Be careful what you wish for.

[ceeboo]

No, wrong again. Once Shades gets the moderation re-started, the rules will apply to everyone, like they have in the past. Spirit Prison and Telestial are there for you to post in to your heart's content, but if moderation concludes that a post breaks the rules, including the derailment and personal attack ones, regardless of the author, it will be removed from Spirit Paradise and Terrestrial.

As someone who has seen about 5,456,321 personal attacks, I would suggest that your above post is pure nonsense!

[Lem]

You just happened to stumble in during a period when rules were being violated --

The only rule Doc Cam is breaking is posting in the wrong section of the board.

It is a slog but we keep moving this thing forward a little.

When Doc Cam calls someone "Xanax," he was fine, but he should have had that conversation in Prison. And everyone who was cool with this rule violation did what? Now, when someone comes along and merely says, "uh uh, not cool," Res et al scream, "OH MY damned GOD, WE NEED A MODERATOR TEAM! SOMEONE DIDN'T ACCEPT DOC CAM'S TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND WE NEED A MODERATOR RIGHT NOW."

(I am trying out Philo's yelling feature. How did I do? Did the all caps work?)

Incorrect again. Not everyone reads everywhere, but i am aware that I and others have made reports of what we considered to be rule violations on this new board that are still outstanding, due to our lack of a moderator. Also, not everyone feels comfortable reporting. I know that since I have three reports still outstanding since January, I'm not inclined to add more until the moderation issue is addressed. You are viewing the board at an unusual time.

For example, if we had a mod right now, I would report this:

pissboy, pay attention. You are wrong again. Just carry piss.

And this:

read better, pissboy.

And this:

You do know that pissboy is a metaphor, right? But you are a real pissboy.

Etc., etc., etc..

[Jersey Girl]

[canpakes]

As someone who has seen about 5,456,321 personal attacks, I would suggest that your above post is pure nonsense!

I’ve seen a lot of things, but I’ve never seen Doc threaten to ‘dox’ Cultellus, as the latter claimed.

He could post a link if that had actually happened, but as it never happened, Cultellus can’t do anything other than try to distract from his lie.

Is calling that lie out a personal attack, or just a statement of fact?

; )

[Jersey Girl]

Yeah, I do agree that there is a benefit to moderators being accountable to the community.

I guess I’m adamantly conflicted on that point.

It's a tough call to make. Shades will think it's too MD&D-ish, I am sure. Still, I think it was worth exploring.

Regarding accountability, if the mods were masked and a poster objected to a mod action, posters would be objecting to the mod action and not the moderator who made it. All mod actions should be logged in in the Mod Forum. If Shades saw repeated complaints that stemmed from the work of one moderator, he could counsel as he sees fit--in the Mod Forum.

[Res Ipsa]

The lady doth protest wayyyyyyyyy too much. Shades, this is the mindset of a person whose goal is to disrupt and shut down speech.

Do you really want free speech or just free speech that you agree with? You seem to be totally on board with Facebook and Twitter banning anyone who posted evidence of corona virus being leaked from a Wuhan research lab regardless of whether it was true or not on the grounds that this is somehow racist or somehow dangerous to public health. Is that the kind of moderating you want to implement around here?

Or perhaps just try to insult, shame, or play the race card against anyone who posts information you don't like or would rather not hear? Because that's kind of what's happening on Facebook and Twitter now. It's what Schmo, DocCam, and Icarus try to do here.

Ajax, whatever attitude I may or may not have about Twitter or Facebook is irrelevant to the discussion here. What you are doing is equivocating on the notion of "free speech." Obviously, the first amendment does not apply to this forum because Shades is not the government. And even constitutionally protected speech has permissible limits. One of those permissible limits is reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

Its crystal clear that Shades is trying to provide a forum that maximizes free speech while providing a minimal set of rules that allow people to communicate with each other without being overwhelmed by people intent only on disrupting that communication. Most of the rules don't affect the content of what can be posted -- only where it can be posted.

I'll be as clear as I can here, Ajax. What I want is the rules that we have to be applied to everyone on the same basis. And I agree with Shades that some of the responses to things you post violate the rules that apply to Paradise. If you want to discuss the origins of COVID-19 and your opinions about it in Spirit Paradise, I think you should be able to. And, if you do, you shouldn't be subjected to derails and personal attacks. On the other hand, people should be able to vigorously dispute the substance of your opinions. It's you, the person, who is protected from attack. Not the opinions you express.

I've had you on ignore for some time for one, and only one reason. Take a look in the vaccine and therapeutics thread and find the lengthy response I made to one of your posts. My specific problem with you is that you don't engage. You raise the same general complaints over and over and over, but never seem to consider or learn from information presented to you. When someone responds to you substantively, you just bounce to another grievance. If I wanted to play whack a mole, I'd go to an arcade.

You also have a habit of injecting some political grievance you have into threads on unrelated topics. But what should happen is that you'll get a new thread with your post as the OP.

And I haven't said a word about banning. Banning is an extreme remedy here. You have to work really hard to get banned. No one has ever been banned based on the subject matter of their post -- banning is limited to either repeated or very serious violations of rules. Posting absolutely wackaloon conspiracy theories is absolutely permitted here. But so is treating silly claims harshly, as long as the criticism isn't an attack on the person.

So, I'm not sure what your beef with me is. If the rules are enforced as written, you'll be one of the boards major beneficiaries. I'm arguing for the very rules that will let you post in Paradise without being mugged.

[canpakes]

Incorrect again. Not everyone reads everywhere, but i am aware that I and others have made reports of what we considered to be rule violations on this new board that are still outstanding, due to our lack of a moderator. Also, not everyone feels comfortable reporting. I know that since I have three reports still outstanding since January, I'm not inclined to add more until the moderation issue is addressed. You are viewing the board at an unusual time.

For example, if we had a mod right now, I would report this:

pissboy, pay attention. You are wrong again. Just carry piss.

And this:

read better, pissboy.

And this:

You do know that pissboy is a metaphor, right? But you are a real pissboy.

Etc., etc., etc..

Cultellus has some unusual infatuations that he needs to manage.

I think that these intensify when he’s caught lying or feeling trolled.

[ceeboo]

For example, if we had a mod right now, I would report this:

A post by Cultellus

And this: A post by Cultellus

And this: A post by Cultellus

Etc., etc., etc..

I think your example is making an excellent point (Precisely THE point in my opinion) - I'm just not sure it's the point you were intending to make.

[Res Ipsa]

Very very good, Lem. I am impressed. You almost almost made it to the finish line there. I am very impressed with the progress.

If calling someone a fascist is not trolling or a personal attack, then calling them a pissboy could actually be a compliment. Right?

If calling someone "Xanax" (meant pejoratively) is not a personal attack, then calling that same person a piece of crap is actually a compliment, right?

Carry on with your B.S., but accept my compliment on the progress.

This has been asked and answered ad nauseam. There's no point trying again, as I am pretty sure the intent here was not to engage in legitimate conversation, but rather just to attack and derail. So, with my apologies to Res Ipsa, I will just paraphrase a recent comment of his in response:

...Shades, this is the mindset of a person whose goal is to disrupt and shut down speech. See how frantic he gets at the simple notion that [anyone] could post something in a thread that he can’t derail by trolling or personally attacking [someone]? Of course, he would have exactly the same rights as [everyone else] in the hypothetical Paradiso. But he’s not interested in constructive discussion. He wants to disrupt and prevent substantive discussion.

If folks can’t have a substantive discussion without having to wade through piles of troll derails and personal attacks, then [people will] confine [their]participation to [elsewhere.]

Fair paraphrase. No apology needed.

[Jersey Girl]

So if Doc Cam wants to threaten to dox someone again is that cool as long as it is not Ajax?

When you make a positive claim (particularly as serious as the one you have leveled here regarding one of our posters) the burden of proof lies upon you to provide evidence for that claim. Please show evidence of Doc Cam "threaten(ing) to dox someone".

Quote it. Link it.

Post it right here on this very thread.

Not seeing any evidence yet.