Done. Over 1 year does not have to be spoilered but still could be a nice thing to do.[/quote]

Can we safely assume spoilers are fair game if we mark the thread title with (spoilers) or something?[/QUOTE]

Always. The spoiler rules are for things inside someone else's thread. If you start a thread and put spoilers in the title then anyone getting bent out of shape about them are kinda dumb.

Nov 4, 2009#11

Math242

as long as points are distributed fairly and on a known beforehand basis, i have no problem with that.

Our mods are good people so i'm not too worried about it.

Nov 4, 2009#12

SeraRelm

We are Halforum.

Nov 4, 2009#13

Gusto

Gotcha.

Then I'm cool with these rules, generally.

Nov 4, 2009#14

Vytamindi

Math242 said:
Our mods are good people so i'm not too worried about it.

I agree. You picked some good ones, Dave!

Nov 4, 2009#15

Shannow

Jesus H Christ.

Nov 4, 2009#16

Frankie Williamson

SeraRelm said:
We are Halforum.

Is that Robot Circus?

Nov 4, 2009#17

Tinwhistler

I guess I'll have to watch my hotlinking. I often link to pictures I find here and there.

Generally speaking, hotlinking is legal (though it may be unwelcome in some cases), whereas copying a file to imageshack may constitute copyright infringement. Therefore, I've been loathe to re-host any images I am hotlinking.

Nov 4, 2009#18

Gusto

Hm.

There are also a bunch of webcartoonists who don't mind hotlinking, and Allen and I post a good bit in the WCAJ.

Nov 4, 2009#19

Dave

Tinwhistler said:
I guess I'll have to watch my hotlinking. I often link to pictures I find here and there.

Generally speaking, hotlinking is legal (though it may be unwelcome in some cases), whereas copying a file to imageshack may constitute copyright infringement. Therefore, I've been loathe to re-host any images I am hotlinking.

You may have a good point there. But again I'm not sure what to do about it. I've come to have a bad view of hotlinking lately. Not sure why, KANYE!!

Thoughts on this one?

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------

So the hotlinking one may need to be rewritten. Suggestions on how to handle linking?

Nov 4, 2009#20

Gusto

Don't hotlink where the source has requested it? Hmmm...

I have no clue, that rule is generally an etiquette that becomes hard to enforce or police...

Nov 4, 2009#21

phil

I have a few questions but have to rush to class right now. Mainly I'd like some clarifications for rule 5 and what is and what is not allowed.

Could I say "I smoked some pot this weekend" in the higher/drunker/wasteder thread?

Nov 4, 2009#22

Chazwozel

AshburnerX said:
Please clarify how old something needs to be for Spoiler Tags to not be needed. I had some people get on my case about revealing some stuff about Sisko in DS9, despite the show being off the air for ten years, so some clarification needs to be made. Is it 5 years? 10? Or are you basing it on how obscure the source material is?

Ah this ol' chestnut...

I say after something's been out for like 3 months (particularly a movie or book) it's fair game.

Nov 4, 2009#23

Hylian

the rules sound fine to me

Nov 4, 2009#24

Dave

For now I took out the hotlinking. Tin had a great point about image ownership. For now if you want it's fine. But Kurtz still doesn't want hit linked so please don't.

#5 is more about torrent links, confessing murders or giving detailed instructions on suicide, shooting heroin or building bombs. Stuff like that. Saying you smoked pot is not a punishable offense.

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

Chazwozel;289740][quote=AshburnerX said:
Please clarify how old something needs to be for Spoiler Tags to not be needed. I had some people get on my case about revealing some stuff about Sisko in DS9, despite the show being off the air for ten years, so some clarification needs to be made. Is it 5 years? 10? Or are you basing it on how obscure the source material is?

Ah this ol' chestnut...

I say after something's been out for like 3 months (particularly a movie or book) it's fair game.[/QUOTE]

3 months is too soon. Movies to DVDs take longer than that. Which is why I say a year.

Nov 4, 2009#25

bhamv3

I'm not sure if number 9, citing your sources, needs to be a rule. Are points going to be given to people who don't attribute correctly?

How about if we divide the current rules list into "Rules" and "Guidelines"? The Rules would be the firm no-no stuff, the kind of things infraction points would be used for. Guidelines would be for stuff that's basically nice to do. No hotlinking, no plagiarism, citing sources, and spoilers would probably fit better in Guidelines.

Though I can easily imagine someone going, "Oh they're just guidelines, I don't have to follow them."

(Hands up if you read that in Geoffrey Rush's voice)

Nov 4, 2009#26

Wasabi Poptart

Dave said:
[/COLOR]

Chazwozel;289740][quote=AshburnerX said:

Please clarify how old something needs to be for Spoiler Tags to not be needed. I had some people get on my case about revealing some stuff about Sisko in DS9, despite the show being off the air for ten years, so some clarification needs to be made. Is it 5 years? 10? Or are you basing it on how obscure the source material is?

Click to expand...

Ah this ol' chestnut...

I say after something's been out for like 3 months (particularly a movie or book) it's fair game.

3 months is too soon. Movies to DVDs take longer than that. Which is why I say a year.[/QUOTE]

Plus you have to think of the people on the board who are living overseas where things get released at a later date.

Nov 4, 2009#27

Gusto

Yeah citing sources is a weird one. It's not so much a rule as "if you don't do it you can't necessarily expect anyone to take you seriously".

Nov 4, 2009#28

Dave

Citing sources is gone.

Nov 4, 2009#29

Chazwozel

bhamv3 said:
I'm not sure if number 9, citing your sources, needs to be a rule. Are points going to be given to people who don't attribute correctly?

How about if we divide the current rules list into "Rules" and "Guidelines"? The Rules would be the firm no-no stuff, the kind of things infraction points would be used for. Guidelines would be for stuff that's basically nice to do. No hotlinking, no plagiarism, citing sources, and spoilers would probably fit better in Guidelines.

Though I can easily imagine someone going, "Oh they're just guidelines, I don't have to follow them."

(Hands up if you read that in Geoffrey Rush's voice)

Aside from the obvious pedobear rule, the source one is fantastic. It'll keep down the crazies in the political forums.

Nov 4, 2009#30

The Lovely Boehner

Gusto said:
Yeah citing sources is a weird one. It's not so much a rule as "if you don't do it you can't necessarily expect anyone to take you seriously".

Haha, that one's directly from Forumopolis. We had a rash of people copy-pasting quotes from FreeRepublic, Stormfront, Hillaryis44, or other insane fringe websites and getting people riled up.

Also from FO is the thread tags rule, which we don't need here since we have no Thread tags?

Nov 4, 2009#31

Dave

I was never that big on that one. It got left in from another place.

---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

HA! Sure, right after everyone wanted me to get rid of it...

Nov 4, 2009#32

Gusto

Charlie Dont Surf;289756][quote=Gusto said:
Yeah citing sources is a weird one. It's not so much a rule as "if you don't do it you can't necessarily expect anyone to take you seriously".

Haha, that one's directly from Forumopolis. We had a rash of people copy-pasting quotes from FreeRepublic, Stormfront, Hillaryis44, or other insane fringe websites and getting people riled up.[/QUOTE]

Haha, well yeah, depending on your source, citing it may make people take you even less seriously. :rofl:

Nov 4, 2009#33

Espy

fade said:
I don't really like number 2. Feels a little oppressive.

All it says is to leave the pissy little "mod call out" threads in the dumper. PM us if you don't like it and argue for it. It might work, it might now. I don't see what's oppressive about that.

Nov 4, 2009#34

doomdragon6

ITT:

Everything stays the same

Nov 4, 2009#35

Dave

I put sources back in but also added the note about not getting an infraction for it.

Nov 4, 2009#36

DarkAudit

doomdragon6 said:
ITT:

Everything stays the same

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Nov 4, 2009#37

The Lovely Boehner

I think the points thing is a little silly.

Nov 4, 2009#38

Shegokigo

The spoiler thing is VERY easy to deal with.

If the thread title doesn't say [Spoilers Inside] then

tag your stuff. It's simple courteousy.

Time shouldn't be a factor.

Nov 4, 2009#39

bhamv3

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I think the points thing is a little silly.

It's an untested system for us, that's for sure, but probably worth a whirl.

Nov 4, 2009#40

Espy

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I think the points thing is a little silly.

It's just an easy way to keep track of things. NOthing more, nothing less.

Nov 4, 2009#41

Dave

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I think the points thing is a little silly.

Nov 4, 2009#42

Adammon

Dave;289783][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
I think the points thing is a little silly.

It's a definitive and measurable metric. So people can see what's happening.

Also note that in most cases a mod won't give an infraction unless the post has been reported. We don't read every thread.

If you don't report a thread it's doubtful anything will be done about it.[/QUOTE]

If using the points system, I'd suggest that the points disappear at a steady rate of 5 points per month or something similar. No sense in everyone just accumulating points - you'd end up with everyone eventually banned.

*SIGH* ADAMMON READING FAIL

Nov 4, 2009#43

doomdragon6

Adammon;289786][quote=Dave;289783][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
I think the points thing is a little silly.

It's a definitive and measurable metric. So people can see what's happening.

Also note that in most cases a mod won't give an infraction unless the post has been reported. We don't read every thread.

If you don't report a thread it's doubtful anything will be done about it.[/quote]

If using the points system, I'd suggest that the points disappear at a steady rate of 5 points per month or something similar. No sense in everyone just accumulating points - you'd end up with everyone eventually banned.[/QUOTE]

All points disappear at the end of the month.

Nov 4, 2009#44

Adammon

doomdragon6;289790][quote=Adammon;289786][quote=Dave;289783][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
I think the points thing is a little silly.

It's a definitive and measurable metric. So people can see what's happening.

Also note that in most cases a mod won't give an infraction unless the post has been reported. We don't read every thread.

If you don't report a thread it's doubtful anything will be done about it.[/quote]

If using the points system, I'd suggest that the points disappear at a steady rate of 5 points per month or something similar. No sense in everyone just accumulating points - you'd end up with everyone eventually banned.[/QUOTE]

All points disappear at the end of the month.[/QUOTE]

I have the flu, brain not working

Nov 4, 2009#45

Chazwozel

Nov 4, 2009#46

DarkAudit

I hate to say it, but the ones already screaming oppression are probably folks we'd be better off without. It's painfully obvious that the current system is not working. The perception on the outside is short of killing another poster's family, nothing's going to happen to you on the forums. The poo-flinging has to stop sometime, and if reining it in drives a few away, so be it. We'll be healthier without them.

Nov 4, 2009#47

Dave

Here's how the points work.

Any points you accrue leave in 30 days.

1/1/10 X gets 3 points
1/5/10 X gets 4 points (7 total) and gets 1 hour to think about things.
1/15/10 X gets 5 points (12 total) and has to go home for 24 hours.

He's good for the rest of the month.

2/1/10 3 points fall off (9 total)
2/5/10 4 points fall off (5 total)
2/6/10 X gets 5 points (10 total) and gets the 24 hour ban
2/15/10 5 points fall off (5 total)...

---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------

And not a productive post, DA.

Nov 4, 2009#48

Silvanesti

I think it might help. At the least it couldn't hurt. I hate the idea of this place fading out.

Nov 4, 2009#49

bhamv3

If I may ask, will infraction points and/or bans be revealed publicly? As I mentioned in the other thread, sometimes it's good for people to be able to see the system working. Previously, when moderation was generally done privately through deletions and PMs (apart from the occasional colored text, of course), sometimes I got the impression not much moderating was going on.

Nov 4, 2009#50

The Lovely Boehner

bhamv3 said:
If I may ask, will infraction points and/or bans be revealed publicly? As I mentioned in the other thread, sometimes it's good for people to be able to see the system working. Previously, when moderation was generally done privately through deletions and PMs (apart from the occasional colored text, of course), sometimes I got the impression not much moderating was going on.

They kind of have to be public. Because if they aren't, people are gonna ask.

Nov 4, 2009#51

Gusto

bhamv3 said:
If I may ask, will infraction points and/or bans be revealed publicly? As I mentioned in the other thread, sometimes it's good for people to be able to see the system working. Previously, when moderation was generally done privately through deletions and PMs (apart from the occasional colored text, of course), sometimes I got the impression not much moderating was going on.

Maybe at a certain threshold...? Like, I don't need to know everytime someone hotlinks an image, for example, but if someone gets a month or more, it might be nice to know.

Nov 4, 2009#52

Krisken

Charlie Dont Surf;289815][quote=bhamv3 said:
If I may ask, will infraction points and/or bans be revealed publicly? As I mentioned in the other thread, sometimes it's good for people to be able to see the system working. Previously, when moderation was generally done privately through deletions and PMs (apart from the occasional colored text, of course), sometimes I got the impression not much moderating was going on.

They kind of have to be public. Because if they aren't, people are gonna ask.[/QUOTE]
I would think so too. Otherwise someone getting a ban might seem like it happened out of nowhere.

Nov 4, 2009#53

DarkAudit

I'm sorry if you feel that way, Dave, but that's how I see it. Every time the hint of rules comes up, the same people pipe up "oppression!"

Nov 4, 2009#54

SeraRelm

Hey Dave, do I get free nights and weekends and texting with this plan?

Nov 4, 2009#55

Espy

Yes, but nights start at 11pm and end at 11:15pm.

Nov 4, 2009#56

SeraRelm

Espy said:
Yes, but nights start at 11pm and end at 11:15pm.

Nov 4, 2009#57

Krisken

Espy said:
Yes, but nights start at 11pm and end at 11:15pm.

Man, I hate Sprint!

Nov 4, 2009#58

Cajungal

The points ARE a little strange, but this way everyone gets the same chances. We don't have the power to just say, "I've had enough of _____, you get a temp ban." It's very different, but I like that we can measure it out fairly.

I frankly don't always care if someone says they don't understand why a thread got moved, as long as it doesn't erupt into "you're full of shit, this is stupid, etc etc." I understand why it's there, because then maybe the thread won't be derailed into why it moved and why we're wrong for moving it.

I really don't think it's gonna be as different as some are saying. Most people here are cool, and most things can be resolved with no problem at all. I'm glad we're trying this out.

Nov 4, 2009#59

Espy

SeraRelm;289829][quote=Espy said:
Yes, but nights start at 11pm and end at 11:15pm.

[/QUOTE]

YOINK!

Nov 4, 2009#60

The Lovely Boehner

So when is this getting implemented, I need to know, I have a couple posts to make

Nov 4, 2009#61

Espy

You feeling lucky punk?

Nov 4, 2009#62

Gusto

In the interest of keeping the theme alive, can all the warnings begin with "yo, [username], " ?

Nov 4, 2009#63

Bowielee

My only concern is people getting special treatment because they've been here longer, or are more chummy with the mods.

Nov 4, 2009#64

Vytamindi

Bowielee said:
My only concern is people getting special treatment because they've been here longer, or are more chummy with the mods.

I don't think that would be a problem. The mods are pretty good at separating personal from bizznuss.

Nov 4, 2009#65

Shannow

Ah, the obvious targets for folks to hit. Already cropping up here in this thread. kudos.

Nov 4, 2009#66

makare

I think rule one should be amended to say “Anyone posting images, either photographic or drawn, of boys and girls who appear underage in sexual or suggestive situations, OR tell stories or events that advocate child pornography or sexual abuse… This is non-negotiable”

It seems like a pretty cut and dry rule but we do have some people on here who like certain media that can tiptoe across that line mostly by saying “they may look young but they aren’t” etc. If the rule is more specific there is less wiggle room. If the issue is appealing to people visiting they aren’t going to take the time to find out if an image that appears to be child porn technically is or isn’t.

otherwise i like the rules alot.

You get the makare stamp of approval.

Nov 4, 2009#67

Fun Size

makare1 said:
I think rule one should be amended to say “Anyone posting images, either photographic or drawn, of boys and girls who appear underage in sexual or suggestive situations, OR tell stories or events that advocate child pornography or sexual abuse… This is non-negotiable”

It seems like a pretty cut and dry rule but we do have some people on here who like certain media that can tiptoe across that line mostly by saying “they may look young but they aren’t” etc. If the rule is more specific there is less wiggle room. If the issue is appealing to people visiting they aren’t going to take the time to find out if an image that appears to be child porn technically is or isn’t.

We call this the "no Anime/Manga" rule.

Nov 4, 2009#68

Gusto

Fun Size;289867][quote=makare1 said:
I think rule one should be amended to say “Anyone posting images, either photographic or drawn, of boys and girls who appear underage in sexual or suggestive situations, OR tell stories or events that advocate child pornography or sexual abuse… This is non-negotiable”

It seems like a pretty cut and dry rule but we do have some people on here who like certain media that can tiptoe across that line mostly by saying “they may look young but they aren’t” etc. If the rule is more specific there is less wiggle room. If the issue is appealing to people visiting they aren’t going to take the time to find out if an image that appears to be child porn technically is or isn’t.

We call this the "no Anime/Manga" rule.[/QUOTE]
"She's 18, we swear! She only looks 10!"

:eyeroll:

Nov 4, 2009#69

Cajungal

*shudder*

Nov 4, 2009#70

Gusto

Yeah, one of several reasons I'm not an anime fan anymore...

Nov 4, 2009#71

makare

Not true. The major from ghost in the shell is anime and there is nothing child like about her. heh.

Clumping all anime or manga under the loli fantasy type is just contrary to reality.

Nov 4, 2009#72

Fun Size

It was a joke. Deep breaths everyone.

Nov 4, 2009#73

Gusto

makare1 said:
Not true. The major from ghost in the shell is anime and there is nothing child like about her. heh.

Clumping all anime or manga under the loli fantasy type is just contrary to reality.

Yeah but a lot of it seems to follow that general rule when it would be considered pornographic.

(I also no longer use the Browse feature on deviantArt.)

Nov 4, 2009#74

Shannow

heh, i love those mod notifications, though.

Nov 4, 2009#75

Fun Size

I might occasionally violate a rule just to get a PM from a mod.

I'm so ronery...

Nov 4, 2009#76

Gusto

Nov 4, 2009#77

wana10

she's 18 i swear!

Nov 4, 2009#78

The Lovely Boehner

My feelings about anime were made clear in Flame Wars(RIP)

Nov 4, 2009#79

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Charlie Dont Surf said:
My feelings about anime were made clear in Flame Wars(RIP)

Everyone who watches anime are weeaboos(?)

Nov 4, 2009#80

fade

"I hate anime" is like "I hate cartoons" or "I hate movies". It's such a broad category, it's odd to think you could definitively hate it all.

Nov 4, 2009#81

Fun Size

fade said:
"I hate anime" is like "I hate cartoons" or "I hate movies". It's such a broad category, it's odd to think you could definitively hate it all.

This. We now return to our discussion of the new rules, already in progress...

Nov 4, 2009#82

Gusto

This break in our regularly scheduled program was brought to you by WalMart.

Nov 4, 2009#83

phil

Cool. I think this should help keep things in order some. I for one, welcome our new point overlords.

Nov 4, 2009#84

Dave

New rules will probably go into effect sometime tonight.

Nov 4, 2009#85

Ross

Points? What are we, the Department of Transportation?

"Well, I only said three things worth 1 point this month, so I can still get away with one more before they get taken off." Yes, I know in the end it's up to the discretion of the mods how many points they get, but I always liked the more subjective approach we already had towards moderating the forums.

All in all, no matter what system you choose, there will always be flaws in it (some perhaps moreso than others). I can see how the points system might bring in a greater level of fairness and user-accountability when it comes to penalties, but I also see it as a huge waste of time when comparing the hypothetical results of the points system to the current moderation results. I feel that this is somewhat-analogous to a company switching from micro-management (everything is up to the mods' discretion) to corporate management (blanket rules for administration). These rules will kind of be a blend of both, but ultimately takes the form of corporate management. I prefer micro-management.

Nov 4, 2009#86

Krisken

Ross said:
Points? What are we, the Department of Transportation?

"Well, I only said three things worth 1 point this month, so I can still get away with one more before they get taken off." Yes, I know in the end it's up to the discretion of the mods how many points they get, but I always liked the more subjective approach we already had towards moderating the forums.

All in all, no matter what system you choose, there will always be flaws in it (some perhaps moreso than others). I can see how the points system might bring in a greater level of fairness and user-accountability when it comes to penalties, but I also see it as a huge waste of time when comparing the hypothetical results of the points system to the current moderation results. I feel that this is somewhat-analogous to a company switching from micro-management (everything is up to the mods' discretion) to corporate management (blanket rules for administration). These rules will kind of be a blend of both, but ultimately takes the form of corporate management. I prefer micro-management.

Generally I do too. Until there is that brother in law who doesn't do shit and pisses off all the other people in the company until no one wants to work there anymore.

Nov 4, 2009#87

Shannow

Krisken;289954][quote=Ross said:
Points? What are we, the Department of Transportation?

"Well, I only said three things worth 1 point this month, so I can still get away with one more before they get taken off." Yes, I know in the end it's up to the discretion of the mods how many points they get, but I always liked the more subjective approach we already had towards moderating the forums.

All in all, no matter what system you choose, there will always be flaws in it (some perhaps moreso than others). I can see how the points system might bring in a greater level of fairness and user-accountability when it comes to penalties, but I also see it as a huge waste of time when comparing the hypothetical results of the points system to the current moderation results. I feel that this is somewhat-analogous to a company switching from micro-management (everything is up to the mods' discretion) to corporate management (blanket rules for administration). These rules will kind of be a blend of both, but ultimately takes the form of corporate management. I prefer micro-management.

Generally I do too. Until there is that brother in law who doesn't do shit and pisses off all the other people in the company until no one wants to work there anymore.[/QUOTE]

Speaking of...I have been meaning to talk to you, Krisken. I know you are married to my sister, but around the forums here....

Nov 4, 2009#88

Krisken

Shannow;289959][quote=Krisken said:
Generally I do too. Until there is that brother in law who doesn't do shit and pisses off all the other people in the company until no one wants to work there anymore.

Speaking of...I have been meaning to talk to you, Krisken. I know you are married to my sister, but around the forums here....[/QUOTE]
Josh? :eek:

Nov 4, 2009#89

Covar

Rules look good.

Nov 4, 2009#90

Troll

Nov 4, 2009#91

Baerdog

Good news, everyone!

These rules look pretty straightforward and reasonable and I think they will be a good thing.

Nov 4, 2009#92

AshburnerX

Seems fine.

Nov 4, 2009#93

figmentPez

Dave said:
[*][FONT=&quot]Hate Speech [/FONT][FONT=&quot]– We are a very open community and have many, many walks of life. We have people from many races, sexual orientations and religions. Knowing this, hate speech will not be tolerated. Racial epithets or slurs against sexual orientation are not going to be tolerated. If these are reported we will take action. At the very least a warning and 1 point infraction will be assessed, although it is up to the discretion of the mod to give more.[/FONT]

Is this rule going to be enforced roughly as written, where hate speech has to involve hostility (either intentional or inherent to the words used), or is it going to be an ultra-PC version where "if you disagree with a minority you must hate them"? I've been accused of hate speech, on these boards and elsewhere, simply for stating my religious beliefs when asked about them. I'd like to know, in advance, if I can answer honestly if someone were to ask if I think homosexuality is a sin.

Nov 4, 2009#94

Dave

figmentPez;290247][quote=Dave said:
[*][FONT=&quot]Hate Speech [/FONT][FONT=&quot]– We are a very open community and have many, many walks of life. We have people from many races, sexual orientations and religions. Knowing this, hate speech will not be tolerated. Racial epithets or slurs against sexual orientation are not going to be tolerated. If these are reported we will take action. At the very least a warning and 1 point infraction will be assessed, although it is up to the discretion of the mod to give more.[/FONT]

Nov 4, 2009#95

figmentPez

Dave said:
It's all in context.

"I believe homosexuality is a sin." is NOT equal to "God hates fags!"

The first is acceptable, the second not so much.

Thank you for the clarification that this will be reasonable. I wasn't really expecting otherwise, but I wanted to be sure.

Nov 4, 2009#96

Kitty Sinatra

I suggested in a PM to Dave - actually in a post in that negativity thread - a different solution. Somebody else in that thread cemented my idea for me. What this place needs is a constitution, one simple straightforward expression of what this place is about, and a Supreme Court to decide what is unconstitutional. And the only judge on the court needs to be Dave. Dave, you really need to be the Scott Kurtz, Joe Keatinge or Monte Cook of your own forum and be the tough guy. Mold this place as you want it to be. Unquestioned, unquestioningly. Dave's will is the way it'll be.

And so for me, the details of the rules are irrelevant. What works for you is what works for me.

Oh, and I mention Monte Cook because his forum was my "hometown," the forum I chose over PvP's way back when Kurtz started killing newspapers. His was a very lightly moderated forum, with the only rule really being "Don't piss of Monte." And because we repsected the dude, his forum thrived, both on topic and off-topic (and there were some heated political discussions there!)

Nov 4, 2009#97

Allen, who is Quiet

Dave said:
It's all in context.

what's the official ruling on images that use the phrase "do it faggot"?

Nov 4, 2009#98

The Lovely Boehner

Allen said:
It's all in context.

Nov 4, 2009#99

Kitty Sinatra

What if the image is a faggot of wood?

Nov 4, 2009#100

Troll

Charlie Dont Surf;290350][quote=Allen said:
It's all in context.

what's the official ruling on images that use the phrase "do it faggot"?[/QUOTE]

It's directly implying that being gay means you're weak-willed, I don't know how it's not denigrating someone based on their sexuality.[/QUOTE]

I agree with CDS. Some people may find it funny, but it's definitely an expression using a hateful slur. I say it should not be allowed. I would suggest going the usual warning route for first time offenders.

Nov 4, 2009#101

Bubble181

Oh, shut the fuck up, fa...ehh....ntastic individuaL. *cough* :-P

Anyway, these rules stand or fall with moderator discretion. Even the seemingly very strict etc ones. Heck, the hentai thread got some (public) moderation, and after that, kept clear and so on. Yet, technically, you could've given a perma-ban. I think there's a big difference between what happened there, and someone really...Well, I dunno. There's a line there somewhere. Intent, and cooperativeness. Or something. Same for a specific joke thread - the curent language thread, for example. I can imagine a similar thread with the express point to break a certain rule- say, the "cite your sources" rule: people posting the most outlandish claims they can find with fake attributions to as respectabel people as possible, or whatever. Obviously, a similar "let's breal this rule" thread about, say ,the child porn rule, would be....Ummm...Np.

Anyway, I have faith in msot of the current staf, so I don't mind. Just be aware: being a mod wasn't something "desirable" so far - it carried responsibility with little actual show of power. With stricter moderation,we'll see more power displays from mods, and leaving them their discretion opens doors for people trying to make mod to abuse said powers.
No offense, but 2 out of the 3 (former? I have no idea if they're still mods there) NSFW mods I wouldn't trust with mod powers and their own discretion in general.

Nov 4, 2009#102

TotalFusionOne

I think this is going to lead with me p referencing all posts with NSFW.

Also, you might want to talk to some of the mods on SA and such who have been there for awhile and see how much they like these rules. I see a great disturbance coming if you guys haven't been under this yoke before.

Nov 4, 2009#103

Ross

Bubble181 said:
Oh, shut the fuck up, fa...ehh....ntastic individuaL. *cough* :-P

Anyway, these rules stand or fall with moderator discretion. Even the seemingly very strict etc ones. Heck, the hentai thread got some (public) moderation, and after that, kept clear and so on. Yet, technically, you could've given a perma-ban. I think there's a big difference between what happened there, and someone really...Well, I dunno. There's a line there somewhere. Intent, and cooperativeness. Or something. Same for a specific joke thread - the curent language thread, for example. I can imagine a similar thread with the express point to break a certain rule- say, the "cite your sources" rule: people posting the most outlandish claims they can find with fake attributions to as respectabel people as possible, or whatever. Obviously, a similar "let's breal this rule" thread about, say ,the child porn rule, would be....Ummm...Np.

Anyway, I have faith in msot of the current staf, so I don't mind. Just be aware: being a mod wasn't something "desirable" so far - it carried responsibility with little actual show of power. With stricter moderation,we'll see more power displays from mods, and leaving them their discretion opens doors for people trying to make mod to abuse said powers.
No offense, but 2 out of the 3 (former? I have no idea if they're still mods there) NSFW mods I wouldn't trust with mod powers and their own discretion in general.

Granted, the thread itself did not SHOW CP, but the material was highly suggestive. There was a debate between myself and Mav as to how to moderate it... I felt comfortable with leaving it up because there was no visual representation of a child engaged in any sexual acts or posing, but he thought it should come down. In the end, it got taken down because I thought that it would be better to be safe than sorry in that particular case.

EDIT:
Also, I'm one of those mods that you mentioned, then

...Not that there's much to moderate there, anyway. GreenLantern should be taking care of the gay/male threads, and the only report I ever got for the NSFW forum came from the Anime/Manga thread.

Nov 4, 2009#104

Bubble181

Ross: I didn't complain; on the contrary - I was very happy with the way it was dealt with. I'm just saying: strictly speaking, you could've perma-banned JJ, which I'd have found overly harsh; despite the rule being questioned was what's supposedly the msot strict of all rules.

Nov 5, 2009#105

ElJuski

Gruebeard said:
What if the image is a faggot of wood?

Yes, we get it. Faggot means other things.

Achievement Unlocked. 20g.

Nov 5, 2009#106

PatrThom

Late to the party, but...

To open up the hotlinking issue a bit...would it be acceptable to say there should be some sort of limit on the size of the file being linked? I don't mean image dimensions, I mean actual filesize. It's one thing to hotlink a smiley, but it's quite another to hotlink some 20MB file from gifbin. It's already bad enough when a page has a dozen or more posts by people with animated avatars, sigs, images, etc...especially once the quote wars start.

I'm sure if I have any problems with the rules as enacted, then I will put forth civil and well-reasoned argument(s) regarding any future issues.

--Patrick

Nov 5, 2009#107

fade

Did you guys catch that South Park where they discussed this very matter? They were trying to make the point that the word has changed meanings (particularly in exactly which group it was insulting) many times over its history, and that most people don't associate the insult with homosexuality anymore. True to a point, but definitely one of SP's weaker arguments.

Nov 5, 2009#108

Dave

fade said:
Did you guys catch that South Park where they discussed this very matter? They were trying to make the point that the word has changed meanings (particularly in exactly which group it was insulting) many times over its history, and that most people don't associate the insult with homosexuality anymore. True to a point, but definitely one of SP's weaker arguments.

I watched that episode and was kinda amazed at the timeliness.

It's still not going to be tolerated because people will be shitheads and try and use this as a defense. "It's not what I meant!" will probably not be a valid excuse. People use the same argument with the n-word and we all know how well that works.

Nov 5, 2009#109

PatrThom

Dave said:
People use the same argument with the n-word and we all know how well that works.

And that's great, so long as certain overly sensitive people don't get all bent out of shape over graphologically similar words...assuming those words are used properly (ie, for their actual meaning, not merely as a stand-in for some shunned word).

--Patrick

Nov 5, 2009#110

Shegokigo

That is all.

Nov 5, 2009#111

Dave

Shegokigo said:
That is all.

Excellent example of what I'm talking about, Shego. I realize you are a gay woman, but isn't this kind of thing something that can get out of hand? Sure, it's impossible to protect the sensibilities of everyone, but when a word is a known epithet isn't it to our benefit to disallow such usage?

Are there any words which bother you? What if said word was started to be used as a pejorative for stupid people? Does it lessen the impact of how it affects you?

Nov 5, 2009#112

PatrThom

That is one scaaary picture. She looks even more excited than Giada. I wasn't sure that was possible.

--Patrick

Nov 5, 2009#113

Math242

Francis:

gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

/francis

Nov 5, 2009#114

Shegokigo

Dave said:
Excellent example of what I'm talking about, Shego. I realize you are a gay woman, but isn't this kind of thing something that can get out of hand? Sure, it's impossible to protect the sensibilities of everyone, but when a word is a known epithet isn't it to our benefit to disallow such usage?

Are there any words which bother you? What if said word was started to be used as a pejorative for stupid people? Does it lessen the impact of how it affects you?

I think it's a perfect example of the word being used as obvious non-derogatory.

Nov 5, 2009#115

Shannow

You know...there are a lot of folks from Texas here on these boards....

Only steers and queers come from Texas, Halforum. And you all don't look much like steers to me so that kinda narrows it down. Do you suck dicks?

...Would that be considered an infraction, Dave?

Nov 5, 2009#116

Bubble181

Nah, that's just speakignthe truth, Shamwow.

And Dave: "Belge" and "sale flamand" are both used in a derogatory way by the French and the Walloons, respectively. If someone is really using it to put someone down based on their language/region of origin, it can bother me - just like someone using "******" to refer to a black person in a clearly racist way does. On the other hand, I don't mind one bit if I do something stpuid and someone says I've been "acting Belgian". If I were to call Allen here my queer commienazi-homeboy, I don't think it's meant as an insult to homosexuals, communists, national-socialists, or black people (it is meant as an insult to Jews, obviously.).

Are we really going to have use "the n-word", "the f-word", "the c-word", "the d-word", the "g-word", "the a-word", and so on to avoid stepping on anyone's toes? That's going a bit too far imnsho.

Nov 5, 2009#117

TotalFusionOne

Can't we just agree that context changes a word? I mean it seems that most of the people in this forum are intelligent enough to know the difference between "God, that ****** could run" and "Stop being a goddamn ******."

I, as an openly bisexual male, enjoy using the word Fag in the original derogatory meaning. I love calling my friends fags. Even the gayest of my gay friends call eachother fags. "Fag" doesn't mean homosexual, it means a specific type of non-desirable homosexual and therefore is no better or worse than saying redneck or Steelers-fan.

EDIT: ^ In the post above I was using the N-word to illustrate a point. I see it's been blanked out and I hope no one was offended by my offering my two cents.

Nov 5, 2009#118

Shegokigo

Well, hm. I think this is the way Dave should explain it to us.

Should we act like we're in the middle of a place of business? Like I couldn't tell a fellow co-worker "Don't being such a fag".

Is it more like a classroom, where I can tell my friend he's being a "queer" but if someone overhears us, they can tell the teacher and we'd get sent to the principal's office?

Or are we all just chilling out in our best friends house and expect, that unless we're shoving each other into a wall, it's all in jest?

Nov 5, 2009#119

Dave

I know this is a hotbutton issue and I'm glad that we can discuss this like adults. I also know that some words can be used in different ways. I grok that. I also grok that some words can be used in a humorous manner without anyone taking offense.

However, if these words are used towards someone who takes offense, then you may expect an infraction.

And to the questions above, nothing I've seen would be construed as an infraction. Again, if someone reports it we'll take a look at it individually as context is everything.

Nov 5, 2009#120

Shannow

Bubble181 said:
Shamwow.

That is still oh so clever. Really.

Hahaha, I kid.

---------- Post added at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

Also, if I cannot say ****, then really, what is the point of this place? I refuse to remove that from my vocabulary.

Nov 5, 2009#121

Dave

There are two whole words in the censor bar. I'd add more but I hate the **** instead of smurf...

Nov 5, 2009#122

The Lovely Boehner

I don't see any reason of having the N-word bleeped out and out-of-bounds and "faggot" not.

Nov 5, 2009#123

Bubble181

yo ******, don't be such a *****. ***.

Nov 5, 2009#124

Shegokigo

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I don't see any reason of having the N-word bleeped out and out-of-bounds and "faggot" not.

I can see your point here, but when has N***** ever been used as a non-derogatory other than betwen two people of that race?

Nov 5, 2009#125

TotalFusionOne

Uhm. A lot. Work in a restaurant, I got called a ****** in a friendly and teasing manner a lot by the rest of the staff.

Nov 5, 2009#126

Chazwozel

I prefer not to say 'fag' because I don't like sounding like a 13 year old brat on xbox live. That is all.

Nov 5, 2009#127

Dave

Faggot also has real usage in the English language other than an epithet. The n-word does not.

And using a word jokingly between friends is one thing, but humor and context has a way of being a bit skewed when trying to type it out.

Nov 5, 2009#128

Bubble181

Now it's racism and homophobia, next he'll try to push out ageism. I'm onto his agenda!

Nov 5, 2009#129

TotalFusionOne

Woah, hang on. Not that I'm advocating for the inclusion, but the N-word was meant for something else before it was used for black people. It meant re-nigged. Or go back on a deal. That's why it ended up being used for black people.

Nov 5, 2009#130

Dave

TotalFusionOne said:
Woah, hang on. Not that I'm advocating for the inclusion, but the N-word was meant for something else before it was used for black people. It meant re-nigged. Or go back on a deal. That's why it ended up being used for black people.

The etymology of a word does not negate the impact it has now.

---------- Post added at 10:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

And I understand what you are saying, Fusion. We're trying to hash out how we react to this stuff so we're talking about it. Like adults. For a change.

Nov 5, 2009#131

Cajungal

I didn't think renege was attached to the n-word at all. I thought it came from the word negro.

Nov 5, 2009#132

Baerdog

Apparently "renege" comes from the Latin word "renegare."

Provided, of course, that M-W is correct.

Nov 5, 2009#133

TotalFusionOne

Rightright, I understand the concept of what you're doing. I just wanted to point out that even people who use the word in a derogatory way don't really know what they're saying...

I mean, you know what they say

Nov 5, 2009#134

The Lovely Boehner

Shegokigo said:
I can see your point here, but when has N***** ever been used as a non-derogatory other than betwen two people of that race?

I've never seen "faggot" used in a friendly way on here.

Nov 5, 2009#135

Ross

TotalFusionOne said:
I mean, you know what they say

*sigh* Damnit, TFO!

*goes off to watch all of the GI Joe spoofs again*

Nov 5, 2009#136

The Lovely Boehner

Chazwozel said:
I prefer not to say 'fag' because I don't like sounding like a 13 year old brat on xbox live. That is all.

So, how is "do it faggot" magically acceptable and the height of intelligent, mature comedy?

Nov 5, 2009#137

ElJuski

Uhm, ****** comes from negro.

Also, I have never seen the word faggot be used for anything but for the derogatory meaning, or else somebody being stupid and making a cigarette / piece of wood pun.

If you're going to make one of them bleeped, the other should to. It just makes sense. Personally I would censor neither, but if people be scoping these forums, it may be for the best.

Also, that's pretty lame that South Park switched foot on the "fag" thing. I thought they were right on with the "******guy" episode.

Nov 5, 2009#138

TotalFusionOne

DAMMIT. I thought the N-word had something to do with going back on a deal. I can't even find interwebz stuff to back me up on it :\ I fail.

Nov 5, 2009#139

Dave

ElJuski said:
Uhm, ****** comes from negro.

Also, I have never seen the word ****** be used for anything but for the derogatory meaning, or else somebody being stupid and making a cigarette / piece of wood pun.

If you're going to make one of them bleeped, the other should to. It just makes sense. Personally I would censor neither, but if people be scoping these forums, it may be for the best.

Also, that's pretty lame that South Park switched foot on the "fag" thing. I thought they were right on with the "******guy" episode.

Done and done.

Nov 5, 2009#140

SeraRelm

Any other asterisks I should avoid in word form, as words alone are the problem, not the intent behind them?

Nov 5, 2009#141

PatrThom

TotalFusionOne said:
DAMMIT. I thought the N-word had something to do with going back on a deal. I can't even find interwebz stuff to back me up on it :\ I fail.

If you click on the hilighted words in my earlier post, you'll see what you were looking for, T-Fo.

--Patrick

Nov 5, 2009#142

fade

ElJuski said:
Uhm, ****** comes from negro.

Also, I have never seen the word ****** be used for anything but for the derogatory meaning, or else somebody being stupid and making a cigarette / piece of wood pun.

If you're going to make one of them bleeped, the other should to. It just makes sense. Personally I would censor neither, but if people be scoping these forums, it may be for the best.

Also, that's pretty lame that South Park switched foot on the "fag" thing. I thought they were right on with the "******guy" episode.

They weren't saying it wasn't derogatory. In fact they went out of their way to say it was. They were saying it was derogatory, but detached from homosexuality at this point.

Nov 5, 2009#143

Dave

Here's an example:

http://www.halforums.com/forum/search.php?searchid=88367

This has been reported. Obviously Ross meant nothing by it as an insult towards gays. I expect that the person reporting it is testing the waters of our reaction to this incident. DO NOT DENIGRATE THE USER! What I want is thoughts on this.

In my personal opinion, this is an obvious case of a slang term having more than one meaning and is NOT deserving of an infraction. Am I incorrect?

Nov 5, 2009#144

Shannow

So, really. no c-u-n-t? Fuck you guys, really.

Nov 5, 2009#145

Dave

Shannow said:
So, really. no c-u-n-t? Fuck you guys, really.

You do realize that this word has been censored since we got vBulletin, right? This is not a new thing.

Nov 5, 2009#146

Qonas

The rules are fine and it's gonna help everyone know where boundaries lie and help the mods out immensely. I just wish language wasn't brought into it. As a writer and pissed-off anti-P.C. dude, it infuriates me to no end to see people try and legislate thought by controlling speech. It's the intent, not the word itself. But I understand, considering the overwhelming amount of alternative people here.

Dave said:
Saying you smoked pot is not a punishable offense.

Should be, considering the activity is immoral and illegal.

Nov 5, 2009#147

Cajungal

In that situation, Dave, I admit I wouldn't really count it.

Some words that once meant only one really terrible thing have been integrated into our culture to mean other things. It doesn't mean they're nice words, but it happens, and I don't consider it hate speech... just stupidity.

It doesn't make sense to me to say, "Well you don't allow this word, but you do allow that word, and that's not fair..." as all words have different connotations and shouldn't be treated the same.

Nov 5, 2009#148

Shannow

Dave;291105][quote=Shannow said:
So, really. no c-u-n-t? Fuck you guys, really.

You do realize that this word has been censored since we got vBulletin, right? This is not a new thing.[/QUOTE]

i know. I have been meaning to talk to you about that.

Nov 5, 2009#149

Ross

Dave said:
Here's an example:

http://www.halforums.com/forum/search.php?searchid=88367

This has been reported. Obviously Ross meant nothing by it as an insult towards gays. I expect that the person reporting it is testing the waters of our reaction to this incident. DO NOT DENIGRATE THE USER! What I want is thoughts on this.

In my personal opinion, this is an obvious case of a slang term having more than one meaning and is NOT deserving of an infraction. Am I incorrect?

Link doesn't work for me, but I'm assuming it's TFO's CS:S thread about me. Do we already have White Knights reporting every single little incident that could MAYBE break the rules? The term "retry fag" is used (widely in FPS games) for players who quit and then immediately rejoin a server because they want to reset their Kill : Death ratio (even though in the end it makes exactly NO difference and just makes you look like a n00b for caring about your K : D that much).

So, in conclusion, it is not deserving of an infraction, which is why I wrote it in the first place.

Nov 5, 2009#150

Tinwhistler

PatrThom said:
That is one scaaary picture. She looks even more excited than Giada. I wasn't sure that was possible.

--Patrick

this thread needs more Giada

Nov 5, 2009#151

Vytamindi

Nov 5, 2009#152

The Lovely Boehner

The fact that "fag" is a synonym for someone you don't like, something derogatory is exactly why it's damaging to homosexuals. And I reported it.

Nov 5, 2009#153

Iaculus

Why is it that I keep reading that thread title as 'speak now or forever hold your penis'?

This forum has corrupted my innocent mind.

Nov 5, 2009#154

Steven Soderburgin

fade said:
They weren't saying it wasn't derogatory. In fact they went out of their way to say it was. They were saying it was derogatory, but detached from homosexuality at this point.

It's never going to be completely detached from homosexuality. That's why it's used as an insult.

Nov 5, 2009#155

Ross

Charlie Dont Surf said:
The fact that "fag" is a synonym for someone you don't like, something derogatory is exactly why it's damaging to homosexuals. And I reported it.

Except for the fact that people who actually use their brain can tell the difference between something that hurts the gay community and something that doesn't mean anything beyond what was previously mentioned in my earlier post. I find that, given the context of my post, it does not hurt the gay community in any way. At no point in writing or reading my post did I think of gay people when the word fag popped up.

And the "use their brain" part isn't an attack against you, since I'm pretty damn sure you already know the difference, and you're just trying to be PC about it (see: my White Knight comment). I'm just generalizing it to the forum.

Nov 5, 2009#156

Steven Soderburgin

But you still think of the word "fag" as negative or insulting, and it's always going to be tied to homosexuality because that's where the word comes from. People call gays "fags" to hurt them. It may not be a conscious association, but it's still present.

Nov 5, 2009#157

The Lovely Boehner

Ross said:
Except for the fact that people who actually use their brain can tell the difference between something that hurts the gay community and something that doesn't mean anything beyond what was previously mentioned in my earlier post. I find that, given the context of my post, it does not hurt the gay community in any way. At no point in writing or reading my post did I think of gay people when the word fag popped up.

And the "use their brain" part isn't an attack against you, since I'm pretty damn sure you already know the difference, and you're just trying to be PC about it (see: my White Knight comment). I'm just generalizing it to the forum.

I do believe that using "fag" continually as a synonym for something lame/stupid/derogatory hurts the gay community.

Nov 5, 2009#158

Ross

Very rarely do I say the word fag, and I never, EVER use it against the gay community... which could be said about the vast majority of modern culture. Complain about it and/or report if you must, but others like me want to move on and forget it was even derogatory towards gays in the first place. Does this make me insensitive? No. I just know when certain things need to be let go so everyone can move on with their lives.

That's all I have to say about the subject. No point in debating two different opinions that won't change.

Nov 5, 2009#159

The Lovely Boehner

I think halforums needs to decide if it wants to be a place where it's okay to call someone a fag or not.

Nov 5, 2009#160

Chazwozel

Charlie Dont Surf said:
The fact that "fag" is a synonym for someone you don't like, something derogatory is exactly why it's damaging to homosexuals. And I reported it.

You're such a fucking Homer.

Nov 5, 2009#161

The Lovely Boehner

Chazwozel;291219][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
The fact that "fag" is a synonym for someone you don't like, something derogatory is exactly why it's damaging to homosexuals. And I reported it.

You're such a fucking Homer.[/QUOTE]

What does this mean in this context?

Nov 5, 2009#162

Chazwozel

Charlie Dont Surf;291220][quote=Chazwozel;291219][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
The fact that "fag" is a synonym for someone you don't like, something derogatory is exactly why it's damaging to homosexuals. And I reported it.

You're such a fucking Homer.[/QUOTE]

What does this mean in this context?[/QUOTE]

You tell me. I'll just leave vague remarks like this. I know what I meant. You'll never know! Report away, Plinko.

Nov 5, 2009#163

Steven Soderburgin

Ross, the fact that you admittedly wouldn't use it against gays shows that there is association that you think about whether you know it or not. Using words like "fag" to insult or saying something you don't like is "gay" does perpetuate the idea that being gay is a negative whether you actually believe that being gay is a negative or not. The words people say have meaning and weight attached to them. That's why there is such a battle over the word "marriage" right now. You have to understand that even when it's not directed at gays, the word "fag" hurts anyway.

Nov 5, 2009#164

The Lovely Boehner

Chazwozel;291221][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;291220][quote=Chazwozel;291219][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
The fact that "fag" is a synonym for someone you don't like, something derogatory is exactly why it's damaging to homosexuals. And I reported it.

You're such a fucking Homer.[/QUOTE]

What does this mean in this context?[/QUOTE]

You tell me. I'll just leave vague remarks like this. I know what I meant. You'll never know! Report away, Plinko.[/QUOTE]

Plinko is my favorite game on The Price is Right

But I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nov 5, 2009#165

ElJuski

fade;291099][quote=ElJuski said:
Uhm, ****** comes from negro.

Also, I have never seen the word ****** be used for anything but for the derogatory meaning, or else somebody being stupid and making a cigarette / piece of wood pun.

If you're going to make one of them bleeped, the other should to. It just makes sense. Personally I would censor neither, but if people be scoping these forums, it may be for the best.

Also, that's pretty lame that South Park switched foot on the "fag" thing. I thought they were right on with the "******guy" episode.

They weren't saying it wasn't derogatory. In fact they went out of their way to say it was. They were saying it was derogatory, but detached from homosexuality at this point.[/QUOTE]

Oh, well, good on them for still saying it's derogatory. But the whole detached from homosexuality is kind of flimsy. Here's why: homophobia, and those words regarding homosexuality is based on a way of psychologically affirming one's non-homosexuality by proving the homosexuality of an other.

So, let's culturally remove some other derogatory terms, shall we? Did you know ****** (the n-word, for the censors) now means chipmunk?

It's funny to assume that just because SOMEBODY doesn't use the word in a denigrating way, that suddenly everybody isn't using it in a denigrating way. And it's really funny to see people cloying to straws about using a word and covering up in faulty rationalizations than just accepting that a word is offensive.

You can be a good person and understand cultural diversity and still use that word--but if you really understood its implications, it would be in the sarcastic or absurd sense every time.

Nov 5, 2009#166

The Lovely Boehner

I'm reminded of the episode of The Office where Michael Scott exclaims incredulously: "But I would never call a gay person faggy!"

Nov 5, 2009#167

Chazwozel

Charlie Dont Surf;291223][quote=Chazwozel;291221][quote=Charlie Dont Surf;291220][quote=Chazwozel;291219][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
The fact that "fag" is a synonym for someone you don't like, something derogatory is exactly why it's damaging to homosexuals. And I reported it.

But I have no idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that a word only has the power to hurt you if you let it.

Nov 5, 2009#168

fade

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I'm reminded of the episode of The Office where Michael Scott exclaims incredulously: "But I would never call a gay person faggy!"

They actually made that joke in the episode.

Juski, I agree with you. Like I said, it wasn't their strongest argument ever, and they're usually fairly spot on.

Nov 5, 2009#169

Ross

Kissinger said:
Ross, the fact that you admittedly wouldn't use it against gays shows that there is association that you think about whether you know it or not. Using words like "fag" to insult or saying something you don't like is "gay" does perpetuate the idea that being gay is a negative whether you actually believe that being gay is a negative or not. The words people say have meaning and weight attached to them. That's why there is such a battle over the word "marriage" right now. You have to understand that even when it's not directed at gays, the word "fag" hurts anyway.

As far as I'm concerned, the association only exists when there is the INTENT of using it as an association.

Nov 5, 2009#170

The Lovely Boehner

fade;291230][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
I'm reminded of the episode of The Office where Michael Scott exclaims incredulously: "But I would never call a gay person faggy!"

They actually made that joke in the episode.
[/QUOTE]

I... I know... that's why I quoted it....

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

Ross said:
As far as I'm concerned, the association only exists when there is the INTENT of using it as an association.

You're wrong.

Nov 5, 2009#171

Chazwozel

You cigarettes are all nuts. Now get back to work you lazy porch monkeys.

Nov 5, 2009#172

ElJuski

Kissinger said:
Ross, the fact that you admittedly wouldn't use it against gays shows that there is association that you think about whether you know it or not.

In a nutshell, this, so much this.

I'm reminded of the episode of The Office where Michael Scott exclaims incredulously: "But I would never call a gay person faggy!"

And this. It sucks that everyone is jumping on you two without actually critically looking at what you say. I mean, I can't help but blame your guys' overall repoire with the forum...but there's much to be said here. And people are getting defensive, instead of looking at the words they use critically.

Nov 5, 2009#173

fade

Charlie Dont Surf;291233][quote=fade;291230][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
I'm reminded of the episode of The Office where Michael Scott exclaims incredulously: "But I would never call a gay person faggy!"

They actually made that joke in the episode.
[/QUOTE]

I... I know... that's why I quoted it....

[/QUOTE]

I meant in the SP episode we were talking about.

Nov 5, 2009#174

ElJuski

fade;291230][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
I'm reminded of the episode of The Office where Michael Scott exclaims incredulously: "But I would never call a gay person faggy!"

They actually made that joke in the episode.

Juski, I agree with you. Like I said, it wasn't their strongest argument ever, and they're usually fairly spot on.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I know. I was responding mostly to Ross n crew, even though I quoted you at first to respond at what the episode was actually saying. Only caught the jist of it.

Nov 5, 2009#175

makare

Are derogatory words so necessary to conversation that we have to have this kind of detailed discussion about them?

Nov 5, 2009#176

Steven Soderburgin

Ross said:
As far as I'm concerned, the association only exists when there is the INTENT of using it as an association.

That's completely false, though. You can't say "******" without associating that word with the hundreds of years of racism, bigotry, and oppression, no matter what the intent.

Nov 5, 2009#177

Shegokigo

makare1 said:
Are derogatory words so necessary to conversation that we have to have this kind of detailed discussion about them?

Yes?

I really don't care to be honest, I've never used either word on these forums...

Nov 5, 2009#178

The Lovely Boehner

makare1 said:
Are derogatory words so necessary to conversation that we have to have this kind of detailed discussion about them?

Apparently they are to some small-minded people

Nov 5, 2009#179

Steven Soderburgin

Chazwozel: The edgiest halforum poster? You decide!

Nov 5, 2009#180

Ross

Charlie Dont Surf;291233][quote=Ross said:
As far as I'm concerned, the association only exists when there is the INTENT of using it as an association.

You're wrong.[/QUOTE]

Again, opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, I'm just making arguments based on my ethics and opinions. I may be wrong by your standards, but in the end there is no clear-cut view on this specific subject.

Nov 5, 2009#181

fade

Well. If it makes you feel any differently, this whole discussion could be translated to any symbol or word that offends one group in spite of the intent of the user.

Nov 5, 2009#182

Steven Soderburgin

Kissinger said:
Chazwozel: The edgiest halforum poster? You decide!

Thrill as he substitutes hate speech for words that are ALMOST derogatory words!

Nov 5, 2009#183

makare

I use negative words alot, I swear often etc. I just have never considered censorship of those words to somehow destroy my ability to communicate. I would have to change the way I communicate, but it would not in any way censor me or my opinions.

Nov 5, 2009#184

Steven Soderburgin

Kissinger;291253][quote=Kissinger said:
Chazwozel: The edgiest halforum poster? You decide!

Thrill as he substitutes hate speech for words that are ALMOST derogatory words![/QUOTE]

Marvel at his ability to go just shy of over-the-line, only to cowardly back away!

Nov 5, 2009#185

Dave

Charlie Dont Surf;291245][quote=makare1 said:
Are derogatory words so necessary to conversation that we have to have this kind of detailed discussion about them?

Apparently they are to some small-minded people[/QUOTE]

I don't think Ross is small minded. Like it or not it's a word that has sneaked into the lexicon of gaming culture to have a different meaning than what it is commonly referred to now and that means it's going to be used and we have to figure out how to deal with it.

So here's what I propose:

If a known epithet with multiple meanings is used in a non-confrontational, obvious way that is not directed at a specific group and that usage is reported, we will blank out the use of the word, send a non-infraction warning to the user and move on.

Does that sound fair or is it over reacting?

Nov 5, 2009#186

Chazwozel

Kissinger;291256][quote=Kissinger;291253][quote=Kissinger said:
Chazwozel: The edgiest halforum poster? You decide!

Thrill as he substitutes hate speech for words that are ALMOST derogatory words![/QUOTE]

Marvel at his ability to go just shy of over-the-line, only to cowardly back away![/QUOTE]

Fag.

Nov 5, 2009#187

bhamv3

Sounds all right to me, Dave.

Though I don't use these words, I don't care if people use these words, and I don't care if other people care (or not) if people use these words, so what do I know?

Nov 5, 2009#188

Cajungal

That sounds reasonable to me. If it bothers someone, they can complain. If it doesn't, or if they'd prefer to just ignore, they can do just that.

Chaz, don't. Kissinger, if you want to argue, then argue, but don't drive him to that.

Nov 5, 2009#189

Steven Soderburgin

Kissinger;291256][quote=Kissinger;291253][quote=Kissinger said:
Chazwozel: The edgiest halforum poster? You decide!

Dave said:
Like it or not it's a word that has sneaked into the lexicon of gaming culture to have a different meaning than what it is commonly referred to now and that means it's going to be used and we have to figure out how to deal with it.

Ah, yes, gaming culture. That bastion of progressive ideas and acceptance.

Also, the meaning to which you are referring isn't really that different from the original meaning.

Nov 5, 2009#190

Chazwozel

makare1 said:
I use negative words alot, I swear often etc. I just have never considered censorship of those words to somehow destroy my ability to communicate. I would have to change the way I communicate, but it would not in any way censor me or my opinions.

I..I agree? No, actually I really do.

Nov 5, 2009#191

makare

How about if the person keeps doing it you edit out the offending word, say "you are such a fag" to the person's name, "you are such a <insert name>"? Then we all get a big haha.

this is more or less a joke in case anyone doesn't realize that.

Nov 5, 2009#192

ElJuski

Not censoring your opinions doesn't mean you have to be a blatant asshole about other people. For instance, there's an awesome /b/ meme right now I'm DYING to use on you, Chaz, but I won't, because I'm feeling reasonably nice.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

But my god would it drive the point home.

Nov 5, 2009#193

Steven Soderburgin

Cajungal said:
Kissinger, if you want to argue, then argue, but don't drive him to that.

Yes, I'll argue with Chazwozel. That sounds incredibly productive and not at all an exercise in futility.

Nov 5, 2009#194

Ross

I'll brb to continue this later... replies in hand. Class time now.

Nov 5, 2009#195

Chazwozel

Kissinger;291267][quote=Kissinger;291256][quote=Kissinger;291253][quote=Kissinger said:
Chazwozel: The edgiest halforum poster? You decide!

Thrill as he substitutes hate speech for words that are ALMOST derogatory words![/QUOTE]

Marvel at his ability to go just shy of over-the-line, only to cowardly back away![/QUOTE]

Be amazed at his casual sexism and homophobia, and astound at his denial of any such attitudes!
[/QUOTE]

Denial? I deny nothing. Now get back into the kitchen with your life partner and bake me a pie (please don't shed any HIV on it).

---------- Post added at 01:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------

makare1 said:
How about if the person keeps doing it you edit out the offending word, say "you are such a fag" to the person's name, "you are such a <insert name>"? Then we all get a big haha.

this is more or less a joke in case anyone doesn't realize that.

I just did that a page ago with Homer and Plinko!

Nov 5, 2009#196

Steven Soderburgin

Cool, Chazwozel just admitted to being a bigot. Can we ban him now?

Nov 5, 2009#197

Cajungal

Kissinger;291274][quote=Cajungal said:
Kissinger, if you want to argue, then argue, but don't drive him to that.

Yes, I'll argue with Chazwozel. That sounds incredibly productive and not at all an exercise in futility.[/QUOTE]

Then the sarcastic comments might be just as futile, yes? And give him a reason to post that garbage. I'm not putting all the blame on you, but you can't possibly think that you were being productive at all just now.

Nov 5, 2009#198

makare

there is no rule against being a bigot. how about you just take it to PMs and leave the thread alone.

Nov 5, 2009#199

The Lovely Boehner

Chazwozel said:
Denial? I deny nothing. Now get back into the kitchen with your life partner and bake me a pie (please don't shed any HIV on it).

Nov 5, 2009#200

Chazwozel

ElJuski said:
Not censoring your opinions doesn't mean you have to be a blatant asshole about other people. For instance, there's an awesome /b/ meme right now I'm DYING to use on you, Chaz, but I won't, because I'm feeling reasonably nice.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

But my god would it drive the point home.

I just think Kissybear hunts for oppression more so than is actually dealt out to him, overreactions like that warrant a good mockery.

---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

Kissinger said:
Cool, Chazwozel just admitted to being a bigot. Can we ban him now?

The South shall rise again. Don't worry, I'm quite secure enough with myself to not fret when an political correctness zealot, whiny fool makes false assertions about me. Now where's my bible and lynching rope?

Nov 5, 2009#201

Shegokigo

ElJuski said:
Not censoring your opinions doesn't mean you have to be a blatant asshole about other people. For instance, there's an awesome /b/ meme right now I'm DYING to use on you, Chaz, but I won't, because I'm feeling reasonably nice.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

But my god would it drive the point home.

After the HIV comment, I'd go ahead and post it Juski. Hell I'd do it if I were home and had access to the imagery.

Nov 5, 2009#202

Steven Soderburgin

makare1 said:
there is no rule against being a bigot. how about you just take it to PMs and leave the thread alone.

I'd prefer to openly call out this sort of shit when I see it.

Chazwozel said:
I just think Kissybear hunts for oppression more so than is actually dealt out to him, overreactions like that warrant a good mockery.

Ah, there's the denial I predicted!

Nov 5, 2009#203

makare

kissinger, chaz is not a bigot he is an antagonistic jerk. Calling him on his shit feeds him. FFS.

The only point you are making is that you are a willing target.

Nov 5, 2009#204

ElJuski

Shegokigo;291290][quote=ElJuski said:
Not censoring your opinions doesn't mean you have to be a blatant asshole about other people. For instance, there's an awesome /b/ meme right now I'm DYING to use on you, Chaz, but I won't, because I'm feeling reasonably nice.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

But my god would it drive the point home.

After the HIV comment, I'd go ahead and post it Juski. Hell I'd do it if I were home and had access to the imagery.[/QUOTE]

I'm still on the verge of being the better man.

Nov 5, 2009#205

Bubble181

*shrug* Certain words, such as "the n-word" (and seriously, I flippin' hate obligatory censorship. I rarely if ever use that sort of wording, but I despise this sort of asterisking it out.), hold a connotation partially because people cling to and insist that it has a negative value - those being "targetted".
First people were handicapped. Then disabled. Then motorically challenged. Then different-abled. Then...well, I'l actually not sure what the PC version is of refering to someone with a physical handicap. Nor do I really give a crap.
The thing is - calling a guy a crip, or a gimp? Calling something lame? Saying something's retarded? Those I can all easily see as truely derogatory. Calling someone "handicapped" is currently still highly un-PC; yet a lot of users just mean it as a descriptive. Having a handicap in golf or whatever, isn't meant as an insult to the differently abled (and yes, I've heard people say the term should be changed).
By the people themselves *claiming* a term as instantly and always derogatory, it *becomes* more and more linked with a minority and a negative stereotype of it. Saying any term anyone fnds offensive is, de facto, an offensive word and should be avoided/censored is completely ridiculous. Soem words *can* be used in different meanings (such as handicapped). Some pretty muchc an't (the N-word). Does "gay" or "fag" belong inthe one category or the other? I dunno.
Gay is definitely used as a non-derogatory way of saying "practising homosexual". Fag, when refering to a person who is fysically attracted to those of the same gender and/or sex, would seem to be always meant derogatorily...and it's a diminutive term when used elsewhere, too. That doesn't, to my mind, automatically mean that every time it's used, it's being used in a manner meant to be negative towards homosexuals.

As far as I'm concerned, anything should be OK, as long as it isn't used ad hominem or in a strictly derogatory way towards said minority....But if every use *is* going to offends omeone...Well...I dunno.
I think "You fucking queer!" is a punishable offense, whereas "I had a gay old time" isn't. Clearly. "Man, I had an annoying game on CSS today. The other guy was a total respawn fag" sounds, to me, the same as "the other guy was a retard", "the other guy was a lame ass", "the other guy was a fucking n00b". They're all negative, but I'd say none of them are meant explicitly to hurt the possibly offended parties.

Nov 5, 2009#206

Bowielee

I'm going to weigh in on the whole fag thing seeing as I'm probably the most vocal FAG in the group.

I HATE the fact that it's become common lexicon among young people. I'll tell you right now, it IS hurtful. I hate to use the whole "you'll never understand because you've never been in that position" argument, but in my case it's true. I came out when I was pretty young, and had to deal with being called a fag on a regular basis and it almost drove me to suicide when I was younger. Luckily I'm a stronger person than they were assholes.

To Shego, If that image said Do it DYKE, do you think you'd have the same response to it?

The usage of the word hasn't changed. calling people ******s is still inherently tied to homophobia. It's calling people gay, and saying that because they are implied as being gay they are stupid, weak willed, and effeminate.

You can use all the justifications that you want, but you are being a racist when using the Nword and a homophobe when using the word Fag. Just because you're able to rationalize it doesn't make it right.

Nov 5, 2009#207

Chazwozel

ElJuski;291295][quote=Shegokigo;291290][quote=ElJuski said:
Not censoring your opinions doesn't mean you have to be a blatant asshole about other people. For instance, there's an awesome /b/ meme right now I'm DYING to use on you, Chaz, but I won't, because I'm feeling reasonably nice.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------

But my god would it drive the point home.

After the HIV comment, I'd go ahead and post it Juski. Hell I'd do it if I were home and had access to the imagery.[/QUOTE]

I'm still on the verge of being the better man.[/QUOTE]

DO IT CIGARETTE!!!!!!

Nov 5, 2009#208

ElJuski

Chaz, you are the cancer that is killing halforums.

Nov 5, 2009#209

Chazwozel

Kissinger;291291][quote=makare1 said:
there is no rule against being a bigot. how about you just take it to PMs and leave the thread alone.

I'd prefer to openly call out this sort of shit when I see it.

Chazwozel said:
I just think Kissybear hunts for oppression more so than is actually dealt out to him, overreactions like that warrant a good mockery.

Ah, there's the denial I predicted![/QUOTE]

You are woman, hear you roar?

Nov 5, 2009#210

DarkAudit

ElJuski said:
Chaz, you are the cancer that is killing halforums.

This. Goodbye, dude. You're just not worth knowing anymore.

Nov 5, 2009#211

Chazwozel

ElJuski said:
Chaz, you are the cancer that is killing halforums.

That's it? Lame.

Nov 5, 2009#212

Steven Soderburgin

ElJuski said:
Chaz, you are the cancer that is killing halforums.

Nov 5, 2009#213

makare

That about sums it up.

Nov 5, 2009#214

ElJuski

Actually, what's lame is you leaving and pretending to be your neighbor before crawling back here and becoming an asshole again.

You are not the alpha male jackass you pretend to be. You're a fuckhead that's cloying to this forum because you need us, and yet you still act like a jackass.

I have no more sympathy for you and your pretend RAWR demeanor.

Nov 5, 2009#215

Steven Soderburgin

Chazwozel;291304][quote=ElJuski said:
Chaz, you are the cancer that is killing halforums.

That's it? Lame.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if it was gay cancer?

Nov 5, 2009#216

Chazwozel

ElJuski said:
Actually, what's lame is you leaving and pretending to be your neighbor before crawling back here and becoming an asshole again.

You are not the alpha male jackass you pretend to be. You're a fuckhead that's cloying to this forum because you need us, and yet you still act like a jackass.

I have no more sympathy for you and your pretend RAWR demeanor.

I'm not pretending to be Tim.

Ah and the ol' loop argument. "Fuck you guys, I don't need you. I'll leave to prove my point." No, I'm not going to fall for that. I like coming here, but as far as needing you. Don't be so egotistical.

All I'm doing is sticking up for Ross because he really didn't do anything all that bad.

Nov 5, 2009#217

fade

Bowielee said:
I'm going to weigh in on the whole fag thing seeing as I'm probably the most vocal FAG in the group.

I HATE the fact that it's become common lexicon among young people. I'll tell you right now, it IS hurtful. I hate to use the whole "you'll never understand because you've never been in that position" argument, but in my case it's true. I came out when I was pretty young, and had to deal with being called a fag on a regular basis and it almost drove me to suicide when I was younger. Luckily I'm a stronger person than they were assholes.

To Shego, If that image said Do it DYKE, do you think you'd have the same response to it?

The usage of the word hasn't changed. calling people ******s is still inherently tied to homophobia. It's calling people gay, and saying that because they are implied as being gay they are stupid, weak willed, and effeminate.

You can use all the justifications that you want, but you are being a racist when using the Nword and a homophobe when using the word Fag. Just because you're able to rationalize it doesn't make it right.

I honestly don't think people are trying to rationalize it. I feel very confident in saying that I don't think that most people who use it as an insult are making the direct implication that gay people are stupid and weak-willed. They're bypassing that and using as a synonym for stupid and weak-willed, and their minds never go to homosexuality. On the other hand, I know that's hurtful to other people, which is the primary reason it shouldn't be used.

It's also unfair to compare it to the n-word, precisely because the n-word has NOT undergone the same metamorphosis of meaning. When people use that word, there's not dissociation from black people. From the perspectives of the offended groups, there's no difference, but from the perspective of the offending groups, there's a world of difference.

Keep in mind I in no way condone the usage of either world. I think it's insensitive to use either. In the end, the offended group's voice should carry more weight.

Nov 5, 2009#218

Shannow

Holy shit, this thread is great. And here I was worried it would just be a boring "these are the rules!" thread, and everyones assholishness made it turn out awesome. Great job, guys! :popcorn:

Nov 5, 2009#219

Chazwozel

Shannow said:
Holy shit, this thread is great. And here I was worried it would just be a boring "these are the rules!" thread, and everyones assholishness made it turn out awesome. Great job, guys!

I like how Juski's and Kissengers periods sync up together.

Nov 5, 2009#220

Shegokigo

Kissinger;291310][quote=Chazwozel;291304][quote=ElJuski said:
Chaz, you are the cancer that is killing halforums.

That's it? Lame.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if it was gay cancer?[/QUOTE]

I laughed.

To Bowiele, I'm sorry. You're right. I hadn't put it in that context in my thoughts.

To Chaz, what's going on man? Really? This is exactly how you were acting before you left, we didn't want you to leave because it felt more like lashing out than intended emotion. I don't want to see a repeat, you were doing pretty damn well for a while there.

Nov 5, 2009#221

ElJuski

Chazwozel;291315][quote=ElJuski said:
Actually, what's lame is you leaving and pretending to be your neighbor before crawling back here and becoming an asshole again.

You are not the alpha male jackass you pretend to be. You're a fuckhead that's cloying to this forum because you need us, and yet you still act like a jackass.

I have no more sympathy for you and your pretend RAWR demeanor.

Nov 5, 2009#222

Chazwozel

Kissinger;291310][quote=Chazwozel;291304][quote=ElJuski said:
Chaz, you are the cancer that is killing halforums.

That's it? Lame.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if it was gay cancer?[/QUOTE]

Well HIV is a lentivirus which can cause cancer.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

Shegokigo said:
To Chaz, what's going on man? Really? This is exactly how you were acting before you left, we didn't want you to leave because it felt more like lashing out than intended emotion. I don't want to see a repeat, you were doing pretty damn well for a while there.

I'm not leaving.

Nov 5, 2009#223

Gusto

Remember like 2 days ago when I said that the "Discussing Negativity Thread" was incredibly ironic?

THIS IS WHY.

Nov 5, 2009#224

ElJuski

So, where is Tim anyway? He mysteriously disappeared about the time you started posting again. With the same IP address. By the by.

Nov 5, 2009#225

Bubble181

fade said:
I honestly don't think people are trying to rationalize it. I feel very confident in saying that I don't think that most people who use it as an insult are making the direct implication that gay people are stupid and weak-willed. They're bypassing that and using as a synonym for stupid and weak-willed, and their minds never go to homosexuality. On the other hand, I know that's hurtful to other people, which is the primary reason it shouldn't be used.

It's also unfair to compare it to the n-word, precisely because the n-word has NOT undergone the same metamorphosis of meaning. When people use that word, there's not dissociation from black people. From the perspectives of the offended groups, there's no difference, but from the perspective of the offending groups, there's a world of difference.

Keep in mind I in no way condone the usage of either world. I think it's insensitive to use either. In the end, the offended group's voice should carry more weight.

Um, this is pretty much what I think, but worded more understandably.

Nov 5, 2009#226

Cajungal

Thank you to those who have stayed on topic. To the others--and you know who you are--either be quiet or think of something helpful/constructive to say. If you've said your piece and it hasn't been addressed... I'm sure Dave will look at this when he gets back.

Nov 5, 2009#227

Chazwozel

ElJuski said:
So, where is Tim anyway? He mysteriously disappeared about the time you started posting again. With the same IP address. By the by.

He posted like a day ago. And we share a router and he does clinic at the same hospital I'm working at... Anything else you want to know?

Nov 5, 2009#228

Shegokigo

I seriously have no idea how the comments you've made so blatantly biggoted are helping Ross's side of this.

Nov 5, 2009#229

Krisken

Ya know, you can put any putz who irritates you on ignore.

It's like this...

Works well for me.

Nov 5, 2009#230

Shannow

Coward.

Nov 5, 2009#231

Krisken

Shannow said:
Coward.

Says Dr. Doom, walking away into a tunnel.

Nov 5, 2009#232

The Lovely Boehner

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

Nov 5, 2009#233

Chazwozel

Shegokigo said:
I seriously have no idea how the comments you've made so blatantly biggoted are helping Ross's side of this.

I was just egging Kissy on. That's all.

Nov 5, 2009#234

Steven Soderburgin

I think you have it backwards, actually....

Nov 5, 2009#235

makare

how about the good men do something that actually helps for a change instead of engaging in futile arguments and flames?

On a side note...
mmmm hugh laurie.

Nov 5, 2009#236

Chazwozel

Kissinger said:
I think you have it backwards, actually....

Oh so you admit that you like to play victim? So there you have it.

Nov 5, 2009#237

Krisken

Charlie Dont Surf said:
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

Calling a forum troll "evil" is the hight of hyperbole, Charlie. Chazwozel is no more evil than Dave is God.

For the record, I do agree with the "there's just no reason to use those particular words" crowd. I just think baiting the forum troll into making an immature ass of himself isn't really productive.

Nov 5, 2009#238

Dave

Holy fucking shit, people!

Damned IT coming in on the middle of this all. Weren't we all talking about this like Human beings?

The f-word is now blocked out because people can't be adults about it. Infractions were meted out and I'm locking this thread.

I really thought better of some of you.

:lock:

Forums