Misc - Several issues - Misc Posters Read!

[sidious618]

I don't think we can really resolve anything until TEH BABA weighs in on this issue.

 

[Amaris]

Yep, they are. FrontLine, masochist that he is, went back through years of posts, and condensed them all into one. I think he did it during an unplanned bout of sobriety.

I see. Well, this should be interesting.

No, they all seemed pretty familiar to me.

Plus, to be fair, that's a pretty loose set of rules. Some of them actually say what people can do, rather than what they can't.

If TNZ really was a Wild West saloon, the equivalent rules would be:

1. No pissing on the floor.

2. Do not shoot the piano player.

3. You may grab the barmaid's ass, but expect to get slapped for it.

Etc.

I think we should go with those rules. Except for the first one.
When you gotta go, you gotta go.

J.

 

[Holdfast]

Personally I think the main rule we need instating is "Don't be an arsehole" and if there's any problems deal with them as they arise, not pre-emptively try and squash problems.

You are correct IMO.

The long-standing issue underlying the regularly scheduled contortions around rules on this board (this episode is just the latest in a long line) stems from a reliance on creating a "fair" rules-based consitution for the board with long-winded avenues of appeal, as well as the pretence that we are a PG-13 board.

Stripping the rules down to "don't be an arsehole", choosing mods carefully enough so there's a reasonable & plausible mix of opinions on the definition of an arsehole, acknowledging that the vast majority of our posters are above 18 (or at least above 15/16) and so should be able to take a bit of rough & tumble, and having a "dumb threads" forum to send threads started in clear bad faith or threads which are just moronic beyond belief. would go a long way to creating an easier to manage and also more enjoyable environment. Trouble is, those measures are not in the board's tradition and philosophy and so would be very difficult to institute.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Just read the user names for the last few pages of the thread. All either TNZ regulars, or in a few cases (TLS is the first example I saw, hard to give too many examples since TNZ banning itself is rather hush-hush and not subject to annoucement or review) those that have been kicked out or left on their own. And hell, the quotes posted? Garak, Squiggy, etc.

If you want to make it more than just that one thread, can go into the recent Obama thread, and identify more gems from TLS and Gertch. There are plenty more threads to play this game with, but let's not get bogged down in semantics, hmm? Seems pretty clear it's just a TNZ overflow problem. Posters that have been kicked out of TNZ (or couldn't handle being held to the fire for their posts) have migrated here, and set up shop. Their regular 'enemies' then follow them in (can't let them "get away with anything", of course), and the same game starts up here instead.

And not to defend any of those individual quotes, but they seem a lot worse pulled out of context the way T'Bonz posted them. Most were clearly fairly relaxed jokes, until you show just that one snippet, without the rest of the thread. I sincerely doubt Squiggy is going to rape anyone's face, for example. Bonz would have a good point if that was said to an unsuspecting poster here, but when it was Squiggy and garak going back and forth, don't think either was upset by it. And if just reading that upsets people so badly, the internet must be a scary place indeed...

I've posted in Misc. for years and if I break a rule I'm fine with being called on it. And I have my own moderator angel that keeps me in line anyway.

You however make fun of mentally and physically handicapped people in your signature line. Are they any more acceptable a group to make fun of?

You also violate the #1 rule of TNZ with your every post. Not that I expect anything to be done about it though.

 

[Da'an]

You however make fun of mentally and physically handicapped people in your signature line. Are they any more acceptable a group to make fun of?

You also violate the #1 rule of TNZ with your every post. Not that I expect anything to be done about it though.

Actually I took it to mean he was making fun of people who believe internet debates have any importance.

Which one is Rule #1?

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

You know, I got to ask:

Avatars...Does that fall under the political hot button issue? I took my avatar down a while ago, but I really have to wonder about skirting around the issue.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

You know, I got to ask:

Avatars...Does that fall under the political hot button issue? I took my avatar down a while ago, but I really have to wonder about skirting around the issue.

I wouldn't know without seeing the avatar in question or at least getting a description of it. You can post it here if you like.

Considering TLS's current avatar, I can't imagine yours would be worse. That's not a challenge to out-do him by the way.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

You know, I got to ask:

Avatars...Does that fall under the political hot button issue? I took my avatar down a while ago, but I really have to wonder about skirting around the issue.

I wouldn't know without seeing the avatar in question or at least getting a description of it. You can post it here if you like.

Considering TLS's current avatar, I can't imagine yours would be worse. That's not a challenge to out-do him by the way.

Naaa, it was the McCain, Palin one but I took it down too because it wasn't relevant anymore.

But my question still stands, since hot topic issues or political/controversial subjects are off the books, does that mean avatars as well? Because that can stir up a lot of crap as well.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

Naaa, it was the McCain, Palin one but I took it down too because it wasn't relevant anymore.

But my question still stands, since hot topic issues or political/controversial subjects are off the books, does that mean avatars as well? Because that can stir up a lot of crap as well.

I'm sure the Mods watch for that, though. A troll is going to find any and every way to troll someone without being noticed by the staff. If not posts themselves, then avatars, signatures, locations and user titles.

J.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

Naaa, it was the McCain, Palin one but I took it down too because it wasn't relevant anymore.

But my question still stands, since hot topic issues or political/controversial subjects are off the books, does that mean avatars as well? Because that can stir up a lot of crap as well.

I'm sure the Mods watch for that, though. A troll is going to find any and every way to troll someone without being noticed by the staff. If not posts themselves, then avatars, signatures, locations and user titles.

J.

Well then why hasn't TLS been removed for the last few avatars he has had since he has been removed from TNZ?

 

[Amaris]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

Naaa, it was the McCain, Palin one but I took it down too because it wasn't relevant anymore.

But my question still stands, since hot topic issues or political/controversial subjects are off the books, does that mean avatars as well? Because that can stir up a lot of crap as well.

I'm sure the Mods watch for that, though. A troll is going to find any and every way to troll someone without being noticed by the staff. If not posts themselves, then avatars, signatures, locations and user titles.

J.

Well then why hasn't TLS been removed for the last few avatars he has had since he has been removed from TNZ?

I'm sure they could explain why.
I'm not privy to what they discuss.

J.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

I'm sure the Mods watch for that, though. A troll is going to find any and every way to troll someone without being noticed by the staff. If not posts themselves, then avatars, signatures, locations and user titles.

J.

Well then why hasn't TLS been removed for the last few avatars he has had since he has been removed from TNZ?

I'm sure they could explain why.
I'm not privy to what they discuss.

J.

I would like to know if avatars ARE off limits. I got a few I would like to use but...

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

Avatars are a Board-wide issue, not a Misc issue. There are definitely limits to what can be put in Avatars, Sigs and Locations; if there's a problem, Bonz, Spiff or an Admin will ask you to remove it. Or you can PM one of them with exactly what you want to use and let them check it out first.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

I would like to know if avatars ARE off limits. I got a few I would like to use but...

So, what you want me to do is give you a yes or no answer establishing a precedent for a definitive new rule regarding political avatars without seeing exactly what it is you intend to use. Sorry, no.

Locutus, not born yesterday.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

I would like to know if avatars ARE off limits. I got a few I would like to use but...

So, what you want me to do is give you a yes or no answer establishing a precedent for a definitive new rule regarding political avatars without seeing exactly what it is you intend to use. Sorry, no.

Locutus, not born yesterday.

What I want to know is, does the political discussion/controversial topics apply to avatars as well?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

If it's the current avatar you're now using, I have no problem with that (it's about the same as TLS's, only more humorous than serious), but we're not going to make some hard rule. If people start trying to out-do each other with political avatars and it becomes a problem, then it's going to get cracked down on. If someone goes way over-the-top with an avatar or sig then we'll ask them to remove it. Drawing a definitive line in the sand only gives people an excuse to inch as close to that line as possible, which isn't acting on good faith, it's being an ass that barely tries to stay within the rules.

 

[Skywalker]

Honestly, I have no idea what you people are talking about. Maybe I should have read that Palin thread.

Also, um...sexism is bad. But so is taking things out of context and overreacting.

 

[Amaris]

Personally I think the main rule we need instating is "Don't be an arsehole" and if there's any problems deal with them as they arise, not pre-emptively try and squash problems.

You are correct IMO.

The long-standing issue underlying the regularly scheduled contortions around rules on this board (this episode is just the latest in a long line) stems from a reliance on creating a "fair" rules-based consitution for the board with long-winded avenues of appeal, as well as the pretence that we are a PG-13 board.

Stripping the rules down to "don't be an arsehole", choosing mods carefully enough so there's a reasonable & plausible mix of opinions on the definition of an arsehole, acknowledging that the vast majority of our posters are above 18 (or at least above 15/16) and so should be able to take a bit of rough & tumble, and having a "dumb threads" forum to send threads started in clear bad faith or threads which are just moronic beyond belief. would go a long way to creating an easier to manage and also more enjoyable environment. Trouble is, those measures are not in the board's tradition and philosophy and so would be very difficult to institute.

Agreed. At some point, decisions have to be made. Bonz made these, and that's how it is. I don't agree with many of them and think they're rather Draconian, but I didn't really expect a different result from this whole issue.

J.

 

[captcalhoun]

my only problem is in the puritanical ethnocentrism of the rules regarding female photos.

no images that if they were in a magazine you'd need ID to buy

HA! In the liberal UK, you can buy magazines featuring women flashing their boobs with no need for ID. Loaded, Front, Zoo and Nuts regularly have bare boobage and there's no restriction on their sale. and that's besides three national daily newspapers having 'page 3 girls' flashing their bristols to all and sundry.

i also don't get this whole 'side boob' thing. WTF? Seriously? the side of a boob is titalating? come on! you can have titlating pictures with NO boob showing!

and, frankly, i think it's sexxist saying no bare boobs, yet bare male chests are allowed. the argument goes that since men don't have mammary glands, this is some how okay, yet women are clearly excited over shirtless pictures of men or we wouldn't have women posting with avatars of shirtless Connor Trineer. or posting images of bare chested hunks. slag off Hermiod's whinging all you want, but he's right that there is a double-standard there.

oh, and, yeah, selective quoting, not good. context is everything...

 

[trekkiedane]

Re: Politics/Controversial Topics, Game Threads, Misc FAQ - READ THIS!

Avatars are a Board-wide issue, not a Misc issue. There are definitely limits to what can be put in Avatars, Sigs and Locations; if there's a problem, Bonz, Spiff or an Admin will ask you to remove it. Or you can PM one of them with exactly what you want to use and let them check it out first.

But the rule-of-thumb is: If you find it necessary to ask, it probably is over the line.