The Gay Thread

Quote: Gandler

Because people (including you) are throwing around a lot of suspension requests and it needs to be balanced out with a moderate voice.

If I broke a rule I have no problem facing suspension, but it needs to apply to everyone in this thread that broke a rule, which at some point was probably most of the thread.

Keep it up
A kind offer regarding suspension rules. Thanks. Appreciate it.
You got under Shrek's skin. Good job. :-)
lol

Quote: terapined

Keep it up
A kind offer regarding suspension rules. Thanks. Appreciate it.
You got under Shrek's skin. Good job. :-)
lol

I am honestly not intending to, but it appears that pointing out basic facts and logic gets under his skin....

Quote: Gandler

I am honestly not intending to, but it appears that pointing out basic facts and logic gets under his skin....

Conservatives hate it when we bring up inconvenient facts based on factual research
They prefer fake alternative facts based on Trump fantasies or Qanon BS
I am still amazed that WH could not deal with the fact Obama had a larger attendance then Trump and came out with alternative facts. lol

Sorry for the delay in response, and preemptive apology for the length. There's a lot to unpack...

First, Gandler, you're not even remotely involved, at least as far as "breaching" goes. Conversation about divisive topics is A-OK, and speaking ONLY for myself, it's desirable. Stances, beliefs, opinions, all these I very much try to accept even when they're "unacceptable" by my definition. Context and intent means much to me, and holding an offensive opinion is not actionable in and of itself, nor do I wish to make it so, until or unless I feel it is beyond expression and is rather an attempt to inflame or incite. My firearm extremism, for example, is just something y'all are going to have to deal with no matter how much it vexes you. If I start inserting pro-gun into every thread I'm in or following a member around waving it in their face, then I can go fly a kite. Savvy?

Quote: AZDuffman

Saudi Arabia is not an example of "social conservatism." It is wahabism and sharia law. Neither have a connection to social conservatism in the USA. That is my point and will remain as such.

A good example here. The problem here is, as we both always say, "words have meanings". "SA is not SC" is wrong, full stop. "SA SC is not US SC" is not only more correct, but much more clearer and avoids any sense of misdeed.

Before anyone gets bent thinking there's gonna be thought police or graded posts, I'm just trying to show / explain what my issue is. Being incorrect is not "wrong". My problem specifically is that "feigned ignorance" is a tool unscrupulous folks use to flame and incite, ie. pretending they were unaware or ignorant of something in order to propagate their bulls#$% or otherwise rile the membership. I'm not accusing you of this, but ANYTIME it happens no matter who does it, it causes a chain of action on my end trying to decipher whether dude just missed it or dude is up to something. It's a lot of work and why I personally do not like low no-effort posting.

I CANNOT and DO NOT have the capabilities to nail all y'alls intentions. If put into the position to act, I will almost certainly choose wrong. It's why most of my "actions" are of the long post conversational variety as opposed to the suspension list update type, and why I keep throwing it back to y'all. Quite simply, y'all CAN fix this better than I, and you WILL have a better outcome handling it yourselves.

(and really, I hate that is sounds so "Don't make me come down there" like y'all are children. Apologies for my communication fail; I just don't know how else to write it =p))

Quote: fleaswatter

There is restraint and there is common sense. For the vast majority of your posts and judgements I fully support and agree with you, but NOT in this case. Before I explain further, look at the following post and see what has recently earned 2 members here suspensions by the Wizard:

/sigh. This one is tougher. This now is y'all reaping what I've sown lo these last 6yrs or so.

OK firstly, there's not really a solid line within mgmt. (IMO, of course). What I mean is we all have the same goal and are on the same team, but I at least go about things in a completely different fashion than the rest. We've all heard "A member made a complaint, something had to be done". I share that belief, but that "something" for me is rarely suspension, because, as you've offered, people have gotten dinged for stuff I feel could've been easily talked through, leading to not only the retention of the member, but an even deeper understanding and relationship (hence these long ass posts). While suspension has its place, I don't have much use for it and prefer ways which are more productive. I know this is frustrating and maybe tough to manage as a member, but... until or unless we are replaced, we're what you got. Only thing I can really offer you in this regard is a resignation.

Specifically to the point, having re-read the thread I remain loathe to act for a few reasons, which I will do my very best to explain...

terp started with the blanket statement I mentioned earlier. I don't like it, but it's not actionable. terp went on to follow up with a much better, almost perfectly worded post, which I do appreciate and does result in a sort of "redemption" for me, at least where my duties are concerned. His posts led to conversation which quickly (IMO) went awry. I think it was AZD's attempt at reducio ad absurdum (he can correct me if this wasn't his intent) that brought the appearance of support to the convo. It appears he was pressed as to whether he was being serious, and it appears he remained reducio to make a point. After several attempts to get to the nut, and several restatings of the reducio, terp finally sent it...

Quote: terp

Bottom line
If AZ supports abolishing marriage age limits and Shrek wont object
AZ and Shrek support pedophilia. That's why Shrek is out of here. He's been exposed as a pedo supporter.

And now you want MY judgement on it. O..K.....

terp's use of the qualifier saves him, sort of, or at least it might have. IMO, what he wrote was a statement of fact with a potential for petty games. IF you support the abolishment of age restrictions, then you DO support pedophilia. I can't see the argument, at least here. What appears to be the problem is AZD DIDN'T support it, rather he was making an absurd argument, and a mix of some folks refusal to open their minds with his refusal to drop the absurdity forced the question. Perhaps "refusal" and "forced" aren't entirely accurate, but hopefully you understand what I mean. The second half, though, is damning. There's no confusion, no misunderstanding. He took the "if" (which may or may not be more of the word games mentioned earlier), and then ran with it to end his post. He went from a statement of "if" to a statement of fact.

I can only say that this, my obvious ignoring of offense, is quite simply my MO. From God to guns, politics to prescription abuse, I try always to allow self regulation. I may talk some s#$%, but pushing admin buttons is always my last option. I'm not sure whether to offer a thanks or an apology for that, so I will take the opportunity now to offer both. You're welcome and I'm sorry. Genuinely. I can only say that I thought that this was "the best way to manage", and had a few years of success supporting that thought. Now we appear to have reached the limitations of such a scheme. So, let's make some changes...

Firstly, I'm not going to ban terp or any other participant in this thread. I choose this option because I cannot, with integrity, ban ONLY terp, and I do not wish to retroactively purge half the membership in one fell swoop (especially) over a violation that I let go on over several days (if not years, considering my history). While allowing terp to slide may be "unfair", I feel it would be less damaging and less disruptive than the alternative, and while I personally may be a champion of individual over the group, the group is what I've been charged with professionally. So... again, sorry and you're welcome. I did warn you about my judgement...

Second, I meant it when I thanked you for the convo, as it's one I've wanted for a long time precisely because I felt the level of decorum has slipped here too much. So that's part 2. I am not going to be dramatic in either word or action; I know some folks clamor for closing threads but I just don't do that. It's not a solution, and I'm not omniscient. I'm also not going to go full WoV and deny topics, and I'll refrain from going full 2014 and banning folks based purely on black and white letter of law. But from this post on we're gonna make an effort to be gentlemen again (or at least "more gentlemanly"). I've got 6 weeks with nothing to do, so this will be my focus. Everyone here in thread should take notice, and everyone not here will get enough reminders to be aware. Play nicer. Like WoV circa 2012 nice (minus the Logan). DO NOT take this is as a watch your back, pin up your flowers, hold hands for the jamboree type of fakery; I don't want that any more than you do. And do not take this as thought control; I don't want to touch, trample or affect your views via bureaucratic power whatsoever. I only wish (and lightly demand) that said views are communicated respectfully. That's it. I don't think it's much and I don't think it's difficult but I do think it would be successful. So that's what we'll do, as it's the least disruptive thing I can manage while also serving my responsibility.

And yes, this is forum wide. Help me help you. And god, but don't rest your fate on my judgement. Hell, even I don't use that ratty ol' thing =p

Did you read your own quote?

“He’s been exposed as a pedo supporter?”

FWIW, nobody supported elimination of age restrictions. We just said the law as is now is no problem.

The dude imho clearly crossed the line. There was no qualifier in that last line.

Quote: AZDuffman

Did you read your own quote?

“He’s been exposed as a pedo supporter?”

FWIW, nobody supported elimination of age restrictions. We just said the law as is now is no problem.

The dude imho clearly crossed the line. There was no qualifier in that last line.

I did, hence this portion of the paragraph...

Quote: Face

The second half, though, is damning. There's no confusion, no misunderstanding. He took the "if" (which may or may not be more of the word games mentioned earlier), and then ran with it to end his post. He went from a statement of "if" to a statement of fact.

No part of any of this relieves terp of the charges. No part of ME defends what he wrote - it was wrong according to forum rules, and (IMO) was wrong according to general every day decorum. My problem is not whether or not terp broke the rules (he did) or whether that break is worthy of suspension (it is), but rather how I address the problem with regards to how I have conducted myself all along. I've painted myself in a corner, you see, by my no-interference policy. And as I do not do appeasement bans (as shown by how few folks go to ME for help as opposed to the other mods), the only option that would ensure terp would get his comeuppance is for a wholesale change of how I do things, and an increase of police presence in all threads.

Perhaps I am / was wrong, but I assumed everyone would rather "take their medicine", so to speak, as opposed to having the whole shootin' match up-ended, because those are the only two options I personally am capable of or willing to do.

Quote: Face

I did, hence this portion of the paragraph...

Quote:

No part of any of this relieves terp of the charges. No part of ME defends what he wrote - it was wrong according to forum rules, and (IMO) was wrong according to general every day decorum.

Thank you.

Quote:

My problem is not whether or not terp broke the rules (he did) or whether that break is worthy of suspension (it is),

Thank you. (bolding in your quote was mine)

Quote:

but rather how I address the problem with regards to how I have conducted myself all along. I've painted myself in a corner, you see, by my no-interference policy. And as I do not do appeasement bans (as shown by how few folks go to ME for help as opposed to the other mods), the only option that would ensure terp would get his comeuppance is for a wholesale change of how I do things, and an increase of police presence in all threads.

Perhaps I am / was wrong, but I assumed everyone would rather "take their medicine", so to speak, as opposed to having the whole shootin' match up-ended, because those are the only two options I personally am capable of or willing to do.

While I do not fully agree with your position, I do understand it and where you are coming from.

I wish I was an administrator here. I would suspend anyone that classified anyone else as a liberal or conservative. Both of those words are offensive to me.

Quote: DRich

I wish I was an administrator here. I would suspend anyone that classified anyone else as a liberal or conservative. Both of those words are offensive to me.

Ditto. As a declared Apolitical, I shudder to be included in either group, simply by having a like opinion.

Quote: Face

I did, hence this portion of the paragraph...



No part of any of this relieves terp of the charges. No part of ME defends what he wrote - it was wrong according to forum rules, and (IMO) was wrong according to general every day decorum. My problem is not whether or not terp broke the rules (he did) or whether that break is worthy of suspension (it is), but rather how I address the problem with regards to how I have conducted myself all along. I've painted myself in a corner, you see, by my no-interference policy. And as I do not do appeasement bans (as shown by how few folks go to ME for help as opposed to the other mods), the only option that would ensure terp would get his comeuppance is for a wholesale change of how I do things, and an increase of police presence in all threads.

Perhaps I am / was wrong, but I assumed everyone would rather "take their medicine", so to speak, as opposed to having the whole shootin' match up-ended, because those are the only two options I personally am capable of or willing to do.

I will agree to disagree and not discuss it with you further.