A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[Warren Dew]

... led to a forum decision not to delete or deactivate accounts ...

I like the fact that you see it as a "forum decision" here, with the implication that the forum exists primarily for the benefit of the users, who should have the kind of forum they want. "Forum decision" may be kind of vague - sometimes a poll may be appropriate, more often probably not - but it is indicative of the underlying attitude and culture here.

At Rational Skepticism, it's always "the staff have decided", which reflects a different attitude and culture.

At Richard Dawkins Forums, it seems like it was the forum owner that drove things, though the forum didn't seem high enough on the list of priorities for either Dawkins or the head admin to give it the attention it deserved.

[Rum]

I was always disappointed that Starr 'chose' Tatscp rather than us, tbh..

Just sayin'.

[kiki5711]

whatevaahh! I have too much time on my hands it seems.

[charlou]

Actually, I'm still treating this thread as an indirect commentary about that proposed rule change here at Rationalia.

We do have a perfectly good thread for such commentary. Care to resume discussing it in the thread where this topic was initiated, rather than in this internecine quarrel?

Actually, I was thinking the same thing as Robert .. The post that kicked this thread off and the subsequent discussion is still relevant to that discussion.

So glad people feel they can debate these issues here ... people debating the issues rather than projectively ejaculating with smarmy smilies is preferred.

[LaMont Cranston]

Durro, rEv or to Anybody Else It Might Apply, First of all, we see ratskep members making untrue blanket statements about members of this forum, all the while bitching and moaning about how the members of ratskep have been unfairly categorized.

I tell you what...I'm calling out some, not all...of the members of Ratskep! I want your asses, and I want them now! I'm only talking about the wimpering, simpering ones who have shit for brains! I'm talking about the ones who think they are smart fellows, but we all know they are fart smellows! I'm talking about the weak, rigid ones who suck on donkey dicks and blow dogs! You know who you are! Everybody knows who you are, and sending a posse over here to defend your weak, cowardly ways ain't going to cut it!

This is not just about FUAs, it is about the attitude and ambiance that is created by those who have assumed power and claim to speak for others. The folks at rationalia really do seem to understand that there is a lot of room for fun and nonsense on these forums, and even the folks at RDF seemed to understand that. With having that ambiance comes a certain amount of controversy. Strong people can deal with that fun, nonsense, controversy and everything else. In fact, they welcome the opportunity to have their viewpoints, words and deeds challenged in the light of day. To those weak, thin-skinned types you can't handle what happens on a mostly anonymous forum, I say "If you aren't up to playing the game, don't bring your ass out on the field."

[Robert_S]

Actually, I'm still treating this thread as an indirect commentary about that proposed rule change here at Rationalia.

We do have a perfectly good thread for such commentary. Care to resume discussing it in the thread where this topic was initiated, rather than in this internecine quarrel?

Because I find this internecine quarrel is quite instructive about the pros and cons of different styles of moderation.

[Robert_S]

So glad people feel they can debate these issues here ... people debating the issues rather than projectively ejaculating with smarmy smilies is preferred.

How did you find out what I did at the smiley convention...

Oh, you were talking about someone else.

[charlou]

we see ratskep members making untrue blanket statements about members of this forum, all the while bitching and moaning about how the members of ratskep have been unfairly categorized.

To be fair, there's been a bit of that toward members of both forums (including from yourself, and in that very post as well) .. many of whom have dual membership ... so yah, it's all very ironic and stuff ...

Edit: also your use of 'we' ... please don't include me in your posts. kthx

[Robert_S]

To those weak, thin-skinned types you can't handle what happens on a mostly anonymous forum, I say "If you aren't up to playing the game, don't bring your ass out on the field."

One could just as easily say that if you don't feel like playing nice, play elsewhere.

[Hermit]

Actually, I'm still treating this thread as an indirect commentary about that proposed rule change here at Rationalia.

We do have a perfectly good thread for such commentary. Care to resume discussing it in the thread where this topic was initiated, rather than in this internecine quarrel?

Because I find this internecine quarrel is quite instructive about the pros and cons of different styles of moderation.

Good point, but I was rather hoping that we could have such a discussion without the acrimony that is so apparent in this thread. Too much to hope for, I suppose.

[Fallible]

I'm looking for the part where it is explained what exactly gets deleted from RatSkep, and where this information was garnered from. I'm looking, but I can't find it anywhere.

[Dory]

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.

Kiki - that was not a warning. If it had been an official warning from me as a moderator, it would have been in blue. I was making a comment to Lamont as a member - and, for the record I will never warn anyone officially without first conferring with the staff. And as Tig pointed out, please read through the thread before you jump to conclusions.

Also, out of respect for LC, why don't you let him address this (which he already did). He has stated several times that he doesn't need others to fight his fights and decide what's best for him.

Ok, I appologize mai. But Lamont is not the only one I stick up for. I don't like to see anyone being ganged up on unfairly and I speak up for anyone in that position.

I didn't agree with CJ banning, I didn't like Dory being attacked for his decision, I didn't like JayG not getting a chance to settle in, and there's always other things, but I just like things to be fair for everyone equeally.

His?!? HIS!??? Well I suppose someone let the girl on the bus station know she was wrong when she spoke with me today. and SOMEONE PLEASE PLEASE inform the testers at the OpenU they also had it wrong. And the security man. And the person who asked me for time. Well gee there was no one who said HIS there. How come the people who I spend so much time as a part of their community get it wrong ALL THE TIME, even those who I think are my coolest friends, while the strangers off the streets never get it wrong, is fucking beyond me!

[kiki5711]

Out of all this you only found that wrong?

my bad again! sorry! bad habit. it takes time to get use to saying she, was not intentional.

If I do it again, you can slap me.

[Dory]

Out of all this you only found that wrong?

my bad again! sorry! bad habit. it takes time to get use to saying she, was not intentional.

If I do it again, you can slap me.

Truth is, I didn't even read this thread. I just "searched" the forum for "Dory" and immediately my radar hit the "his" part... I think Rum is right.. I am unbearably narcissist... but anyway... I don't slap women... I BITCH SLAP them

Anyway, don't get it wrong... I like you....and appreciate the support and defense as you see it right

[Tigger]

Out of all this you only found that wrong?

my bad again! sorry! bad habit. it takes time to get use to saying she, was not intentional.

If I do it again, you can slap me.

Truth is, I didn't even read this thread. I just "searched" the forum for "Dory" and immediately my radar hit the "his" part... I think Rum is right.. I am unbearably narcissist... but anyway... I don't slap women... I BITCH SLAP them

Anyway, don't get it wrong... I like you....and appreciate the support and defense as you see it right

[Pedant]But you were a "he" when you made the decision being referred to.[/pedant] Ha!