Rules and Moderator information

[Cultellus]

Now we are talking. You are speaking my language.

You acknowledge Atlanticmike's terms. But, do you acknowledge your terms? Do you acknowledge the cabal's terms? Do you acknowledge the terms that are being offered to Atlanticmike or anyone else? It seems to me that participating on this board means accepting the generalized insults of anyone that disagrees with the so-called left ideology. I know that Atlanticmike accepted those terms and responded accordingly. The terms are - this board insults non-believers and non-members of a specific ideology, if you are not compliant we will insult you and we will use generalizations to insult many more people like you. If Atlanticmike accepts those terms, and responds as a disrupter (which he did) is he not a taker of your/board conditions?

Further, the terms of engagement here are - be entertained. If Atlanticmike is entertained by his strategy, he is accepting the terms. There is not an exclusion rule for certain types of behavior.

While you make a good point about the disruption you do not make a point that disruption is either not allowed or against the rules.

I think we have resolved the issue at hand. There is no need for rule modifications or moderator interference. Carry on. If you do not like the response you get on the board, solicit different responses the best way you know how.

OK. Speaking the same language is progress.

I'm not sure I understand how you are using "terms." I would label my description of Mike's behavior as a "tactic" or "gambit."

I strongly disagree with your description of the forum as it currently stands. The board's "terms" as it were, are set by Shades and are found in his published rules. Both generalized and specific insults and personal attacks are permitted, as long as they occur in the specified area of the forum. The board's "terms" do not favor one ideology over another. I think you are conflating the advantages of numerical majorities with the "terms" of the board. Currently, faithful Mormons and Trump supporters are numerical minorities and, as in all free speech forums, that puts them at a comparative disadvantage in terms of volume of insults they can dish out.

Although the board offers entertainment, it is not a "term" of the board. No one is required to be entertained. Neither does entertainment override the actual "terms," which are stated in the rules.

There is a rule that applies to disruption. It is Universal Rule 8:

Do not make threats or take actions to disrupt the smooth operation of this message board, either through hacking, spamming, frivolous complaints, lawsuits against the board or its moderators, or any other means. Please do not do this via e-mail or private message, either.

As you can see, "disrupt" is right there in the rule.

I can't find a reasonable construction of the term "resolved" that applies here. Several issues have been placed on the table. Most of these are requests to Shades. They will be "resolved" only when he resolves them. And the mod team may have some issues that it still needs to resolve. So far, all we've done is discuss.

Counselor! Hasa Diga Lawyers.

Terms. Your use of “terms” makes me wonder if you can have in real life relationships that are not contractually bound by a retainer or fee. Your application of terms, and the quoting of a rule, makes me think you would be a great moderator, a great lawyer, and a crappy neighbor. If I was considering buying a house in your HOA, you would be on the Cons side of the ledger. (ETA: rhetoric, you get the point).

The ONLY thing that matters on this board is my entertainment. That is it. Nothing else matters. And that is true for every person on this board and for every person in every role on this board. Including the founder. Including the moderators. Including that bigot Gadianton and whatever he does here.

If I am not entertained, I do not come back. That is true for everyone. There are no exceptions. I cooperate, or not, as part of the entertainment process. That is true for everyone. There are no exceptions.

We choose to participate, we are not bound by it or to it. We get something from it. And we contribute, even going so far that some volunteer to moderate, because we get something from it.

The disruption you describe is not because of anything other than, someone derives entertainment from something that is not cool with you or not your cup of tea. Even though, the board in general, entertains you.

Not liking Atlanticmike or me is no goddamn different than not liking The Fly episode of Breaking Bad. We disrupted your entertainment for a bit, but overall, the season worked out and participation was up.

There are no legal terms here. There are the terms that apply when people interact. Not legal. Life. People. On this board the people are cartoons and avatars. I have met Shades and a few others on here. Many others, actually, but the board is mostly just cartoons.

When I apply the terms and conditions concept, it is not the legal sense or the interpretation of rules and laws. It is more literal: if you connect with me, I will react. If I connect with you, you will react. If you bomb me with stereotype comments about me, my mother, and my kids who did not go to college, I will accept those terms (conditions for being on the board), and react.

If I call you a bigot, a pissboy, a person who nannys the board with battered woman syndrome, it will set the terms of engagement for connection. The same is true when the board accepts the majority and mob rules against populists, republicans or people that do not choose to vote for Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife.

I did not disrupt this board. I accepted the terms and conditions, and entertained myself and you accordingly. Atlanticmike could not possibly be more transparent in anything he has done or anything he is doing. Even with that fake K. Graham sock puppet he is using, or Graham Cracker or whatever it is next, he could not be more transparent. This is entertainment, and he is doing that!

If the terms of engagement/connection include being in a pit of leftists and feminists who want to cancel the phrase vagina hat but keep the word pussyhat, great. And be prepared to be mocked like this was roasting night at the comedy club because that bozo stuff is funny AF.

If calling people accomplices to murderers and cocksuckers is entertaining for you, great. Go for it. Enjoy. But you do not also get to choose the reactions those acts generate. And that, regardless of the legal definition of terms, is the human experience. We act, others react. And they may disrupt our flow if we misbehave.

[Cultellus]

Hi, Lem - jumping in for a sec.

(ETA- just noticed that Res posted a response while I was writing this, but I’ll leave it here for your consideration)




Res is stating, ‘sexual connotation’, and not ‘arousal’. Additionally, these terms aren’t necessarily synonymous.

The connotation (context) element is discussed per rating on the page at the following link, which is what the ‘ratings’ system of this board is more or less based -

https://www.marshallcinema.com/mpaa



They're both definitely an insult. But, some types of insults stay, and some are booted, and that decision can be based on connotation, context, etc.

There are additional considerations for pink vagina hat, in how it has been used as a cudgel as of late - harassment, as example.

Wrong! If I met Madonna and called her a pink vagina hat PROGRESSIVE, she would probably be proud I viewed her that way.

Question, if pink vagina hat has been used as a cudgel as of late, how bout TROLL, how bout trumptards or trumpsters? Are you saying Lem can call me a troll everytime she post about me, because she does? How do you know I'm not deathly afraid of trolls and everytime I hear the word troll I get triggered?

This is a very very solid point. Pay attention, Res.

Your little Gilligan will want to spin this around and say “I know you are but what am I?” But focus, pay attention here.

[Atlanticmike]

OK. Speaking the same language is progress.

I'm not sure I understand how you are using "terms." I would label my description of Mike's behavior as a "tactic" or "gambit."

I strongly disagree with your description of the forum as it currently stands. The board's "terms" as it were, are set by Shades and are found in his published rules. Both generalized and specific insults and personal attacks are permitted, as long as they occur in the specified area of the forum. The board's "terms" do not favor one ideology over another. I think you are conflating the advantages of numerical majorities with the "terms" of the board. Currently, faithful Mormons and Trump supporters are numerical minorities and, as in all free speech forums, that puts them at a comparative disadvantage in terms of volume of insults they can dish out.

Although the board offers entertainment, it is not a "term" of the board. No one is required to be entertained. Neither does entertainment override the actual "terms," which are stated in the rules.

There is a rule that applies to disruption. It is Universal Rule 8:



As you can see, "disrupt" is right there in the rule.

I can't find a reasonable construction of the term "resolved" that applies here. Several issues have been placed on the table. Most of these are requests to Shades. They will be "resolved" only when he resolves them. And the mod team may have some issues that it still needs to resolve. So far, all we've done is discuss.

Counselor! Hasa Diga Lawyers.

Terms. Your use of “terms” makes me wonder if you can have in real life relationships that are not contractually bound by a retainer or fee. Your application of terms, and the quoting of a rule, makes me think you would be a great moderator, a great lawyer, and a crappy neighbor. If I was considering buying a house in your HOA, you would be on the Cons side of the ledger.

The ONLY thing that matters on this board is my entertainment. That is it. Nothing else matters. And that is true for every person on this board and for every person in every role on this board. Including the founder. Including the moderators. Including that bigot Gadianton and whatever he does here.

If I am not entertained, I do not come back. That is true for everyone. There are no exceptions. I cooperate, or not, as part of the entertainment process. That is true for everyone. There are no exceptions.

We choose to participate, we are not bound by it or to it. We get something from it. And we contribute, even going so far that some volunteer to moderate, because we get something from it.

The disruption you describe is not because of anything other than, someone derives entertainment from something that is not cool with you or not your cup of tea. Even though, the board in general, entertains you.

Not liking Atlanticmike or me is no goddamn different than not liking The Fly episode of Breaking Bad. We disrupted your entertainment for a bit, but overall, the season worked out and participation was up.

There are no legal terms here. There are the terms that apply when people interact. Not legal. Life. People. On this board the people are cartoons and avatars. I have met Shades and a few others on here. Many others, actually, but the board is mostly just cartoons.

When I apply the terms and conditions concept, it is not the legal sense or the interpretation of rules and laws. It is more literal: if you connect with me, I will react. If I connect with you, you will react. If you bomb me with stereotype comments about me, my mother, and my kids who did not go to college, I will accept those terms (conditions for being on the board), and react.

If I call you a bigot, a pissboy, a person who nannys the board with battered woman syndrome, it will set the terms of engagement for connection. The same is true when the board accepts the majority and mob rules against populists, republicans or people that do not choose to vote for Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife.

I did not disrupt this board. I accepted the terms and conditions, and entertained myself and you accordingly. Atlanticmike could not possibly be more transparent in anything he has done or anything he is doing. Even with that fake K. Graham sock puppet he is using, or Graham Cracker or whatever it is next, he could not be more transparent. This is entertainment, and he is doing that!

If the terms of engagement/connection include being in a pit of leftists and feminists who want to cancel the phrase vagina hat but keep the word pussyhat, great. And be prepared to be mocked like this was roasting night at the comedy club because that bozo stuff is funny AF.

If calling people accomplices to murderers and cocksuckers is entertaining for you, great. Go for it. Enjoy. But you do not also get to choose the reactions those acts generate. And that, regardless of the legal definition of terms, is the human experience. We act, others react. And they may disrupt our flow if we misbehave.

Holy hell!! This has got to be one of your best post yet!! Seriously! Totally impressed! And not only am I being totally transparent while writing my post, the moderators know all my sock puppets because I've told them exactly who they are. If I was trying to hide my sock puppets I would at least wait 10 seconds before responding to myself. They'll get it one day, I'm sure. Again, awesome post.

Oh, and to any of the moderators reading this, please notice how I don't allow the sock puppets to play in the terrestrial or celestial kingdom. If I was a troll, wouldn't I be up there messing with the big boys, the ones that everyone considers to be "intellectuals"?

[canpakes]

Not to be indelicate, but if describing a dick as “throbbing” is what adds the sexual connotation, then we are discussing arousal, unless there is some new, urban dictionary-type definition I am unaware of.

That’s right. But you also wrote, “Arousal is an element of using these sexual organs in a positive and meaningful way, …”

I’m not yet convinced that all instances of throbbing dicks necessarily reflect or indicate a positive or meaningful sexual circumstance, especially when considering how some folks are absolutely bent on getting their rocks off by trolling.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

And also not.

[canpakes]

A thread discussing tapir dicks, pink vagina hats, and the differences between a dick and a throbbing dick.

I don't think you could find a similar discussion on any discussion board on the entire planet. Special.

That’s what makes this place so awesome. : )

[canpakes]

Wrong! If I met Madonna and called her a pink vagina hat PROGRESSIVE, she would probably be proud I viewed her that way.

Wrong. She’d plainly remind you of the proper name, and then she’d kick your roofer arse.

[canpakes]

But you do not also get to choose the reactions those acts generate.

But you get to choose your reaction. Full stop.

Moderators will moderate accordingly.

This is just another illustration here of you wanting to shift responsibility for your behavior, to someone else.

Go ahead and write another 3000 words while not realizing that you’re illustrating my point, and I’ll be happy to distill it down for you yet again.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

But you do not also get to choose the reactions those acts generate.

But you get to choose your reaction. Full stop.

Moderators will moderate accordingly.

This is just another illustration here of you wanting to shift responsibility for your behavior, to someone else.

Go ahead and write another 3000 words while not realizing that you’re illustrating my point, and I’ll be happy to distill it down for you yet again.

Are you suggesting the qultist doesn’t have control over his emotional faculties, and is essentially a regressed man with the mind of a teenager who lacks personal accountability?!?

- Doc

[canpakes]

Are you suggesting the qultist doesn’t have control over his emotional faculties, and is essentially a regressed man with the mind of a teenager who lacks personal accountability?!?

He sure seems to want to convince us all of that.

[Res Ipsa]

OK. Speaking the same language is progress.

I'm not sure I understand how you are using "terms." I would label my description of Mike's behavior as a "tactic" or "gambit."

I strongly disagree with your description of the forum as it currently stands. The board's "terms" as it were, are set by Shades and are found in his published rules. Both generalized and specific insults and personal attacks are permitted, as long as they occur in the specified area of the forum. The board's "terms" do not favor one ideology over another. I think you are conflating the advantages of numerical majorities with the "terms" of the board. Currently, faithful Mormons and Trump supporters are numerical minorities and, as in all free speech forums, that puts them at a comparative disadvantage in terms of volume of insults they can dish out.

Although the board offers entertainment, it is not a "term" of the board. No one is required to be entertained. Neither does entertainment override the actual "terms," which are stated in the rules.

There is a rule that applies to disruption. It is Universal Rule 8:



As you can see, "disrupt" is right there in the rule.

I can't find a reasonable construction of the term "resolved" that applies here. Several issues have been placed on the table. Most of these are requests to Shades. They will be "resolved" only when he resolves them. And the mod team may have some issues that it still needs to resolve. So far, all we've done is discuss.

Counselor! Hasa Diga Lawyers.

Indeed.

Terms. Your use of “terms” makes me wonder if you can have in real life relationships that are not contractually bound by a retainer or fee. Your application of terms, and the quoting of a rule, makes me think you would be a great moderator, a great lawyer, and a crappy neighbor. If I was considering buying a house in your HOA, you would be on the Cons side of the ledger. (ETA: rhetoric, you get the point).

I would avoid at all costs living in any place that involves an HOA. In my experience, HOA boards are dominated by adults who still carry a grudge over the fact that they lost the election for fifth grade class president. I've had many "bad neighbor" cases. In fact, I'm working on one this morning. Hands down, they involve the worst displays of behavior of any other kind of case I work with. I value being on good terms with my neighbors much more than, say, losing six inches of land because of a fence built in the wrong place

The ONLY thing that matters on this board is my entertainment. That is it. Nothing else matters. And that is true for every person on this board and for every person in every role on this board. Including the founder. Including the moderators. Including that bigot Gadianton and whatever he does here.

It strikes me that this could be true, but only if you are defining "entertainment" so broadly that it encompasses every possible reason a person could give for participating on the board. Are you making an argument similar to "there are no altruistic acts because people only do things because they get some kind of benefit from it?"

If I am not entertained, I do not come back. That is true for everyone. There are no exceptions. I cooperate, or not, as part of the entertainment process. That is true for everyone. There are no exceptions.

We choose to participate, we are not bound by it or to it. We get something from it. And we contribute, even going so far that some volunteer to moderate, because we get something from it.

OK, there it is. A friend of mine used to say "I love tautologies because they are so true." They are also trivial and boring. So far, I'm getting:

1. All human motivations are included in the definition of "entertainment"
2. People who participate in this forum do so because of some motivation
3. Therefore, people who participate in this form do so for "entertainment"

There is a notorious case (or maybe just an apocryphal story about a case) where a lawyer argues that a horse is a bridge because it has vertical supports at each end and a horizontal section in between. Humpty Dumpty would be proud.

I disagree with assertion number one. People participate here for different reasons. You can't legitimately change that fact by simply giving them all a uniform label. My intent to communicate with, say, Kishkumen about the history of the Roman Empire is qualitatively different that someone's intent to prevent me from communicating me with Kishkumen.

The disruption you describe is not because of anything other than, someone derives entertainment from something that is not cool with you or not your cup of tea. Even though, the board in general, entertains you.

Again, you are simply defining away a qualitative difference. If I am entertained by talking about history with Kishkumen and another poster is entertained by stopping me from talking with Kishkumen, he is destroying my "entertainment" but I am not reducing his in any way. You are treating two fundamentally different situations as identical simply by playing with the definition of "entertainment."

Here's the closest I can get to agreeing with your argument: People participate here for a reason. Some of those reasons are can coexist with no conflict. Others conflict. Some are completely contradictory. Theses are important and qualitative differences in reasons for participation. Rules are created to resolve these conflicts in motivation.

Not liking Atlanticmike or me is no goddamn different than not liking The Fly episode of Breaking Bad. We disrupted your entertainment for a bit, but overall, the season worked out and participation was up.

Liking another poster is irrelevant to me. I can co-exist on a message board with people I don't like. There are also people here whose behavior frustrates my motivation for being here. There is a qualitative difference between those people and someone who is motivated to frustrate my reasons for being here.[/quote]

There are no legal terms here. There are the terms that apply when people interact. Not legal. Life. People. On this board the people are cartoons and avatars. I have met Shades and a few others on here. Many others, actually, but the board is mostly just cartoons.

LOL! There are legal terms everywhere, whether you acknowledge them or not. You expressly agreed to a set of legal terms when you joined the forum. Treating other users as "cartoons" as opposed to real fellow humans is a choice you make. No one forces you to treat people as "cartoons."

When I apply the terms and conditions concept, it is not the legal sense or the interpretation of rules and laws. It is more literal: if you connect with me, I will react. If I connect with you, you will react. If you bomb me with stereotype comments about me, my mother, and my kids who did not go to college, I will accept those terms (conditions for being on the board), and react.

If I call you a bigot, a pissboy, a person who nannys the board with battered woman syndrome, it will set the terms of engagement for connection. The same is true when the board accepts the majority and mob rules against populists, republicans or people that do not choose to vote for Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife.

OK, this is the answer to my question. However, I disagree with your use of the term "term." When I engage in conversation with you, you do not know what my "terms" are unless I tell you. You cannot "agree" to something that you don't even know exists.

I did not disrupt this board. I accepted the terms and conditions, and entertained myself and you accordingly. Atlanticmike could not possibly be more transparent in anything he has done or anything he is doing. Even with that fake K. Graham sock puppet he is using, or Graham Cracker or whatever it is next, he could not be more transparent. This is entertainment, and he is doing that!

I don't think I said you disrupted the board. I said Shades has set a rule that applies to disruption. I quoted it. You accepted terms and conditions when you joined the forum, and none of them involve entertainment. You also are, as a practical matter, bound by whatever terms and conditions Shades sets as rules.

If the terms of engagement/connection include being in a pit of leftists and feminists who want to cancel the phrase vagina hat but keep the word pussyhat, great. And be prepared to be mocked like this was roasting night at the comedy club because that bozo stuff is funny AF.

If calling people accomplices to murderers and cocksuckers is entertaining for you, great. Go for it. Enjoy. But you do not also get to choose the reactions those acts generate. And that, regardless of the legal definition of terms, is the human experience. We act, others react. And they may disrupt our flow if we misbehave.

I think you are simply equivocating between different meanings of the "terms of engagement." One meaning is a person's own rules that they set for the conditions under which they will engage with another. The other is rules set by a forum owner that govern how individuals interact with each other. They are qualitatively different, as only the latter are involve the question of access to the forum.

I fully agree that I don't control the actions of others. I choose to act. Someone chooses to respond. Each of us are responsible for those choices. Someone else chooses to act, I choose to respond. Same thing. The range of permissible actions and responses are limited by the terms and conditions that Shades sets.