I second that motion. We can call it the “Free Speech Combat Zone.” (No miners allowed.)
I for one look forward with great anticipation to the fast-approaching day when Fred Smith’s interior fantasy world reaches the saturation point and explodes in all directions with great gelatinous chunks of quivering psyche – accompanied undoubtedly by rhetorical fireworks of First Amendment proportions.
Bring it on. Let’s roll. You’re either with us or against us! It wasn’t me, it was him . . . and all that.
FRED: FUCK YOU ASSHOLE. FUCKING IGNORANT NEOCON SCUMBAG. TAKE OFF YOUR FUCKING KNEEPADS AND QUIT SUCKING ON DUBYA’S LITTLE PUD, YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT.
There, Fred, is that how you like it?
Does that get you off?
Does that aid your understanding of political issues?
Why do you hold the above so sacred?
Sure, TM did a great job as a mod, but now there will apparently be a new mod. Why don’t you give him/her a chance? Maybe it won’t be as bad as you fear. Who knows, maybe it will be even better.
Also, I think that overall, no one can accuse me of going overboard on the insults. That’s not my style but if you really have a problem with me calling you a moral whore, then like I said, best stick to the kiddie wading pool, no?
I think foul, insulting language does inhibit discussion so it should be discouraged even if tolerated.
How about this? The moderator creates a list of ‘bad’ words and phrases and anyone who feels the irresistible need to employ them to make a point has to pay 30NT for each use to some worthy charity of his (or her) choice.
It will be on the honor system – so if Fred tells me to go fuck myself X number of times and I tally them up for all and sundry to see, Fred will be honor bound to pay 30XNT to said worthy charity and tell us all when and where he lived up to his gentleman’s agreement – or live with the private shame of having lied about it – on top of all the other shame he has to live with.
But who is using this type of language on a regular basis? Certainly not me. The major criticism that I have gotten is that I post too much on France and Germany and that I do so in a negative way. My reaction to this is if it’s okay to post such information about the United States, it should be equally possible for any other country. While MT’s post is vivid, it is more reflective of language that he has used in the past rather than anything I have ever posted. No?
My strongest language has been to say the “evil” Germans etc. which I believe is usually done in such a way that it is clear that I am merely mimicking other posters’ similar posts about George W. Bush and the Americans. My problem is that several of my posts have for no apparent discernible reason ended up in the flounder forum. Who is to determine what “subjects” are acceptable discourse? That is what has my goat right now. I believe that there is rather a heavy handed approach going on as to what can be posted and how often and quite frankly I am not interested in that kind of a forum.
I think we leave the “moderating” off and allow posters to make their own assessments of posters and the approaches that they use. I do not believe that regular inclusion of such language is going to make any converts to one’s approach on this forum. The person who uses such language will cause only himself or herself to suffer by comparison.
[quote=“sheepshagger”][quote=“spook”]I second that motion. We can call it the “Free Speech Combat Zone.” (No miners allowed.)
[/quote]
Isn’t it a bit unfair to discriminate based on one’s chosen profession? [/quote]
Miners are gelatinous scumbags specifically not protected by the First Amendment – or the Fourteenth for that matter. That’s why nobody ever wants them around and the government doesn’t care about the fact that everybody and his brother discriminates against them.
Geez, this thing went to hell in hand basket. I believe this charged forum was moderated very effectively. In hindsight, the moderator should’ve cracked the whip a little more to keep people in line but hindsight is always 20/20.
I’ve been a moderator in many forums in the past, starting as early back as the pre-USENET days so I’m very well-versed in the moderator’s role. As a suggestion to the admins, I recommend that the new moderators clearly post the “rules of engagement” (e.g. a FAQ) and keep out of sight. I’ve found that in political forums, moderators who are out of sight on the boards, are the most effective ones because the forum participants don’t get a chance to direct their hostility to the hapless moderator who’s merely exercising his freedom of speech.
Who decides when its “whining” and then, if its “childish”? After all, seems some people here do not want to consult the dictionary for meanings. So, who determines the meanings?
I agree as well Isieh but I can see how people would eventually get tired of volunteering their valuable time to do something and then get nothing but whining and whinging and complaints.
I have no idea who floundered two of my threads or why this was done. It seems quite random but hey what do I know?
That’s just it. I agree with the Magnificent Tigerman 100% on this. Who decides? Everyone has the best of intentions about this but in reality things never work out that way. Best to leave it alone but I think it is too late for that right now.
I see no harm in a non-moderated forum in competition with a more tightly-moderated one.
I anticipate that eventually one or the other will wither out. My guess is the non-moderated one will be more controversial, therefore more spicy, and therefore more popular.
That is precisely what happened when the original IP forum was created. Too much complaining from the open fourm hence our own forum. Now, we have the Open Forum bottom feeders coming to the IP forum and trying to keep up and they are shocked and outraged that no one cares what type of pizza topping they like or how there is a new online test to see who they will vote for because we already know who we are going to vote for and why.
[quote=“spook”][quote=“sheepshagger”][quote=“spook”]I second that motion. We can call it the “Free Speech Combat Zone.” (No miners allowed.)
[/quote]
Isn’t it a bit unfair to discriminate based on one’s chosen profession? [/quote]
Miners are gelatinous scumbags specifically not protected by the First Amendment – or the Fourteenth for that matter. That’s why nobody ever wants them around and the government doesn’t care about the fact that everybody and his brother discriminates against them.[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”]I agree as well Isieh but I can see how people would eventually get tired of volunteering their valuable time to do something and then get nothing but whining and whinging and complaints.
I have no idea who floundered two of my threads or why this was done. It seems quite random but hey what do I know?[/quote]
Yes, good point. People need to understand this is still a volunteer community. No need to direct your anger towards a volunteer. Make constructive comments directly to the moderator or to the admins. If one needs to flame away, step away from the keyboard, drink a beer, walk the dog, take a bio-break, then come back. After all that, you feel you need to make yourself heard, then it’s probably worth it to click “Submit”. If not, then don’t post.
There should always be self-moderation. That’s what “mature” posters do (been there, done that, etc). Forumosa’s forums are a combination of admin moderation and self-moderation. It works when there’s a good balance between the two.
I’d vote for a forum called “Free for All”. That’d be a non-moderated forum for people to express themselves in all their glory. It would be where if one couldn’t take the heat, then one gets out of the kitchen.
Who decides when its “whining” and then, if its “childish”? After all, seems some people here do not want to consult the dictionary for meanings. So, who determines the meanings?[/quote]
Okay, forget about that part – but I’m thinking about proposing a permanent, life-time ban on anyone lacking a sense of humor.
