I can't really deny this. Give me my playground.

Have you tried 4chan?

The three forum mods have discussed these issues at great length. We would like to propose the following "compromise":

• A monthly Low Content (LC) thread will be created and posts therein will be subject to minimal moderation
  
• Personal attacks will be allowed in the forum as long as they are accompanied by substantive points and discussion (on a per post basis and a per poster basis as judged by the forum mods)

We welcome any questions or comments on our proposal.

Sounds pretty stupid, just like the mods proposing it

counterproposal:

I have further demands and comments.

Demand: Reopen all of the bad poster threads and delete any superfluous punctuation marks any moron mod might have added to the title.

Comment: "Personal attacks will be allowed in the forum as long as they are accompanied by substantive points and discussion (on a per post basis and a per poster basis as judged by the forum mods)"

ahahahahahahahahahaaha jesus christ. "on a per post basis and a per poster basis as judged by the forum mods"

THE **** DOES THIS MEAN?

For example, would this sentence adhere to the "per post and per poaster basis"????????????

Same thing it's always meant in the past: rule only applies to people who were mean to brucez or SMPtards generally

I kinda think I haven't been taught the secret handshake, or the kinda decoder ring.

One thing is kinda certain: personal attacks and filthy talk are posts that the poster is always sure everyone will understand.........b

No secret handshakes here just me being lazy, does that make more sense?

"All... mental" line

Yeah that's why I'm lazy cos even when I make the effort I **** it up.

+1. I think this is entirely reasonable step. It's not ALL OR NOTHING, for everyone or anyone.

Also, the occasional use of YouTube's, willing to compromise on Twitters provided both are kept in spoiler tags with parenthetic remarks as not to annoy.

Semi-pro. Can't guarantee I'll be able to free up time for this, but I'd attempt to add it to the latest version of phpBB, which is widely used, perhaps get a couple of people on board with it. Not sure if that's the software for this site. I'll see where my time is at November/December. Utterly impossible at the moment.

Burn, lol'd.

This forum absolutely does not use the latest version of forum software. Appears to be vBulletin 2.0.33

Seconded

Forum software appears commercial from the link on the very bottom of the browser, so I can't re-write it.

Though it could be an unwritten rule that OP's can complain about off-topic to the moderator in chief, or the surgeon moderator.

Not true. I take a reactive approach to the discussion and so I don't usually bump it. But I'm down for it.

The personal insults in that thread are pretty good. The topic related content runs pretty with some pretty good detail into some fairly obscure topics. There are a lot of citations to serious sources (and some not so serious). If the main crew of wookie acolytes were not so thoroughly trounced in it, the 9/11 thread here might be promoted as one of the better threads in all of politardia. There is more substance in that thread than any other I know of. More garbage too but you take the good with the bad. That thread shows that insults and substance can coexist.

I would guess the insults could possibly help fuel the discussion. Someone makes a weak argument, gets attacked with insults, and then redoubles their effort to try to save face or embarrass the other person by probing their arguments weaknesses even harder. Of course you have to have people at least willing to pretend an allegiance to reason for that to work. You get a thread full of juan valdez types...

"Close the forum"

Close P7/P8.8 and readmit all the subhuman dross into P for the lolz.

This.

I guess this may be technically true but

1) well named won't answer any questions on the proposed rule because it isn't his proposal
2) chez won't answer questions about the proposed rules because chez doesn't respond to direct questions.
3) whosnext won't answer questions about the proposed rule because he probably hasn't seen them as he doesn't read or post in the forum

I asked a pretty simple question: what in the world does the bolded mean? And would my personal attack on the mods in the preceding post generally be the sort of thing that is allowed. Seems like a pretty straightforward and direct question about the rules.

I think the bold means "the mods will use their discretion to decide what's acceptable or not, and that discretion will take into account whether or not the specific post is contributing to an actual conversation, rather than just being some hit-and-run attack, and just how horrible of a poster you've been in the past".

I think it would be better if the rule was a little more objective, although I don't know that the rules on acceptable content can ever be made fully objective and algorithmic. In practice, there's always going to be some judgement involved. Part of the problem being hashed out right now, just between the mods, is that we have different judgments of what the line should be.