Perhaps it's an empathy thing, but I never could figure-out why I should sit behind the veil of ignorance. :/

It's not even about empathy necessarily so much as impartiality.

It's a way to consider the question 'what best' as opposed to 'what's best for me'

Many make their decisions on what to support by some combination of both (and for various groupings within that such as country and family). There's no actual ignorance required but there is a lot of sitting.

My goal as a mod isn't to create my "utopia forum", but if you read post #56 I think it outlines my views as well as the goals behind the rules changes. As far as it relates to the question of this being a liberal forum, this is the most relevant part:

The mainstream of political opinions certainly includes conservative viewpoints.

OP sticky link has come unstuck and needs fixing.

Welcome well named.

Without reading all 150 posts is it fair to assume that the changes mean that when they post something racist it's OK to tell wil/marn/mongi/juan/BS that they're racist PoS here?

Site rules apply.

Calling posts racist is always OK. Insulting people will be tolerated to the extent that it goes along with some actual content, and doesn't completely derail threads.

The site rules say that you may not make posts that are "unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable".

I've highlighted the bits I think are relevant to the boundaries of personal attacks. The goal is not to prevent you from expressing your opinion about people's posts, and by inference their character, but this isn't unchained and there are limits.

Thanks. I've actually seen worse in the P forum than unchained.

And yet this homophobic SMP thread still isn't deleted

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...x-gto-1664634/

Oh yeah, that train wreck. I mean nobody can read more than three lines without realizing the OP is shamelessly ignorant, and overall a poor draft of what would've been a terrible essay.

It's been locked. In any case, it's out of our jurisdiction, so if you think it should be deleted rather than merely locked you should probably talk to Mat. Obviously the implementation of the site-wide rules varies from forum to forum and always has, and it's probably inevitable that it always will. When I cite them here it's only to try to explain how the moderation in this forum will work.

In a similar vein.

.

I, for one, welcome our new (mod).

Welcome WN. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

Can the mods create a before and after chart from the day of changes to the activity of the forum for 3 months, please?

Just want to see what happens.

Problem is, a gradeschool never got shot up by anybody and we insist on burrying our faces in football stats and who won dancing with the stars to realize there is shady **** going on that is mostly dissmissed as coincidence in most cases and any word from "autorities" on questionable events is to be taken as final

Move along folks, economy is fine

Also, I told all you idiots well named should be mod a LONG time ago.

Nice job slo ponies & Sup well named *waive*

Could you expand on the bolded part?

trollface.jpg

So NQ is allowed to post Sandy Hook conspiracy bull**** after Matt specifically said that wasn't allowed, but naughty limericks get snap-banned within a minute?

No, the Sandy Hook stuff is still not allowed.

Also to be clear I like naughty limericks, I can't answer to that one.

.

So, um, one of you guys should have a word with NQ then?

I personally don't see any real need to do anything about that post. Whereas if he tried to create another thread about the topic, or went on about it at some length I would moderate it. It's a vaguely-worded throwaway sentence, followed up by peter trolling him and you helpfully prompting us to remind everyone that this particularly conspiracy theory is off limits. Others may disagree, but that seems sufficient to me for now. To be explicit: NQ, don't push your luck, thanks.

Also, I really am sorry about your limerick. I thought it was pretty good.

There was an old pirate named Bates
Who was learning to rhumba on skates
He fell on his cutlass
Which rendered him nutless
And practically useless on dates.

Vaguely worded? He's calling everyone sheeple for not seeing the conspiracy, what the **** about that post is vague exactly?