A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[charlou]

Charlou, oh, but if you delete my account there will be more room and someone else can have my user name (if they want), If you don't do that it's alright.

May I please request to have my account to be suspended.

This is a nice place and with great people, I just don't think it is right for me and I'm starting to be uncomfortable here.

Um, so this is the first time I've done this, am I suppose to anything else? I've seen people post their wishes about what they want to be done with their account on threads.

I PM'd Pappa too though. Should I PM someone else or...

What should I do? If there is anything else I have to do. Thank you!

The PM will do. I'm sorry to see you leave, IT.

Edit: If you change your mind you can email us and we'll reactivate your account. You'll be welcome.

[pErvinalia]

rEvolutionist, I don't recall anybody portraying the mods at ratskep (other than you, of course) as an "evil bunch of anti-free speech dictators." However, you can put me down for uptight, close-minded, rigid, irrational and rather cowardly.

I think that many of us think that strong people do not need to cower from controversial viewpoints and differing opinions. In fact, I think that strong people welcome the opportunities to substantiate, as best as they can, their ideas, and welcome chances to justify what they believe and how they came to believe what they do. I only ask that I be protected from those holief-than-thou types who think that myself and others are so weak that we need to be protected.

As far as I know, nobody has banned from RatSkep or from Richard's place for a controversial opinion unless it was blatantly and continuously sexist, racist, or homophobic.

However, that there was at least one person banned from Richard's for being a chronic prick, although it was worded differently, while several people of the same political persuasion happily kept posting away.

Are you referring to my buddy? We can say his name.

He's not a prick, not chronically anyway.
I was wondering, what would happen if he signed up here?

I'm wondering the same thing too! I figure it wouldn't be serious enough for him here.

[pErvinalia]

So tell me, revvie, who decides what constitutes an attack? Where does the line between valid criticism of a group or ideology and personal attack begin? I'd sure like to meet your objective, flawless arbiters of justice.

Oh, wait.

Anyone expecting moderators to be objective robots is living in an alternate universe. It may surprise some people, but mods are human too. We all have our subjectivity. The FUA is there to try and minimise that subjectivity as much as possible, but there is always going to be context to a discussion that can't be codified in the FUA.

I await the robots.

See, but when I was no longer a mod and I became a malcontent, I became less human--or less deserving of respect.

Well I don't know what went on between you and the mods. I didn't notice you being treated with any more or less respect by the mob than the rest of us.

[Pappa]

Ok, I think I'm getting a bit wound up. I don't want to partake in an "Us vs Them" slanging match. I just want to love you all. Peace!

Maybe post some bollocks in other, less serious threads? It's good therapy.

What, you want me to post a picture of my balls? Will you still respect me in the morning?

We even have a dedicated thread for that sort of thing.

[Gallstones]

rEvolutionist, I don't recall anybody portraying the mods at ratskep (other than you, of course) as an "evil bunch of anti-free speech dictators." However, you can put me down for uptight, close-minded, rigid, irrational and rather cowardly.

Cowardly?!? FFS.

I think that many of us think that strong people do not need to cower from controversial viewpoints and differing opinions. In fact, I think that strong people welcome the opportunities to substantiate, as best as they can, their ideas, and welcome chances to justify what they believe and how they came to believe what they do.

You're right. We're all so weak over there. Thanks for setting us straight.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the rule against group attacks came about because the users demanded it.

Isn't it known as "GS rule"?

What? Did you just leak some gossip?

No, I think it is common knowledge that the rule that you cannot disparage a group of people was instituted by you when you were a Mod. Hence the nickname "GS rule". It isn't gossip.

Wrong, no individual moderator installs or institutes policy or rules. I have already said that it was discussed in the ivory tower and decided by a quorum of staff and that I thought it was ridiculous.

Also, I thought I saw Seth write about it in a feedback thread that "GS rule" is about attacking the 'isms' but not the 'ists'.

That is not my rule, it is how we used to determine the difference between personal attacks on groups and criticism of ideologies. Criticism of ideologies and ideas was always permitted.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, I think I'm getting a bit wound up. I don't want to partake in an "Us vs Them" slanging match. I just want to love you all. Peace!

Maybe post some bollocks in other, less serious threads? It's good therapy.

What, you want me to post a picture of my balls? Will you still respect me in the morning?

We even have a dedicated thread for that sort of thing.

Ha! Might have known...












Actually that reminds of an oldie but a goody.... http://www.ratemypoo.com

It's still listed on google, but it's throwing a server error. The owner must be off taking a dump....

[Gallstones]

So tell me, revvie, who decides what constitutes an attack? Where does the line between valid criticism of a group or ideology and personal attack begin? I'd sure like to meet your objective, flawless arbiters of justice.

Oh, wait.

Anyone expecting moderators to be objective robots is living in an alternate universe. It may surprise some people, but mods are human too. We all have our subjectivity. The FUA is there to try and minimise that subjectivity as much as possible, but there is always going to be context to a discussion that can't be codified in the FUA.

I await the robots.

See, but when I was no longer a mod and I became a malcontent, I became less human--or less deserving of respect.

Well I don't know what went on between you and the mods. I didn't notice you being treated with any more or less respect by the mob than the rest of us.

Nothing "went on" between me and the other mods.

[pErvinalia]

So tell me, revvie, who decides what constitutes an attack? Where does the line between valid criticism of a group or ideology and personal attack begin? I'd sure like to meet your objective, flawless arbiters of justice.

Oh, wait.

Anyone expecting moderators to be objective robots is living in an alternate universe. It may surprise some people, but mods are human too. We all have our subjectivity. The FUA is there to try and minimise that subjectivity as much as possible, but there is always going to be context to a discussion that can't be codified in the FUA.

I await the robots.

See, but when I was no longer a mod and I became a malcontent, I became less human--or less deserving of respect.

Well I don't know what went on between you and the mods. I didn't notice you being treated with any more or less respect by the mob than the rest of us.

Nothing "went on" between me and the other mods.

So what do you mean about being treated with less respect?

[Gallstones]

So tell me, revvie, who decides what constitutes an attack? Where does the line between valid criticism of a group or ideology and personal attack begin? I'd sure like to meet your objective, flawless arbiters of justice.

Oh, wait.

Anyone expecting moderators to be objective robots is living in an alternate universe. It may surprise some people, but mods are human too. We all have our subjectivity. The FUA is there to try and minimise that subjectivity as much as possible, but there is always going to be context to a discussion that can't be codified in the FUA.

I await the robots.

See, but when I was no longer a mod and I became a malcontent, I became less human--or less deserving of respect.

Well I don't know what went on between you and the mods. I didn't notice you being treated with any more or less respect by the mob than the rest of us.

Nothing "went on" between me and the other mods.

So what do you mean about being treated with less respect?

This would be a pointless question to answer for the simple reason that you have to ask.

[Pappa]

You can really feel the love in this thread. :hugeroo:

[pErvinalia]

So what do you mean about being treated with less respect?

This would be a pointless question to answer for the simple reason that you have to ask.

Huh?

[kiki5711]

Well Kiki, thank you for that. It's so nice to be made to feel welcome in this forum. I have no idea where people are getting this "us and them" thing from, especially when people like you are so warm and friendly.

Up to this point, the discussions have primarily focussed on ratskep rules, policies and the way they're enforced and while I don't necessarily agree with some of the viewpoints here, people are entitled to hold them and express them. But LaMont Cranston's post was a direct personal insult to some people who are Ratz members and have posted here in this thread.

Well, Mr. Durro, you pop in just to criticizing and being bossy to Lamont's post and then you say how unwelcome I AM?????. There are many posts in this thread "DIRECTLY" insulting someone, so why'd ya pick on him? CAuse he's easy to pick on? Such childish schoolyard attitude. I can't stand it.

[kiki5711]

maiforpeace, I have no axes to grind with you, and I have no intention of getting into any conflict with you. However, I am curious why you choose to single me out, of all those who have posted on this thread, for your comments.

Actually, I do think that I have offered something quite constructive when I suggested that those at ratskep cop to their irrational actions and welcome those folks back that they were so quick to get rid of. That truly would be a constructive and compassionate thing to do, and I seriously doubt they will do it. So it goes...

THat's what I'm freakn talking about! ANd I keep seeing this kind of thing all the time in the other forum and now here, and that makes my stomach turn. Why has Lamont's post been singled out? I'm really sick about this. It's not even funny, I'm just disgusted.

And don't EVEN try to tell me that's not what you've done. I'm not blind.

[Tigger]

maiforpeace, I have no axes to grind with you, and I have no intention of getting into any conflict with you. However, I am curious why you choose to single me out, of all those who have posted on this thread, for your comments.

Actually, I do think that I have offered something quite constructive when I suggested that those at ratskep cop to their irrational actions and welcome those folks back that they were so quick to get rid of. That truly would be a constructive and compassionate thing to do, and I seriously doubt they will do it. So it goes...

THat's what I'm freakn talking about! ANd I keep seeing this kind of thing all the time in the other forum and now here, and that makes my stomach turn. Why has Lamont's post been singled out? I'm really sick about this. It's not even funny, I'm just disgusted.

And don't EVEN try to tell me that's not what you've done. I'm not blind.

I'll tell you then, if that's ok: as Mai said earlier, she addresses other people here too, so where's the singling out? Look at the posts in the thread if you don't believe me. Order them by poster and you can see them all at once.

[kiki5711]

where's the warning to revolutionist? where's my warning?

all I see is a warning to Lamont. and one by Charlou in general.