So I can voice concerns about the moderation as long as I don't express opinions about the moderation. Also, all hate speech has to be strictly non-ironic.

I think as long as we're going to have a "petition" to bring back Toothsayer, a catalogue of his extremist, ban-worthy views serves a purpose, but seriously Chez, while I can't speak for 5ive, my participation in that thread was certainly not because I think that kind of rhetoric belongs on 2+2.

Luzl too much to get into right now but I'm fairly certain chez called me a dirty rotten liar.

I liked your thread.

To bad TS's posts get a veil of protection now. It should, if he comes back, help him refine and hide his views better.

I do appreciate your point even if I have some disagreement with it - if I hadn't seen the general point the it wouldn't have survived this long.

The decision I've reached is on the basis that the posts were unacceptable purely because of their content.

I didn't.

But unacceptable posts are going to be left firmly in the past. Posters will have to curb any desire to bring them back into the current discussions.

For the record, are you aware that every post in that thread, save for #2 and #4, is something Toothsayer posted, undoctored (except snips for length and offtopic fluff)?

I'm happy to believe you, I haven't checked. It's immaterial to the decision to close the thread.

Many, if not all of them, aren't allowed anymore. They will die along with politics unchained.

Maybe the TS petition thread should be closed in the interest of removing unacceptable posts and old noise?

Chez the internet has no past, it's constantly now. Those posts are still going to show up in the google and will still be readable to anyone who clicks on a link to them. Your idea of things aging away is ridiculous.

Oh lawdy wawdy!

The topic of allowing TS back or not is very current and in any case old noise isn't an issue as it's got the !!!

I see your point that it quotes some unnaceptable posts but I'm allowing some leeway in a current discussion about whether TS should be allowed back or not. I think that's the only reasonable approach even if it's not ideal.

I suggest all posts in the future be saved as text.

*caresses neckbeard*

Two separate things going on about that thread 5ive but as long as we understand each other when I'm saying that unacceptable posts are generally to be left in the past and not quoted even with full cite and full context.

Why not just delete the posts if they're so unacceptable? I'm sure kerowo can show you how.

It's been discussed and no doubt will be discussed further.

In any case, no-one is going back and deleting all the unchained era posts that are now unacceptable. There are many many years of them and they will be left in the past.

I meant I was caressing my neckbeard, not you caressing yours.

Things are getting unexpectedly hot up in here.

But they were acceptable at one point in time even though you didn't agree with them and they aren't acceptable now. It is at the very least a record of the past and now given we have new posting standards to go by I don't have a problem with letting those posts stand to show the different moderating rules that are being applied now.

Or however long it was between my being a mod and you being a mod but whatever, SMP isn't know for facts...

There is a huge difference between un-modded and acceptability. Just because no one was looking for them doesn't mean they were OK.

Not naming names or quoting quotes... but I'd like to have a chat about how the above post could be corrected to pass muster.

I plucked the post above from a thread about lifting a permaban on a particular former poster here. I'll grant that the non-banned poster can't 'grok' the mind of the banned poster, so he really can't say definitively that he lied. Maybe the tragedy in Nice doesn't make his personal top-five list, IDK.

OTOH, calling the banned poster a 'scumbag' is an opinion. This is exactly the same as me going around calling other posters 'odious'. So, I guess I got two Qs:

1) Would backing off the accusation of lying, and qualifying this as "seems to be lying" instead, pass muster?

2) Can I still call zan nen odious here in Baja?

As with discussing 5ive's thread, although that's not the reason I closed it, it easily could have been the reason. I currently don't see anyway to allow fair use of the !!! threads when it's regarding an exiled poster. To answer 1) I don't think that a different form of words such as 'seems to be lying' helps much - it still deserves the right to respond.

All I can suggest as fair is that if there's going to be a thread about TS's to discuss his exile then he really needs to be allowed to post in it. That's not in my gift so I've closed it.

2) Unless banned, exiled or opted out then any poster from either politics forum is automatically fair game.