gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
You said nobody claimed to understand them. I just did.
So now your changing your argument? What a surprise!
Boozer who?
- Thread starter doubledribble
- Start date
You said nobody claimed to understand them. I just did.
So now your changing your argument? What a surprise!
Inn Dawn
Well-Known Member
Hopper
Banned
Not changin my argument at all (it wasn't even an "argument," but...). Care to give a coherent explication of the rules for us, if your intention is to take up my "challenge?"
If you do, let's just start slow.
1. Can you clearly state what "homophobic" means, as that term is used in the newly promugated rules?
2. If so, can you expound upon that meaning so as to give us a clear idea of what a "homophobic comment" is?
If it matters, I read it differently and didn't think he was putting words in your mouth.
Not that I'm bitching, but the rules are fully subjective. I don't know how anyone could defend they are not. People flame and troll on here all the time, use foul language, etc. It appears to me that there's a line to cross that is up to moderator opinion. That leaves plenty of room for biased judgment, as The Hopper is complaining. Personally, I think this is the way it should be, and hope the moderators as judges are chosen well.
One question I have regarding the process is once a violation is issued can it be removed? I've received one demerit for "making a homophobic slur". I used an idiom that the 3+ moderators who voted for my infraction obviously weren't familiar with, and took it exactly opposite as its meaning. What I'm wondering is if I can appeal this infraction in the case I start pushing the violation limit. I don't plan on it or anything, but it would be a nice cushion to have.
Hmm, that's an awful lot like me writing, "Hopper, I know you don't want to try to understand anything I have to say on the topic, so I won't even try."
The moderators use the written rules to make their evaluations of posts that get reported. Yes, there are judgment calls, but implying there is a substantial difference is an overstatement in my opinion.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
If that's really the way you perceive things, then I feel sorry for you. Must be tough to live with that much paranoia.
Alternatively, you could just try to avoid homosexual slurs. As the announcement said: "The moderating staff recently reached a consensus that going forward we will not be as tolerant of homosexual slurs as we have been in the past. Users posting defamatory remarks on this basis may receive warnings or infractions in the future."
It's really not that complicated.
What I don't get in this multi-thread, multi-page per thread argument from The Hopper, is, why moderators and others seem to care so damn much?? It's obvious to me the guy is looking for a good argument, but nobody wants to take up the battle and pay attention to the nuances. Instead, y'all keep reverting to a "everyone else but you seems to get it so go elsewhere if you don't like it" type finally. I mean, if you don't want to take up the argument then why don't you just ignore the guy? He's made several points that have been continuously wallpapered over or ignored. Why not ignore the entire bit then?
"Infractions" drop off after 180 days. "Warnings" don't count against you at all; they are just a notice that you are getting close to the line. In your case, you received a warning, not an infraction, so you don't have any strikes against you.
If it becomes necessary, you can appeal to Jason or myself. Appeals aren't granted very often.
Because I strongly object to his implications of how the moderation system works. Simple as that.
Hopper
Banned
As usual, Colton, you presumptively assume that "everyone" knows exactly what YOU (or, more accurately, three random moderators) have in mind when you use the term "homosexual slurs." Even when it has just been clearly demonstrated that this is NOT the case:
franklin said:
LifeOnaPlate
Well-Known Member
Hopper: go find some legitimate and meaningful injustice in the world to complain about. Doing so at JazzFanz is morally pathetic.
That goes without saying. Here's the way I see about 25 pages of this summed up:
Hopper thinks the rules are subjective, and as such, bias could--and he's implied does--enter into moderator judgments. Hopper is not willing to concede that moderators are about as even kill as they come "off the bench".
Moderators make judgment calls, and are offended by the notion that they are handing out spurious, capricious, and/or vindictive rulings based on personal agenda. However, moderators, taking issue with The Hopper's vague implications, are avoiding the notion that the rules are subjective to vote and bias enters the equation whether minimized or not.
This has taken up a ton of pages and possibly subtracted enough productive time that a positive use could have lifted the world out of the recession we're not in but are.
Inn Dawn
Well-Known Member
No kidding.
Says the person complaining about what it's complaining about. Nobody takes your pseudo-whateveritisyouthinkyou'repassingoffasenlightenment seriously. Contradiction and being stupid generic are annoying, but, then again, who am I to judge what's legitimate and meaningful to another?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait!!!!!! This has been a gag this whole time?!?! You aren't really uneducated? WELL.I.NEVER!!!
LifeOnaPlate
Well-Known Member
Golly, franklin, what does this say about the guy complaining about the guy complaining about the guy complaining then?
Oh, and "Nobody" isn't quite accurate. See Inn Dawn's response above. Oops for you.
(ps- if you're screen name was inspired by Arrested Development then at least we have that to fall back on for a friendship in the future. Otherwise, we might be SOL.)
Hopper
Banned
I gotta disagree with ya here, frank. It is likely that the vast majority of people here find such proclamations to be highly insightful and meaningful.
Hopper
Banned
Just to elaborate a little, from my own experience: I do not promote or advocate homosexuality, as many here know. That said, I have not, to my knowledge understanding, and recollection, ever engaged in any "homophobic slurs."
Nonetheless, it would be hard to count the times I have been labelled as a "homophobe" on this board, primarily by those of the homosexual persuasion. I have no idea what they mean by the term, but it is thrown about freely and frequently as though it were self-explanatory.
It is an exaggeration, but not a big one, for me to state that, best I can tell, for many, "homophobic" simply means "not a homosexual."
Last edited:
LOL. Touche, ya bastad!