Twelve points away from "Moderator Review."

[Gustaf]

Opebo, as much as I like you, I must say comparing moderation on some internet forum with dictature is a bit... uncalled for.

Especially since he supports Mubarak, Ghadaffi and all the others.

[So the Heroes Fall]

OK so the mods didn't like my stock reply to CARLHAYDEN's nonsense blather. But why do I get first 3 points for it, and then 10?

And don't say it's for posting it again after the infraction since the 10 point infracted post was made prior to the 3 point one and prior to any infraction.

I'm the only mod on the board where you received the infraction points, so I take sole responsibility for this one (you can see I reported the 10-point post myself).  And I'm sorry to say, it was for intentionally re-posting an obviously deleted post which was a somewhat absurd random spam youtube link without any established context to the topic at hand.  

You're free to post it here instead of alluding to it, since it's actually relevant to this topic?

Frankly, I find your post here hilarious because you say "don't say it's for posting it again" but you don't address the issue that you did, in fact, intentionally post it again.  I'm NOT going to spend a single night repeatedly handing out 1-3 point infractions to someone reposting the same infractable post again and again until they hit 100 and are muted.

If you wanted to tell me it was a mistake and that you didn't realize that your original post was deleted, then I would be receptive to that argument.  If you want to make the argument that it wasn't spam, I guess we can have a public discussion about what you feel is and isn't excessive or whatevsky you'd like to happen.  I'm very busy lately so I probably wouldn't participate overly much.

If you'd like me to switch the infraction points on the two posts, so they are 10 &  3 instead of 3 & 10, I could do that if you'd like

The point is that I did not post it again after the deletion/infraction and never have since. Timeline:

-I post 10-point infracted post.
-I post 3-point infracted post.
-3-point infracted post is deleted and infracted.
-10-point infracted post is deleted and infracted.

So that was never posted after any infraction.

[Senator Kalwejt]

Opebo, as much as I like you, I must say comparing moderation on some internet forum with dictature is a bit... uncalled for.

Especially since he supports Mubarak, Ghadaffi and all the others.

I'm with Gustaf on this one, opebo. In a real "dictatorship", an "opressive moderator" would led you to the gallows or, in best case, lock you up in a small cell, throwing the key away.

This is internet, for God's sake.

[opebo]

...the forum has always been pretty clear on the fact that it doesn't allow hate against blacks, women, gays or other such groups.

Who is 'the forum', Gustaf?  And how does someone expressing an opinion about the age of consent, the standards of proof in a 'rape case', or for that matter commenting on breasts constitute 'hate'?

Opebo, as much as I like you, I must say comparing moderation on some internet forum with dictature is a bit... uncalled for.

Especially since he supports Mubarak, Ghadaffi and all the others.

I'm with Gustaf on this one, opebo. In a real "dictatorship", an "opressive moderator" would led you to the gallows or, in best case, lock you up in a small cell, throwing the key away.

This is internet, for God's sake.

That is precisely the point - on the internet we can afford 'freedom'.  Obviously in real life dictators are necessary (and of course I do 'support' them, for what little that's worth).  The whole idea of the internet is to play - to censor here serves no actual purpose, since the forum is for the amusement of bored upper-middle class youth. 

In real life order must be maintained so as to enslave masses and preserve privileges.  Here its just chit chat (and we're all privileged anyway), so what's the excuse for the censorship?

[Lunar]

The point is that I did not post it again after the deletion/infraction and never have since. Timeline:

-I post 10-point infracted post.
-I post 3-point infracted post.
-3-point infracted post is deleted and infracted.
-10-point infracted post is deleted and infracted.

So that was never posted after any infraction.

You're saying you made the exact same post twice before any post was deleted?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLwb9NePt94

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLwb9NePt94

[Gustaf]

...the forum has always been pretty clear on the fact that it doesn't allow hate against blacks, women, gays or other such groups.

Who is 'the forum', Gustaf?  And how does someone expressing an opinion about the age of consent, the standards of proof in a 'rape case', or for that matter commenting on breasts constitute 'hate'?

Opebo, as much as I like you, I must say comparing moderation on some internet forum with dictature is a bit... uncalled for.

Especially since he supports Mubarak, Ghadaffi and all the others.

I'm with Gustaf on this one, opebo. In a real "dictatorship", an "opressive moderator" would led you to the gallows or, in best case, lock you up in a small cell, throwing the key away.

This is internet, for God's sake.

That is precisely the point - on the internet we can afford 'freedom'.  Obviously in real life dictators are necessary (and of course I do 'support' them, for what little that's worth).  The whole idea of the internet is to play - to censor here serves no actual purpose, since the forum is for the amusement of bored upper-middle class youth. 

In real life order must be maintained so as to enslave masses and preserve privileges.  Here its just chit chat (and we're all privileged anyway), so what's the excuse for the censorship?

Eh, the owner of the forum, guy called Dave Leip.

And when you say women shouldn't be believed or simply take your general view of how women are evil bitches only fit for sex, you're being hateful. Of course, hateful people always take your line. "How is pointing out the high crime statistics among black people hateful?" And so on.

[Sibboleth]

Or 'I'm not a racist, but...'

[Californian Tony]

...the forum has always been pretty clear on the fact that it doesn't allow hate against blacks, women, gays or other such groups.

Who is 'the forum', Gustaf?  And how does someone expressing an opinion about the age of consent, the standards of proof in a 'rape case', or for that matter commenting on breasts constitute 'hate'?

Opebo, as much as I like you, I must say comparing moderation on some internet forum with dictature is a bit... uncalled for.

Especially since he supports Mubarak, Ghadaffi and all the others.

I'm with Gustaf on this one, opebo. In a real "dictatorship", an "opressive moderator" would led you to the gallows or, in best case, lock you up in a small cell, throwing the key away.

This is internet, for God's sake.

That is precisely the point - on the internet we can afford 'freedom'.  Obviously in real life dictators are necessary (and of course I do 'support' them, for what little that's worth).  The whole idea of the internet is to play - to censor here serves no actual purpose, since the forum is for the amusement of bored upper-middle class youth. 

In real life order must be maintained so as to enslave masses and preserve privileges.  Here its just chit chat (and we're all privileged anyway), so what's the excuse for the censorship?

Following some rules of politeness, respect and moderateness are the necessary condition for everyone to enjoy this forum.

[So the Heroes Fall]

You're saying you made the exact same post twice before any post was deleted?

Yes, that's exactly what happened.

[Lunar]

You're saying you made the exact same post twice before any post was deleted?

Yes, that's exactly what happened.

Okay, fine.  I'll accept this version of events.  One of your posts was infractable as off-topic contentless spam by itself (as that's exactly what I did the first time I had come to the thread) and the second identical post in the same thread would be remain more so than the first.

Despite all of this, you've made a very valid argument that I had misunderstood the situation and my points were excessive, sorry.  I had also assigned more points to the wrong one by mistake, you were right about that as well.

I've reassigned your infraction points to a more appropriate number (3 for the 1st, 5 for the 2nd).

[opebo]

And when you say women shouldn't be believed or simply take your general view of how women are evil bitches only fit for sex, you're being hateful.

Not at all - I said women shouldn't be believe because no one should be believed, and to point out that your tendency to believe women is caused by some kind of special treatment that you apply to them.  In point of fact you are the sexist, not I.  I find all people equally untrustworthy, but you seem to categorized women as little Madonnas who will not lie.

And of course I have never mentioned anything about women being 'only fit for sex' - that's just your assumption.  You are very good at making assumptions which are not represented at all in your interlocutors' posts.

Following some rules of politeness, respect and moderateness are the necessary condition for everyone to enjoy this forum.

That is absolutely untrue, Antonia.  In the first place, there is an ignore function, and in the second place, many political positions are not 'moderate'.  To disallow all but moderate political opinion is to severely truncate the ability of the forum to cover its subject - politics.  Nothing whatever is lost if we allow members to be pithy, opinionated, and a little vehement, but everything is lost if (as is now the case) our discussion is killed off by the chilling effect of censorship.

[Californian Tony]

Following some rules of politeness, respect and moderateness are the necessary condition for everyone to enjoy this forum.

That is absolutely untrue, Antonia.  In the first place, there is an ignore function, and in the second place, many political positions are not 'moderate'.  To disallow all but moderate political opinion is to severely truncate the ability of the forum to cover its subject - politics.  Nothing whatever is lost if we allow members to be pithy, opinionated, and a little vehement, but everything is lost if (as is now the case) our discussion is killed off by the chilling effect of censorship.

I'm not talking about moderateness in political positions, but in the way to express them. One can hold whatever political position he wants as long as he doesn't engage in hateful rhetoric.

[opebo]

...One can hold whatever political position he wants as long as he doesn't engage in hateful rhetoric.

It is obvious that you are wrong - one man's political position is another man's 'hateful rhetoric'.  Disallowing certain opinions because they are 'hateful' allows us to label our interlocutor's as such and eliminate them from discussion. 

[Vasall des Midas]

...One can hold whatever political position he wants as long as he doesn't engage in hateful rhetoric.

It is obvious that you are wrong - one man's political position is another man's 'hateful rhetoric'.  Disallowing certain opinions because they are 'hateful' allows us to label our interlocutor's as such and eliminate them from discussion. 

I disallow such hateful rhetoric, Ope.