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

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Because the moderators don't form policy at the wills of the forum.  We form policy at the will of Dave, and largely now Nym, as a Mod-Admin.

But it's up to a moderator to decide how to enforce these rules. A number of your colleagues are less strict, Inks, and I don't think their approachment ever hurts Atlas.

In what ways am I more strict in things that I infract for?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Because the moderators don't form policy at the wills of the forum.  We form policy at the will of Dave, and largely now Nym, as a Mod-Admin.

But it's up to a moderator to decide how to enforce these rules. A number of your colleagues are less strict, Inks, and I don't think their approachment ever hurts Atlas.

In what ways am I more strict in things that I infract for?

For example, I disagree with your interpretation of "sexual context" rule. IMO, forbidden sexual context would include explicit graphics or a very detailed writings, not some innocent talk.

You have an authority over your board and I'm not going to join a choir of few trolls screaming "OMG, demod him, he hates free speech". I just strongly disagree with you on the issue and I hope you'd be willing to listen to our concerns.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Because the moderators don't form policy at the wills of the forum.  We form policy at the will of Dave, and largely now Nym, as a Mod-Admin.

But it's up to a moderator to decide how to enforce these rules. A number of your colleagues are less strict, Inks, and I don't think their approachment ever hurts Atlas.

In what ways am I more strict in things that I infract for?

For example, I disagree with your interpretation of "sexual context" rule. IMO, forbidden sexual context would include explicit graphics or a very detailed writings, not some innocent talk.

You have an authority over your board and I'm not going to join a choir of few trolls screaming "OMG, demod him, he hates free speech". I just strongly disagree with you on the issue and I hope you'd be willing to listen to our concerns.

And which of my colleagues are less strict on the issue of sexual content?  I assume you're referencing opebo's post?  Which mods have said they think that post should be acceptable?

[greenforest32]

Because he wants the site to be able to be used for educational purposes and fears that allowing those things would lead to potential blocking by school filters.

This rule looks good on paper, but the real educational value are Dave's database, not forum.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Because he wants the site to be able to be used for educational purposes and fears that allowing those things would lead to potential blocking by school filters.

This rule looks good on paper, but the real educational value are Dave's database, not forum.

That's a fine argument, but why are you making it to me?  It's Dave's rule...

[Lіef]

Being gay is not legal in wide swaths of the world. I think it's important that we stop discussing it on this forum, lest young students are turned away from the vast educational resources of the Forum Community Election Match-Ups forum, among other scholarly gems.

[opebo]

There's a difference between talking about things that are off topic like sports and movies, and discussing things such as off topic such as "screwing 16-year-olds," an act that is not legal everywhere. It sets off a lot of alarm bells to a school administrator reviewing our site.

I didn't discuss what you quote above!  I merely mentioned a preference in fantasy (or attraction) for youth over  age.  There was no mention of 'screwing' in either Naso's original fiction or in my comment!

You guys are going completely over the top here in that 'banding together in response to a threat' way.  Go look at the original thread in question.

[Senator Napoleon]

Because he wants the site to be able to be used for educational purposes and fears that allowing those things would lead to potential blocking by school filters.

This rule looks good on paper, but the real educational value are Dave's database, not forum.

That's a fine argument, but why are you making it to me?  It's Dave's rule...

Where did he say that?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Being gay is not legal in wide swaths of the world. I think it's important that we stop discussing it on this forum, lest young students are turned away from the vast educational resources of the Forum Community Election Match-Ups forum, among other scholarly gems.

Dave's goal isn't for us to be an educational tool available to every student world-wide, just at least here in America.  So, that's why he's using standards acceptable by typical Americans.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Because he wants the site to be able to be used for educational purposes and fears that allowing those things would lead to potential blocking by school filters.

This rule looks good on paper, but the real educational value are Dave's database, not forum.

That's a fine argument, but why are you making it to me?  It's Dave's rule...

Where did he say that?

I didn't see the double quote... my bad.

[Fuzzy]

This thread is destroying what little faith I have left in humanity.

[dialectical fetishist]

Blasphemy is still illegal in much of the world, so let's ban atheism from the forum.

[Lіef]

Being gay is not legal in wide swaths of the world. I think it's important that we stop discussing it on this forum, lest young students are turned away from the vast educational resources of the Forum Community Election Match-Ups forum, among other scholarly gems.

Dave's goal isn't for us to be an educational tool available to every student world-wide, just at least here in America.  So, that's why he's using standards acceptable by typical Americans.

Sex with 16-year-olds is legally accepted in a majority of American states.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Being gay is not legal in wide swaths of the world. I think it's important that we stop discussing it on this forum, lest young students are turned away from the vast educational resources of the Forum Community Election Match-Ups forum, among other scholarly gems.

Dave's goal isn't for us to be an educational tool available to every student world-wide, just at least here in America.  So, that's why he's using standards acceptable by typical Americans.

Sex with 16-year-olds is legally accepted in a majority of American states.

I didn't say otherwise.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Because the moderators don't form policy at the wills of the forum.  We form policy at the will of Dave, and largely now Nym, as a Mod-Admin.

But it's up to a moderator to decide how to enforce these rules. A number of your colleagues are less strict, Inks, and I don't think their approachment ever hurts Atlas.

In what ways am I more strict in things that I infract for?

For example, I disagree with your interpretation of "sexual context" rule. IMO, forbidden sexual context would include explicit graphics or a very detailed writings, not some innocent talk.

You have an authority over your board and I'm not going to join a choir of few trolls screaming "OMG, demod him, he hates free speech". I just strongly disagree with you on the issue and I hope you'd be willing to listen to our concerns.

And which of my colleagues are less strict on the issue of sexual content?  I assume you're referencing opebo's post?  Which mods have said they think that post should be acceptable?

Come on Kal... if you're going to make these claims, back them up.  Otherwise you are just as bad as the people who make up things that the moderators do.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Because the moderators don't form policy at the wills of the forum.  We form policy at the will of Dave, and largely now Nym, as a Mod-Admin.

But it's up to a moderator to decide how to enforce these rules. A number of your colleagues are less strict, Inks, and I don't think their approachment ever hurts Atlas.

In what ways am I more strict in things that I infract for?

For example, I disagree with your interpretation of "sexual context" rule. IMO, forbidden sexual context would include explicit graphics or a very detailed writings, not some innocent talk.

You have an authority over your board and I'm not going to join a choir of few trolls screaming "OMG, demod him, he hates free speech". I just strongly disagree with you on the issue and I hope you'd be willing to listen to our concerns.

And which of my colleagues are less strict on the issue of sexual content?  I assume you're referencing opebo's post?  Which mods have said they think that post should be acceptable?

Come on Kal... if you're going to make these claims, back them up.  Otherwise you are just as bad as the people who make up things that the moderators do.

All right. For example, some what-if stories contains sexual references of kind you find against the ToS on your board, but I haven't seen any action, since these are mostly innocent remarks, not explicit sexual material (like, again, graphics or detailed descriptions).

Look, I'd fully agree that graphics and/or very detailed description of sexual nature are against the ToS. Making remarks about having sex with 12 year old would be not just awful, but illegal under U.S. law. However, 16-year old thing, you took it too far, IMO.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Because the moderators don't form policy at the wills of the forum.  We form policy at the will of Dave, and largely now Nym, as a Mod-Admin.

But it's up to a moderator to decide how to enforce these rules. A number of your colleagues are less strict, Inks, and I don't think their approachment ever hurts Atlas.

In what ways am I more strict in things that I infract for?

For example, I disagree with your interpretation of "sexual context" rule. IMO, forbidden sexual context would include explicit graphics or a very detailed writings, not some innocent talk.

You have an authority over your board and I'm not going to join a choir of few trolls screaming "OMG, demod him, he hates free speech". I just strongly disagree with you on the issue and I hope you'd be willing to listen to our concerns.

And which of my colleagues are less strict on the issue of sexual content?  I assume you're referencing opebo's post?  Which mods have said they think that post should be acceptable?

Come on Kal... if you're going to make these claims, back them up.  Otherwise you are just as bad as the people who make up things that the moderators do.

All right. For example, some what-if stories contains sexual references of kind you find against the ToS on your board, but I haven't seen any action, since these are mostly innocent remarks, not explicit sexual material (like, again, graphics or detailed descriptions).

Look, I'd fully agree that graphics and/or very detailed description of sexual nature are against the ToS. Making remarks about having sex with 12 year old would be not just awful, but illegal under U.S. law. However, 16-year old thing, you took it too far, IMO.

Show me an example.  And to be fair, the What-if board isn't as patrolled as the FC/OT boards.  I can't think of an instance where something's been reported on what-if and BK has been more lenient than I'd have been.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Because the moderators don't form policy at the wills of the forum.  We form policy at the will of Dave, and largely now Nym, as a Mod-Admin.

But it's up to a moderator to decide how to enforce these rules. A number of your colleagues are less strict, Inks, and I don't think their approachment ever hurts Atlas.

In what ways am I more strict in things that I infract for?

For example, I disagree with your interpretation of "sexual context" rule. IMO, forbidden sexual context would include explicit graphics or a very detailed writings, not some innocent talk.

You have an authority over your board and I'm not going to join a choir of few trolls screaming "OMG, demod him, he hates free speech". I just strongly disagree with you on the issue and I hope you'd be willing to listen to our concerns.

And which of my colleagues are less strict on the issue of sexual content?  I assume you're referencing opebo's post?  Which mods have said they think that post should be acceptable?

Come on Kal... if you're going to make these claims, back them up.  Otherwise you are just as bad as the people who make up things that the moderators do.

All right. For example, some what-if stories contains sexual references of kind you find against the ToS on your board, but I haven't seen any action, since these are mostly innocent remarks, not explicit sexual material (like, again, graphics or detailed descriptions).

Look, I'd fully agree that graphics and/or very detailed description of sexual nature are against the ToS. Making remarks about having sex with 12 year old would be not just awful, but illegal under U.S. law. However, 16-year old thing, you took it too far, IMO.

Show me an example.  And to be fair, the What-if board isn't as patrolled as the FC/OT boards.  I can't think of an instance where something's been reported on what-if and BK has been more lenient than I'd have been.

I'd need to do some reading, so excuse lack of an immediate example, ok?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

That's fine.  But I still expect one.  If you're going to make these claims, you'd better be able to actually back them up...

[opebo]

This thread is destroying what little faith I have left in humanity.

That is an important step in the operation of the authoritarian regime throughout history, fuzzy.  Kill the faith of the common man in his fellow man.

Making remarks about having sex with 12 year old would be not just awful, but illegal under U.S. law.

Making remarks about having sex with a 12 year old would not be illegal under U.S. law, kalwedjt.  Doing it is illegal, but not writing about it or speaking about it.  (at least not yet).

That's fine.  But I still expect one.  If you're going to make these claims, you'd better be able to actually back them up...

Oh come on.  You know very well that no 'claims' we make, or anything we say here will result in anything other than death-points.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

If discussing something that is simply illegal is banned, why is nothing done about all the discussions of marijuana use?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

If discussing something that is simply illegal is banned, why is nothing done about all the discussions of marijuana use?

A lot of posters actually admitted to smoke marijuana, which is illegal. Are they ban- or infraction-worthy?

[Yelnoc]

Out of curiosity, how many infraction points does opebo have?  He trolls harder than anyone I have ever seen on a message board.

[Torie]

If discussing something that is simply illegal is banned, why is nothing done about all the discussions of marijuana use?

A lot of posters actually admitted to smoke marijuana, which is illegal. Are they ban- or infraction-worthy?

Wait a minute.  First, in some places, like to pick a place at random, CA, we have something called medical marijuana. I can smoke a joint anywhere that is not a non-smoking zone - legally.
Life is beautiful.


Second, in most states, or at least a substantial number of them, possession of pot is a misdemeanor, sort of like a traffic ticket (in CA, it is a $100 fine). So while it is illegal, it is more of an act of malum prohibitum, rather than malum in se.

So you guys need a better "wedge" here than pot, is what I'm politely suggesting.

CC:  BRTD

[Torie]

Out of curiosity, how many infraction points does opebo have?  He trolls harder than anyone I have ever seen on a message board.

Oh he cruises along at about 40  points I think. He is careful to keep it below 50. Opebo is not just another pretty face.