Free Speech & Right to Privacy/Libel/etc (more fun with PZ!)

[Coito ergo sum]

...duplicate

[Coito ergo sum]

Two mild and indirect insults should receive the same treatment. It shouldn't matter who posted each.

Good, then he should receive a caution for the post in which he says he'd have better luck teaching quantum mechanics to his dog. Yes?

If the moderator supported your view of the matter, why are you complaining?

Obviously, you're not understanding me. The moderator cautioned me for not playing nice, but my post that received the caution was in response to a post of his which was the same sort of insult for which I was warned. But, his post was never mentioned as an issue. I.e. two posts that were of the same character were not, in fact, treated the same.

The moderator warned him for a different, later, "personal attack." And, that is where I take issue with you're statement that we were exhibiting the same sort of behavior. We haven't.[/quote]

[hadespussercats]

Two mild and indirect insults should receive the same treatment. It shouldn't matter who posted each.

Good, then he should receive a caution for the post in which he says he'd have better luck teaching quantum mechanics to his dog. Yes?

If the moderator supported your view of the matter, why are you complaining?

Obviously, you're not understanding me. The moderator cautioned me for not playing nice, but my post that received the caution was in response to a post of his which was the same sort of insult for which I was warned. But, his post was never mentioned as an issue. I.e. two posts that were of the same character were not, in fact, treated the same.

The moderator warned him for a different, later, "personal attack." And, that is where I take issue with you're statement that we were exhibiting the same sort of behavior. We haven't.

[/quote]

I thought he did receive a caution for the former?

My sense is that the reminders in this thread were intended to be largely blanket statements, but that Red made some comments that were deemed PAs.

I haven't been operating in this thread as a mod, so I'll leave my impressions at that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Two mild and indirect insults should receive the same treatment. It shouldn't matter who posted each.

Good, then he should receive a caution for the post in which he says he'd have better luck teaching quantum mechanics to his dog. Yes?

If the moderator supported your view of the matter, why are you complaining?

Obviously, you're not understanding me. The moderator cautioned me for not playing nice, but my post that received the caution was in response to a post of his which was the same sort of insult for which I was warned. But, his post was never mentioned as an issue. I.e. two posts that were of the same character were not, in fact, treated the same.

The moderator warned him for a different, later, "personal attack." And, that is where I take issue with you're statement that we were exhibiting the same sort of behavior. We haven't.

I thought he did receive a caution for the former?[/quote] Not that I saw.

My sense is that the reminders in this thread were intended to be largely blanket statements, but that Red made some comments that were deemed PAs.

I haven't been operating in this thread as a mod, so I'll leave my impressions at that.

My sense is that my comment about the dog/food only drew a warning because they warned Red Celt about the PA, and it would not otherwise have drawn a warning.

[Red Celt]

[Seth]

Quit smoking that crack dude!

[hadespussercats]

Quit smoking that crack dude!

That used to be Wumbo's avatar.

[Red Celt]

That used to be Wumbo's avatar.

It did? (not that I know who Wumbo is)... I edited it a little, to make it a bit of a neater loop. The original recording wandered around the frying pan a bit too much. The next time I get a double-yoker, I'll recreate it. And he can have a bow tie made of bacon.

[Mousy]

As the moderator who issued the previous reminders in this thread, it probably isn't right for me to contribute excessively here by getting myself involved in a debate. However, I would like to explain my reminder:

Robert has already explained that it can be difficult to decide who to address in an argument that has started with small, indirect personal attacks and is escalating to more aggressive ones. We feel it's right to issue a reminder to both parties and so would like to remind you to play nice and not to make personal comments.

I read back over my reminder and I felt that I had made it clear that moderators wished to remind both sides of the discussion to play nice, which I have explicitly stated. However, I acknowledge that by putting Coito's name before the 'both parties' section of the reminder, I directed this part of the comment at him, and the following part (reminder about personal attack) towards Red Celt.

It's a bit hairy when one tries to work out what is considered too minor to remind a user about and what is considered a toe over the line. We did aim to do a 'blanket reminder' about playing nice but I understand that my ordering of the sections of the comment made things less coherent, and I'll do my best to phrase things more clearly next time.

[hadespussercats]

Nicely done, Mousy. Thanks.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

... and I'll do my best to phrase things more clearly next time.

While spinning like a crazy person on this pole.

[Jason]

Nude pole dancing! With pics! Huzzah for the new moderator policy!

[Azathoth]

I’ve seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time to die

[Jason]

I’ve seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time to die

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As much as I despise the assholes, I'd rather have Westboro Baptist holding "God Hates Fags" signs then prohibit their right to free speech, incendiary or not. Prohibiting speech because it might "incite" someone is a true slippery slope.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=OBA6qlHW8po[/youtube]