Ohio Chatter DEV

Red_Skin_Pride

UA5straightin2008 wrote: ^something youll never know about

First rule of the mod forum:

YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE MOD FORUM!

Second rule of the mod forum:

YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE MOD FORUM!

Red_Skin_Pride

UA5straightin2008 wrote: lacrosse is for sissies!!

watch all 3:47 and then tell me its a step below cheerleading..
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Lol well I was about to be open to your opinion of Lacross being tough, but the original song on the video was by Shinedown...sooo that pretty much says it all.

End of Line

UA5straightin2008 wrote: lacrosse is for sissies!!

watch all 3:47 and then tell me its a step below cheerleading..
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

UA5straightin2008

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:
UA5straightin2008 wrote: lacrosse is for sissies!!

watch all 3:47 and then tell me its a step below cheerleading..
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Lol well I was about to be open to your opinion of Lacross being tough, but the original song on the video was by Shinedown...sooo that pretty much says it all.

then mute it, and watch

End of Line

^^^

Nate

I agree, we don't need Society back.

Websurfinbird

I never thought a thread ranting about bikes could lead to someone getting banned.

Heretic

mtrulz wrote: ^^What's the "mod" forum?

The place where us mods spend a lot of time discussing people like you.

j_crazy

why would the mods perma ban anyone when we all have first hand knowledge (via vaJJ) that there are ways around it.

society is a turd, but if you think he'd be gone for good pecause he was permabanned, you're mistaken. give him timeout, ask him to play nice then monitor him like everyone else when he comes back.

4cards

Who else beside Society has been shown the door?

LJ

4cards wrote: Who else beside Society has been shown the door?

A few people. he wasn't the first person on here nor will he be the last, to receive a vacation. Before we could just ban someone from posting in a particular forum, I was banning people here and there for blatant rule violations for 1 or 2 days.

Heretic

4cards wrote: Who else beside Society has been shown the door?

In reality, very few people have. Society, as well as WeAreNC, were given one-week vacations recently, as others have in the past. Annoying political forum chap Isadore got a much longer (but not permanent) one.

While the list of perma-banned members seems long when I look at it, virtually all of them are either spambots or alternate names of various posters (Mike Clark's multiple ids when he was going to war against this site, the anti mtrulz names, etc.). But we really haven't truly shown anyone the door.

ytownfootball

Although Society did in fact have it coming, when you consider the thought behind the posts he made, ie, pointing out his perceived flawed logic behind "the rules" enforcement, I think a week was more than sufficient. In other words, I hardly felt he meant what he said. Just my opinion. The folks that deserve longer/permanent suspensions are those with obvious belief in their post regarding those issues.imo.

Devils Advocate

f you want to know if the tigers claws are sharp, There are probably ways to find out for sure other than sticking your face in the cage.

ytownfootball

Well, yeah, but some feel there's no sense in beating around the bush I suppose.

wes_mantooth

ytownfootball wrote: Although Society did in fact have it coming, when you consider the thought behind the posts he made, ie, pointing out his perceived flawed logic behind "the rules" enforcement, I think a week was more than sufficient. In other words, I hardly felt he meant what he said. Just my opinion. The folks that deserve longer/permanent suspensions are those with obvious belief in their post regarding those issues.imo.

There is going to be holes in any of these 4 rules. What would be nice is if people would just act like civilized people and not try to push the limits of every rule.....and I know that would never happen, but it is nice to dream.

ytownfootball

wes_mantooth wrote:

There is going to be holes in any of these 4 rules. What would be nice is if people would just act like civilized people and not try to push the limits of every rule.....and I know that would never happen, but it is nice to dream.

I agree, the only point I'm making I guess is that it is generally easy to tell the difference between those pushing the limits and those that are showing malice/intent.

LJ

ytownfootball wrote:
wes_mantooth wrote:

There is going to be holes in any of these 4 rules. What would be nice is if people would just act like civilized people and not try to push the limits of every rule.....and I know that would never happen, but it is nice to dream.
I agree, the only point I'm making I guess is that it is generally easy to tell the difference between those pushing the limits and those that are showing malice/intent.

There is no difference. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules.

ytownfootball

LJ wrote:
ytownfootball wrote:
wes_mantooth wrote:

There is going to be holes in any of these 4 rules. What would be nice is if people would just act like civilized people and not try to push the limits of every rule.....and I know that would never happen, but it is nice to dream.
I agree, the only point I'm making I guess is that it is generally easy to tell the difference between those pushing the limits and those that are showing malice/intent.
There is no difference. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules.

Yep...the difference I see is how punishment is levied. Kinda like setting bail for a shop lifter should be less than that of an axe murderer.

Devils Advocate

LJ

ytownfootball wrote:
LJ wrote:
ytownfootball wrote:
wes_mantooth wrote:

There is going to be holes in any of these 4 rules. What would be nice is if people would just act like civilized people and not try to push the limits of every rule.....and I know that would never happen, but it is nice to dream.
I agree, the only point I'm making I guess is that it is generally easy to tell the difference between those pushing the limits and those that are showing malice/intent.
There is no difference. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules.
Yep...the difference I see is how punishment is levied. Kinda like setting bail for a shop lifter should be less than that of an axe murderer.

Pushing the limits is showing malice/intent. You are trying to compare accidentally posting a nip slip vs someone bieing an asshole and seeing what they can get away with,

Heretic

ytownfootball wrote:
wes_mantooth wrote:

There is going to be holes in any of these 4 rules. What would be nice is if people would just act like civilized people and not try to push the limits of every rule.....and I know that would never happen, but it is nice to dream.
I agree, the only point I'm making I guess is that it is generally easy to tell the difference between those pushing the limits and those that are showing malice/intent.

To be honest, I find people who take the "there are holes in the rules, so BY GOD, I'm going to exploit them like a mo-fo!" route far more annoying than people who may actually believe what they're saying when they go over the line.

Both are breaking rules, but one is doing so for the sole purpose of being a dick for their personal amusement. A person could notice a hole in the rules and bring it to our attention in a different manner than driving a semi through them.

ytownfootball

LJ wrote:

Pushing the limits is showing malice/intent. You are trying to compare accidentally posting a nip slip vs someone bieing an asshole and seeing what they can get away with,

No, I'm comparing someone who actually believes the racist/sexist remarks they post to those that do so just to be a jackass/rebel.

One is ignorant and unable to be educated, the other just needs a shot across the bow.

Accidental posting of nip slips aren't what I'm referring to, they're appreciated.

LJ

ytownfootball wrote:
LJ wrote:

Pushing the limits is showing malice/intent. You are trying to compare accidentally posting a nip slip vs someone bieing an asshole and seeing what they can get away with,
No, I'm comparing someone who actually believes the racist/sexist remarks they post to those that do so just to be a jackass/rebel.

One is ignorant and unable to be educated, the other just needs a shot across the bow.

The way I moderate both would be treated the same. They know the rules and both are making the choice to not follow them.

ytownfootball

Heretic wrote: To be honest, I find people who take the "there are holes in the rules, so BY GOD, I'm going to exploit them like a mo-fo!" route far more annoying than people who may actually believe what they're saying when they go over the line.

Both are breaking rules, but one is doing so for the sole purpose of being a dick for their personal amusement. A person could notice a hole in the rules and bring it to our attention in a different manner than driving a semi through them.

I tend to agree, but as I said above, there is a difference imo than being able to follow decorum and just plain being ignorant. One has a shot at continuing, the other not so much.