I recall a claim that something along that line was done via PM. I don't recall anyone contesting it at the time. I thought it may have been discussed in the mod forum, but I don't have access to that.

I don't know of a threat to dox pvn.

Nor do you it seems

Now, we must spend 50 posts parsing whether Bruce was threatening to dox pvn, threatening pvn in other less specific ways, or just threatening to abuse his mod powers as we continue to look past what Mat Sklansky and the mods have told us and try and solve the unknowable mystery of why Bruce lost his moderating privileges.

Because while supersecret apologies in nonpublic forums MUST be acknowledged and accepted as apologetic olive branches from Bruce based on, well, zero evidence, it is pure fiasco to criticize Bruce for any of myriad of inappropriate posts, PMs, and actions. So sayeth his failed general counsel.

Just for lolz, chez' post from ATF from when Bruce originally wasn't getting degreened.

Love the bold.

Sick read chez, people definitely didn't get their way of Bruce getting degreened, there will be very few responses about the situation going forward, and there's no point in talking about it.

Hilarious to see you so mad about it seven months later.

A mentally unstable person PM'd pvn and said "you are going to be sorry" "I can guarantee you a problem you don't want". The same poster threatened tomdemaine's family in the mod forum.

But sure, totally clear he would never do anything inappropriate with real life information so we must, MUST, clear Bruce's name from these hurtful accusations.

*no brain cells were used by underachieving pseudo-intellectual SMP posters in this thread

Good council from me I believe. Pleased to see I wasn't all bad.

Amazing how the possibility that black people actually commit crimes at the same or even lower rates than whites is not ever entertained. Nope, the lower hit rates are simply because the sneaky black criminals have gotten better at evasion.

But we also catch more tomato thieves by searching more blondes. Why do we only have to search more redheads?

I heard Bruce was behind the Sony cyber attack.

missouri wit

.

How is this so complicated? Just admit calling someone a racist is an insult. Seriously, how can you believe it's not?? You don't do you? I'm being trolled. If it's not, why should idiot or ahole be considered an insult? Try selling that to anybody. "Serriously guy, I don't mean this as an insult, but you said some really stupid and mean things here in this post, see? I can prove it. See? So I don't mean this as an insult, just as a description of you. You're an idiot and an ahole. No offense."

Is saying "That post is wrong" an insut?

No

Why. Maybe I put a lot of effort into the post, I don't think it's wrong, and I value it personally. Who are you to just come out and say I'm wrong?

Because the contraband hit rates for blueheads would go down if we started searching them at a higher rate. Suppose the current hit rate for blueheads is 20%. Now if blueheads knew that their probability of being searched is 1, then we’d expect the bluehead hit rate to drop to near 0%. On the other hand if they knew their probability of being searched is 0, we’d expect their hit rate to go well above 20%.

That's a semantic play. You're wrong doesn't have the same contextual meaning as something like "you're stupid." It means specifically "in this particular case you are mistaken," not, "you are generally a wrong person," whereas, "you're stupid" means, "you are generally a stupid person."

You are also making the mistake of assuming all insults are equal. Even if someone took offense, it is a mild insult at best to be wrong. It's on the order of saying you're odd or you're silly. It's not so terrible to just be odd or silly or wrong, so people generally take less offense. The more terrible the accusation, the more hurtful the insult. You are a hateful person, you are a sociopath, you are a racist, are all terrible things to be, and they are personal attacks on a person's integrity.

Why do the forum rules say "attack the post, not the poster?"

So how is this proved in the real world? Are there studies with controls and everything that prove this? Is there any conclusive evidence this actually works outside of the theoretical, or do real world results show it ends up making the problem worse in the long run by alienating people?

It's so complicated because we never get any answers.

I asked you what would make you happy, what would need to be changed here at 2+2 going forward to put an end to all this whining and derails regarding the R-word. You didn't do that. Why?

Even if I personally agree that the R-word is only an insult, and I wanna change policy here at 2+2 accordingly, what should I lobby the powers-to-be to do?

I'll try again...

1. Should I lobby to make posting "you're racist" against the rules... but at the same time lobby that any whining or derailing about posts of "that's racist" are equally against the rules?
   
   
2. Should I lobby to completely solve the problem by having a sticky specifically state that while in other contexts the R-word is an insult, ITF it's officially considered neutral shorthand for "I feel what you posted is racially problematic, let's talk it out". Of course, whining and derailing regarding this would now be against the rules.
   
   
3. Should I lobby that the R-word is forbidden, however the newly coined word 'Ifwypiao' is always OK to use. Again, whining and derailing regarding this is now against the rules.
   
   
4. Should I lobby to just make conversations regarding race impossible, by having the R-word, and any other work-around, all declared against the rules.
   
   
5. Or something else? I mean throw us a bone here. We can't have a conversation about racism because of all this whining and derailing over the R-word... but if we take this complaint seriously, we can't have a discussion about how to solve this problem going forward either.

Something else: Treat calling a person a racist the same as calling someone any other inflammatory insult, as a personal attack and enforce the forum rules. You don't get to do it in the main forum, just like you don't get to call people idiots or aholes. If someone says something stupid or racist, attack the post and say that it's stupid or racist, but don't personally attack them by calling them stupid or racist.

You have said it won't make a difference, and it won't solve every problem, but it will do what the forum rules already demand: focus attacks on the posts, not the posters, which is how healthy arguments are made. Why do you think that rule is there to begin with?

I don’t know. The only stuff I recall reading were regressions, probably based on accountability studies, though.
Nah. The best way to get people to trust in the fairness of the justice system is to subject them to biased and inequitable treatment.

L o ****ing l at pretending if we just called posts racist and not posters that made them racist the whining would stop. That is a blatant lie, we have been through all of this before. Ffs the whole genesis of Bruces meltdowm was someone saying "here are some racist posts a moderator made"

But sure, I'm with you, let's enforce those forum rules to the letter. Call someone a racist, snap temp ban. Whining about mods, snap temp ban. Whining when an argument (not a poster) is labelled as racist, snap temp ban. Trolling, aka 90 percent of team SMP poster posts after Bruce, snap temp ban. Racist arguments, snap temp ban.

What happened to shorn? He went all quiet after #1753. Did his Short Bus run out of gas?

Your "something else" is actually the first half of my first item. Why do you wanna leave off the second half... the part about whining and derailing about "that's racist" posts being just as equally as against the rules as posting "you're racist"?

Remember we both see a problem here... but we see different problems. You're concerned about having to read the R-word. I'm concerned about having to read all this whining, and the perpetual derailing of every single thread by this whining.

Obviously things would be much worse with a non-symmetrical rule change like this. The whiners would be emboldened... they can still whine and derail all they want, and now they can start whining for temp-bans on top.

OTOH... the symmetrical rule change I initially proposed would seem to address both sides of the problem. Those who can't stand to read the R-word won't have to. And those who can't stand all the whining and derailing won't have to endure that either.

Again... why did you only want the first half of my suggestion, but rejected the second half ??

It's not complicated and here's the answer. I don't want racist (or any similar word) added to the profanity filter. Not just don't want it added I'm against it being added.

Pretty sure you already know this but there you are in case you were somehow genuinely confused. It should also be obvious to you that most SMPers don't want it added