RE: moderation interpretation?

RE: moderation interpretation? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LaTigresse -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:02:47 PM)
Exactly.

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:05:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Whatcha gonna do? Individuals take responsibility for doing (a), and the mods dial up (c) if (a) and (b) are both happening. Right now things are much looser than they could be, on both sides.

mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:06:50 PM)
[awaiting approval]

GhitaAmati -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:07:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Right now things are much looser than they could be, on both sides. I think theres a thread about them loosers going on right now.....

DavidLee44UK -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:08:43 PM)
agree as well but there's a fine line as well its like on one hand you say come round my house be great then buy a great big Alsation and put up sign beware of dog

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:11:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail [awaiting approval] You almost fooled me :) You swine!

LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:12:24 PM)
They are situational, LaT. However, I think most of the time, you can tell the difference between playful banter and when a person is being slammed for their orientation. It's not the words necessarily, because we all know that some people play like that, and both parties are fine with it. The difference is in the intent. I'm not particularly that zoned in on various private jokes that go around this place, but when it's some version of people nailing another person because they aren't a zero on the Kinsey scale, that's crap. It's not a 'private joke' when folks are losing an argument and it only comes out then. If I never read that somebody is only interested in women because they've never had a "real man" ever again, it won't be a great loss to Me.

CalifChick -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:15:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail [awaiting approval] [image]http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/deniedsmile.gif[/image]

DavidLee44UK -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:15:53 PM)
kinsey scale ??

LadyPact -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:16:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail [awaiting approval] You almost fooled me :) You swine! LaT got Me doing that once. She had to let Me in on the joke.

mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:17:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail [awaiting approval] You almost fooled me :) You swine! TOS section 3, chapter 5, paragraph 11: You may not include porcine sobriquets when launching personal attacks against Norwegians.

RedMagic1 -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact If I never read that somebody is only interested in women because they've never had a "real man" ever again, it won't be a great loss to Me. Yeah. Or even, "You are posting that way because you're not getting laid," which I have seen for years, and just recently people said it to me for the first time, so I am bemused by it. I've never understood that one either. Suppose it's true. Does sexual frequency have anything to do with someone's character or wisdom? Mother Theresa, the know-nothing bitch. Still, if a user does not engage and still gets personally attacked, that is a TOS violation. The same umbrella covers both cases.

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:19:55 PM)
Those who freak at the mods every time they delete or move something, need to better understand the concept of shoveling shit into the surf. Implied ongoing ownership is just bullshit and anyone who is in such a rush that they think they don't have to read the TOS on a website they SIGN A CONTRACT with, is essentially an idiot when they post 'what should be'. Never mind that giving up ownership and acquiescing to the actual owner of the data, the right to modify are fundamental customs on the internet in regard to content such as we post here. Then again assholes and opinions are inexorably linked. I've often thought that this stems from some view on the part of the author that they have created some 'intellectual property' that if left to rest in it's 'hallowed' spot, picked out 'specially' by it's author, that someday, along will come another who will read their marvelous creation and spark a revolution or generate the next occurrence of the big bang. Sadly, this is more likely a sign that they should simply decrease the dosage.

SternSkipper -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:22:04 PM)
quote: Does sexual frequency have anything to do with someone's character or wisdom? Mother Theresa, the know-nothing bitch. Man ... talk about apples and oranges[:D]

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:23:22 PM)
quote: What happens in Politics and Religioun............that's their problem. As long as they are lobbing grenades at one another, they are leaving the rest alone. I think that there are lines even in PR, such as belittling someone sexually because you do not like their political opinions. That is one of the few things that can make PR too vile for even me, luckily moderators have agreed with me on that one.. Yes, there are even limits there.

DavidLee44UK -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:28:13 PM)
but again Julia how longs that being going on how long people violated tos and has what happened worked ??

mnottertail -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:29:21 PM)
To say that your MacGuffies are leviathon and weigh a good stone apiece is only political reality, not a swipe.

RapierFugue -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:29:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail [awaiting approval] You almost fooled me :) You swine! LaT got Me doing that once. She had to let Me in on the joke. What made it slightly easier was there's someone whose posts really are "AA" on the same page, so I could compare and contrast the differences :)

juliaoceania -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:31:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail To say that your MacGuffies are leviathon and weigh a good stone apiece is only political reality, not a swipe. Hey, I am not talking compliments, I am talking swipes...

GhitaAmati -> RE: moderation interpretation? (6/20/2011 1:32:38 PM)
yea...some of us actually like getting called names. How are the Mods supposed to tell the difference?

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875