FAO Admin (not Caca)

[CEB]

Hi - on the thread about tea, I’ve just called Daily Express Bot a “nasty c***”, a phrase for which I’ve received two bans of late.
Can you do me a favour and have a look at said thread, and make a quick call on whether it’s posts like Daily Express’s, or mine calling it out, that is more welcome on the board?

For avoidance of all doubt, I will always refer to posts such as that as the actions of a c***, so can you clear up whether

A: in heightened discourse about sensitive subjects, leeway is given for language

B: c***ish behaviour like the post on the thread I mentioned is tolerated, but calling it c***ish is against the rules

Cheers

[Long slender neck]

I think someone making perhaps a bad joke, doesnt give you a pass to be abusive.

Last warning.

[CEB]

I therefore repeat my assertion; that was the joke of a nasty c***, and suggest that Admin decides whether or not it’s appropriate for me to be here. If you wish to exercise your mod privileges and ban me in the meantime, that’s completely up to you

[spen666]

Hi - on the thread about tea, I’ve just called Daily Express Bot a “nasty c***”, a phrase for which I’ve received two bans of late.
Can you do me a favour and have a look at said thread, and make a quick call on whether it’s posts like Daily Express’s, or mine calling it out, that is more welcome on the board?

For avoidance of all doubt, I will always refer to posts such as that as the actions of a c***, so can you clear up whether

A: in heightened discourse about sensitive subjects, leeway is given for language

B: c***ish behaviour like the post on the thread I mentioned is tolerated, but calling it c***ish is against the rules

Cheers

C) It is possible for people to call out posts they disagree with without the use of such foul and offensive language

[CEB]

That’s not the dichotomy here. I’m saying that I will call people who say
“I have almost zero sympathy for Palestinians”

or who make hilarious jokes about murdered women

“c***s”

The options therefore seem to be either a perma ban for me for my choice (made not in anger, just that I consider it the most useful term) - or for Admin to either say “yep, those posts are beyond the pale” or “in heightened discourse, strong language is gonna be used”

Basically, s*** or get off the pot. Those two posts, by two different people, are grim

[spen666]

That’s not the dichotomy here. I’m saying that I will call people who say
“I have almost zero sympathy for Palestinians”

or who make hilarious jokes about murdered women

“c***s”

The options therefore seem to be either a perma ban for me for my choice (made not in anger, just that I consider it the most useful term) - or for Admin to either say “yep, those posts are beyond the pale” or “in heightened discourse, strong language is gonna be used”

Basically, s*** or get off the pot. Those two posts, by two different people, are grim

Well if you are unable to express your disagreement without using foul and offensive language, then accept you are going to face being banned again.


As I have said, it is possible to disagree with someone without using foul and offensive language

[Long slender neck]

That’s not the dichotomy here. I’m saying that I will call people who say
“I have almost zero sympathy for Palestinians”

or who make hilarious jokes about murdered women

“c***s”

The options therefore seem to be either a perma ban for me for my choice (made not in anger, just that I consider it the most useful term) - or for Admin to either say “yep, those posts are beyond the pale” or “in heightened discourse, strong language is gonna be used”

Basically, s*** or get off the pot. Those two posts, by two different people, are grim

This tea joke- the butt of the joke is Orient catering is it not?

So why dont you just be honest? You want free reign to hurl abuse at people that wind you up. I've made it clear I dont think that is acceptable, you now want to see if you can get your way with a mod more aligned to your poltical opinions.

Its a weird ultimatum if we have to pick between you being abusive and the people who upset you.

If a post offends you, why not try reporting it?

[CEB]

Oh, im perfectly *able*. I just actively chose to - and stand by - calling Caca a c*** for his posts about his lack of sympathy for dead Palestinians, and about Daily Express Bot’s (now amended, to his credit) joke about a murdered woman.

And again, if it’s the swearing at those posts that is unacceptable to the Admin here, and not the posts that I too issue with, then I’ll take the perma ban

[CEB]

That’s not the dichotomy here. I’m saying that I will call people who say
“I have almost zero sympathy for Palestinians”

or who make hilarious jokes about murdered women

“c***s”

The options therefore seem to be either a perma ban for me for my choice (made not in anger, just that I consider it the most useful term) - or for Admin to either say “yep, those posts are beyond the pale” or “in heightened discourse, strong language is gonna be used”

Basically, s*** or get off the pot. Those two posts, by two different people, are grim

This tea joke- the butt of the joke is Orient catering is it not?

So why dont you just be honest? You want free reign to hurl abuse at people that wind you up. I've made it clear I dont think that is acceptable, you now want to see if you can get your way with a mod more aligned to your poltical opinions.

Its a weird ultimatum if we have to pick between you being abusive and the people who upset you.

If a post offends you, why not try reporting it?

The butt of the joke is indeed the catering team at Orient, but, you tone deaf fool, the issue is the jokey trivialisation of the murder of a woman on a thread that already started by trivialising it.
All in all, a series of sh*tty takes. Do whatever you like.

[CEB]

Free reign to laugh at dead women:

Free reign to call people who joke about dead women c***ish:

[spen666]

Someone seems to be "hangry" today.

Perhaps a snickers may help

[Admin]

Can I be honest? I'm obviously aware something's going on here between LSN and you however I've not had the time to really look into this at all as I've a shedload of sh*t to deal with on a personal level which pushes this place so far down my list of priorities that I'm generally a bit clueless (plus ca change).

Keef - I appreciate you'll view the above as a cop-out. It isn't - I'm just letting you know I've seen your post and I'll get back to you.

Ok?

[CEB]

I don’t view it as a cop out - that’s fair enough, and totally understandable (more so than the idea that you ignored what I and Conkles both separately took issue with)

If you read from this link, viewtopic.php?t=4443&start=1575

you’ll get the substance of the issue. My only issue with LSN is his post on this, which you’ll see I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt on. The wider issue is that after such inflammatory crap, he is the arbiter of hiw strongly he can be criticised.
If you then look at the cup of tea thread (which is now edited) you’ll see that I chose to use similar language to make a point about the dinstinction between an anything goes approach to inflammatory posts, and a draconian approach to responses.

For clarity (as you know I’ve taken an exile before) if you look into it and think “CEB is out of order here”, then I’ll disappear into the sunset like at the end of the Incredible Hulk.

Hope the off board stuff is OK

[Long slender neck]

Grass

[Omygawd]

Moan, moan, mown.

[ComeOnYouOs]

I would like add, that in my many years of posting on this board, ( or its former incarnations ) I've called people the' c ' word twice, just twice, and both times I was banned.
Now, why should some people be able to type that word and not be banned, when others are banned as soon as the post is seen?
The context is unimportant, the word was uttered.
All must be treated equally.

[CEB]

Grass

Good effort at “lol let’s have a joke about it all”, but I’d prefer to wait to get some clarity as to whether or not you get to be the arbiter of how strongly you can be called out for your inflammatory posts.


As I’ve said all along, I think that reading that thread, there’s a need for you to make it clear that either you’re going to refrain from posts that can be inflammatory, or, if you’re unable to do so, for you to publicly agree to refer any backlash you get for your posts to Admin, who can decide on the appropriate action.

[CEB]

I would like add, that in my many years of posting on this board, ( or its former incarnations ) I've called people the' c ' word twice, just twice, and both times I was banned.
Now, why should some people be able to type that word and not be banned, when others are banned as soon as the post is seen?
The context is unimportant, the word was uttered.
All must be treated equally.

Well done for sneaking in “the context is unimportant” - had you not demonstrated that fact so convincingly, it might have left room for someone to argue that context matters!!!!

[Long slender neck]

I don’t view it as a cop out - that’s fair enough, and totally understandable (more so than the idea that you ignored what I and Conkles both separately took issue with)

If you read from this link, viewtopic.php?t=4443&start=1575

you’ll get the substance of the issue. My only issue with LSN is his post on this, which you’ll see I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt on. The wider issue is that after such inflammatory crap, he is the arbiter of hiw strongly he can be criticised.
If you then look at the cup of tea thread (which is now edited) you’ll see that I chose to use similar language to make a point about the dinstinction between an anything goes approach to inflammatory posts, and a draconian approach to responses.

For clarity (as you know I’ve taken an exile before) if you look into it and think “CEB is out of order here”, then I’ll disappear into the sunset like at the end of the Incredible Hulk.

Hope the off board stuff is OK

I dont tolerate abuse of people on here (including myself), regardless whether you think you're in the right or not.

You didnt criticse me, you just abused me.

We dont have an 'anything goes' approach either.

You dont want to follow the procedure of reporting posts or disagreeing with people politely.

[CEB]

Im waiting for clarity from Admin, thanks. In the meantime, I stand by that your post on the Israel thread was c***ish. So if you want to avoid being abused on here, the best thing to do, rather than issuing bans, is to say “sorry, I was a bit of a c*** there, and I can see why it provoked the response it did”. Do that, and you won’t face such abuse from me again, which I have no doubt has left you profoundly upset.

[BoniO]

I don’t view it as a cop out - that’s fair enough, and totally understandable (more so than the idea that you ignored what I and Conkles both separately took issue with)

If you read from this link, viewtopic.php?t=4443&start=1575

you’ll get the substance of the issue. My only issue with LSN is his post on this, which you’ll see I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt on. The wider issue is that after such inflammatory crap, he is the arbiter of hiw strongly he can be criticised.
If you then look at the cup of tea thread (which is now edited) you’ll see that I chose to use similar language to make a point about the dinstinction between an anything goes approach to inflammatory posts, and a draconian approach to responses.

For clarity (as you know I’ve taken an exile before) if you look into it and think “CEB is out of order here”, then I’ll disappear into the sunset like at the end of the Incredible Hulk.

Hope the off board stuff is OK

I dont tolerate abuse of people on here (including myself), regardless whether you think you're in the right or not.

You didnt criticse me, you just abused me.

We dont have an 'anything goes' approach either.

You dont want to follow the procedure of reporting posts or disagreeing with people politely.

Just ban the c**t - you know you want to.

[spen666]

...
All must be treated equally.

‘all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’

[Long slender neck]

Grass

Good effort at “lol let’s have a joke about it all”, but I’d prefer to wait to get some clarity as to whether or not you get to be the arbiter of how strongly you can be called out for your inflammatory posts.


As I’ve said all along, I think that reading that thread, there’s a need for you to make it clear that either you’re going to refrain from posts that can be inflammatory, or, if you’re unable to do so, for you to publicly agree to refer any backlash you get for your posts to Admin, who can decide on the appropriate action.

I'm not going to refrain from Boardin'. If any of my opinions offend you(not difficult) then tough luck, why dont we just talk it out? This is a forum after all.

I happen to think I moderate posts that insult me pretty leniently.

[CEB]

Here’s my proposed solution:

LSN posts a thread saying “I’m sorry for using inflammatory language about the suffering of Palestinians. I understand that it’s a sensitive issue and emotions run high, and that didn’t help”

If he does that, I’ll post underneath saying “thank, I appreciate it, and I consider the matter closed. I won’t swear at you again”

Admin clarifies that if LSN is reported, Admin will deal with the report, as well as any issues arising from conflict involving Caca - Caca isn’t best placed to investigate the conflicts he instigates, obviously Then we all move on. Me, being a reasonable type, will see that as an end to it and not see it as license to use the c word indiscriminately (because my point isn’t “i want to swear!!” - it’s “LSN shouldnt get to police his own conflicts by banning people when they don’t put up with his s***”

Fair?

[CEB]

edit: I’ll even say “sorry for calling you a c***”, since he will have shown contrition for what provoked it.