The reasons I will no longer make threads that need help from fellow Jazzfanz posters!

[VINYLONE]

I usually only get on here once a day, before 8 am mountain time.

Oh, how incredibly convenient. Incredibly.

 

[VINYLONE]

Stepping down has made it very easy for me to keep piliing the infractions on you. It was much harder when I was a moderator.

Your vague threats do not impress me.

 

[bordelais7]

[...]Clutch[...]made[...]gay[...]women[...]violate[...][f]ive[...](dancing chick)

Seems like quite the accusation. You willing to back that up?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Actually, context was the primary driver behind that particular decision.

Clutch had made a fair number of "on the line" comments previously in reaction to the recent reminder to decrease homophobic comments and "gay jokes" and in particular was making a lot of comments referring to safetydan's statements about being raised by two women. Clutch had also received previous infractions under the "inappropriate content" rules. As a general matter, we have less tolerance for people who violate rules repeatedly than ones who cross the line rarely because there's an implication that they're willfully pushing the envelope.

For the record, this wasn't a close one given the larger context.

Five infraction votes (two more than necessary) and no one voted for anything other than infraction.

Intolerant bigots, the lot of you.

While we're stating things for the record, my other infractions were BS too. So in reality, I don't violate rules repeatedly.

 

[sirkickyass]

my other infractions were BS too. So in reality, I don't violate rules repeatedly.

It appears that what we have here is a dispute over what the rules should be then.

I will tell you this, starting threads like this one almost never helps.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

It appears that what we have here is a dispute over what the rules should be then.

I will tell you this, starting threads like this one almost never helps.

I think its a failure to communicate. What we have here, that is.

 

[sirkickyass]

I think its a failure to communicate. What we have here, that is.

 

[Jason]

A simple slap on the wrist and you whine?! We have FIVE infractions before it really means anything so grow up. For the math-challenged out there, that's 15 votes for an infraction minimum before you are "politely asked to leave".

If you're not following, PM Trout and ask.

 

[TroutBum]

A simple slap on the wrist and you whine?! We have FIVE infractions before it really means anything so grow up. For the math-challenged out there, that's 15 votes for an infraction minimum before you are "politely asked to leave".

If you're not following, PM Trout and ask.

Ya, because I understand it SO well.

 

[Bronco70]

I think its a failure to communicate. What we have here, that is.

Some men you just can't reach.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Some men you just can't reach.

Is that some sort of homophobic insult?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

A simple slap on the wrist and you whine?! We have FIVE infractions before it really means anything so grow up. For the math-challenged out there, that's 15 votes for an infraction minimum before you are "politely asked to leave".

If you're not following, PM Trout and ask.

Which is fine if I actually did anything wrong.

 

[Bronco70]

Is that some sort of homophobic insult?

Would that be your preference?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Would that be your preference?

Careful, you can be banned for inquiring about someone's seshuality ya know.

 

[Bronco70]

Careful, you can be banned for inquiring about someone's seshuality ya know.

Huh?

 

[franklin]

Actually, context was the primary driver behind that particular decision.

Clutch had made a fair number of "on the line" comments previously in reaction to the recent reminder to decrease homophobic comments and "gay jokes" and in particular was making a lot of comments referring to safetydan's statements about being raised by two women. Clutch had also received previous infractions under the "inappropriate content" rules. As a general matter, we have less tolerance for people who violate rules repeatedly than ones who cross the line rarely because there's an implication that they're willfully pushing the envelope.

For the record, this wasn't a close one given the larger context.

Five infraction votes (two more than necessary) and no one voted for anything other than infraction.

You're affirming that character was your defining factor rather than what was specifically written. Thank you.

 

[carolinajazz]

Intolerant bigots, the lot of you.

While we're stating things for the record, my other infractions were BS too. So in reality, I don't violate rules repeatedly.

....I think CLutch should get an infraction....for having Mike Tison as his avatar!

 

[CONAN]

This place is gold.

 

[moevillini]

Actually, context was the primary driver behind that particular decision.

Clutch had made a fair number of "on the line" comments previously in reaction to the recent reminder to decrease homophobic comments and "gay jokes" and in particular was making a lot of comments referring to safetydan's statements about being raised by two women. Clutch had also received previous infractions under the "inappropriate content" rules. As a general matter, we have less tolerance for people who violate rules repeatedly than ones who cross the line rarely because there's an implication that they're willfully pushing the envelope.

For the record, this wasn't a close one given the larger context.

Five infraction votes (two more than necessary) and no one voted for anything other than infraction.

You're affirming that character was your defining factor rather than what was specifically written. Thank you.

No. However, a poster who has been previously warned about the content of their posts should have a better idea of what's acceptable and what isn't than a poster who's never received any communication regarding appropriate content. So in that sense, we may be more lenient towards a poster who occasionally violates the rules than one who habitually violates them.

 

[sirkickyass]

You're affirming that character was your defining factor rather than what was specifically written. Thank you.

Only if you want to engage in a game in which all things you agree with are put in the box called "context" and all things you don't agree with are put in the box called "character."

That Clutch made several previous comments to safetydan on the same subject matter and was purposely pushing the line on the exact same issue over and over again around that period of time I would call "context." Apparently you would call it "character."

In any event, I don't think you've advanced a case that the decision was invalid on the merits articulated.