Where is the boundary?

[iNow]

So, I made this post on the 18th of February:

 

Don't feel so perplexed at your findings. I'm no religious dunce by any stretch, but neither am I a fuk--in' scientific "know it all" idiot either.

Surely you jest! This would never have been made obvious by the content of your posts. I am so glad you've clarified this for us and cleared us of our misconceptions.

 

if someone wants to profess their faith and you beat them like a rented mule, for shame!

Faith is not good enough for you to accept the differing religious beliefs of others, so why should it be good enough for a nonbeliever to accept yours? Faith is not good enough for you to accept that there is an invisible dragon living in your garage, nor is faith good enough for you to accept that there is a tiny purple unicorn inside your refrigerator.

 

Faith can be placed in anything and has zero bearing on either the merit, accuracy, or truth of anything whatsoever. You can have faith that shooting yourself in the face will have no ill effects. That doesn't mean it's true.

 

Yes, news flash, jackass... this is a science forum, and faith is not only rejected, but mocked. If you use faith and expect to be taken seriously, this means that perhaps you're in the wrong place.

 

My pity goes out to the aggressor because of their regimented scientific beliefs, and the good ass kicking they deserve for being so obstinate.

Yes... Of course... You place your pity on those who value reason and rationality and evidence. Of course... In your mind, those are the ones deserving of pity. How quaint. You then follow it up with a recommendation for violence against these people. Super argument you've just made there, champ. You're growing your credibility with every post. Keep up the good work.

 

 

And then... after nearly 48 hours have passed, and two full pages of thread discussion and back and forth has occurred in that thread, we see this nice note from Cap'n notifying me of my week long suspension:

 

Er, no, perhaps you are. Certainly nobody should expect unjustified assertions to be accepted on SFN, but you should also know better than to think that blatant flaming belongs on SFN. We've been over this many times.

 

Enjoy your week's vacation.

 

 

So, I understand the call for civility and all, but I'm not clear on where the "line" is. Can you help clarify the boundary?

 

 

You see, I ask because within 24 hours of my suspension, we saw these posts that were made without a peep from the staff (in fact, some of them were made BY the staff).

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=103&t=59360&qpid=660197

I think you went inside the Sphere you need some psychological help.

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=29&t=64526&qpid=660221

what does this gibberish imply?

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=103&t=64226&qpid=660285

doG, get off it, we're having a discussion <…>

</answered>

 

Do I get a cookie?

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=103&t=64226&qpid=660228

Don't be a total ass! I've told you several times what I do and don't believe. Leave it at that.

 

Were I to extend my data population beyond the 24 hours near my suspension notification... to maybe a whole week, then surely more examples like these (probably many worse) would flood in.

 

Here's the point. It's not at all clear what is allowed and what is not, what is too far and what is par for the coarse, when some arbitrary line has been crossed and when you're a-okay. This makes the rules seem rather arbitrary and ambiguous when you're on the end-user side making the posts... So, I could really use your help here. Where is the boundary?

[zapatos]

You didn't address this to anyone in particular so I'm going to put in my 2 cents.

 

One of the things I've noticed on this site is that you can call a person just about anything you want as long as it is implied or put diplomatically, and it is not a direct statement. For example, this quote:

 

Don't feel so perplexed at your findings. I'm no religious dunce by any stretch, but neither am I a fuk--in' scientific "know it all" idiot either.

 

...pretty much called you (or whoever was being spoken to), a 'fuckin scientific know it all idiot'. But since it was not directly said to you, there is plausible deniability. 'Oh, I didn't mean him, just, you know, some other guy.'

 

Or if someone says "I think you went inside the Sphere you need some psychological help." Here again, 'Oh, I'm not saying he is crazy, it was just a thought I was having'.

 

Most of your comments were subtle, but when you made your 'jackass' comment, there was no plausible deniability. You called him a jackass.

 

To me there is really not much of a difference. I've been called lots of things on this site, but it is usually put like "Perhaps you are a dumbshit with no ability at all". I think they get away with it because they didn't just straight out say "You are a dumbshit!"

 

I may be wrong but I think the reason you got called out was because you did not diplomatically call him a jackass.

[immortal]

I am God but I am also a cybernetic organism in the sense that my mind is linked to a machine and that machine is the basic infrastructure of the universe.

 

My name is John Henry Ford Jr. I came to this world in a dimensional containment sphere just like Teminator did in those movies. I arrived near a small East Texas town called Hemphill 40 years ago. Once I arrived I was "adopted" by a family that lived nearby my point of arrival. They witnessed my arrival because after I arrived I remained in a kind of stasis.

 

I think you went inside the Sphere you need some psychological help.

 

It is important to note in what context it was being said. Some do come here to learn something while others come here purposely to cause trouble and I thought he was the latter kind of guy and hence such a reaction to his posts. If he had said we're all gods then I would have had more respect for him. Theism is not magic, we don't believe in everything blindly, there is rationality behind it, even God goes by some rules.

 

I already have seen posts that I need to see a psychiatrist on this websire. You're right I have been driven crazy by all the persecution I have had to endure.

 

I am lucky to be alive but for the first time in my life I am actually contemplating suicide. That's right society has made it so difficult for me that even God is thinking about killing hisself.

 

If he was really going through some kind of psychological or personal problem then I really apologize to him. I do owe him an apology in that case.

[Spyman]

Here's the point. It's not at all clear what is allowed and what is not, what is too far and what is par for the coarse, when some arbitrary line has been crossed and when you're a-okay. This makes the rules seem rather arbitrary and ambiguous when you're on the end-user side making the posts... So, I could really use your help here. Where is the boundary?

FYI, if you try to avoid being insulting then you are also very likely to succeed, but by pushing the limits you will overstep the line eventually.

 

The Forum Rules are simple and straightforward:

Section 2: Posting 1. Be civil. a. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.

 

And there is also an Etiquette Guide:

Don't Flame

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you need to insult them. They may be ignorant, but try not to flame them out of the forum. If they're intentionally insulting people, don't reply--just use the Report Post function to let the moderators know about it. They can deal with insult wars and rule-breakers more efficiently than regular users.

 

IMO, you were caught violating the rules and got punished - acting childish, pointing fingers at others and complaining about it wont help.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It is entirely true that we could be more effective in finding and punishing rule violations. There were 284 posts made on SFN yesterday, and I did not read all of them; I am limited to what people report as a rule violation. (Hint, hint.)

 

However, when I come across a report citing a post from a member who has been reprimanded numerous times in the past, lectured about civility, and even been threatened with suspension, I move quickly.

 

zapatos is right. Tact is important. I'd like to crack down on tactful incivility, but I fear there wouldn't be many posts left.

[swansont]

It is entirely true that we could be more effective in finding and punishing rule violations. There were 284 posts made on SFN yesterday, and I did not read all of them; I am limited to what people report as a rule violation. (Hint, hint.)

 

And limited in time by reports that aren't rules violations. And euthanizing spammers.

 

The system is imperfect. The people that run it are imperfect. What constitutes a violation is a bit of a grey area, and in that area is a judgement call. A lot goes into the decision — will stepping in do more harm than good? Is this a pattern or an aberration? Was it provoked?

 

If the intent (or result) of wanting a sharp demarcation is so that one knows exactly how far one can push it without stepping over, I expect that there will be a lot of prose that is right at the edge, so maybe having a fuzzy boundary isn't such a bad thing.

[iNow]

I may be wrong but I think the reason you got called out was because you did not diplomatically call him a jackass.

So, had I said, "Yes, news flash, you come across like a jackass when you expect faith to be taken seriously on a science forum," I'd have been in the clear?

 

Sorry, but if that is the case it seems to be yet another exercise in extreme and arbitrary nit picking. I seem to be the subject of those extreme nitpicking sessions from the staff frequently here at SFN, so forgive me if I'm unimpressed and unconvinced.

 

IIRC, last time it was because I said someone was a hypocrite instead of saying "you're acting hypocritical." What a load of horseshit. There is no meaningful or functional difference between the two.

 

---

 

IMO, you were caught violating the rules and got punished - acting childish, pointing fingers at others and complaining about it wont help.

Pointing fingers? Complaining? I got "caught violating the rules," and I'm seeking feedback on why my post warranted suspension. That's not childish. That's quite mature, actually. It's an attempt to dissect and analyze and better understand the situation in such a way as to avoid repeating it in the future.

 

Second, you've completely avoided my question and central point. The rules are obviously unclear, or at least the enforcement of them is. Sure, they say "be civil," but as we all know being uncivil is not only the status quo here, but it's also a completely subjective label that will be different to everyone.

 

I'm seeking clarity, and to illuminate that I'm far too frequently scapegoated and punished for posting exactly the same way that others do.

 

One needs to ask themselves how we are supposed to "follow the rules" if those rules are being enforced inconsistently, and applied in different ways to different posters. The arbitrary and selective application of those rules is the core problem. I'm merely a symptom of the fact that truly none of us have a clear picture of what is allowed, what is not, and how the boundary between these is horribly unclear.

 

---

 

I am limited to what people report as a rule violation. (Hint, hint.)

Not all reported posts require action, especially if those posts fall well inline with the standard tenor and tone of other posts throughout the site.

 

I'd like to crack down on tactful incivility, but I fear there wouldn't be many posts left.

Which is precisely my point. Clearly, given the environment at SFN that you yourself just stipulated, I've done nothing other than to post in a manner consistent with the site gestalt. I urge you to stop singling me out so regularly in these matters and recognize that my approach to posting is truly no different than that used by the majority of the population here... an approach that (by any honest measure) is treated both implicitly and explicitly as acceptable.

[Xittenn]

iNow you take every chance you can to lay the smack down on as many people as you can. You post with this underlying bitterness that I expect from drunken teenagers, which can be cute sometimes, but you are like brute force hack. I don't see others doing this and those few that I can, off the top of my head compare your activity to, have been banned. I think you add a lot to posts as well and this is a very good argument for everyone else to just let it go, but sometimes someone doesn't, and if you wanna play your cards that way your going to find you will have to defend yourself now and again. This is not defending yourself, this is you posting garbage for garbage sake. I like attention too and so I say things sometimes, but is it really that important to you to have a free for all on the many ignants that come in to spout off about nothing?

 

 

^ you posted this in a thread that I was taking seriously. Everything you said in that thread destroyed the integrity of what was being said. I come here to have fun but I also come here to be around people that take things to the next level of seriousness because there aren't many places in the world that exist where this can be done. If you don't like what is being said try being constructive or ignore it dammit, or flag the post and let the mods do their thing, which even if it is nothing you can at least feel you've tried. Don't pander . . . . . . like I just did . . . . .

[swansont]

I got "caught violating the rules," and I'm seeking feedback on why my post warranted suspension. That's not childish. That's quite mature, actually. It's an attempt to dissect and analyze and better understand the situation in such a way as to avoid repeating it in the future.

 

I don't think it's quite as clear as that. You gave examples of other questionable posts, which raises the question of whether you're inquiring as to why these others didn't draw action and you did. Surely you can allow that such an inquiry might be viewed as petulant by some.

 

Civility is a spectrum of behavior, and some of that is in the eye of the beholder; some people consider mere contradiction to be uncivil, but it's pretty clear that definition can't fly on a science discussion site. But there's a pretty clear distinction, in my mind, between an attitude of trying to be civil, and trying to decide how uncivil you can be without running afoul of the rules.

[CaptainPanic]

Personally, I think it all has to do with intention. As much as I appreciate iNow's posts, I agree that calling someone a jackass seems a deliberate insult with the intention to hurt. It will achieve nothing, and serves no other purpose in the discussion, other than an expression of annoyance with the other person.

 

You can insult someone with the intention of getting the discussion back on track. You can insult with the intention to hurt someone's feelings. (And many other intentions). I think it matters what you try to achieve... although insults are always questionable.

 

Language offers too many possibilities to draw any clear lines regarding this rule... and different people will receive your posts differently. Interpretation and opinions will always be a part of this. There is no clear boundary, so it is best to stay well clear of it.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[StringJunky]

IIRC, last time it was because I said someone was a hypocrite instead of saying "you're acting hypocritical." What a load of horseshit. There is no meaningful or functional difference between the two.

 

One's attacking the person and the other is addressing the behaviour. You are more than intelligent enough to differentiate.

 

What one says and what one actually thinks can be contrary to each other...we can't change the person but we can attempt to change the outward behaviour...this is the essence of CBT which I think you are aware of and I think respect IIRC.

Edited March 1, 2012 by StringJunky

[Ophiolite]

FYI, if you try to avoid being insulting then you are also very likely to succeed, but by pushing the limits you will overstep the line eventually.

 

The Forum Rules are simple and straightforward:

Section 2: Posting 1. Be civil. a. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.

 

And there is also an Etiquette Guide:

Don't Flame

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you need to insult them. They may be ignorant, but try not to flame them out of the forum. If they're intentionally insulting people, don't reply--just use the Report Post function to let the moderators know about it. They can deal with insult wars and rule-breakers more efficiently than regular users.

IMO, you were caught violating the rules and got punished - acting childish, pointing fingers at others and complaining about it wont help.

Whoa! Hold on there. inow did not act childishly. He asked for clarification on where the line was. He offered examples of where he felt the line might have been crossed, but where no action had been taken. Now you pull the shit that Zapatos skillfully defined of not actually saying that inow was childish, but strongly implying it.

 

And let me be clear, stating that you are pulling shit is not an insult. It is an objective observation. If you feel insulted by that observation then the solution is for you cease making such outrageous statements.

 

And since repetition can be a powerful tool in clear communication I shall add this: I am disgusted by your repsonse and your accusation. You owe inow a full and immediate apology.

[Spyman]

Pointing fingers? Complaining? I got "caught violating the rules," and I'm seeking feedback on why my post warranted suspension. That's not childish. That's quite mature, actually. It's an attempt to dissect and analyze and better understand the situation in such a way as to avoid repeating it in the future.

Well, it is my personal opinion and I still stand by it, your whole post sounds to me as you want to point out others and complain that you got busted when they got away with it. The argument that because someone else managed to get away with bad behaviour makes you less guilty is not mature.

 

Like everyone else you can report others when you think they should get punished, instead of complaining afterwards when you got caught.

 

 

Second, you've completely avoided my question and central point.

No, I did not, read my post again. Secondly, I even gave you good advise on how to avoid repeating such situations in the future.

 

 

The rules are obviously unclear, /snip/

No, the rules are very clear: No flaming. - That is a precise zero line, can't get much more exact than that.

 

 

/snip/ or at least the enforcement of them is. Sure, they say "be civil," but as we all know being uncivil is not only the status quo here, but it's also a completely subjective label that will be different to everyone.

AFAIK the staff have showed a firm and good consistency in their judgements and takes great care of the forum and members.

 

And to make my opinion on this point clear: calling someone an "jackass" is uncivil and such insults is absolutely not the "status quo" here.

 

 

I'm seeking clarity, and to illuminate that I'm far too frequently scapegoated and punished for posting exactly the same way that others do.

First and foremost can you provide evidence of situations when you have been punished unwarranted?

 

Secondly, this is your opinion and I don't agree, from my limited reading of a small sample of your very huge amount of posts, you seem to be crossing the line far more often than you get punished for. I suspect that the staff premiates the quality of your arguments and frequently let you slip away.

 

Lastly I question your motivation to "illuminate" an unfair difference in punishment. I would like you to clearify whether you want the enforcement to be looser or tighter, it gets confusing when you complain that you get caught violating the rules to frequently as if you seem to want the enforcements to be more forgiving, but when your argument is that others are able to evade their punishment to often, you seem to want the enforcement to get enhanced instead, which is a contradiction. What do you want with this thread, what is your goal here?

 

 

One needs to ask themselves how we are supposed to "follow the rules" if those rules are being enforced inconsistently, and applied in different ways to different posters. The arbitrary and selective application of those rules is the core problem. I'm merely a symptom of the fact that truly none of us have a clear picture of what is allowed, what is not, and how the boundary between these is horribly unclear.

Everyone should try to follow the rules to their best ability, even without enforcement and any threat of punishment. The staffs ability to carry out exact, perfect and fair enforcements does not give you or anyone else the right to overstep the rules.

 

Most of all members I come in contact with seems to have a very clear picture of what is allowed, what is not and how to avoid breaking these boundaries, how this boundaries can be "horribly unclear" for a veteran member like you seems unbelievable.

 

I can't see any "core problem", neither with the rules nor with the judgements by the staff.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Spyman

[Phi for All]

IMO, you were caught violating the rules and got punished - acting childish, pointing fingers at others and complaining about it wont help.

!

Moderator Note

This post WAS reported, and does indeed have an element of personal attack in it. Calling a person childish is quite different from calling their argument childish. Please refrain from impugning the character of a member, and focus instead on the content of their arguments (which, in this case, seem clearly to be seeking clarification).

 

Let me add as well that the only post iNow listed as being similar to what got him suspended was the "Don't be a total ass!" comment. Had this post been reported, it would most assuredly have been dealt with as a rules violation. I apologize for missing it at the time.

 

It should be obvious what constitutes a personal attack. Name-calling is at the top of the list. We should be better than that.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Here's the point. It's not at all clear what is allowed and what is not, what is too far and what is par for the coarse, when some arbitrary line has been crossed and when you're a-okay. This makes the rules seem rather arbitrary and ambiguous when you're on the end-user side making the posts... So, I could really use your help here. Where is the boundary?

 

Do you not think that maybe this would have been something better addressed by contacting staff directly? Really, if you actually wanted to know finer points of the rules here, it seems much more obvious to simply talk to those that enforce it. Members here can certainly conjecture and offer opinions on the rules, but if you're asking where the line actually sits, those opinions are serving no purpose whatsoever.

[Spyman]

Whoa! Hold on there. inow did not act childishly. He asked for clarification on where the line was. He offered examples of where he felt the line might have been crossed, but where no action had been taken. Now you pull the shit that Zapatos skillfully defined of not actually saying that inow was childish, but strongly implying it.

 

And let me be clear, stating that you are pulling shit is not an insult. It is an objective observation. If you feel insulted by that observation then the solution is for you cease making such outrageous statements.

 

And since repetition can be a powerful tool in clear communication I shall add this: I am disgusted by your repsonse and your accusation. You owe inow a full and immediate apology.

I did not and do not claim that iNow is a childish person, like "zapatos skillfully defined it" but in my opinion iNow's arguments in this thread about his *unfair* punishments while others get away with it, is childish behaviour.

 

You are however free to have your own opinion both of iNow's purpose with the thread, zapatos's definitions and whether I am "pulling shit" or not.

 

And don't worry Ophiolite, you didn't manage to insult me with neither your flawed observation nor your disgust of my opinion, even with repetition.

 

----------

 

Since my post was reported, I will repeat what I think should be obvious: I do NOT consider iNow to be a childish person, but he is acting childish.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Spyman

[Xittenn]

^ you posted this in a thread that I was taking seriously. Everything you said in that thread destroyed the integrity of what was being said.

 

some people consider mere contradiction to be uncivil, but it's pretty clear that definition can't fly on a science discussion site. But there's a pretty clear distinction, in my mind, between an attitude of trying to be civil, and trying to decide how uncivil you can be without running afoul of the rules.

 

I just want to clarify my point here where it may have been misconstrued as suggesting that there should be an avoidance of conflict to be civil; this is in fact not what I meant. There is quite a big difference between using your wit and logic to defend a side of an argument and simply disrespecting posters by introducing obtrusive and abusive statements for the sake of denigrating the individual. Honestly iNow you represent as a highly intelligent individual, but your tactics employed suggest otherwise. I know this may not be the place where you feel it is in any way important to be proving yourself but if your current approach is anything like how you interact with others in real life I personally would seek alternatives. . . . the ability to control ones opinions is most often noticed, noted, and the person tends to be treated with a much higher level of respect. Of course if the individual feels their opinions do not merit much respect they often act out to ensure a validation of the suspicion thereby avoiding any responsibility . . . . . sort of guilt by association I suppose!

[Spyman]

...if your current approach is anything like how you interact with others in real life I personally would seek alternatives...

Yes, I would talk to people like this in real life, especially if they were an arrogant ignorant fuckwit like this guy. What's your point, exactly?

 

Actually... Let me take that back. In real life, I'd probably punch this guy in the throat, but alas... Online I'm restricted to using my words to make a point. C'est la vie.

Maybe slightly out of context but seems to be a good fit, iNow have to clarify if he truely is that aggressive in real life though...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Secondly, this is your opinion and I don't agree, from my limited reading of a small sample of your very huge amount of posts, you seem to be crossing the line far more often than you get punished for. I suspect that the staff premiates the quality of your arguments and frequently let you slip away.

This is true. We have, however, given explanations of what behavior is prohibited:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52262-uhhm-wheres-the-politics-forum/page__view__findpost__p__568200

 

I have given iNow long and detailed explanations of what behavior is unacceptable in private messages and warnings in the past, including the last time he was suspended. iNow made it clear that he does not wish to change his posting behavior and does not believe he can change, regardless of what we say.

 

One cannot consider this suspension in isolation. We have certainly missed other members who have posted insults and personal attacks, but when I received a report about this particular post, it was clear that a simple note in-thread would not suffice.

 

Which is precisely my point. Clearly, given the environment at SFN that you yourself just stipulated, I've done nothing other than to post in a manner consistent with the site gestalt. I urge you to stop singling me out so regularly in these matters and recognize that my approach to posting is truly no different than that used by the majority of the population here... an approach that (by any honest measure) is treated both implicitly and explicitly as acceptable.

You do not fall into the category of tactful incivility. You fall into the category of gleeful incivility.

 

Our moderation policy is based on gradual escalation. First we post notes in-thread to request civility. If that fails, we warn the member by PM, or suspend them for a few days with a note explaining their rule violations. If that fails, we suspend for longer. Eventually we give up and ban the member.

 

Most SFN members have reached the first step. You have regular step aerobics workouts. Hence, we crack down harder.

 

Also, not all moderation is visible. It's incorrect to assume that because you see no moderation note, we never talked to a member about their behavior. Recently I have discussed attitude problems with members in the chatroom, or through private messages. People may appear to get away scot-free in public, but we may have a chat and ensure they do not re-offend.

[Ophiolite]

Do you not think that maybe this would have been something better addressed by contacting staff directly? Really, if you actually wanted to know finer points of the rules here, it seems much more obvious to simply talk to those that enforce it. Members here can certainly conjecture and offer opinions on the rules, but if you're asking where the line actually sits, those opinions are serving no purpose whatsoever.

If inow's uncertainty over the rules is limited to inow, or only one or two other posters then the benefit of airing his views here and asking for clarification is that he would learn that he is in a minority position and that, perhaps/probably the problem lies with him. If his is not a minority position this may well emerge from the discussion and that information should be useful to admins and mods in improving their moderation activities. In either case expressing the concern publicly, in the the appropriate sub-forum, should bring value to inow and to the forum at large.

 

I did not and do not claim that iNow is a childish person, like "zapatos skillfully defined it" but in my opinion iNow's arguments in this thread about his *unfair* punishments while others get away with it, is childish behaviour.

You appear to be describing motives to inow's actions rather than assessing them objectively. He states he is not clear where the boundary lies. He offers a set of examples that he feels are comparble with is own trangression that were not penalised. For what it's worth I can't see much difference between the various comments.

 

And don't worry Ophiolite, you didn't manage to insult me with neither your flawed observation nor your disgust of my opinion, even with repetition.

As a technical point, you are mistaken. You were not insulted. That does not mean that I did not insult you. The two are different beasts. The essence of your response was "If I valued your opinion I would be offended." I can live with that.

[Spyman]

You appear to be describing motives to inow's actions rather than assessing them objectively. He states he is not clear where the boundary lies. He offers a set of examples that he feels are comparble with is own trangression that were not penalised. For what it's worth I can't see much difference between the various comments.

No, you appear to be describing motives to my actions rather than assessing them objectively. I told him where I think the the boundary lies, I offered a method to avoid future penalisations, I am arguing with him and providing my opinions of his questions, which is exactly what he asked for.

 

You on the other hand seem more interested to engage in a personal battle with me, than to actually help and address raised arguments.

 

BTW, if you can't see the difference between calling someone a "jackass" or saying that the theory of relativity is "gibberish" then you are blind.

 

 

As a technical point, you are mistaken. You were not insulted. That does not mean that I did not insult you. The two are different beasts. The essence of your response was "If I valued your opinion I would be offended." I can live with that.

You might have tried to insult me but you failed miserably, simply because you have to be much more personal to offend me.

 

I did value and respect your opinion but now not so much anymore, I guess I can live with that too.

[doG]

!

Moderator Note

Let me add as well that the only post iNow listed as being similar to what got him suspended was the "Don't be a total ass!" comment. Had this post been reported, it would most assuredly have been dealt with as a rules violation. I apologize for missing it at the time.

That was directed at me and I chose not to report it since it might have been deleted and I'd prefer it remain as a reflection of the member that posted it

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That was directed at me and I chose not to report it since it might have been deleted and I'd prefer it remain as a reflection of the member that posted it

We don't generally delete posts unless they're off-topic or particularly egregious rule violations; we prefer to leave a note in-thread.

[StringJunky]

We don't generally delete posts unless they're off-topic or particularly egregious rule violations; we prefer to leave a note in-thread.

 

I think it's important for future readers to see modnotes and the locked threads so that they can see how things are dealt with. I say this because I frequent a another forum, albeit with a different interest, and they routinely wipe out whole threads from existence if they get out of hand. It gives a false impression that all is rosy there to the unfamiliar and also, of course, without the deleted threads as visible evidence and reminders, history repeats itself much more often there imo.

[mississippichem]

I think it's important for future readers to see modnotes and the locked threads so that they can see how things are dealt with. I say this because I frequent a another forum, albeit with a different interest, and they routinely wipe out whole threads from existence if they get out of hand. It gives a false impression that all is rosy there to the unfamiliar and also, of course, without the deleted threads as visible evidence and reminders, history repeats itself much more often there imo.

 

When threads are deleted you basically have a chat room. One of the great things about a forum is that your idiocy can be ingrained in the annals of time for billions to gawk at henceforth . Really makes most people think twice before spouting off, some not so much.