pigsty tags

[Kewpie]

Re:

Can I ask you. How did you become a moderator?

Is there a manual?

I'm not attacking you, i'm just asking.

In February 2007 I got a PM from site administrator who asked if I'd like to join the team.

It's an honour to be asked by site administrator himself, I humbly accepted his offer.

 

[LetsGoDevils]

Re: Political correctness

I suggest you to read [url="http://forums.morrissey-solo.com/showthread.php?t=97255/]this thread[/url].


I didn't support the idea to have a sub-forum the pigsty where is 99% unmoderated, but site administrator decided to add it.

If you are unable to distinguish the difference between freedom of speech and political correctness, hopefully someone will help you to explain about them.

Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States voided a Los Angeles city ordinance which forbade the distribution of any handbills in any place under any circumstances if the handbills did not contain the name and address of the person for whom it was prepared, distributed, or sponsored.

Talley is often cited for the proposition that identification requirements burden speech.

 

[Mozza220559]

Re:

In February 2007 I got a PM from site administrator who asked if I'd like to join the team.

It's an honour to be asked by site administrator himself, I humbly accepted his offer.

Ahh, I see.

 

[troubleluvsme]

I understand that, I just don't consider 'creepy' to be especially abusive.

If the person who was banned had been warned before about abusive tags then perhaps the "creepy" tag carried a little more weight.

 

[Kewpie]

Re: abusive tags

If the person who was banned had been warned before about abusive tags then perhaps the "creepy" tag carried a little more weight.

Very true.

This particular user had been given two infractions for the same offence.

He was warned that if he repeated the same offence next time he'd be banned from the forums.

 

[snowfallsoon]

Re: abusive tags

Very true.

This particular user had been given two infractions for the same offence.

He was warned that if he repeated the same offence next time he'd be banned from the forums.

I understand that, I'm not trying to be a troublemaker, just trying to figure out what the rules are. So, 3 tag infractions = a ban of one year?

 

[dunya]

Shall we have a debate about whether the Pigsty has generally been a success?
But where would we hold the debate. Inside or outside the pen?

I don't see much point in tags.

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

is it possible to find out who got banned for offensive tags?
cuz I am not sure who it was, which seems very secret police stateish
The recent "missing" I am aware of are:
mcrickson & Superhans, were others rounded up too?
if so, did they say mean things about me?
and if so yes on that, then thanks for getting them
all this would be a simple, clear, and transparent if you guys just had some kind of police blotter thread stickied here
OK, please?
thx

 

[Kewpie]

Shall we have a debate about whether the Pigsty has generally been a success?
But where would we hold the debate. Inside or outside the pen?

I don't see much point in tags.

Whether the pigsty is success or not, David decided to keep it and tag feature.

I disagree with it, but I'm powerless to influence his decisions.

Forum software vBulletin will be upgraded in later this year, hopefully upgrade will improve the forums.




BTW, Superhans and mcrickson got banned because they breached TOS.

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

Superhans and mcrickson got banned because they breached TOS.

well duh, all bannings fall under "TOS breaches" right?
I am just suggesting you be more specific on the actual why of a particular banning
that way bannings would actually succeed in making people obey the rules better
a crazy idea here, I am sure

 

[jamescagney]

I like the tags. Some of the funniest things get said there. Because tags are a slightly different medium. How about the tags on this thread, for example?

Just as long as the tags don't cross the line.

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

I like the tags. Some of the funniest things get said there. Because tags are a slightly different medium. How about the tags on this thread, for example?

Just as long as the tags don't cross the line.

racist tags, ones that call people pedos & such, these should be banned
end of story

 

[Jukebox Jury]

If the person who was banned had been warned before about abusive tags then perhaps the "creepy" tag carried a little more weight.

I understand the rule of abusive tags being not allowed...... but the word ''creepy''

That's really offensive, isn't it

Jukebox Jury

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

I understand the rule of abusive tags being not allowed...... but the word ''creepy''

That's really offensive, isn't it

Jukebox Jury

creepy is a powerful word, at least where I live
I am happy to be considered weird or an outsider, preferably unique
but creepy people? those are the kind of people I deny service to, refuse to work with and well, if someone wants to get on my bad side, then they just need to call me a creep or creepy, its what we call "a fighting word"

still, I have decided to forgive Dave for using it all the time, some people just cannot help themselves

 

[Jukebox Jury]

creepy is a powerful word, at least where I live
I am happy to be considered weird or an outsider, preferably unique
but creepy people? those are the kind of people I deny service to, refuse to work with and well, if someone wants to get on my bad side, then they just need to call me a creep or creepy, its what we call "a fighting word"

still, I have decided to forgive Dave for using it all the time, some people just cannot help themselves

but would you rather be called creepy or a c**t?

Jukebox Jury

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

c**t?

Jukebox Jury

it does not really mean the same thing here dude

 

[jamescagney]

racist tags, ones that call people pedos & such, these should be banned

That's what I've been saying, only about forum posts. I'm one of the few that supports the ACLU in rabidly defending freedom of speech for unpopular and offensive groups. HOWEVER, this is a web site. Do we really benefit from protecting racism and pedophilia on this site? And if we agree that some things are not suitable for posting (or perhaps repeated posting), then we agree we're going to moderate posts and need to draw the line somewhere.

Actually, I guess this is all pointless to discuss, because the one person who can change this isn't here and isn't changing his mind. Shame.

 

[troubleluvsme]

I understand the rule of abusive tags being not allowed...... but the word ''creepy''

That's really offensive, isn't it

Jukebox Jury

I'd rather someone call me "creepy" in a thread than tag me that way.
But, if someone did tag me as "creepy" I wouldn't lose any sleep over it or even report it, for that matter.

I think it all goes back to the banned user had been warned on more than one occasion about abusive tags. Some people just don't learn.

Having a couple of warnings is about as fair as it gets.

 

[Jukebox Jury]

I'd rather someone call me "creepy" in a thread than tag me that way.
But, if someone did tag me as "creepy" I wouldn't lose any sleep over it or even report it, for that matter.

I think it all goes back to the banned user had been warned on more than one occasion about abusive tags. Some people just don't learn.

Having a couple of warnings is about as fair as it gets.

Dont disagree with you over the warnings (I've had a few recently) but I suppose it all comes down to interpretation of 'abusive'.
On a scale of 1-10 (10 is high), I would be struggling to place 'Creepy' at number 1.....

Jukebox Jury

 

[troubleluvsme]

That's what I've been saying, only about forum posts. I'm one of the few that supports the ACLU in rabidly defending freedom of speech for unpopular and offensive groups. HOWEVER, this is a web site. Do we really benefit from protecting racism and pedophilia on this site? And if we agree that some things are not suitable for posting (or perhaps repeated posting), then we agree we're going to moderate posts and need to draw the line somewhere.

Actually, I guess this is all pointless to discuss, because the one person who can change this isn't here and isn't changing his mind. Shame.

I don't think pedophilia has ever been protected here.
That would be considered pornography, which is a violation of TOS.

How could it be a shame for David to make the rules for for his website?

As a parent, I believe that sometimes the answer "because I said so" is the perfect response to the constant question, "but whyyyy??" or "why not??"
When my kids start that, I usually answer, "because I said so" and
"if you don't like it, you can change it when you don't live here anymore."