Rules and Moderator information

[Atlanticmike]

This is great,! So after reading this ruling, what rule did I break, lawyer dude??

Mike, straight up. I am perfectly willing to bend over backwards to help anyone who makes a good faith attempt to understand and comply with the rules. I have done so with you. You have been posting here for months and have had plenty of opportunity to learn the rules and to make good faith efforts to comply. This isn't my first rodeo, and have seen every game you've played numerous times. I'm not going to play the Please Don't Eat the Daisies Game with you. I am not required by Shades to explain the basis of my moderation to anyone but Shades. I am willing to do so for anyone who makes good faith efforts to understand and comply with the rules. You have persuaded me over the months that you have been here that you aren't one of those people. So, effective now, if you disagree with an action I take as moderator, your remedy is with Shades. I'm not going to waste my time in hair-splitting arguments with someone who has shown no inclination whatsoever to learn and comply with the rules. I label each and every moderator action I take with the applicable rule. You can read and you can look up the rule. If you disagree, you can appeal to Shades.

Again, what rule did I break?? Read Shades post above! Was I not in spirit prison when I made the comment you wrongly think was sexual harassment? It wasn't sexual harassment. You Progressives twist everything around to fit your needs. Just like "racist" comments, everything to progressives is racist just like everything is sexist, you guys are retards and have a warped sense of reality. Progressives are more like Orthodox Mormons than I am.

[canpakes]

Mike, straight up. I am perfectly willing to bend over backwards to help anyone who makes a good faith attempt to understand and comply with the rules. I have done so with you. You have been posting here for months and have had plenty of opportunity to learn the rules and to make good faith efforts to comply. This isn't my first rodeo, and have seen every game you've played numerous times. I'm not going to play the Please Don't Eat the Daisies Game with you. I am not required by Shades to explain the basis of my moderation to anyone but Shades. I am willing to do so for anyone who makes good faith efforts to understand and comply with the rules. You have persuaded me over the months that you have been here that you aren't one of those people. So, effective now, if you disagree with an action I take as moderator, your remedy is with Shades. I'm not going to waste my time in hair-splitting arguments with someone who has shown no inclination whatsoever to learn and comply with the rules. I label each and every moderator action I take with the applicable rule. You can read and you can look up the rule. If you disagree, you can appeal to Shades.

Again, what rule did I break?? Read Shades post above! Was I not in spirit prison when I made the comment you wrongly think was sexual harassment? It wasn't sexual harassment. You Progressives twist everything around to fit your needs. Just like "racist" comments, everything to progressives is racist just like everything is sexist, you guys are retards and have a warped sense of reality. Progressives are more like Orthodox Mormons than I am.

Mike, you already were given the answers, and are above confused on the reasoning. Not sure if your confusion is intentional or not, but take another look at the following two posts and Res’s explanation. You’re focusing on sexual harassment when Res amended his earlier statement and said that these aren’t SH issues, rather they violate FR 1 and FR 2:

viewtopic.php?p=2759336#p2759336

… and -

viewtopic.php?p=2759358#p2759358

Bonus recap, just in case it’s not sinking in:

viewtopic.php?p=2759402#p2759402

You’re a big boy; you got this. But, if not, let me know, and I can walk you through it. It should be easy; like navigating a parking lot.

[Atlanticmike]

Again, what rule did I break?? Read Shades post above! Was I not in spirit prison when I made the comment you wrongly think was sexual harassment? It wasn't sexual harassment. You Progressives twist everything around to fit your needs. Just like "racist" comments, everything to progressives is racist just like everything is sexist, you guys are retards and have a warped sense of reality. Progressives are more like Orthodox Mormons than I am.

Mike, you already were given the answers, and are above confused on the reasoning. Not sure if your confusion is intentional or not, but take another look at the following two posts and Res’s explanation. You’re focusing on sexual harassment when Res amended his earlier statement and said that these aren’t SH issues, rather they violate FR 1 and FR 2:

viewtopic.php?p=2759336#p2759336

… and -

viewtopic.php?p=2759358#p2759358

Bonus recap, just in case it’s not sinking in:

viewtopic.php?p=2759402#p2759402

You’re a big boy; you got this. But, if not, let me know, and I can walk you through it. It should be easy; like navigating a parking lot.

Who did I attack?

[canpakes]

Mike, you already were given the answers, and are above confused on the reasoning. Not sure if your confusion is intentional or not, but take another look at the following two posts and Res’s explanation. You’re focusing on sexual harassment when Res amended his earlier statement and said that these aren’t SH issues, rather they violate FR 1 and FR 2:

viewtopic.php?p=2759336#p2759336

… and -

viewtopic.php?p=2759358#p2759358

Bonus recap, just in case it’s not sinking in:

viewtopic.php?p=2759402#p2759402

You’re a big boy; you got this. But, if not, let me know, and I can walk you through it. It should be easy; like navigating a parking lot.

Who did I attack?

Another recap, for that one, since you ignored the previous one:

viewtopic.php?p=2759468#p2759468

[Atlanticmike]

Who did I attack?

Another recap, for that one, since you ignored the previous one:

viewtopic.php?p=2759468#p2759468

THE RULE STATES NO PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST FAMILY MEMBERS!!! Who did I attack????? I didn't attack anyone's family member!

[Marcus]

Mike knows exactly why the moderator action was taken. In his original quote of the mod decision he acknowledges it exactly.

Having gone back and reread Shades' ruling on sexual harassment, I need to clarify the basis for the deletion. The deleted language was sexual harassment as Shades has defined it. However, sexual harassment is permissible in Spirit Prison. The language needed to be deleted because it exceeded the NC-17 standard, i.e., it was pornographic. It also was an attack that involved a family member.

Under the present state of the rules, sexual harassment as Shades has defined it is permissible in Prison and Telestial. Pornographic content and attacks involving family members is not. We don't have a three strikes or four strikes or similar policy with respect to rule violations.

What rules did I break, moderator?? I didn't attack [SP FR 2; -cp-] Also, what did I say that was pornographic? Am I the only that noticed I was playing by the rules?? You put this thread in Spirit Prison before this happened dumbass!

The above quote clearly shows he is not sincere. It is game playing now, simply to disrupt.

[Atlanticmike]

Mike knows exactly why the moderator action was taken. In his original quote of the mod decision he acknowledges it exactly.

What rules did I break, moderator?? I didn't attack [SP FR 2; -cp-] Also, what did I say that was pornographic? Am I the only that noticed I was playing by the rules?? You put this thread in Spirit Prison before this happened dumbass!

The above quote clearly shows he is not sincere. It is game playing now, simply to disrupt.

I ask canpakes the moderator a question and I get the answer from one of the moderators sock puppets!!! This is awesome! You can't make this crap up. Again, who did I attack?? The rule says no attacks against family members. Please tell me what I said that was an attack?

[canpakes]

Another recap, for that one, since you ignored the previous one:

viewtopic.php?p=2759468#p2759468

THE RULE STATES NO PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST FAMILY MEMBERS!!! Who did I attack????? I didn't attack anyone's family member!

Lol. I’m pretty sure that you can figure it out, given that I spelled it out for you above.

English is your first language, is it not?

[Atlanticmike]

THE RULE STATES NO PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST FAMILY MEMBERS!!! Who did I attack????? I didn't attack anyone's family member!

Lol. I’m pretty sure that you can figure it out, given that I spelled it out for you above.

English is your first language, is it not?

Exactly!! You can't answer my question because I didn't attack anyone. You, a Moderator, can't tell me how I attacked anyone. Are you saying mentioning someone's spouse or significant other is an attack? Is that how insane the Progressive cult has become??

[canpakes]

Lol. I’m pretty sure that you can figure it out, given that I spelled it out for you above.

English is your first language, is it not?

Exactly!! You can't answer my question because I didn't attack anyone. You, a Moderator, can't tell me how I attacked anyone. Are you saying mentioning someone's spouse or significant other is an attack? Is that how insane the Progressive cult has become??

I did; you’re just playing games. That isn’t a good look for you. It has never worked in your favor.
; )

Out of the blue, and having nothing to do with the context of the discussion, you suggested that a poster’s spouse should engage in a particular sexually-related activity.

Per FR 2, and my link above, you need to leave people’s family members out of your comments, when mention of them hasn’t been solicited, and when you’re suggesting that they should toss the salad.

I’m pretty fair-minded, though - I think that you should reach out to Shades if you need additional help in understanding his forum rules. If he tells you that it’s OK for one poster to randomly suggest that another poster’s spouse should engage in a particular sexually-related activity, then you can proceed with doing so.