Transparent Moderation Log & Site Topics - Part I

I think the default error code for signing in when banned should read:

"Sorry. This band of merry men has deemed you: Fucktarded."

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

Not that it matters, but I disagree with this decision. Sometimes the best thing about threads like these is the ability to remind yourself of some of the stuff said on SF and to use those reminders as guideposts when reading future threads.

+1. Knowing AF, he would just keep coming back for more. The thread in question should serve as a good source for "posterity" quotes, among other things.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

Can't sign in. It gives you a reason.

Speaking from experience?

Matt really has a point. I know a lot of people here are fond of the hands off moderation, Matt included, but this policy of redaction-as-enforcement has given us what, exactly? Is AF and the **** brigade going to stop? Because I see absolutely nothing that has changed in all his time here. These threads do not stop, and simple disappearing this stuff does nothing but encourage things to stay the same. I'm sorry, but what you're doing is not working.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

Can't sign in. It gives you a reason.
Hmm, how would you know?

[ ] was watching over Conne's shoulder
[ ] jovan screamed his out in ecstacy one night
[ ] other _____________________

figured I'd save people some time...

Jovan and his Negro fashions?

+1. Knowing AF, he would just keep coming back for more. The thread in question should serve as a good source for "posterity" quotes, among other things.

Click to expand...

Hey- you guys voted not to ban him or time him out...There was a poll awhile back...

Originally Posted by Arethusa

Click to expand...

this policy of redaction-as-enforcement has given us what, exactly? Is AF and the **** brigade going to stop? Because I see absolutely nothing that has changed in all his time here. These threads do not stop, and simple disappearing this stuff does nothing but encourage things to stay the same.
Let us all not forget that there exist plenty of other threads which have not been squirreled in which Fran has shown himself to be a blinkered holy fool in prey to his prejudices and the blandishments of Olga, Rush and other hucksters' pat poetic persiflage, incapable of reading comprehension or critical thought. These are not attacks, Fran, they are simply statements of fact. If you offer valid counterexamples -- as, say, your other debating opponents have to your assertions -- I will change my statements.

Let's remember that leaving gratuitously offensive threads up as a totem of a member's idiocy can also be interpreted as being representative of a forum itself.





Not enough coffee.

Originally Posted by Arethusa

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but what you're doing is not working.

Working? What is our goal, again?

j, you ARE the most entertaining poster. No contest needed.

srsly

Originally Posted by RJman

Click to expand...

j, you ARE the most entertaining poster. No contest needed.

srsly

Wipe the brown stain off your nose!

So I take it that my thread called "Why **************** so lazy and criminally inclined; an honest debate" wouldn't be popular? I'll have to stick with the one I'm preparing about "Why can't I call faggots; faggots while faggots can call faggots; faggots?"

Originally Posted by j

Click to expand...

Working? What is our goal, again?

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

So I take it that my thread called "Why **************** so lazy and criminally inclined; an honest debate" wouldn't be popular? I'll have to stick with the one I'm preparing about "Why can't I call faggots; faggots while faggots can call faggots; faggots?"
The latter sounds a bit gay.

1. Before reporting a post, gauge whether something is appropriate given the general tenor of the forum, not whether you find it personally offensive. For example, today, someone reported posts asking me to take down posts that broke the Commandment to "Not Take the Lord's Name in Vain." Dear member: "You evidently forgot that you were logged into Styleforum, not The 'Evangelical Bible Study forum'".

2. Don't come awhining that you are being picked on when you so very clearly deserve it. No, we do not condone bullying, and when someone goes out of their way to be a dick, I am not hesistant to use the ban-hammer. However, if you invite barbs from a lot of posters, maybe you ought to examine your own online behavior. Here is a pretty good guideline: If it would sound stupid/vain/pretentious in real life, it will come off doubly so over the net.

3. Do not bother reporting trivial crap. Today, someone reported a signature that they said was a personal attack on him. It wasn't. It was a comment on an attack on one of his posts.

We are not babysitters. You are by-and-large grown men. Behave as such.

Originally Posted by LA Guy

Click to expand...

1. Before reporting a post, gauge whether something is appropriate given the general tenor of the forum, not whether you find it personally offensive. For example, today, someone reported posts asking me to take down posts that broke the Commandment to "Not Take the Lord's Name in Vain." Dear member: "You evidently forgot that you were logged into Styleforum, not The 'Evangelical Bible Study forum'".

2. Don't come awhining that you are being picked on when you so very clearly deserve it. No, we do not condone bullying, and when someone goes out of their way to be a dick, I am not hesistant to use the ban-hammer. However, if you invite barbs from a lot of posters, maybe you ought to examine your own online behavior. Here is a pretty good guideline: If it would sound stupid/vain/pretentious in real life, it will come off doubly so over the net.

3. Do not bother reporting trivial crap. Today, someone reported a signature that they said was a personal attack on him. It wasn't. It was a comment on an attack on one of his posts.

We are not babysitters. You are by-and-large grown men. Behave as such.
I feel this post is a personal attack on me, but I am taking your message to heart and am not going to report it. This time. But I'm watching you.