Moderation Note

[Ben E Lou]

Worth starting its own thread here, so it doesn't get missed. I'll sticky this eventually. A post was reported in the gun thread. Context...

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And he's already moved on to victim blaming by saying they should've been armed inside the synagogue. Fuck this guy and everybody who supports him or tries to gaslight with "both sides" nonsense.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which is pretty much how those of us with working brains feel about the collection of fools opposing him, particularly when he's stating such simple & obvious truths like you quoted.

But since you're spouting liberal lunacy I figure you can say whatever you want here & there's nobody going to touch you for it.

Jon brought up a decent point here that's worth noting, and I want to make sure we're consistent here. No one's getting a suspension for it, as it's something of a fine line, but here's how I want to define the line, moving forward.


1. It's fine to personally attack, etc. someone who isn't on this board. Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi are fair game for "f&&& them!"



2. It's not ok to personally attack someone who IS on this board.



Larry's post and Jon's response don't specifically personally attack any board member by name, so in that sense it's consistent with what has been allowed here. However, when stuff is included like "...and everyone who supports him," the post does--albeit not by name--personally attack some folks who post here.



Stay away from that.

[JPhillips]

So where would something like, Fuck all the liberals or Fuck Steeler fans fit?

[JonInMiddleGA]

No comment.

[CU Tiger]

I suspect if the roles were reversed Jon would have received a vacation and then there may have been a clarification. I mean I guess you could argue he earned it through a lifetime achievement award, but does feel like the very post sort of proves his point.


Ben's historical political position not withstanding.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I suspect if the roles were reversed Jon would have received a vacation and then there may have been a clarification. I mean I guess you could argue he earned it through a lifetime achievement award, but does feel like the very post sort of proves his point.


Ben's historical political position not withstanding.

When's the last time I gave Jon a suspension? Like 4 years ago? (I really don't know how long, but that'd be my approximate guess.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

When's the last time I gave Jon a suspension? Like 4 years ago? (I really don't know how long, but that'd be my approximate guess.)

Alas, you're not the only person with the keys to that sort of thing
#JusSayin

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

When's the last time I gave Jon a suspension? Like 4 years ago? (I really don't know how long, but that'd be my approximate guess.)

Its been in the last 2-3 months if memory serves me right. Definitely during college football talk season because I was curious his view on something and no other way to reach him since I totally eschew all social media.

[Butter]

So, how about unironically advocating murder, we're cool with that:

"I have absolutely zero sympathy for invaders, plain & simple. I've long proposed a bounty system.

It ought to be a capital offense, as should aiding & abetting it."

I find that a lot more offensive than a couple of personal insults here and there. Especially when you espouse such hateful rhetoric, I feel like that opens it up a little bit to some especially harsh criticism.

But I'm sure it's the guy who says "Fuck Trump supporters" out of generalized frustration that's in the wrong.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Butter

So, how about unironically advocating murder, we're cool with that:

"I have absolutely zero sympathy for invaders, plain & simple. I've long proposed a bounty system.

It ought to be a capital offense, as should aiding & abetting it."

I find that a lot more offensive than a couple of personal insults here and there. Especially when you espouse such hateful rhetoric, I feel like that opens it up a little bit to some especially harsh criticism.

But I'm sure it's the guy who says "Fuck Trump supporters" out of generalized frustration that's in the wrong.

[CU Tiger]

I think a large segment of the board would be ecstatic if you just banned all folks who express/advocate any measure of right leaning or conservative ideology regardless of content or style.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Butter

So, how about unironically advocating murder, we're cool with that:

"I have absolutely zero sympathy for invaders, plain & simple. I've long proposed a bounty system.

It ought to be a capital offense, as should aiding & abetting it."

I find that a lot more offensive than a couple of personal insults here and there. Especially when you espouse such hateful rhetoric, I feel like that opens it up a little bit to some especially harsh criticism.

But I'm sure it's the guy who says "Fuck Trump supporters" out of generalized frustration that's in the wrong.

As disgusting as that opinion is and the not at all subtle nature of his comments are, he has a right to voice that opinion. Remember we are a public forum. If you don’t like his opinion fine, but either respond appropriately or nut up. I personally don’t wanna be in any discussion where everyone agrees, it’s mind numbing and turns into a circle jerk.

[Scoobz0202]

More of a lurker, but I greatly appreciate you and Edward participating in the Trump thread even if I disagree with 90% of what you personally say. For reasons expected, prevent it being a 100% echo chamber.


There is a big difference between your right leaning ideology and some of the hatred Jon says, tbh.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

As disgusting as that opinion is and the not at all subtle nature of his comments are, he has a right to voice that opinion. Remember we are a public forum. If you don’t like his opinion fine, but either respond appropriately or nut up. I personally don’t wanna be in any discussion where everyone agrees, it’s mind numbing and turns into a circle jerk.

This is a public forum insomuch as the moderators allow it to be. "Semi-public", if you will. They draw the line. I would just like to say if were really going after the occasional "lumping in" of people's insults, then maybe we should also go after the actually offensive speech.

AFAIC, "fuck stupid liberals" has zero effect on me. But "let's bomb the Middle East into glass" is a bit more disturbing to me, personally. If the goal is to have a respectful forum with reasonable arguments, then let's have it.

I have in the past tended to ignore these ridiculous statements, because to argue with them is to lend credence to them. But I could easily see how they would rile people up to the point of insult.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think a large segment of the board would be ecstatic if you just banned all folks who express/advocate any measure of right leaning or conservative ideology regardless of content or style.

Barf.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Butter

This is a public forum insomuch as the moderators allow it to be. "Semi-public", if you will. They draw the line. I would just like to say if were really going after the occasional "lumping in" of people's insults, then maybe we should also go after the actually offensive speech.

AFAIC, "fuck stupid liberals" has zero effect on me. But "let's bomb the Middle East into glass" is a bit more disturbing to me, personally. If the goal is to have a respectful forum with reasonable arguments, then let's have it.

I have in the past tended to ignore these ridiculous statements, because to argue with them is to lend credence to them. But I could easily see how they would rile people up to the point of insult.

Meh. So someone has an opinion that’s fucked up. Big deal.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Meh. So someone has an opinion that’s fucked up. Big deal.

So some anonymous person says "Fuck you, you're an idiot". Big deal.

I agree on both counts. Laissez-faire moderation for all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Meh. So someone has an opinion that’s fucked up. Big deal.

You been keeping up with current events lately?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Butter

So some anonymous person says "Fuck you, you're an idiot". Big deal.

I agree on both counts. Laissez-faire moderation for all.

No. That would be a direct attack.

But claiming someone should be boxed or banned because you don’t like their opinion, regardless of how vile, is a slippery slope.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

You been keeping up with current events lately?

What does that have anything to do within the context of the conversation?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

No. That would be a direct attack.

But claiming someone should be boxed or banned because you don’t like their opinion, regardless of how vile, is a slippery slope.

So, "kill the illegals" = yes? "Kill the Arabs" = yes?

"You're an idiot" = no?

So, how about if he was aggressive and said either of the above things in many threads over the course of several years? How about if you had relatives here illegally? He is advocating the murder of your aunt or nephew or cousin? Still cool? Or doesn't it matter because you are detached from the object of his ire?

Fucked up statements are fucked up.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I suspect if the roles were reversed Jon would have received a vacation and then there may have been a clarification. I mean I guess you could argue he earned it through a lifetime achievement award, but does feel like the very post sort of proves his point.

Ben's historical political position not withstanding.

Jon was not suspended or warned for this:

Like all forms of liberalism, the anti-2A crowd comes in three varieties: ignorant, mentally ill, or plain old evil.

How is that not also a personal attack? I'm sure I could find dozens of other examples, if not more. Now I have no problem with Ben's warning here. If he wants people to stop with that, then I'll abide by it. I'm just reacting to this idea that apparently the type of statement I made in the first post here is uncommon on FOFC and/or that Jon never engages in similar behavior.

[digamma]

Just for the record, Jon was last suspended for a comment about Valerie Jarrett and the Roseanne tweet comparing her to apes. It was my call and I stand by the decision.

[JPhillips]

As I tried to illustrate above, I think it's going to be impossible to consistently enforce a rule on non-specific personal attacks. Direct personal attacks are pretty easy to police, but how do we even now when a member of the board is a part of an attacked group?

I'm sure there won't be penalties for statements made during rivalry games, but how will it be determined what group attacks matter and what ones don't?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Butter

So, "kill the illegals" = yes? "Kill the Arabs" = yes?

"You're an idiot" = no?

So, how about if he was aggressive and said either of the above things in many threads over the course of several years? How about if you had relatives here illegally? He is advocating the murder of your aunt or nephew or cousin? Still cool? Or doesn't it matter because you are detached from the object of his ire?

Fucked up statements are fucked up.

Exactly.

Those are the rules, as I said earlier, either respond or nut up.

People make fucked up statements all the time, especially in this climate, can't let it bother you so much.

[Butter]

Your semantics argument is stupid.

[AENeuman]

Given that this is basically a board of long time posters, we have a pretty good idea of our audience.

Calling for the killing of undocumented people to me is personal. I see the faces of people I care about when I read comments like that. Not sure if it falls under a personal attack, but it is hurtful.

I do think the events of last week/years plays into this. People have been killed, not because of who they were as a person, but what they were as a group. Again, that is what Jon expressed his desire to do: kill women and children merely based on what they represented as group.

Last thing, I know Jon has a son. So if I said, based on the Kavanaugh herrings, I think our society would be better off if we exterminated all male first borns, that would be an awful, personal attack and ban worthy. If I said it as a comment on a generic Facebook or news article, then it's just one of many stupid comments.

The kicker is we are all good people here that really care about one another. So I don't see it as an extraordinary request to stop promoting violence against nameless people.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Butter

So, how about unironically advocating murder, we're cool with that:

"I have absolutely zero sympathy for invaders, plain & simple. I've long proposed a bounty system.

It ought to be a capital offense, as should aiding & abetting it."

I find that a lot more offensive than a couple of personal insults here and there. Especially when you espouse such hateful rhetoric, I feel like that opens it up a little bit to some especially harsh criticism.

But I'm sure it's the guy who says "Fuck Trump supporters" out of generalized frustration that's in the wrong.

And therein lies the problem.

he seems to feel the country is being invaded by a foreign power or an army from another country.

Why shouldnt he be able to say those things? Because YOU define it as murder? Sounds like he thinks it is an act of war on our soil.

So we want the thought police moderating our board?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Butter

Your semantics argument is stupid.

Solid argument.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So we want the thought police moderating our board?

They already are. That's kinda the point.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Solid argument.

At least I didn't call you stupid, because that would be RIGHT OUT.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Butter

They already are. That's kinda the point.

It seems like you want heavier moderation on points and people you disagree with.

1984 anyone?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

It seems like you want heavier moderation on points and people you disagree with.

1984 anyone?

Have you ever read 1984? I highly doubt it.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by tarcone

It seems like you want heavier moderation on points and people you disagree with.

1984 anyone?

I want no moderation at all (aside from getting rid of those Russian bots), OR if we are going to have it, then yes, we should include hate speech on the list of those things that are moderated. Seems reasonable to me. Has nothing to do with what I personally disagree with. The line between "personal" attacks and "generalized" attacks that becomes personal for groups the attacks are against... is very thin, it seems to me. As elucidated by AENeuman above.

But I'm sure you and Lathum are right. I should just "nut up" and ignore the obviously coded hate speech just because the guy likes board games or whatever bullshit.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And therein lies the problem.

he seems to feel the country is being invaded by a foreign power or an army from another country.

Why shouldnt he be able to say those things? Because YOU define it as murder? Sounds like he thinks it is an act of war on our soil.

So what if I said:

"I have absolutely zero sympathy for neo-Nazis or white supremacists, plain & simple. I've long proposed a bounty system.

It ought to be a capital offense, as should aiding & abetting it, including politicians who don't condemn things like Charlottesville"

Cool? Because I think neo-Nazis have invaded this country, including in the White House. They have declared war on American values, taking over our institutions for their twisted ideology. Would I ok for wanting a bounty on those individuals?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So what if I said:

"I have absolutely zero sympathy for neo-Nazis or white supremacists, plain & simple. I've long proposed a bounty system.

It ought to be a capital offense, as should aiding & abetting it, including politicians who don't condemn things like Charlottesville"

Cool? Because I think neo-Nazis have invaded this country, including in the White House. They have declared war on American values, taking over our institutions for their twisted ideology. Would I ok for wanting a bounty on those individuals?

Wasnt directed at me, but sine Tarcone and I tend to get lumped together, I'm good with it.


Personally I think we are all adults and should have thick skin.
I think if you want to say "Person X is a twat-waffle who deserves to dies a slow and painful death after watching their entire family suffer the same fate...and then their lifeless corpse should be burned with acid and fed to sharks with laser beams"
Cool.


Sticks and stones may break my bones...


I dont see why we need an Internet Daddy to stop the car and come back there....but that's just me.



For Pete's sake I think the second most horrific attack you can lob at someone is to call them a racist (second only to a pedophile) ...yet Ive had that accusation thrown at me by 3 separate people. Twice in innuendo and once blatantly and directly.

Pissed me off. yep...but ultimately I dont give a crap what random internet user handle says about me. I remember who they were and categorically it changes my interactions with them, but it doesnt alter my life.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

Just for the record, Jon was last suspended for a comment about Valerie Jarrett and the Roseanne tweet comparing her to apes. It was my call and I stand by the decision.

Hey, you owned it.

I don't think your judgement is worthy of being a moderator, but that ain't my call.

Leftists run this place & that's Ben's decision.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And I'm just lol'ing now.

I propose policy & law, it offends the leftists.

No wonder having even an occasionally sane President for the first time in nearly a decade rankles you folks so hard.
-----------
For the record, I'm the one that reported the post in question. I just wanted to prove the double standard that exists for the fringiest left-wingers here.

Well, actually I was hoping to be proven wrong but it was really so predictable that even the fringe operations in Vegas wouldn't have taken bets on it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

That's cool, but I think it's utter bullshit. I think we all know, or at least should know, that names and hate can hurt far more than sticks and stones, and Hell, may even end up leading to sticks and stones later.

[larrymcg421]

Again, for the people arguing that there's a double standard, please explain to me how Jon's post (that didn't get him boxed) below doesn't fit the same standard as my post:

Like all forms of liberalism, the anti-2A crowd comes in three varieties: ignorant, mentally ill, or plain old evil.

For the record, I didn't report this post by Jon and I don't believe I've ever reported a post in the entire time I've been on FOFC. I'm simply arguing against the accusations of a double standard. And the people making those accusations conveniently ignored my point earlier in the thread.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I'm just lol'ing now.

I propose policy & law, it offends the leftists.

No wonder having even an occasionally sane President for the first time in nearly a decade rankles you folks so hard.
-----------
For the record, I'm the one that reported the post in question. I just wanted to prove the double standard that exists for the fringiest left-wingers here.

Well, actually I was hoping to be proven wrong but it was really so predictable that even the fringe operations in Vegas wouldn't have taken bets on it.

I cannot imagine how this forum is disappointing to you. It seems quite clear your objective (like most) is to share all your opinions. And you have, massively. You are by far the biggest presence here. We know so much about you: your political beliefs, music tastes, home town, sports life, family life, and on and on and on.

What more do you want? You get to vent, call names, and fantasize how you would like to systematically kill people (not an individuals like politicians, celebrities, but nameless humans).

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Again, for the people arguing that there's a double standard, please explain to me how Jon's post (that didn't get him boxed) below doesn't fit the same standard as my post:



For the record, I didn't report this post by Jon and I don't believe I've ever reported a post in the entire time I've been on FOFC. I'm simply arguing against the accusations of a double standard. And the people making those accusations conveniently ignored my point earlier in the thread.

I'll bite but you wont like it.
To me ignorant, mentally ill, or evil aren't attacks.
He is saying he classifies you as one of the 3.


I read that and say, if its someone I disagree with, to call e ignorant means I am uneducated of his "facts" ...I think he's crazy and I cant be educated in fantasy so yep I'm ignorant of fantasy.


I dont see that as an attack as any where close to the "Fuck you" level. Fuck you is an attack. By absolute rule the only two possible responses are ignore it(turn the other cheek) or FUCK Me? NO FUCK YOU! (eye for an eye)....thats an attack.


Calling someone ignorant (as opposed to stupid)well that opens a discourse for debate. And Evil is completely in the eye of the beholder.



Only Mentally Ill is an attack in my opinion and the fact that the construct gives you two alternate options kind of softens the blow.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'll bite but you wont like it.
To me ignorant, mentally ill, or evil aren't attacks.
He is saying he classifies you as one of the 3.


I read that and say, if its someone I disagree with, to call e ignorant means I am uneducated of his "facts" ...I think he's crazy and I cant be educated in fantasy so yep I'm ignorant of fantasy.


I dont see that as an attack as any where close to the "Fuck you" level. Fuck you is an attack. By absolute rule the only two possible responses are ignore it(turn the other cheek) or FUCK Me? NO FUCK YOU! (eye for an eye)....thats an attack.


Calling someone ignorant (as opposed to stupid)well that opens a discourse for debate. And Evil is completely in the eye of the beholder.



Only Mentally Ill is an attack in my opinion and the fact that the construct gives you two alternate options kind of softens the blow.

I mean, that's pretty absurd to argue that evil isn't an attack, but if you want to argue that ignorant isn't strong enough, that's fine. I could go back through Jon's post history, but I don't have the time. There have been blanket statements about Liberals or Democrats before, whether by him or others, and certainly blanket statements about sports teams as JPhillips noted.

We could keep arguing the specifics, but I still say the idea that Ben is biased against conservatives to be a ridiculous proposition that has no basis in reality.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

We could keep arguing the specifics, but I still say the idea that Ben is biased against conservatives to be a ridiculous proposition that has no basis in reality.

I don't think Ben is, at all and I dont think Jon suggested that either.

In fact I'd suggest based on his posting history that prior to this current abomination he probably leaned more conservative that liberal by a significant margin. I think he still leans that way in his belief system but the embodiment at the top has tuned many away.


I think Ben is and has been more lenient with folks "knows better" from various leagues over many years. I think he has trusted and empowered some of those people to make decisions on his behalf. I think some of those folks are absolutely unequivocally biased against conservative views.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And therein lies the problem.

he seems to feel the country is being invaded by a foreign power or an army from another country.

Why shouldnt he be able to say those things? Because YOU define it as murder? Sounds like he thinks it is an act of war on our soil.

So we want the thought police moderating our board?

Sorry, I’m grumpy and can’t let this go...

Just to be clear, when Jon says: It ought to be a capital offense, as should aiding & abetting it. He is literally saying I, as a teacher of undocumented children, should be hunted down and killed as a traitor to my country.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Sorry, I’m grumpy and can’t let this go...

Just to be clear, when Jon says: It ought to be a capital offense, as should aiding & abetting it. He is literally saying I, as a teacher of undocumented children, should be hunted down and killed as a traitor to my country.

Am I in the clear now that I don't employ any?

Wait..... I'm still renting a house to my ex-employees. Off with my head!

[JPhillips]

This just shows how far right the country has moved. All the really left guys left or were banned years ago, the one's remaining are the moderate squishes.

[thesloppy]

So, just to be clear: this is actually a thread started by Jon's activities, to highlight his past activities, because he thinks he doesn't get ENOUGH slack on this board?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

So, just to be clear: this is actually a thread started by Jon's activities, to highlight his past activities, because he thinks he doesn't get ENOUGH slack on this board?

Fascinating time we live in, eh?

[Drake]

I really thought we were all too old for this shit. Did the ignore feature go away or something?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I don't think Ben is, at all and I dont think Jon suggested that either.

In fact I'd suggest based on his posting history that prior to this current abomination he probably leaned more conservative that liberal by a significant margin. I think he still leans that way in his belief system but the embodiment at the top has tuned many away.


I think Ben is and has been more lenient with folks "knows better" from various leagues over many years. I think he has trusted and empowered some of those people to make decisions on his behalf. I think some of those folks are absolutely unequivocally biased against conservative views.

But that makes no sense given the current argument. This was an action taken by Ben, not the people who you think he's too lenient with, and you claimed the action would've been different if the roles were reversed. If you weren't arguing that Ben was biased against Jon and/or conservatives, then I have no idea what you were talking about in your first post of this thread.