…and reclines on a chaise longue 
if they’re rules about what you can’t say, then this section shouldn’t say that flames are permitted … as far as i have always understood… when flaming, anything goes
Glad to hear your granny is still so active!!
A salad shooter though???
Is this a new form of contraception???
OK Lynn Bodoni, administrator person,
Why no games in the PIT?
The game I proposed as a means of letting out pent up agression in a way that avoids directing insults towards any person or group was cancelled.
I put it in the Pit because I saw it likely to generate rudness unsuitable for inclusion in MPSIMS. You seem to be moderating in such a way as to require people to be unpleasant to each other in the PIT.
The closed thread if anyone is interested was
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136756
of course I may be hopelessly naieve in thinking such a game could exist in the PIT without degenerating into a slinging match of offensiveness, but I would hope for better.
Cheers, Keithy
P.S. maybe you should add No Games into the rule list, and any other unwritten rules of a similar nature.
Well, my understanding is that there still should be a line that shouldn’t be crossed, especially on a quality board like this.
If someone flames me in here and says “Fuck you Lola” then I could care less. But if someone tells me “Fuck you Lola, you stupid slant-eyed Jap and bad excuse for a ho-bag mother”, well, then, I’d like to think that that line’s been crossed.
Thats just assasine. Why does there need to be a policy concerning “drugs”. You can always put “(drugs)” in the header if people don’t want to read about it. Is it because drugs are illegal in some places? Talking about them isn’t.
Gee, people can freely discuss pedophilia or fucking chickens but you start on about the ganja and its a big no no.
Boo.
Actually, Eidolon909, here’s how it breaks down.
Questions about drugs are okay (as far as I can tell) as long as they’re questions along the lines of “What are the addictive properties of marijuana?” or “Was Coca-Cola once made from cocaine?” These questions have nothing to do with the use of said illegal drugs.
The questions that would be bad would be like “Where can I score some primo MJ?” and “Who here gets high?”
In other words, medical and scientific questions are fine, and that goes for all subjects, including the ones you’ve mentioned.
For example, you could have a Great Debate about pedophilia - “Is it really that bad?” and that would be fine. But begin a thread like “Ask the Pedophiliac!” or “Where can I pick up young boys for sex?” and you’ll find it closed. See the difference?
It’s not that all threads on drugs are banned; the moderators have to use discretion and take each thread on a case-by-case basis.
These are just my interpretations - I ain’t in charge of nothin’.
Yes, I see a petty difference in semantics. Usually when people debate about something they have an informed opinion. Someone debating the value of drug use or debating against drug laws is no different than when the same person replies to a thread entitled “Does Marijuana feel good?”.
And why is “Where can I score some pot?” A “bad” post. I would love to discuss the many coffee shops in Amsterdam that provide premium bud for a good price. Or the fact possession of marijuana in Canada for medicinal purposes is legal up to two ounces and users may even grow their own.
But there was zero reason to close Rilchiam’s thread beyond the subjective moral reasoning of the moderators being imposed on the group as a whole.
She smoked some pot. Her husband smoked some pot. He liked it. CLOSE THE THREAD. How disgusting. How objectionable. Drugs are bad, mmmkay. People may hold those opinions so why not leave it open to discussion?
Well, I tried to be helpful. Perhaps you could read the entire thread, and then all the OTHER threads covering this very same topic. It’s not as if it’s never been discussed before.
You’re pretty new here, judging by your registration date, and I was cutting you some slack. I bet others will be along soon to do otherwise.
Because them’s the rules, Bosco. You wanna discuss the rules? I’ve got no objections. You wanna have a tantrum that someone providing a free service isn’t doing so to precisely your liking? You’ll be mocked.
If your delicate, flower-like sensiblities are damaged by the “objectionable”, “disgusting” behavior of the Mods, perhaps you can build your OWN message board where all will feel free discuss whatever you permit and live free, happy lives unopressed by the evil wiles of the nefarious Moderators.
Fenris
See? Told you someone would be along! 
Is there a file that contains moderator e-mails? Yes, I know one can access them if one is a registered user.
The catch-22 comes when one is banned and invited to e-mail the moderators to discuss. Being banned also bans access to the e-mail accounts, thus preventing further discussion of said status, apologies, chocolate bribes, what have you.
Not that I’d have any experience with that, mind you. cough
Not at all. You just go to the main page of the forums and click on the moderator’s name - or you can click on Forum Leaders at the bottom.
You don’t have to be a registered user to access the main page, do you? After all, you don’t have to be registered to view posts.
This is precisely what does not work.
Don’t take my word for it, Dantheman, log out and try it for yourself.
Have you ever tried to read the FAQ threads in ATMB? Good information in there.
You’re absolutely right. You can get to the Forum Leaders page, but clicking on anyone’s email link gets you that “you aren’t supposed to be here” page. Bummer.
I guess the best you can do is what Arnold says - check out the threads in ATMB, which you can read.
Sorry about that.
No problem.
Arnold, I did try to read the FAQ, but I missed that. My bad.
Of course, it amounted to the same thing: asking someone else for the e-mail address of Lynn (the mod in question). Why not allow non-logged in users to access moderator e-mail accounts?
I guess you’re trying to prevent banned members from harassing the moderators, since obviously non-members can log in to find the information, so only one class of posters is affected.
I couldn’t change my log-in to find out the info, since I didn’t want to be accused of having a sock. That may or may not be paranoid, but in the end, I was able to get a friend to log in to find out the e-mail address in question.
I’d say that the policy is self-defeating and annoying without having utility, but perhaps it’s that way for technical reasons. No biggie.
I don’t see what we could do about that.
Not just harassing moderators, but harassing other posters. Bad behaviour in the past is why we have disallowed banned members from accessing profiles.
See above.
So a banned member can’t even plead a case? 
As for harassing other posters, if posters themselves were worried about it, they’d hide their email addresses. A member doesn’t have to be banned to be a harrasser, after all.
Yes he can, by finding an administrator e-mail address in the FAQ and e-mailing one of the administrators.
Some people want to allow their friends at the board to e-mail them, and yet not be harassed by other members. And someone harassing other posters via e-mail is a candidate for banning.