bump

I don't think it matters but im not sure we would win a gimmick war

I think it's going to be difficult to effectively moderate the forum if like 75% of the active posters are against what we're doing. It's also just not really the way I like to do moderation. That's not a wall I really enjoy banging my head against continuously. I mean, as far as I'm concerned it's your call. Mat put you in charge of the forum. I think you've been more than reasonable in allowing me to come in and blow everything up for you (my pleasure by the way :P), but if you want to soldier on despite the poll results I need to think a little more about whether or not it will really work for me to try to be involved. You and I have similar ideas about what we would like the forum to be, but I don't think it's very realistic to try to bring it about by force.

I wonder if one could conclude from poll results that the posters would prefer to lose chez and his nonsense rules rather than well named and his idea for rules?

I change my vote- Give the mobbing-haters a containment thread. They deserve it for their pathetic need of it.

One day people will look back at this thread as the moment the gimmick rights movement finally united.

This post smells like...

A few thoughts after a long hold day at the poolside

1) still waiting for whosnext to chime in with his thoughts but for me, I will always be open to a reasonable way forward for us 3 and all posters who are putting forward reasonable objections. It's not about forcing one approach.

2) the nature of PU was posters complain about PU. For example, many of those who are now voting for personal attacks will be adamantly opposed to themselves or others being confined or banned - it's a fool errand to think there's a solution to keeping everyone happy that means not doing anything that causes wide spread complaints, as complaining about the forum is a fundamental part of the PU environment.

3) apart from some possible issue with complicated rules there still seems no reason while those who want threads with personal attacks have an objection to threads that dont.

by all means, wait for the guy who never has posted in this forum to chime in. I'm sure he has valuable input.

So... 'long hold' means you'd didn't take a pee? OK, a couple reactions from a long day at the beach...

Uh, Unchained is dead. So, I'm not sure how this is at all relevant. Simple name-calling != the rightfully rotting corpse of Unchained.

AFAIK there never has been. Except for the other inscrutable rules, as you mention.

What the **** are you talking about? What does "many who are now voting for personal attacks" have to do with those people "being adamantly opposed to themselves or others being confined or banned"? What point are you trying to make here?

In PU there were experiments with the thread starter setting rules like no personal attacks, whatever. It worked fine. Do that if you want. But allowing personal attacks ought to be the default.

Satirizing the folly of what people claim to want never hurt anybody.

Right, the system chez set up was something like

Personal attacks are fine in !!! threads, unless they violate the PC rule (this forum has a PC bias). What is the PC rule? It is a rule. To protect vulnerable groups. Like the blacks and the gays. Are ******s a vulnerable protected group? Maybe. Well no. Or maybe? Are bitches a vulnerable protected group? I think so? Need to think. Month or two. Thinking. Take a timeout. What is the PC rule? It is simple! Protects vulnerable groups. Not ******s. Autists? They are vulnerable, but not protected. Women are protected, as are possibly ******s, but calling someone a ***** is OK because it could refer to female dog or someone who complains. Just follow the PC rule, or face a time out.

SIMPLE

Sorry 'long hard'


It's looking backwards to some non existant idea that the PU environment ever produces z situation where there isn't wide speak complaining about the forum from the exis ting regulars. If there's nothing to stop the same old fighting among the regulars then people complain but on the other hand siding with some group to get rid of posters they don't approve of creats yet more complaining and hassle for the admins.

Then let's address any inscrutablity and it should be possible to satisfy nearly everybody shouldn't it?

Edit: and @kneed. The PC rule is gone. Reasonable objections are listened to and taken account of

I was pointing out that it is blatantly false you're ever allowed personal attacks in certain threads in a simple and clear way. It was always in conjunction with your purposely vague and complicated "PC" rule. A rule you steadfastly refused to clarify and define, despite people asking you about it many many times.

That's incorrect but even under WNs proposal, objectionable content will still not be allowed when making personal attacks. That's slightly but not greatly different to the PC rules, mostly it address concerns about the use of the term 'PC'

The change regarding PC has already happened.

Right, the difference is well named actually spelled out what would be objectionable. Racism, hate speech, threats of violence, etc. Instead of just repeating "this forum has a PC bias" and refusing to elaborate beyond "protecting vulnerable groups"

Well named wants to have a simple, clear, consistent and well defined set of rules. You, uh, had other aims.

Which is much the same as the PC rules which didn't allow anything racist/etc

Both are as vague as you wish to insist they are. There are no clear definable boundaries. Judgements will be made about what is objectionable and it will be on much the same basis however we describe it.

Well that brings up another key difference: I'm sure well named would clearly and directly answer questions about the rules and how he plans on enforcing them. You simply ignored all inquires.

I don't think that's at all true but having WN on boards will help address any concerns you have in that regard.

Very subtle way of pretending you add anything whatsoever to this forum rather than running it into the ground three times in a row.

If the mod team keeps growing and minor tweaks to your rules keep being met with 70%+ forum opposition, the problem is actually you.

Did we even have so many mod shakeups in so little time under failed mod stank?

not if you're still in charge. Well named is already hinting at quitting because of your intransigence.

I can confirm that it is at all true.

I hope we will find a good way forward. Then if your concern is having the rules explained, you will be satisfied with Well Named providing you with the explanation.

My concern is having a disingenuous troll as the moderator of the forum.