I've been infracted for calling Torie a genius. For reals.

[Keystone Phil]

If one adopts a rule of never putting down another poster personally, as opposed to putting down the poster's ideas in one fashion or the other, I suspect the number of infraction points one gets would be a lot closer to my number than Phil's.  Just a thought for folks to think  about.

LOL

Yeah, Torie, you have never, in your condescending way, attacked me personally. Never!

This place is such a joke.

When has Torie ever attacked you personally? I don't think he ever did even when you attacked him personally several times.

I love this authority with which people speak on this, as if they have monitored every post between myself and Torie.

But you guys are right. He never "attacked" me; he "commented on my behavior."

[Badger]

If one adopts a rule of never putting down another poster personally, as opposed to putting down the poster's ideas in one fashion or the other, I suspect the number of infraction points one gets would be a lot closer to my number than Phil's.  Just a thought for folks to think  about.

LOL

Yeah, Torie, you have never, in your condescending way, attacked me personally. Never!

This place is such a joke.

When has Torie ever attacked you personally? I don't think he ever did even when you attacked him personally several times.

yeah. When has torie ever attacked ANYONE personally? Let alone nastily? Accusing torie of personal attacks is like accusing emily post of bad manners

[opebo]

Why are we allowed to discuss this?

Moderators, you know we all despise you and the new system under which we are not allowed to express any opinions.  Why don't you just delete this thread?

Really I don't see the point of the death-points system - wouldn't it be more effective for you all to just delete posts and members at will?  But perhaps you like to see us wail a bit before you eliminate us.

[opebo]

Wait a minute, they do already just delete posts at will, right?

I see a post of mine was deleted yesterday, and there was no mention of it under my death-points warning.

[dialectical fetishist]

All dissent is forbidden, opebo. Haven't you noticed?

I bet they infract me for this.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Wait a minute, they do already just delete posts at will, right?

I see a post of mine was deleted yesterday, and there was no mention of it under my death-points warning.

I deleted when you reposted the post I had deleted before, but decided not to infract it a second time, so I just deleted it.  If you want infraction points, feel free to repost it, and I'll give you some.

[Lief]

^^^reported for threatening, which is illegal according to the ToS.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

^^^reported for threatening, which is illegal according to the ToS.

It's not a threat.  He's complaining he didn't get points when I deleted it.  I'm simply giving him an offer to change that if he wants.

[opebo]

^^^reported for threatening, which is illegal according to the ToS.

It's not a threat.  He's complaining he didn't get points when I deleted it.  I'm simply giving him an offer to change that if he wants.

I'm belittling your pretense of fairness, Inks.  You should all cease with this laughable idea that you are doing any of this to any useful or beneficial purpose.   We all know you are just power-seekers - if you were decent citizens you would resign immediately.
 

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

^^^reported for threatening, which is illegal according to the ToS.

It's not a threat.  He's complaining he didn't get points when I deleted it.  I'm simply giving him an offer to change that if he wants.

I'm belittling your pretense of fairness, Inks.  You should all cease with this laughable idea that you are doing any of this to any useful or beneficial purpose.   We all know you are just power-seekers - if you were decent citizens you would resign immediately.
 

You posted about fantasizing about a sexual relationship with a minor... sorry, but that's not gonna fly on a board I moderate.  If that makes me a power-seeker, then I'll accept that label.

[opebo]

You posted about fantasizing about a sexual relationship with a minor... sorry, but that's not gonna fly on a board I moderate.  If that makes me a power-seeker, then I'll accept that label.

I did not so post, Inks, I made a joke which referred to ephobophilia.  It did not elucidate any fantasy.  If we are to accept your censorship - and I suppose we have no choice - we may not refer to any such realities, but merely pretend they don't exist!

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

You posted that "our" fantasy would be with a 16-year-old girl, but since it's Naso's fantasy, he should make her 45.

[© Tweed the Younger]

is ephebophilia the secret behind opebo's username?

[opebo]

You posted that "our" fantasy would be with a 16-year-old girl, but since it's Naso's fantasy, he should make her 45.

Precisely - I posted no fantasy at all - no story or detail, I only referenced the fact that while Naso prefers older ladies, other prefer teenaged girls.  How is that infractable or worthy of deletion?

is ephebophilia the secret behind opebo's username?

No, just a happy coincidence actually.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

You posted that "our" fantasy would be with a 16-year-old girl, but since it's Naso's fantasy, he should make her 45.

Precisely - I posted no fantasy at all - no story or detail, I only referenced the fact that while Naso prefers older ladies, other prefer teenaged girls.  How is that infractable or worthy of deletion?

is ephebophilia the secret behind opebo's username?

No, just a happy coincidence actually.

I never said you posted a fantasy - I said you posted about one.  You posted about you and some other people having a fantasy of a 16-year-old girl.

It's infractionworthy because ephebophilia is inappropriate and not allowed on the forum.

[Senator Kalwejt]

opebo, don't you think you'd be banned a long time ago, if moderators were really hating dissenting opinions as much, as you're implying?

[© Tweed the Younger]

I never said you posted a fantasy - I said you posted about one.  You posted about you and some other people having a fantasy of a 16-year-old girl.

It's infractionworthy because ephebophilia is inappropriate and not allowed on the forum.

wtf?  16 is the age of consent in dozens of states.

[Senator Kalwejt]

I never said you posted a fantasy - I said you posted about one.  You posted about you and some other people having a fantasy of a 16-year-old girl.

It's infractionworthy because ephebophilia is inappropriate and not allowed on the forum.

wtf?  16 is the age of consent in dozens of states.

He's probably talking about that whole, ridiculous "no sexually-related material rule" or what is the direct quote.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I never said you posted a fantasy - I said you posted about one.  You posted about you and some other people having a fantasy of a 16-year-old girl.

It's infractionworthy because ephebophilia is inappropriate and not allowed on the forum.

wtf?  16 is the age of consent in dozens of states.

He's probably talking about that whole, ridiculous "no sexually-related material rule" or what is the direct quote.

which is obviously not enforced to any degree... as I have noted before, the whole idea is to so broadly define the standard of 'infractability' in order to allow for the application of the 'rules' in any manner the Mods would like.  notice how whenever Nym90 drops down from his perch he hides behind 'oh, they're just enforcing the ToS, I see no problem here'

[opebo]

I never said you posted a fantasy - I said you posted about one.  You posted about you and some other people having a fantasy of a 16-year-old girl.

It's infractionworthy because ephebophilia is inappropriate and not allowed on the forum.

That makes no sense, Inks - how can we discuss political issues such as age-of-consent laws, if your extreme prudery is to be the arbiter?

opebo, don't you think you'd be banned a long time ago, if moderators were really hating dissenting opinions as much, as you're implying?

Obviously not, Kawedt, they enjoy keeping people around and squelching their speech.  It is like a family - you don't get any enjoyment of throwing your children out into the street, you enjoy forcing them to obey you and abandon all self-respect.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I never said you posted a fantasy - I said you posted about one.  You posted about you and some other people having a fantasy of a 16-year-old girl.

It's infractionworthy because ephebophilia is inappropriate and not allowed on the forum.

That makes no sense, Inks - how can we discuss political issues such as age-of-consent laws, if your extreme prudery is to be the arbiter?

opebo, don't you think you'd be banned a long time ago, if moderators were really hating dissenting opinions as much, as you're implying?

Obviously not, Kawedt, they enjoy keeping people around and squelching their speech.  It is like a family - you don't get any enjoyment of throwing your children out into the street, you enjoy forcing them to obey you and abandon all self-respect.

There's a big difference between discussing age of consent laws and joking about a fantasy with a 16-year-old girl.

[opebo]

There's a big difference between discussing age of consent laws and joking about a fantasy with a 16-year-old girl.

Really?  So, could I in the course of argument regarding age of consent laws make the observation 'most men fantasize about 16 year old girls at times'.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

There's a big difference between discussing age of consent laws and joking about a fantasy with a 16-year-old girl.

Really?  So, could I in the course of argument regarding age of consent laws make the observation 'most men fantasize about 16 year old girls at times'.

I can't speak for other boards, but if you wanted to post that on my board, I'd allow it (although I greatly question the accuracy of that statement).  The difference between that and what you posted is that's an objective observation as part of a discussion.  Your statement was an inappropriate joke about the way you think a story should be.

[opebo]

I can't speak for other boards, but if you wanted to post that on my board, I'd allow it (although I greatly question the accuracy of that statement).  The difference between that and what you posted is that's an objective observation as part of a discussion.  Your statement was an inappropriate joke about the way you think a story should be.

So speech about controversial topics is allowed only when it is in a 'serious tone'?  Inks, your drive to make this forum deadly dull and free of all wit and humor is a great success!

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I can't speak for other boards, but if you wanted to post that on my board, I'd allow it (although I greatly question the accuracy of that statement).  The difference between that and what you posted is that's an objective observation as part of a discussion.  Your statement was an inappropriate joke about the way you think a story should be.

So speech about controversial topics is allowed only when it is in a 'serious tone'?  Inks, your drive to make this forum deadly dull and free of all wit and humor is a great success!

It's inappropriate to joke about having sex with a 16-year-old.  Sorry, but that's my rule.  If you don't like it, don't post on the Forum Community board.