Rules and Moderator information

[Dr. Shades]

No. The word censor is an absolute last resort.

Constantly updating the word censor in an attempt to keep up with the ever-so-creative sexual and anatomical slurs that people insist on constantly coming up with to hurl at each other is a Sisyphean task. It's easier to just ask them to adhere to the rules.

That's total BS and you know it. Posters have the ability to enable a word censor on their own user control panel.

Enable word censoring:
Yes No

You're saying it's easier to just ask them to adhere to the rules than telling the offended party to enable their own word censor with one click?

No. You don't know how the word censor works. People don't get to enable a word censor or their own word censor. They can either disable or leave enabled the one and only word censor, which I myself program, and nobody else programs. And like I said, constantly updating the word censor in an attempt to keep up with the ever-so-creative sexual and anatomical slurs that people insist on constantly coming up with to hurl at each other is a Sisyphean task. Although it's easier to ask people to adhere to the rules, the word censor's existence is nevertheless necessary because some people adamantly refuse to adhere to the rules--or are pathologically incapable of doing so.

Sort of like how policemen exist even though it'd be much easier if everyone just obeyed the law. See how that works?

Shades, stop it. Just stop it.

Stop what? Telling you the facts? Okay.

The posters in question didn't develop their approaches yesterday. They've done it throughout their posting history.

Thank you for telling me something I've always known from the very, very beginning.

Hell. They did it to me and we went at it one:one for a good long while. What changed? Communication between myself and them. Probably a report or two on my part?

Bully for you! More power to ya.

But what you're now saying is that the word censor that everyone has access to and can enable with the one click serves no real purpose.

??? You honestly, truly believe that the word censor serves no real purpose??

Wow. Just, . . . wow.

Hound of Heaven/Heaven's Hound can report the posts s/he finds offensive instead of gumming up the works around here with his/her endless complaints and questions.

Yes. But endless complaints and questions are pretty much standard fare around here. You yourself should be, umm. . . especially aware of that fact.

Have any sense of Deja Vu lately?

Like the post to which I'm responding?

Shades, I understand I can't use prison content in paradise, but I can use paradise information in prison, correct?

Of course. Using higher-caliber communication than the absolute minimum is always to be desired. Heck, it's one of the things that separates man from the animals.

[Hound of Heaven]

Of course

Thanks!

[Jersey Girl]

Feel free to challenge my perspective; I'm eager to hear your thoughts! You are a hypocrite!!!

You can hear me?

[Marcus]

Feel free to challenge my perspective; I'm eager to hear your thoughts! You are a hypocrite!!!

You can hear me?

HoundMike doesn't even read you, let alone hear you!

He's bawling about your 41 posts in the other thread, but he has made 45% of the posts on this split out thread since he joined under his current name. By his (stunning lack of) logic, that means he is ...hypocritical? hypercritical? Hopped up on criticism? Who knows. I don't read his drivel closely enough to follow.

What I do know is he shot himself in the foot by arguing that your 41 posts equal 41 questions, when by his own admission he didn't even read them. Logic is not HoundMikey's thing.

[Jersey Girl]

You can hear me?

I don't read his drivel closely enough to follow.

We have that in common. Contrary to popular belief I actually do have a life. It's not a big one, but it's mine.

What I do know is he shot himself in the foot by arguing that your 41 posts equal 41 questions, when by his own admission he didn't even read them. Logic is not HoundMikey's thing.

Now see? I've got that Deja Vu thing going on. Wonder why that is, eh?

Ftr: I didn't read Shades reply to me here either. Not planning to go around in circles over the obvious. Ever.

[Hound of Heaven]

Feel free to challenge my perspective; I'm eager to hear your thoughts! You are a hypocrite!!!

You can hear me?

Is it true you posted 41 times out of 100 post on the first ten pages of the moderator thread? If so, why are you upset im asking questions on the same thread?

[Marcus]

You can hear me?

Is it true you posted 41 times out of 100 post on the first ten pages of the moderator thread? If so, why are you upset im asking questions on the same thread?

That's not what you said. You said she asked 41 questions:

...within the initial ten pages of that same thread, you pose more questions within the first 10 pages than anyone else on the board, around 41 if im not mistaken...

You were mistaken.

[canpakes]

Hound, link to the message and we can discuss whatever you are unclear on.

[Hound of Heaven]

Hound, link to the message and we can discuss whatever you are unclear on.

There is no need to provide any links, as I already comprehend that your role as a moderator is to support your progressive peers, and that will dictate your actions regardless of the situation. You, in your role as a moderator, cautioned me against using a particular nickname for Marcus. You said it is harassment.

My point is that you view sexism as corrosive and damaging, particularly when it appears as taunts on the discussion board. You likely also consider it a form of discrimination that undermines dignity, correct?

However, as a moderator, you have permitted Wang Chung to behave in an unacceptable way by repeatedly insulting me about my age, over 20 times. This constitutes ageism, which is just as damaging as sexism, if not more so, yet you allow it to continue without intervention.

Upon further investigation, one may discover that ageism is more prevalent than sexism in the workplace. A significant majority of workers aged 40 and above encounter ageism. However, even though we are not at work, you have not taken any action regarding Wang Chung and his comments about my age whenever he addresses me on the board. Demonstrating yet again that your focus is solely on your progressive allies, permitting them to treat me unfairly.

Here are my questions. Which is worse, sexism or ageism, or are both equally detrimental?

For my second question, if you think both instances are discriminatory, why have you not taken any action regarding Wang Chung's harassment about my age? Are you going to use the excuse of "well you haven't reported the issue to the moderators yet" again? The entire purpose of having moderators is to address discrimination promptly, meaning that when a moderator observes it on the board, it can be dealt with right away. Failing to receive a report of discrimination does not justify a moderator's inaction, wouldn't you concur?

[Marcus]

Hound, link to the message and we can discuss whatever you are unclear on.

Everybody Wang Chung can explain this better, I am sure, but one of the manufactured stories HoundDogMike has presented here required him to be 80+ years old, when the facts were reviewed.

As a result, Everybody Wang Chung has pointed out HoundDogMike's lies by reminding him how old he would have to be if his lies were true. That is not ageism. That is pointing out a liar.