DiscussMormonism.com

Tinfoilhat wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:32 am

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:07 am

About damned time you showed up and said something, man. I can't count how many times I have gone to bat for you in various situations. I really can't support the work you are not doing as admin right now.

There is an entire moderation thread pending some kind of input from you. The most recent issues, date back a MONTH.

There is a rule against spamming the board.
There is a rule against harassment.

Every other human being gets it.

Rats, mice, and cockroaches get it.

Bacteria, germs, and viruses get it.

Every other poster except for the trolls and their variants get it, so why don't you get it?

You have the rules we made over the years. How about use them? Faqs got queued for FAR less than what these guys have been doing to this board for months.

The issue isn't the use of sock puppets per se, it's the behaviors of the sock puppets. Every single stinking one of them is troll spamming this board and sometimes that spamming includes sexual harassment of female posters. You know like the small percentage of female posters even left on this board.

Because the others are gone. Maybe they didn't like your freaking pedestal.

I, as a poster, do not care if you outlaw or reduce the number of socks a person can use. I would very much like it if you would be so kind as to lift even one finger (not that one) to do something about the spamming and harassment issues here that the rules already provide for.

What is this, 16 years down the road and you're okay with the place turning to crap? We requested a new mod team while the old board was burning. We begged you for a new mod team on this new board. We've GOT the new mod team so USE them. Use the mods. Use the rules. Use the queue. Use suspensions. Use bans.

Do something. And don't tell me how bossy I am or call me a board nanny because if I took on the job I'd be doing it.

And there it is!! Just like I said at 12:17 on page one. All the progressives will chime in and complain about Shades and soon or a later start talking about sexism and/or racism. Every single progressive/liberal that has commented on this thread came to bash Shades. They can't help themselves!! It's part of their progressive gospel. Now that they've run off ceeboo and Cultellus, they are complaining to Shades about me while complaining about Shades at the same time. I swear, this is some of the funniest crap I've ever seen.

I've never tried to hide my sock puppets. Infact, I told the moderators exactly who my sock puppets are. Everyone knows! And if someone new doesn't, I go out of my way to make sure they do with in a few post. Let's look at the facts! You miserable progressives have ran off Cultellus, ceeboo, Mayan elephant, Lee universe, ldsfaqs and probably a bunch more that I'm forgetting. Ajax is still around and all you insane progressives are still being mean to him. Like I said, I understand how your brain works, you guys are never satisfied, never, never never never. You will keep complaining and insulting until the board is 100% progressives. Hell!! If Shades wasn't the head honcho you guys would be going after him also. To bad for you I'm a crazy mother fricker that enjoys being your puppet master.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:28 am

So, if you ban socks, you won’t get them all. And the disrupters will find something new. That’s because they aren’t here to participate in the free speech forum you provide them. They are here to disrupt speech they don’t like.

Tinfoilhat wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:32 am

I've never tried to hide my sock puppets.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:28 am

I think you’ve got a couple of choices. The easiest one to implement would be to mirror the three part structure that exists on the Mormon Discussions side of the board on the Non Mormon side of the board. I don’t understand why it has to be patterned after some tri-partite structure in Mormonism, as it’s the Non-Mormon Discussions side of the board. I’m not understanding your reluctance to do this.

Or, you can implement some type of non-trolling rule, at least in Paradise. That would require is mods to use our judgment in determining whether the post is intended to harass or annoy.

I don’t think the specific problems are addressable under the current rules. I’ve spent a ton of time thinking through applications of the rules that I could fairly use while still meeting the requirement of acting as a clone of you. Although I have a ton of respect for Jersey Girl, I don’t agree with her interpretation of the current rules.

Or, you can wait until enough folks leave to address the problem. There’s some precedent for that.

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:46 am

Hey Shades,

Assuming you show up on this thread again, there was an incident when a male poster outright told me to “F” another male poster on this board. You took mod action on the post.

More recently, since the clown car pulled up, I've been described as victim of domestic violence, as Cam's property, and then there's the pink vagina hat remarks. Over and over and over again.

Lemmie has had far more vile sexual remarks made to her than I have.

What would you have a female poster do on this board in the face of sexual harassment? Like WHAT. Tell me WHAT. And not only that, what would you have a female poster do on this board when the administrator himself claims he respects women so much he bends them over a pedestal and when that very remark was made on a serious thread discussing sexual harassment of female posters on this board? You think DT is obtuse?

Bonus question: Do you see Lemmie posting?

K Graham wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:51 am

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:46 am

Hey Shades,

Assuming you show up on this thread again, there was an incident when a male poster outright told me to “F” another male poster on this board. You took mod action on the post.

More recently, since the clown car pulled up, I've been described as victim of domestic violence, as Cam's property, and then there's the pink vagina hat remarks. Over and over and over again.

Lemmie has had far more vile sexual remarks made to her than I have.

What would you have a female poster do on this board in the face of sexual harassment? Like WHAT. Tell me WHAT. And not only that, what would you have a female poster do on this board when the administrator himself claims he respects women so much he bends them over a pedestal and when that very remark was made on a serious thread discussing sexual harassment of female posters on this board? You think DT is obtuse?

Bonus question: Do you see Lemmie posting?

It would truly help your cases if you were Japanese.

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:41 am

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:28 am

I think you’ve got a couple of choices. The easiest one to implement would be to mirror the three part structure that exists on the Mormon Discussions side of the board on the Non Mormon side of the board. I don’t understand why it has to be patterned after some tri-partite structure in Mormonism, as it’s the Non-Mormon Discussions side of the board. I’m not understanding your reluctance to do this.

Because he's a tight ass about the window dressing and doesn't care if the house is trashed.

Or, you can implement some type of non-trolling rule, at least in Paradise. That would require is mods to use our judgment in determining whether the post is intended to harass or annoy.

Use the same or similar criteria that was used for Faqs.

I don’t think the specific problems are addressable under the current rules. I’ve spent a ton of time thinking through applications of the rules that I could fairly use while still meeting the requirement of acting as a clone of you. Although I have a ton of respect for Jersey Girl, I don’t agree with her interpretation of the current rules.

Or, you can wait until enough folks leave to address the problem. There’s some precedent for that.

I think that the harassment rule flies when applied to sexual harassment of female posters.

And we're discussing this again. And again. And again. The moderation thread has been sitting there with issues on the table for a month.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:56 am

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:41 am

Because he's a tight ass about the window dressing and doesn't care if the house is trashed.



Use the same or similar criteria that was used for Faqs.


I think that the harassment rule flies when applied to sexual harassment of female posters.

And we're discussing this again. And again. And again. The moderation thread has been sitting there with issues on the table for a month.

My understanding is that UR 9 applies to board interactions that spill over into real life. Like sending e-mails to people’s employers. That’s why the qualifier about “real life” is part of rule.

If we had a rule against on board harassment, I’d be happy to enforce it. I’d be happy to help draft one. Or if Shades says I’m misinterpreting the rule, I’ll enforce it how he directs.