Thanks for doing it.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
I prefer “gaping anal apertures”.
I agree, rocky, there are some gems in there.[/quote]
I had not inspected that list yet when I posted. (Saw it but not “inspected” it.) True, there are good candidates there.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
I agree, rocky, there are some gems in there. In fact, Maoman’s whole post is a beautiful poem.[/quote]
Indeed. Someone should write a song using that poem verbatim.
What-a-cunt!
Fuck-ing-un-named-poster
Fuck-head-un-named-poster-is-a-fuck-head. Rest.
That list is illustrative of the prime motivators of the Anglo-Saxons. Vegetables and various naughty bits…
This one however, is a classic!
I think Maoman is doing a good job being referee. :bravo:
And preserving the naughty bits for posterity. :bravo:
It’s been shit boring this week, though.
What the chief do?
Maoman suspended me for calling someone an “asshole”.
Ahem.
I actually enjoyed my two-week suspension - lots of free time I wouldn’t’ve had.
But, let me see…suspending someone for calling someone an idiot or asshole or prick, etc…well, if it’s abusive, that’s one thing, and over the top, that’s one thing, too…but an ocassional “shut up!” or somesuch, that’s another thing entirely. Sandman has done this for his entire career here and he’s a beloved institution. I’m not asking for special treatment, but I am asking for consistency. I’ve been suspended for deserved reasons before, but this is not one of those reason. All I did was call some asshole an asshole - well within previous Forumosa standards. This sort of language goes on all the time on this site. I am genuinely perplexed why this sudden - out of nowhere - attack of Puritanism towards language that is going on.
Well its just that once pipsqeeky clean (but slightly perverted) tommy got suspended all bets were off…nobody was safe.
they wuz out for bloood my friend and you spoke once too many times??
If Maoman thinks that the person you called an asshole deserved it, he will be more lenient. But if he disagrees, you’ll be suspended. That’s not very consistent, I know. I got pissed off with such inconsistencies a while back when I pointed out that Maoman called Sattelite TV a jerk. There was something else involving sandman at the time but I can’t remember what it was. It was made clear that since the recipient of sandman’s insult also deserved it, sandman was excused, and of course, someone else got suspended.
Maybe Maoman looked at all these inconsistencies and he decided to be more even handed regardless if he agrees with the person breaking the rules or not. I don’t know. I can see how you would be ticked off seeing the same poster/moderator getting away with doing what gets you suspended.
From there, Maoman probably would get into talking about how he takes into consideration the contribution of a poster as a whole when suspending someone, and that is exactly the point. While I like sandman, I don’t know anyone who got away with breaking the rules about civility more consistently than he has. Therefore, I can see why someone would wonder why, in comparison with sandman, they would be suspended for merely calling someone an ass hole. If sandman had been suspended every time he called someone a prick, or an ass hole, he would by far be the poster to have been suspended more often than anyone else. Only Fred maybe did worse, and he’s banned.
But it’s against the rules regardless, so best is not to ask why you were suspended, but why sandman never got suspended before. But now he is suspended, you see, and maybe this means that Maoman is finally addressing what many consider to be arbitrary moderation on the part of administration.
In any case, it would be nice to not have to be threatened with a suspension anymore by a mod in the same sentence where he calls you a fuckwit.
marboulette
The post I think you’re referring to was made more than five years ago, at a time when the current rules were not in place. I think the site was Segue back then. The poster in question (if we’re talking about the same thread) was banned for posting obscene images on the site, in light of his having used racist language in the past. He seems to have been “unbanned” later, and apparently banned again.
It’s true that sandman used profanity in the post in question, and there seems to have been some kind of rule against profanity back then, but it looks as if it was a loose rule, or a “rule honored in the breach.” I think if you go back far enough, offensive posts were simply deleted.
Here’s what the forums looked like in late 2001 (may be slow loading):
web.archive.org/web/200012030042 … timate.cgi
They seem to have had a set of FAQs back in 2001, and they had mods, but I don’t see any site-wide rules (may be slow to load):
web.archive.org/web/200103311230 … b/faq.html
At some point they got a flame forum, and people used to get “flamed” for bad personal attacks, but I don’t know if they got suspended for it. In fact, I don’t think they had suspensions back then; I think they just had occasional bannings.
If there were site-wide rules back then, it seems that a lot of people didn’t know what those rules were. For a pretty good while, if you clicked on the rules, you’d get “filler” in the Italian language (I think I noticed that around the time I joined (with another user name), in late January 2004):
There were various discussions of rules and moderating, what should be acceptable and what should not:
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … 23&start=0
I’m not sure they had site-wide rules until 2004–I don’t know.
Anyway, the original idea was to use this new technology to form a community:
web.archive.org/web/200104110657 … ND-1.shtml
Now, I’m just sayin’, and I certainly don’t always practice this myself, but, you know . . . :
[quote=“A very long time ago, one of those Christian guys”]. . . love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control[:] [a]gainst such things there is no law.[/quote]–Galatians 5:22-23 (NIV)
If my memory serves me well, the rules were introduced in 2004 (maybe 2003). I think mostly Wolf and Tigerman wrote the rules.
The post I quoted was of sandman having it out with popo. and that was before the rules came and also before I joined. It was just to show how the site changed. Nowadays, if people write like that they get time off.
For at least two years after the rules came in, there were always discussions about their applications and about moderation, especially in the politics forum. By about 2006, the rules were well established and the tone on the boards had improved a lot, however, it is my opinion that some individuals remained somewhat above the rules until very recently (or so it seemed on many, many occasions). There is really no need to go as far back as 2002 to find archived posts that are blatantly against the rules.
And now it’s 2009. I think Maoman made a statement in that it doesn’t matter anymore if you are a mod, a long standing poster, and even a close friend of his, the rules apply to EVERYONE. :bravo: 
marboulette
Well said, marboulette. All thumbs up:
[quote=“marboulette”]If my memory serves me well, the rules were introduced in 2004 (maybe 2003). I think mostly Wolf and Tigerman wrote the rules.
The post I quoted was of sandman having it out with popo. and that was before the rules came and also before I joined. It was just to show how the site changed. Nowadays, if people write like that they get time off.
For at least two years after the rules came in, there were always discussions about their applications and about moderation, especially in the politics forum. By about 2006, the rules were well established and the tone on the boards had improved a lot, however, it is my opinion that some individuals remained somewhat above the rules until very recently (or so it seemed on many, many occasions). There is really no need to go as far back as 2002 to find archived posts that are blatantly against the rules.
And now it’s 2009. I think Maoman made a statement in that it doesn’t matter anymore if you are a mod, a long standing poster, and even a close friend of his, the rules apply to EVERYONE. :bravo:
marboulette[/quote]
Okay. No problem.