Rule Changes + New Restrictions

[Mystical]

There is never going to be a perfect definition of trolling or flaming or preaching or homophobia....etc. etc.

You know John, I considered it a personal attack (seeing as how it was coming from you) everytime you talked about Brian37's 'panties in a bunch' (even in threads Brian isnt even commenting on) or extrapolating a toilet seat thread topic to bring up that he might sit down while peeing. Not to mention your blatant homophobia to the point that I have to wonder why you doth protest too much.
Which is why I find this whining of yours somewhat intolerable. No ones persecuting you, John. You dig your own holes as far as I see. And you're still here despite evident rule breakage as far as I'm concerned. Jump off that high horse why don't you?

[Angrboda]

I do not think that, even if John may or may not have misstepped here, that that is an invitation to pull out your laundry lists, people. That's the job of staff. This thread is for discussion of the rule changes, which John, ineloquently or not, has been addressing.

Consider my hair mussed.




(ETA: The job of staff and people who are in good faith clicking on the report button to report a believed violation of forum rules.)

[Mystical]

*un muffles your hair, pats it down nice and pretty again

Sorry Apo

[pocaracas]

I think John's gripe is with this little line:
"The staff reserves the right to analyze each case in the spirit of this rule if said case doesn't violate the exact wording of other rules."

All in all, I go by Jim Jeffries's rule: Try not to be a cunt.
That works everywhere!

[John V]

@John:

It would really help if you gave some constructive criticism about what could be done to the rule to make it clearer. Repeating the "clear as mud" mantra doesn't exactly help anyone fix the problem.

I did:

A real rule would be more along the lines of: posts which only insult and do not add to the discussion are not allowed and will be deleted. The poster will receive a warning on the first offense, a suspension on the second, and will be banned on the third.

---

That being said, I think he has a valid point. We should definitely punish John V the way we we recently punished GermansAreComing for both trolling this thread and flaming our members with useless remarks that are meant only to spur hostility, as well as continually calling out one of our most celebrated members in a thread that he had nothing to do with.

You're unwittingly pointing out part of the problem yourself by saying "most celebrated member." The rules are ambiguous enough that celebrated members can easily be given breaks. Doesn't bother me - it's not my site. Just pointing out that the rules are built to allow favoritism, so why even bother with them? Just say that everything's at the mods' discretion.

That's right, Minimalist may toss out a few name-calls around here, but he does it within the thread and directly in the conversation with the person he's insulting --- which is a hell of a lot more than you offered him here in this thread.

Oh please, you've never seen Minnie make a post that was an insult and nothing more?

You're lucky we do have good admins like Tibs here to look out for theists like you, because if it were up to most the rest of us, trolly little hypocrites like yourself would be gone before you had the chance to say "Jesus loves you ... now burn in hell."

Oh please 2, I've been banned from an atheist forum before, and life went on. In fact, one atheist there emailed me and offered to fight for me, and I told him not to bother. Atheist forums are pretty interchangeable. You guys don't stick out as much as you think.

---

JohnV,
Whats your warning level?
Mine unbelievably is zero!!!

I know you are just trying to help the forum by contributing some thoughts about its moderation but this is a really good AvT forum. Agreed?

Good, yes. Really good, no. It's pretty standard. I've been doing this for fifteen years and seen better and worse, but most of them fall within a fairly narrow range of quality.

---

If you don't want to be insulted for your beliefs, you may want to consider voicing them amongst people whom you know will find them extremely objectionable.

I assume there's a missing "not" in there. I don't care if I'm insulted for my beliefs.

If I go to an gay-friendly forum and start acting like a homophobe, even if I'm doing it in a polite way, I deserve every single personal attack I get.

Not necessarily. It depends on the forum's rules.

That's not to say you shouldn't have the freedom to say what you want, but it does mean you waive the right to be a bitch about the consequences. If you want a forum where you can say terrible things in the name of Jesus and expect to not take a dump truck full of shit for them, what the hell are you doing on a forum certain to have people who will react precisely in that manner?

This doesn't accurately describe the site's mission. The description that comes up on Google is:

Atheist Forums is a website aimed at getting atheists and theists talking about various issues including atheism, theism, god, religion, science, and everything in ...

If it said:
Atheist Forums is a website where atheists unload a dump truck full of shit on theists who have differing views...

you'd have a point. But it doesn't.

---

You know John, I considered it a personal attack (seeing as how it was coming from you) everytime you talked about Brian37's 'panties in a bunch' (even in threads Brian isnt even commenting on) or extrapolating a toilet seat thread topic to bring up that he might sit down while peeing. Not to mention your blatant homophobia to the point that I have to wonder why you doth protest too much.

Yes, of course those are personal attacks. One time I was warned about it (not sure why, as in that thread I was suggesting that he's gay, which is only an insult if you have something against gays) and I cut back on it.

Which is why I find this whining of yours somewhat intolerable. No ones persecuting you, John.

I never said they were. You, like others, are building a straw man.

You dig your own holes as far as I see. And you're still here despite evident rule breakage as far as I'm concerned. Jump off that high horse why don't you?

It's a high horse to point out that a rule is ambiguous?

---

I do not think that, even if John may or may not have misstepped here, that that is an invitation to pull out your laundry lists, people. That's the job of staff. This thread is for discussion of the rule changes, which John, ineloquently or not, has been addressing.

Consider my hair mussed.




(ETA: The job of staff and people who are in good faith clicking on the report button to report a believed violation of forum rules.)

You previously asked about my background in leadership etc. You didn't ask about my background in rules. I work in contract law and tax law, and am on the board of a non-profit organization. I've seen $200 million deals held up at the eleventh hour due to ambiguity in the wording of the contract. Maybe ambiguity is more apparent to me.

[Cinjin]

That being said, I think he has a valid point. We should definitely punish John V the way we we recently punished GermansAreComing for both trolling this thread and flaming our members with useless remarks that are meant only to spur hostility, as well as continually calling out one of our most celebrated members in a thread that he had nothing to do with.

You're unwittingly pointing out part of the problem yourself by saying "most celebrated member." The rules are ambiguous enough that celebrated members can easily be given breaks. Doesn't bother me - it's not my site. Just pointing out that the rules are built to allow favoritism, so why even bother with them? Just say that everything's at the mods' discretion.

Ridiculous. You have no idea who does and does not get verbal warnings by way of PM. No one gets special privileges around here and my mention of a celebrated member was merely because he won the Member of the Year award in 2012. Your argument is not legitimate and it would seem you are a liar. You've claimed several times in this thread, "I don't care, do what you want," but then you keep crying like a little child about ONE member that has (coincidentally) often destroyed your biblical arguments. You're either a sore loser or just another hypocrite christian. Whatever you are, you've lost all credibility in this thread.

[Cinjin]

You previously asked about my background in leadership etc. You didn't ask about my background in rules. I work in contract law and tax law, and am on the board of a non-profit organization. I've seen $200 million deals held up at the eleventh hour due to ambiguity in the wording of the contract. Maybe ambiguity is more apparent to me.

This is not a corporation. We are not signing contracts and the world we live in is not black and white. Furthermore, using the law as an example is really absurd. The court systems across the globe regularly change punishments for offenders based on the circumstances. What one man got 20 years for another man could get 2. Get over yourself. You're wrong.

[Tiberius]

John,

Your suggestion would not work as it isn't the kind of rule we're going for. We aren't banning insults outright. We are banning people who flame or try to incite flame wars.

One off insults are a natural part of discussion. Escalating those insults to the point where you are using them regularly and for seemingly no reason is when it starts to become a problem.

So with that in mind, what are your suggestions?

[John V]

Ridiculous. You have no idea who does and does not get verbal warnings by way of PM. No one gets special privileges around here and my mention of a celebrated member was merely because he won the Member of the Year award in 2012. Your argument is not legitimate and it would seem you are a liar. You've claimed several times in this thread, "I don't care, do what you want," but then you keep crying like a little child about ONE member that has (coincidentally) often destroyed your biblical arguments. You're either a sore loser or just another hypocrite christian. Whatever you are, you've lost all credibility in this thread.

You don't know what you're talking about. Minnie rarely addresses my arguments. He's much more involved with Drich and others.

[LastPoet]

Could it be because you have no argument whatsoever?

Really John, jealousy now?