A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[charlou]

Do yourself a favour and acquaint yourself with some Seth. If you haven't killed yourself after reading the nth derail into Socializm!!11!!1!! and Kommunizm!!!1!!111!!, then get back to me and we'll talk then.

I can say with 100% certainty that no derail would make me kill myself.

We're living proof!

[FBM]

What constitutes 'good reason' depends upon the ethos of the founders and majority membership. There's no single, objective, set-in-stone, one-size-fits-all definition. The people at RatSkep drew the line where they wanted it, as is their right. Those who find it uncomfortable can find another place that suits them better. Same as any other forum.

All your posts in this thread deserve a

Muchas gracias. I'm on a roll...

[pErvinalia]

The more I read the defenses of RatSkep rulings the less I would want to go there.

What specifically is wrong with our defenses? I can understand that you might not like the rules over there (there's obviously enough who don't), but what exactly have we said that has put you off?

[pErvinalia]

Because it's hate speech.

Then does that not make it all the important that you combat it rather than crawl away in to your little kindergarten holes for fear of offending some undefined person?

As I said earlier, there's no point debating with people who hold those views. There is no rational basis for holding views like that, so presenting them with a rational argument isn't likely to hold much sway over them. Some people are just fuckheads, and there's not much any of us can do about it.

Tell me, who were the members being attacked, which of your members fall under the 'obese' category?

It doesn't matter. It's hate speech. It's banned, and for good reason.

It matters absolutely. If you're going to ban someone for possible offence, then every single person who has any political, social or religious views will have to be banned for any expression of those views. They will offend someone.

Nice theory... but 99% of us HAVEN'T been banned or suspended. There is a large community of people over there who respect the rules and more or less agree with them. Like I said (here I think, or perhaps in the RS thread), I am happy to trade-off some of the things I am not fully comfortable with for the opportunity to take part in a reasonably respectful rational discussion.

[pErvinalia]

GS and him are buddies, that's why we get these constant posts about how poor Sethy was hard done by.

Let me be clear about this: I am no buddy of Seth's, and I loathe libertarianism, but I also think Seth was hard done by, at least over at RDF MarkI.

Sure, that's your right. I don't agree. I can see how it can look a bit that way as, if memory serves me correct, the rules were changed a bit to reflect some of the trolling behaviour Seth was adjudged to be doing. It was simply a case that a number of members presented a good case why Seth's behaviour was abusive and trolling, and the mods agreed. He was massively disruptive to rational discourse, and the place was a lot better without him. Having said all that though, I was supportive of him joining ratskep and starting afresh. And most of us tried our hardest not to bring any baggage over from rd.net.

[pErvinalia]

I haven't been following this conversation but to get this straight have I done a RatSkep hate crime?

Your avatar would constitute beastiality over there, mate. Best keep away....

Sorry, just had to use that MC Hammer emoticon. Not sure when it is best used, but figured I'd give it a go anyway....

[Durro]

[Thinking Aloud]

Do yourself a favour and acquaint yourself with some Seth. If you haven't killed yourself after reading the nth derail into Socializm!!11!!1!! and Kommunizm!!!1!!111!!, then get back to me and we'll talk then.

I can say with 100% certainty that no derail would make me kill myself.

Derails are the only thing keeping you alive, I imagine.

I wonder if you can get them in tablet form?

[leo-rcc]

The more I read the defenses of RatSkep rulings the less I would want to go there.

What specifically is wrong with our defenses? I can understand that you might not like the rules over there (there's obviously enough who don't), but what exactly have we said that has put you off?

Pretty much every defense I've seen from so far is a comment on how the admins/mods either set up a rule or adjusted a rule to stifle dissenting opinions or ban them on some arbitrary criteria. That is not what rational skepticism is about in my mind.

[Pappa]

Do yourself a favour and acquaint yourself with some Seth. If you haven't killed yourself after reading the nth derail into Socializm!!11!!1!! and Kommunizm!!!1!!111!!, then get back to me and we'll talk then.

I can say with 100% certainty that no derail would make me kill myself.

Derails are the only thing keeping you alive, I imagine.

I wonder if you can get them in tablet form?

You can get them in table form if you're using the subsilver2 style and view source.

[pErvinalia]

The more I read the defenses of RatSkep rulings the less I would want to go there.

What specifically is wrong with our defenses? I can understand that you might not like the rules over there (there's obviously enough who don't), but what exactly have we said that has put you off?

Pretty much every defense I've seen from so far is a comment on how the admins/mods either set up a rule or adjusted a rule to stifle dissenting opinions or ban them on some arbitrary criteria. That is not what rational skepticism is about in my mind.

I put it to you, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. All rule changes were discussed with the membership and open for constructive criticism. And every rule anywhere is "arbitrary". As long as they are clearly stated (which they are), then no one has much excuse for breaking them (which some posters have done MANY times). It's not like they weren't aware that what they were doing was against the FUA. A few months ago the mods adopted a less formal advisory/warning system that meant they could give a poster a chance to modify their behaviour before receiving a formal warning/sanction. If anything, moderating got more lax at that point, not more strict. I think it is an incredibly fair and open system, and basically the people whinging about it just don't like the fact that they haven't been able to make a good enough argument to get the rules changed in their favour. It's pretty much a democracy over there. If you can convince a lot of people of the worth of your idea, then it has a good chance of being implemented.

[FBM]

rEv, like I said before, I don't post at RatSkep much, do you think the majority of the members there are satisfied/happy with its moderation?

[leo-rcc]

Pretty much every defense I've seen from so far is a comment on how the admins/mods either set up a rule or adjusted a rule to stifle dissenting opinions or ban them on some arbitrary criteria. That is not what rational skepticism is about in my mind.

I put it to you, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Even if that is the case (and its not), so what?

You asked me what has put me off and there you have it.

[devogue]

As I said earlier, there's no point debating with people who hold those views. There is no rational basis for holding views like that, so presenting them with a rational argument isn't likely to hold much sway over them. Some people are just fuckheads, and there's not much any of us can do about it.

In that case all Creationists should be banned from posting, because there is no rational basis for their views, which would mean that we would never again be treated to one of Cali's epic arsehole-tearing nuclear posts destroying the likes of Robert Byers ever again. Of course Byers is never going to learn, of course he will put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la", but people in the gallery like me will read and learn - I like to see bullshit ripped apart, I like to see conspiracy theories and nasty, baseless crap demolished word by vile word.

[FBM]

As I said earlier, there's no point debating with people who hold those views. There is no rational basis for holding views like that, so presenting them with a rational argument isn't likely to hold much sway over them. Some people are just fuckheads, and there's not much any of us can do about it.

In that case all Creationists should be banned from posting, because there is no rational basis for their views, which would mean that we would never again be treated to one of Cali's epic arsehole-tearing nuclear posts destroying the likes of Robert Byers ever again. Of course Byers is never going to learn, of course he will put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la", but people in the gallery like me will read and learn - I like to see bullshit ripped apart, I like to see conspiracy theories and nasty, baseless crap demolished word by vile word.

This explains why you're here and not there, but it doesn't say anything about why they should change, does it?