A link, even though it is like explaining a joke, can be unobtrusive. But maybe that would be missing the point…
Mangetout, sometimes a link can be a little too unobtrusive don’t you think? 
Oxy
I’m not sure that the point of the hate speech rule is that a poster avoid offending himself. I think it is a matter of offending others, which requires an objective, not subjective, ruling. I find the much used expression that hoists Christ onto a stick is the most vile, vulgar, offensive expression imaginable. The administration disagrees.
In the end, it isn’t what I (or you) think, but what Lynn et al think. My question (which was intended for administration, by the way) was whether putting a famous black man in a noose is the same sort of thing as putting a famous Jew on a stick. Thanks for your input, but would you mind if I get an opinion from those who control the board?
If you’re only concerned about the opinions of those who run the board, email them. This is a public forum.
::definitely NOT pulling up a lawnchair, but standing up and having a say::
I love the lawnchair posts. I don’t remember ever posting one myself, but every time I see them, I laugh out loud. They fill me with glee.
Apart from the fun aspect, they serve as a useful reminder to people that others are reading their opinions - even if they aren’t responding - so what they post IS accountable. So if you flame someone, or post something inappropriate and unfair, and get attacked for it - it’s an open, public process, with many more viewers than those that actually take part.
Just like in a court of law. Or parliament.
I don’t know if the administrators will respond. Lynn states she’ll “consider” all the responses.
This is absolutely stupid and useless. Almost anyone using these words will quickly be banned for being a jerk. Making certain words forbidden will only:
1) Prevent us from catching jerks.
and
*2) Prevent us from having discussions like this one. *
Please, specification of rules is a non-starter! All that leads to is legal loopholes and, appeals commitees and, eventually, to loophole-ridden laws. Stick with “Don’t be a jerk” and maybe add “Don’t encourage jerkiness in others” and maybe also “Don’t waste everyone’s time and bandwidth.”
I think the moderators do fine work for their mugs – but if some disagree, perhaps we can have some sort of moderation review thread. Constructive criticism and the occasional venting – that’s what I think the Pit should be about.
Dan
What a bizarre thing to say.
Now stop staring at me, and eat your checkers.
Whoa! Back on the parody horse:
Coldfire just swatted down a limp but obvious parody with this
Doesn’t this completely underscore my concern about making parodies into GD’s – complete with cites and proof? How the hell was Kang & Kodos supposed to respond to this? Say “Yes, it was a parody, and it’s about Esprix?” That was obvious, it was in the title of the thread! Now we have to prove a substantiated case – what does that mean? And specific links – earlier, WRT to me, we said a single link would suffice. Can’t those lacking the reference simply click on the nearest thread that says Esprix? Would we be requiring the same evidence if K&K simply called Esprix an attention whore directly? I think we need to awake to the possibility of serious over-reaction and micromanagement. The K&K thing was dying on it’s own – to what purpose are we locking these threads?
Right. But you don’t want anyone to respond to you? And you call me bizarre?
It’s really not that difficult to understand - if you only want one person or one small group of people to respond to something, then you should contact them directly. You can’t seriously mean that it’s okay for you to post in this thread but no one can respond to you.
What are you, the pivot man? Unless all discussion must go through you, I might have been talking to someone else. And in fact, I was. :eek:
Yes, we’re all quite aware you were “talking to someone else” - now, if you sincerely wish no input on what you post to a public message board, “talk” to them in private.
Input all you like. In fact, dominate for all I care with preachy commandments about where I should take my discussion. I am still waiting for an opinion that matters.
I vote you put each other on your ignore lists. Secretly. 
I just can’t resist it anymore. Why is it such a bad thing for someone to know he/she is on your ignore list? Are we worried that this person would now know that they have a free, say-whatever-they-want-behind-his/her-back pass? I just don’t get it. Are some people just too sensitive to know that they are being ignored?
I’m putting myself on ignore but I’m not going to tell myself. Its just easier that way.
Well, two thoughts here; first of all, the dreaded ignore list. I already had one of these - I assume many others did, too. It’s inside my head. It has a little more liberal filtering system, so that I can see when or if someone turns over a new leaf, or admits to former jerkhood. I use it mostly when I’m ready to post something in the heat of the moment. Pause, consult mental Ignore function, decide it isn’t worth picking a fight, move on to another thread. Isn’t this what most of us already do?
The second is the “lawnchair” type posts. I’ve seen a number of posts that could be construed as this type, and Lord knows I’m guilty of posting them in the past. I think one of the possible motivations for a non-participatory post might be to inject some levity, and possibly defuse a horrible pending trainwreck. In the specific case of lawnchairs, it’s old worn out humor, true. I just think that it isn’t always intended to incite mayhem or to pad post counts. How do we judge the difference here?
Seawitch, as always you are the quiet voice of reason. What you say makes so much sense to me that I’m going to empty my list. Thank you for posting.
seawitch is truly wise.
Esprix
Good heavens! Thanks for the complimentsLib and Esprix. But just for continuity, I promise that as soon as I have enough coffee I’ll turn right back into one of the “total dipsticks” the Board is required to host. 
I don’t really think there should be an ignore list option at all, but I do completely understand the reasoning behind this new rule. The ultimate frustration for some is the feeling of powerlessness in an arguement. The ignoring person can say anything they want (within the rules set forth) and the ignoree is powerless to make any arguement against that person whatsoever.
It is torture. I am not on any ignore lists AFAIK, and I don’t usually take part in any arguements on the boards; but informal debating in the analog world is one of my favorite things. The worst feeling in an arguement is when the other party walks away or hangs up or plugs their ears. It feels like they are taking away your freedom of expression. They obviously aren’t, but it can still feel that way.
Again, I am against the ignore list, and I don’t necessarily think ignorance of it is a good thing, but it will definitely prevent more flame wars and anger than it will cause.
However, currently no one is being banned for using terms like “white trash,”
“redneck,” “fundie,” etc.
If the ‘no hate speech’ rule isn’t going to be more clearly defined, then it at
least needs to be applied evenly.
I don’t think of myself as overly-sensitive, but the term “white trash”
particularly sticks in my craw. What exactly does it mean, anyway? Poor
people? Is there something the Board members as a whole feel morally repulsive
about being poor–and if so, isn’t that attitude morally repulsive? What
gives anyone the right to refer to someone else as trash based on their
financial status? I also think it’s a prime example of racism–wouldn’t I be a
jerk if I said black trash? Of course I would.