(October 20, 2016 at 3:30 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(October 20, 2016 at 3:24 pm)Losty Wrote: Here's a problem you may not have considered. There's no way for us as staff to decide if someone intentionally and irrationally did something so creating such a rule would only serve to annoy you more. You'd want to know why people aren't being punished for violating the rule and we'd have to say because there's no way to prove they've violated it.

So it was a bad idea. I tought so, given that it somewhat violated the quorum idea. Dunno if that is still going, but it was my baby.

Your baby is doing just fine, when are you rejoining the staff?

Indeed

(and this is from an overwhelming gaping influence)

With Drich around, we need not to say anything. He speaks volumes about himself about him and how his religion lets him be. The guy is literally digging his own grave.

(October 20, 2016 at 3:44 pm)Losty Wrote:

(October 20, 2016 at 3:30 pm)LastPoet Wrote: So it was a bad idea. I tought so, given that it somewhat violated the quorum idea. Dunno if that is still going, but it was my baby.

Your baby is doing just fine, when are you rejoining the staff?

Whenever those dumb fucks in red get their thumbs out of their asses.

I don't personally agree with ignoring him because I think he'd make the forum look bad if we let him go on for too long about how forced sex isn't rape if <insert something racist here>. I just think we should let people like rhythm be the ones to respond to him because I don't  like seeing sensitive peop get hurt by the disgusting things he says.

(October 20, 2016 at 3:43 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote:

(October 20, 2016 at 3:30 pm)Nymphadora Wrote: I would think reading the posts in any given thread, where it's clearly an issue would be enough. Especially when the behavior has been admitted to by the person causing the shitstorm in the first place. But it all comes down to subjectivity doesn't it? What one person views as being offensive, another may not. It is what it is, I guess.

Seems to be the only way to solve the issue is for me to place limits on my own freedom of speech and let the offender do what he does best.

Heres the thing though, and we need to be careful about what we are regarding as contravening the rules.

Offence isn't covered by the rules. We don't care if a post is 'offensive' as that's a meaningless term. After all anything can be offensive to anyone, and nobody should be interested in moderating 'offence'.

I also just feel we need to be clear on this salient point. Nobody is restricting your freedom of speech. Not once has anyone told you 'you can't do x or y' if it does not contravene the rules. That there have been encounters between members who disagree is not something we can do anything about. We aren't here to moderate interpersonal conversations and relationships any more than we are to moderate offence. I appreciate the conversations in question revolve around heated and personal topics, but really, the principle is the same. I'm not going to moderate people's beliefs, ever. It's not what I volunteered to do and if someone told me I should I would leave and never come back.

I'm not going to comment further on this now unless someone needs me to. I think I've made my position clear, and I hope that people can appreciate our stance and we can move forward together as a forum. I am a member before being staff, after all. I didn't stop being a member when I became an admin. In fact I view my staff duties as almost non-existent because this forum is, generally, pretty good at self-regulation.

So you misread what I said. I said I have to limit myself. No where in that is the suggestion that staff is going need to do that for me. If it keeps the peace for me to limit myself, because drippy can't control himself nor does he seem to have an ounce of reasonableness, then it is up to me to be the mature one.

It is Drich really? The guy that wished everyone of us to get AIDS because he got a false positive, shit his pants, prayed to god and turned out god healed him, therefore we never faced fear and we will turn to god on that? That drich?

Unless he has become more vicious than that, he wasn't breaking rules then. I haven't been paying much attention to him as of late. I think thicker skins are needed. Drich alone does more to make atheists than perhaps, the bible.

I for one am already atheist so meh. Ive heard all the bullshit. Albeit Little Rick is way out there. Somewhere.

Drich is an ass I never take too seriously. I figure it is best to view him as a plaything on the forum, here for our amusement.

(October 20, 2016 at 2:39 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I feel the ONI rule is misleadingly labelled and should be renamed ODI - Overwhelmingly Disruptive Influence. Wish we could invite Troy Brooks - ol' Churchwank himself - over here, to demonstrate precisely what that means.

Fuck.  You just gave me PTSD.

(October 20, 2016 at 3:48 pm)Losty Wrote: I don't personally agree with ignoring him because I think he'd make the forum look bad if we let him go on for too long about how forced sex isn't rape if <insert something racist here>. I just think we should let people like rhythm be the ones to respond to him because I don't  like seeing sensitive peop get hurt by the disgusting things he says.

I want something disgusting. Got a thread link?