As this has been deemed off-topic, I’ll just point you to the second and third links I provided, raise you :rolleyes::rolleyes:, and see you in another thread if you’d like to continue this discussion.
But can you explain this:
?
Someone had pointed out the thread to me and thought I should share my opinion. Simple enough, yes?
Many people agreed that the existing rules covered this issue. However, there was cries of “If the rules have changed, there needs to be a formal announcement and a stickie!” and lots of grousing about the direction the moderation had taken. Hence this now. And then more of the same. Obviously, they can’t win.
Apparently plenty of people get it, just not the “vocal minority” represented here that don’t like being forced not to behave like juveniles.
See above. Again.
Oh, you meant besides what she and others have been explaining tirelessly for the past couple of weeks on end? That kind of special?
I’m not sure what you want clarified. I don’t know if magellan01 is going to grasp your and DiosaBellissima’s objection here, but in context of the rules it doesn’t matter - there’s not going to be a women only/women’s issues only/no joking forum. (panaccione, consider what the life of the moderator who has to handle a Straight Dope forum where jokes aren’t allowed would be like.) So it doesn’t matter if a particular name is good or bad. It’s not worth arguing about.
We don’t moderate Cecil’s columns.
We don’t moderate Slug’s cartoons either. There but for the grace of… I don’t know what.
I know.
We’re not banning words and phrases. That’s never ever ever been how this stuff works. The only thing that’s even close is the Pit rules, and that’s only when it applies to other posters. Some people insist that has to be what we’re doing, but it isn’t. We go by context, not specific words and phrases.
I hope this is for the last time: cool it. Don’t call other posters juvenile.
Yep. The phrased “called” threw me. “Asked” wouldn’t have been noticed. But I can certainly understand some in this thread feeling they need assistance. Whether or not it was one of them.
This is really my point. If people were a little less juvenile about running into serious threads and trying to derail it into party or joke threads, we wouldn’t need the rule.
Marley23, it was more a clarification on the fact that magellan01 was romanticizing an unsavory practice based on what he read in a fictional novel. I’ll drop it now that I had pointed it out.
magellan01, in that scenario, I’m more flexible re: the use of “call” and “ask”. The person who pointed out the thread to me feels I have a valid opinion on it and mentioned that I should post in it. No “I need defending” please for help.
Emissary?
Warning issued. I gave you plenty of chances here. Obviously there was no point.
I think it’s hard for a lot of women to step forward and state that they support the moderation of crude, sexist and misogynistic comments - it’s very hard for me. But I do want the moderators to know that I support them. There is tons of chatting and messaging amongst the women about this and though not all of them feel comfortable saying they support it, lots of us do.
There are a remarkable amount of warnings being given out in this thread when there’s been no breach of the rules. I really can’t see why you’re bothering to try to add new rules, you could just continue with the arbitrary and unfair (lack of a) system you’re currently using.
Here’s a clue though - just because you don’t like what someone says doesn’t make it wrong for them to say it.
I don’t think two is a remarkable number. A lot of mod notes, yes, because some of the other threads on this subject got out of hand and became stupid very fast.
I assume you feel Magellans post was insulting to people posting in the thread. Can I ask if you think this post is doing the same thing?
You can’t see that some of the warnings being issued are because folks are directly insulting people, regardless of whether actual names are used? Seriously? We’re trying to have a mature discussion on the change in rules and folks are jumping in to insult the people making and/or using the rules instead of the rule itself. That’s not constructive.
This sums it up for me. I think this is a good response and I’ll be glad to see some moderation of these types of comments. I’m honestly quite stunned by some of the behavior in these threads.
Edit: I’d like to give kudos to Marley23. I’ve found his comments on this topic to be thoughtful and helpful.
No, I don’t mean that at all.
No need to do a huge quote.
Marley23, thank you for the clarification.
I know you know but not everyone knows and in the context of this discussion, such a deeply inflammatory quote that is in fact not a quote at all, well… I thought a cite might be useful. My apologies if it was not.
It’s worth noting, and it’s not a problem.
I will emphasize we moderate the message board, after all - I understand why people sometimes compare the two, but it’s not in our “jurisdiction.” And for that matter the idea has a tugging on Superman’s cape kind of a vibe.
Finally someone made some sense. Come on, women, let’s fight our own battles. We don’t need daddy and mommy to do it for us!
:eek:
Nobody invokes Jim Croce lightly.
It says a lot that you don’t think two warnings when no rules have been broken is remarkable.