Let's Have a Civil Discussion about Mod Discretion

[Solid Snake]

...Wait! Don't close this topic!!! Keep your hands off the Ban button!!! Hear me out!!!!

...We can have civil discussions on NPF, right?

I mean, I can't remotely imagine anything I'm about to type would be construed as threatening or insulting.

So let's establish a few crucial tidbits right off the bat, here.

1: I like all the mods here. All of them. Every single one.

I seriously think this is the only internet community I have ever been a part of, ever in the existence of the internet itself, where I can truthfully say that.

Fenris has been a good friend and I've thoroughly enjoyed our occasional conversations about trombones and ponies. Shiney and I have had our moments, I suppose, but by and large I've enjoyed receiving occasional bursts of rep from him for some of my Discussion content, and I've appreciated his support over the past few years. I may never truly know Synk's gender (just kidding I know he's a guy) but s/he's always been fun with a snarky comment and his/her's delightful ambiguities. Krylo and Fifthfiend (yeah, I know, Fifth's no longer a Mod, but still) probably have two of the top ten best senses of humor I've ever witnessed on the interwebs and that's elevating them to the same level of badassery I'd place the likes of the Nostlagia Critic.

Even the Mods I don't know as well -- McTahr and Satan's Onion come to mind -- seem like decent folk in the few spurts in which we do interact. And even POS -- POS being the Mod I've probably had the rockiest relationship with -- is someone I can now truthfully say that I respect, even though the feeling may not be mutual.

What I'm trying to say here is that this isn't personal. The criticisms I'm about to make are institutional; they're issues I have with the way the 'NPF system' works, for lack of better language, and not issues I have with the wonderful individuals who happen to administer and monitor said 'system.' I have no doubt that there are plenty of genuinely great people who've become politicians in the United States; I also have little doubt that the institutional mechanisms of politics in the U.S. is broken to such an extent that politicians merit criticism despite their benevolent personalities and their lovely families and their good intentions.

I guess I feel the need to make that preliminary statement because even well-phrased and reasonable attempts at constructive criticism of the Mods is often thwarted here in a way that tangibly hurts the community when significant decisions are made.

What I mean can simply be summed as: The more Mods attempt to prematurely stifle criticism, abuse their powers to 'craft' their narrative to an audience and refuse to justify their actions to the community at large, the more criticism of their behavior seems justified, whether the decisions were truly justified or not.

This is not an insult! It's not even a pejorative statement to the effect that "The Mods did X/Y/Z wrong." It's entirely possible the Mods continually make the correct and appropriate decisions; it's entirely possible that if I had access to the Mods-only forums and could witness their internal discussions that I'd ultimately agree that the decision-making process was sound and that appropriate checks and balances were employed to reach authentically accurate conclusions.

To include a specific reference to a recent event that obviously prompted this post; since I wasn't even present at the time it occurred I'm not even going to pretend that I know the 'right' answer as to whether Liz objectively 'deserved' to be permabanned. I'm guessing the Mods had quite a rigorous private discussion over the matter. And elements of that discussion should remain private; I'm not arguing in favor of complete transparency (which would be a mess.)

It is possible that the Mods continually make great judgment calls. It is also inevitable that the Mods will open themselves to far more criticism than their actions may have merited simply by refusing to discuss severe action taken with the community. It looks and smells shady when Mods veil themselves from criticism by shutting down threads. The question that often arises is: What are you so afraid of? If you made correct judgment calls, you shouldn't shy away from scrutiny but instead welcome said criticisms as opportunities to convince your friends that you did, indeed, act appropriately. Furthermore, assuming you even like or respect the individuals who are questioning your judgments, you should feel some sense of obligation to correct their erroneous assumptions. In the end, a willingness to engage is a sign that you're confident in the outcomes you've reached and that you believe your outcome withstands objective scrutiny.

A little transparency and openness in discussing controversial actions doesn't just go a long way towards establishing mutual respect, it also quells the 'worst-case scenario' assumptions that individuals inevitably assume when secrecy is employed. Conspiracy theories often linger because they are not explicitly and definitively rebuffed, and when decisions are made behind closed doors and discussion is curtailed, the inevitable reaction is often to assume malice where no malice existed. That's just fundamental human nature; when confronted with unknowns, we'll fill in the gaps with our paranoia and fears.

Furthermore, in a community such as this, in which so many of us are close personal friends, failing to disclose can lead to only one side of the story being heard -- the side of the story from the aggrieved user who's infuriated with you. And without a contrasting narrative from the Mods, the one narrative that can be heard often inevitably feels more genuine than the one that's essentially banned from the public airwaves. If User X writes long, persuasive paragraphs arguing semantics, and then Mod Z simply says "Nope. None of your business," who's easier to trust? Whose story will feel more credible?

I know the inevitable reaction will be that I'm just sticking up for a friend in Liz, and the truth is...well, that's true! But we've also seen this happen before, and we're going to keep seeing it happen again and again if things don't change. All the drama with Fifthfiend back in the day is another example -- the fact that Liz's banning frankly wasn't handled all that much better than Fifth's demotion is a sign that little has changed.

But, no, I'm not just seeking out 'drama.' If I were, I'd have started this post with colorful insults and things would have disintegrated from there. Instead, I want to say this...

This is why discretion doesn't work.
Empowering even the best of individuals to make decisions as to who 'belongs' and who 'does not' based solely on their own personal discretion invites what in legalese we call 'the Rule of Man' as opposed to the 'Rule of Law.'

The Rule of Man, ideally, is a fundamentally Confucian ideal; it's the notion that a perfect, well-educated, well-informed man with an unyielding moral compass and without biases or prejudices can make unassailable decisions in a manner that's more flexible and more even-handed than laws. Men (and women), after all, can analyze specific cases, take into account all the variables, and rationalize outcomes with a personal flair lacking in the impersonal, rigid, lifeless structure of statutes and precedents.

The Rule of Law, by contrast, begins by asserting that men are inherently fallible; that biases, prejudices, preferences, personal desires, and even institutional privileges all collectively prevent even the most lauded of individuals from consistently achieving equitable results. Because men are inherently fallible, the solution is a system that curtails the power exercised by those in positions of authority through laws; rules that are set in stone, that apply equally to everyone, and that decision-makers must reference in handing out their judgments.

The Rule of Law encompasses several advantages over the Rule of Man:

* By eliminating personal discretion, biases for or against specific individuals play less a role in reaching judgments, as the law demands an objective, across-the-board standard be applied to everyone, including the administrators themselves.

* Because laws are clearly known in advance, everyone benefits from notice of the violations. The principles are well-known. No one can claim ignorance.

* The consequences of breaking specific laws are also set in stone, adding predictability to sentencing and deterring potential offenders from crossing obvious lines of decorum and civility.

* Application of rules also prevents criticism of administrative action, because everyone collectively has greater faith in the cold, inflexible yet unyielding applicability of laws rather than individuals who may be clouded by their conscious or subconscious preferences or desires. The same punishments apply to every individual who violates a rule in the same manner, so the system itself is smoother, less controversial and more efficient.

Applying these specific principles to this forum:

* The existence of complete and unquestioned discretion has often, and will often continue to lead to accusations that decisions were not made objectively but were instead made by actors biased or prejudiced to reach specific outcomes by their personal feelings for or against the individual in question.

* A disproportionate emphasis will be placed on the perceived 'character' of the violator (which, of course, everyone will inevitably have their own subjective opinions on) rather than the actual nature of the present controversial violation.

* The existence of discretion effectively immunizes Moderators outright. Because Moderators are all particularly close to each other (given their shared identity, their special secret forum, their mere 'us vs. them' identification of themselves as Moderators and not 'users,' etc.) and because Moderators have the ability to privately explain the reasoning for poor judgment calls, it's very rare that even the most egregious objective violation of decorum will result in a severe punishment, unless (as in Fifth's case) the rest of the Mod team personally dislikes that Moderator for subjective reasons. A Moderator can essentially run roughshod and so long as he or she is well-liked the same behavior that would not be tolerated in anyone else will be tolerated.

* Because the application of the guidelines are not predictable or known in advance, none of us know whether a particular controversial statement or sentiment will lead us to be permabanned, temp-banned, warned, or even if Moderators will actually agree with us when we go on our angry rants. The best way I can put this is through personal example: I've said some terrible things in this forum and 'gotten away with them' because I was sufficiently well-liked to avoid outright bans. I've also seen people say things considerably more tame and still receive punishments I've never experienced because they weren't well liked.

* Given the above, there's no disincentive to deter me personally to not go over-the-top with certain rants because I've gotten away with them before.
And I'm pretty sure this has happened quite often, where violators have been surprised that specific angry rants might lead to bannings while others don't. Take Liz, for example. Liz has indulged in many angry rants and been applauded for behaving in such a manner when Moderators and other users agreed with the object of Liz's malice. Heck, Liz has sometimes gone after other users here (and so have I, for that matter) with a vengeful fury, but generally speaking if the Mods generally happen to agree with Liz's points, the content of the rant stands.
This simply encourages Liz to use the same exact language in another thread, but against different targets. Eventually, if the target of that ire is a Mod, the same language readily accepted in another context suddenly becomes ban-worthy.

Let's put this another way. Say RobinStarwing makes an awful post in which he claims racism 'isn't a big deal' and that Liz relies on the race card too much and it's a bad argumentative strategy to do so. Say Liz responds by tearing RobinStarwing a new one, complete with Liz's traditional onslaught of borderline-acceptable insults at the very notion that someone would dare claim that "Racism wasn't a thing." We all have, as a community, applauded Liz for taking similar action before, so long as the victim of the fury is either A: Not a board member here (Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney, etc.), or B: Someone here we simply don't give the benefit of the doubt to. If Robin goes on chat and is like "Racism ain't no thing, stop pretending it matters" and Liz bashes Robin with a mallet of anger, we applaud. Hell, I've gotten away with saying some silly dismissive things (partly in jest, but also partly sincerely) to Robin in chat that wouldn't fly in most other contexts. But if someone else makes a similar controversial statement and is called out on it with malicious terms, the punishment may be severe.

There's no deterrence value here; without ironclad rules explicitly forbidding certain behavior, and given that exceptions are made often under the purview of discretion, I'll try to 'get away with' what I can, particularly if I assume (perhaps erroneously) that the Mods may agree with the substance of my argument and therefore overlook any ad hominem I slip into when bashing my opponent. There have often been moments when I've reflected before making a controversial post with language and the question I'll be subconsciously asking myself isn't so much "Is this language or behavior against the rules?" but rather, "Have I worded this in such a way to avoid scathing rebuke from Fenris or POS or Shiney because they might agree with the fact that this other guy's acting like a douche?"

Maybe that's a poor way of phrasing it, but the impact is the same: under the Rule of Man, I'm less concerned with preventing objective violations and more concerned with simply staying on the good side of specific fallible individuals who may well enjoy just as many flames, insults, etc. as I would so long as we agree that the victim of said remarks 'deserved' it. In practice, of course, this is inherently unpredictable and it leads to chaotic results. But when we all applaud Liz for calling that horrible politician or that unlikable newcomer a sexist asshole in the most stark terms possible, and then Liz perceives a Moderator's behavior as sexist or defending sexists, the precedent's been established, only the same precedent will lead to a very different outcome.

IDEALLY:
There'd be like, a definitive set of rules regarding decorum that applied to everyone, including the Moderators themselves, with corresponding punishments spelled out in advance, and discretion would be reduced, if not outright eliminated.
Also, there'd be some forum conduit for an ongoing conversation between users and Moderators regarding controversial decisions, and the impact of said decisions would not be swept under a rug.
...But, yeah, that probably won't happen. And the Rule of Law has its own pitfalls, that I've kind of glossed over, but that merit mentioning as reasons that this probably won't happen.
It's hard to hold a 'just for fun' internet forum to the same exacting, exhausting objective standards we might hold ourselves to in real life situations. And sometimes, when it's easy for a Moderator to sniff out a troll, it's just more convenient to allow discretion to eliminate the problem immediately, rather than letting it fester because the same rules must apply to that newcomer troll that would also apply to a beloved regular.

But...

BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, AND IF NOTHING ELSE: Consider having Krylo, in his capacity as the conduit between the Mods and the community, maintain a perma-stickied post in which he updates the community with brief summaries of disciplinary actions taken by the Mods and very brief descriptions as to why the actions were taken. If Krylo doesn't have access to the private forums, consider having other Mod(s) handle it who do. Then, be open to the possibility that you might answer some questions.

If necessary, restrict participation in the thread to those behaving civilly or constructively, and incorporate a time delay so that people aren't too angry or too emotional to assess things impartially when the discussion begins.

These descriptions of actions taken needn't be more than a couple sentences long. But even the slightest accountability and the slightest insight into the decision-making apparatus employed would do a lot to eliminate a feeling of wanton discretion running amok and would do a lot to prevent ill will between the Moderators and the community and large.

TLDR: I like NPF because it's filled with people I love (in the least erotic way possible, I assure you) and because I care deeply about a lot of y'alls. That makes it particularly difficult when these kinds of conflicts emerge between people I like and respect. I genuinely believe that we're all good enough folks to solve these disagreements and discuss these decisions like rational, civil adults.

Like seriously, if there's ever a point where Shiney is like "I really don't trust these users enough to want to listen to anything they might say about this disciplinary action I'm taking?" That's probably a sign that Shiney might just as well blow up the forums with C4 or some shit because we have all failed, all of us, Moderators and Users alike, as a community at large.

If the Moderators actually feel it's preferable to simply disconnect from the Users and run the forums under a veil of secrecy and with little transparency, they've failed to provide us with equitable means of redress and failed to curtail their powers of discretion in any meaningful way that could prevent abuses -- the kinds of abuses that even genuinely decent people will take advantage of on occasion simply because we're all human.
BUT, if we Users can't instill the Moderators which sufficient trust that we're decent enough people to listen to the objective merits of a case and articulate dissent or agreement respectfully, then we've failed as well.

Okay I want to play vidjagames now that was exhausting

(...I look forward to this post existing for all of three nanoseconds before it's closed or deleted in a way that would, perhaps ironically, prove the very content elucidated in the preceding Wall of Text.)

[Seil]

tl;snakepost

[Solid Snake]

Many years from now, long after I've left NPF behind, I hope my one permanent contribution to these forums is the continued usage of "Snakepost" to imply "a post too long for any reasonable human being to read."

[Nikose Tyris]

BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, AND IF NOTHING ELSE: Consider having Krylo, in his capacity as the conduit between the Mods and the community, maintain a perma-stickied post in which he updates the community with brief summaries of disciplinary actions taken by the Mods and very brief descriptions as to why the actions were taken. If Krylo doesn't have access to the private forums, consider having other Mod(s) handle it who do. Then, be open to the possibility that you might answer some questions.


...With the way things have been going lately, every other post in that thread would be NonCon.

[Sifright]

SNIP*
[SIZE="1"](...I look forward to this post existing for all of three nanoseconds before it's closed or deleted in a way that would, perhaps ironically, prove the very content elucidated in the preceding Wall of Text.)

I read through your entire post. just going to say finishing on that note is incredibly petty given the rest of the content. "Edit: What I mean is it seems like trying to goad them into proving you 'right" The mods on NPF have always struck me as pretty damn reasonable as long you actually give them a chance and calm the hell down.


The actions taken were not done so in a vacuum. obviously I can't speak for fenris but the fact this was made a permaban has nothing to do with the severity of this particular incidence and everything to do with the fact that these kind of incidents continue to occur.

[Solid Snake]

It's not petty, it's just a historical acknowledgment of the precedent of what inevitably happens to these threads every time they're made.

EDIT: I think it was a remarkably calm post, really. If you read my post (and, don't worry, I'm not blaming you for most likely skimming parts of it), I'm not even trying to suggest the Mods were objectively wrong in any decision they've made, because I wasn't around when shit went down and the extent of what I do know is a biased narrative disseminated via IM from a single angry participant.

[pochercoaster]

Mods shouldn't feel the need to delete their own posts responding to someone right before they get banned, nor delete the thread which prompted them to ban someone. There are exceptions to this, of course (for example someone making stalker-ish posts) but in general there's no need for this. Ultimately it is the mod team's decision to ban someone and no amount of whining from the boards will magically reverse that. So they shouldn't feel threatened by their own posts or someone else's thread questioning their moderating ability. They should be able to ban someone without feeling like the aforementioned posts incriminate them. If they DON'T incriminate them then there's even less of a reason to delete them.

Like Snake, I'm not saying Liz's ban was undeserved. I just think it was handled very poorly. A mod deleting their own posts looks bad. I'm sure Fen's posts in response to Liz yesterday were fine, but since he deleted them NPF has no way of knowing that. I have not known any other mods to do that (I have a poor memory so feel free to correct me) and I don't think it reflects well on the moderation team.

[Sifright]

Mods shouldn't feel the need to delete their own posts responding to someone right before they get banned, nor delete the thread which prompted them to ban someone. There are exceptions to this, of course (for example someone making stalker-ish posts) but in general there's no need for this. Ultimately it is the mod team's decision to ban someone and no amount of whining from the boards will magically reverse that. So they shouldn't feel threatened by their own posts or someone else's thread questioning their moderating ability. They should be able to ban someone without feeling like the aforementioned posts incriminate them. If they DON'T incriminate them then there's even less of a reason to delete them.

Like Snake, I'm not saying Liz's ban was undeserved. I just think it was handled very poorly. A mod deleting their own posts looks bad. I'm sure Fen's posts in response to Liz yesterday were fine, but since he deleted them NPF has no way of knowing that. I have not known any other mods to do that (I have a poor memory so feel free to correct me) and I don't think it reflects well on the moderation team.

Whoa whoa hold up poch, Fenris didn't delete any of his own posts.

This was like a dual thing because it happened on Chat and during that thread going on at the same time.

He did delete one of Liz posts

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

That post was the thread Liz had made after ban dodging, right?

[Betty Elms]

I think they need to apply more consistent discretion re: suits and motor scooters. A mod with poor taste in such aesthetics is no mod at all.

Additionally, uninhibited consumption of amphetamines and tendencies toward frankly excessive dancing can easily lend itself to the degradation of britain's moral character. While a few stimmies are undoubtedly necessary for getting properly focused and ready to show off your moves at the marquee, some discretion is necessary.

[Meister]

yo I had no input in anything and I don't even know what it's about but I'm thinking on a forum for nerds with active members in the if-at-all lower triple digits maybe moderating ideals don't need to be based on fundamental philosophical concepts of authority and the exercise of power

I mean you're all to some extent friends with each other and the unfortunate nature of the situation is that in a mod/standard member situation sometimes friends will have to tell friends to sit out for a while, and of course no one wants to see their friends argue, but that's gonna happen as long as there are moderators and as long as this forum is pretty small and intimate. No amount of guidelines and rules is going to ever change that.

[Fenris]

Mods shouldn't feel the need to delete their own posts responding to someone right before they get banned, nor delete the thread which prompted them to ban someone.
This is not a thing that has ever happened as far as I can remember - I deleted the thread that Liz made after she bandodged (because she should not be making any threads after she is banned), and I deleted the post that I made AFTER I banned her because it was over the line, and I realized that.

Like Snake, I'm not saying Liz's ban was undeserved. I just think it was handled very poorly. A mod deleting their own posts looks bad. I'm sure Fen's posts in response to Liz yesterday were fine, but since he deleted them NPF has no way of knowing that. I have not known any other mods to do that (I have a poor memory so feel free to correct me) and I don't think it reflects well on the moderation team.
The post that I deleted was as follows:

You deleted my posts for arguing with you.

I stand by what I said.

You are abusing your authority and I've reported you.

You also insulted me directly, so banning me is hypocrisy.
I deleted your posts for being off topic, of course you do, :ohdear:, and I'm a hypocrite!

In my opinion, not that inflammatory, but certainly unnecessary, so I removed it from that thread, because it was a post that did not need to be made.

[MuMu]

Promote Liz to Mod.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

We should decide all disputes with drinking contests

[pochercoaster]

Whoa whoa hold up poch, Fenris didn't delete any of his own posts.

This was like a dual thing because it happened on Chat and during that thread going on at the same time.

He did delete one of Liz posts

Right, I remembered the situation incorrectly and so mixed up the chronology of events somewhat.

However, Fenris did delete one of his posts because it was too "troll-y" (his owns words, from chat).

I just want to quote something from from chat here:
"Your job is to troll aggravated users while banning them?"

Cause this is how the situation appears. Like, can't you go on ahead and ban Liz without being a dick about it? Unfortunately I wasn't in chat when this went down so I don't have a completely impartial view of this situation but it's not like this thing is exactly unique behaviour for Fenris.

Edit: Why is it okay for a mod to call someone an idiotic clod repeatedly?

[Solid Snake]

I just want to quote something from from chat here:
"Your job is to troll aggravated users while banning them?"


Dialogues in chats and IM have cleared up some ambiguities for me and yeah, the one sticking point for me is that a Mod just shouldn't repeatedly type an insult like "idiotic clod" to an aggravated individual who's gettin' banned and expect that to pacify the situation.

I do think there has to be a slightly higher standard for Mods espesically if they're not at risk of being banned for behavior that otherwise wouldn't be tolerated.

The solution isn't like, permanently banning Fenris in some reciprocity deal or something, that'd be ludicrous. But at least Fenris has to be reprimanded for handling the situation poorly.
Because he did handle the situation poorly.
And that's not really a condemnation of Fenris. We're all human. We're all going to make those kinds of mistakes when we're angry. I have before and I will again myself. It's just that, if users are at serious risk of dire repercussions for going off their rockers, there just needs to be some accountability for Mods too, or there's a risk that Mods will abuse their immunity and insult users into digging their own graves.

[Fenris]

Edit: Why is it okay for a mod to call someone an idiotic clod repeatedly?

Precedent, mostly. (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showpost.php?p=929575&postcount=50)

I feel that it is important to note that I only called Liz an idiotic clod 1) after I had explicitly given her the instruction to cool off or step away from the computer (neither of which she did) and 2) after Liz had started insulting me directly.

So, yeah. Probably not the most professional thing for me to do in the world, but it was not unwarranted.

[Loyal]

tl;snakepost

This doesn't even make sense. It's just redundant.

[Amake]

I'm all in favor of the rule of man in a small community like ours. Like there shouldn't even be any need to deal out personal punishments. Let's take this case, what exactly does banning Liz accomplish that's not handled by closing the thread? It's not like she's going to stop getting passionate about oppressed minorities to the point of unreasonableness.

Sometimes we all need to be told "yo, that's over the line, take a step back and reassess your approach to this conversation." I'd like to think most of the regulars here know and respect each other enough that actually saying that is enough, instead of hammering the message in with the arcane powers of mod authority. Though if I'm wrong, yeah, it would be nice with some transparency in the actual logical process that goes into punishing our rulebreakers. Maybe something that could lead to a free and frank exchange of ideas on not only how to make these rules better, but how to better follow them.

Of course I'm working under the assumption that the majority here wants the community to function and aren't interested in finding loopholes in the rules just to fuck it up for everyone. I could be wrong about that.

[Solid Snake]

It's not like she's going to stop getting passionate about oppressed minorities to the point of unreasonableness.

Man, like, I guess I get what you're saying? ...Maybe?
But for the sake of every oppressed minority suffering under institutional privilege here in these forums I sincerely hope we are passionate about oppressed minorities to the point of unreasonableness.

Like, buried deep within Liz's rage was actually a decent point about the motivations of many of the Draw Mohammed Day participants that, in fact, gave Liz a pretty good reason to be angry.

Ultimately, Liz took out that anger on the wrong people, I guess? Or Liz may have insinuated some of you were racists or defending racism and that was the impression you got and shit went downhill from there?

But yeah, I'll stick with Liz's perspective on the substance -- and even the outrage stemming from that substance -- even if Liz could benefit from better controlling and channeling that outrage towards the individuals truly meriting scorn.
But let's not say that being over-defensive of minorities is a bad thing and have that be the lesson learned.

[Nikose Tyris]

Liz was asked to calm down for her outrage regarding racism. Liz was banned for insulting Fenris.

Unless I am bad at reading?

[Sifright]

Man, like, I guess I get what you're saying? ...Maybe?
But for the sake of every oppressed minority suffering under institutional privilege here in these forums I sincerely hope we are passionate about oppressed minorities to the point of unreasonableness.

Like, buried deep within Liz's rage was actually a decent point about the motivations of many of the Draw Mohammed Day participants that, in fact, gave Liz a pretty good reason to be angry.

Ultimately, Liz took out that anger on the wrong people, I guess? Or Liz may have insinuated some of you were racists or defending racism and that was the impression you got and shit went downhill from there?

But yeah, I'll stick with Liz's perspective on the substance -- and even the outrage stemming from that substance -- even if Liz could benefit from better controlling and channeling that outrage towards the individuals truly meriting scorn.
But let's not say that being over-defensive of minorities is a bad thing and have that be the lesson learned.

Actually, the problem isn't that liz gets outraged over people being racist thats perfectly reasonable. It's that Liz gets that way in every god damn argument she has.
This is a pretty big dead horse to bring up but it's also a perfect example.

Mass effect 3.

in the chat, Liz made a remark about how she found it funny people were complaining about ME 3 being shit. I pointed out that it was unfair given the marketing campaign explicitly stating things contrary to what went down.

Liz brings up a point about their motivations. I point out it contradicts what she said in the ME3 thread. She goes absolutely berserk, telling people to fuck off and go kill them selves and that they should go slit their own throats, She didn't even get punished for that incident point is that kind of attitude is prevalent in almost any argument where liz ends up getting heated.

Next day Liz posts the thread telling people not to tell her what her opinion is.

[Nikose Tyris]

Can I get a link to that, Sifright? Liz takes suicide and self-harm seriously and I actually have some issue believing those statements verbatim.

[Solid Snake]

in the chat, Liz made a remark about how she found it funny people were complaining about ME 3 being shit. I pointed out that it was unfair given the marketing campaign explicitly stating things contrary to what went down.

Liz brings up a point about their motivations. I point out it contradicts what she said in the ME3 thread. She goes absolutely berserk, telling people to fuck off and go kill them selves, She didn't even get punished for that incident point is that kind of attitude is prevalent in almost any argument where liz ends up getting heated.

...huh?
I literally can't follow that story.

[Sifright]

it happened in the Ajax chat. so I can't link to it directly.

Synk has seen it in the ajax logs though so you can pm him/her for more information about it.

E

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

...huh?
I literally can't follow that story.

During an argument about something to do with Mass Effect 3, Liz said something that contradicted what she'd said in the thread about that game.
He linked this post and said her statements were contradictory.

The argument continued, Liz was increasingly upset about Sifright pointing this out, claiming that he was telling her what her opinion was when to my recollection he just wanted to know if her opinion had changed.
I and someone else were there, telling her to calm down. She told me, Sif and that third person to kill ourselves. To slit our throats.

I'm missing a lot of details but up until that point and beyond that point nobody but Liz was saying anything like that.

[Nikose Tyris]

I am willing to take K-Resh's corrobation of the story as sufficient evidence; I have been informed that Synk also bore witness to this.

[Solid Snake]

The argument continued, Liz was increasingly upset about Sifright pointing this out, claiming that he was telling her what her opinion was when to my recollection he just wanted to know if her opinion had changed.
I and someone else were there, telling her to calm down. She told me, Sif and that third person to kill ourselves. To slit our throats.


...If that story is true (I am desperately trying to give Liz some innocent-until-proven-guilty style benefit of the doubt), I'm absolutely shocked Liz wasn't banned over that.

[Sifright]

Mods take a very laize-faire approach to Ajax-chat because we all usually chill out there and have harmless fun which can't be done of the forum it's a lot more informal, if i'm honest with you though I was pretty shocked liz didn't even get a slap on the wrist for it especially with POS being present when it went down.

[Ryong]

Snake weren't you around a few months ago when someone said Liz could be unreasonably adamant with her opinion...and that resulted in complete rage? This isn't a new thing.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Actually me and Liz both got temporary bans from the chat, so there's that.
I think at that point I was just all caps telling her to calm down, so it's not like I didn't deserve it.

[synkr0nized]

This post pertains to Liz's banning solely.

Snake (and maybe others), in response to a large portion of that essay, I'll point you to the following:

The Rules (That will get you banned forever)

A select few things will get you permanently banned, no questions asked.

Repeated rules offenses: If you regularly receive temp bans and infractions, you can expect to be permanently banned at the next appropriate occasion. We intentionally don't give a limit as to how many infractions you can safely rack up, because pure numbers aren't the only thing that enters into the decision. It also depends a lot on whether you present yourself as a generally decent person or as someone deliberately disruptive. (Of course, generally decent persons don't tend to collect as many infractions in the first place.) This is not an invitation to see how much you can get away with while avoiding a ban.

[...]
Ban-Dodging: If you get temporarily banned and decide to simply sign up again using a different name, both your accounts will be permanently banned. Likewise if you re-register after a permanent ban - you can return if you're bearing a new and improved disposition, but to be honest we're not holding our breath on that. Generally, when we find out someone's been permanently banned before under another name, off they go.

Furthermore, part of Krylo's job is to help you all out with whatever the staff may or may not be doing in the mod section, i.e. make sure the general userbase is being represented fairly. It's not correct for mod discussion to be out in public, nor is it correct for everyone to feel moderating decisions are "wrong" merely because we all like the person who is on the receiving end.


Fenris's behavior could be called into question, I get where folks are coming from there, but the actual decision should not. NonCon/Liz has been temp-banned so many times for passionate and downright rude behavior in various arguments over the years. While it is looking like this, again, won't be permanent, it's worth noting it wasn't "Oh man Liz argued with Fenris let's ban her forever."


One of the things we did back when we re-worked the rules and the like was try to ensure that we all do shit as a team. We recognize that there's a need to be open to discussion with everyone, but you all should recognize that it's rather ridiculous to expect to see or read everything that goes on in the "shady backroom" or whatever some of you seem to think it is. Again, the whole idea of a "PR person" is to allow for staff to do whatever it is they need to do in private while providing access, albeit limited, for the general users.

I'm not saying you all need to go rush to Krylo and bug the shit out of him. But I'm also not sure what needs to be "open" here. I suspect it's because some of you feel that a few posts in one thread and the chat were insufficient for a big banning, but I'll remind you that it was one more incident in a pile of incidents.


Also, as to your note about discretion et al:
Forums don't function like an open democracy with everything being voted on by everyone. The whole point of having a mod/admin team on any forum is to ensure that there are individuals available to handle conflicts with the community-established and generally agreed-upon rules of conduct and content efficiently and rationally. While I am certainly aware that there are many places on the Internet with admins who run things based on their own whims and feelings, banning people who offend them or who they just decide they don't like, etc., that's not the case at any sensible place. I would think you all would understand that, especially after Fifth's demotion and the associated drama, we pushed for a system that ensured we'd work together to keep each other in check and to try to be objective about situations. That was the whole point of POS and I helping push the "Moderator Code of Conduct" in addition to what the team did to reword the rules overall.

I'm honestly a little annoyed that a large portion of your post, despite you're disclaimer at the beginning to try to smooth things over, implies decisions like this are made on fleeting emotions and without any kind of general, common baseline. If you really feel you've "gotten away with it" over time here, please feel free to link me to the posts in question, as I would be willing to consider your banishment from the forum if that would ease your mind.


Really, what more transparency would you expect? Yes, the situation is an unhappy one. Yes, Liz is well-liked here. But NPF needs to stop treating every decision made on this forum, especially the ones they disagree with, as wrong merely because they don't like them. We may not like them, either! That's part of what happens when a community of similarly-minded friends, albeit mostly in a virtual setting, does anything to curtail undesired behavior.

[MuMu]

...If that story is true (I am desperately trying to give Liz some innocent-until-proven-guilty style benefit of the doubt), I'm absolutely shocked Liz wasn't banned over that.

It did result in this (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=1197277#post1197277) thread if you're interested in the fallout.

[Solid Snake]

Synk:
The rest of your post was enlightening and your points are well taken, but:


I'm honestly a little annoyed that a large portion of your post, despite you're disclaimer at the beginning to try to smooth things over, implies decisions like this are made on fleeting emotions and without any kind of general, common baseline.

I think the issue here is that you're failing to differentiate between, like, a genuine effort to insult the Mod Squad and a simple observation of human nature.
Like, I'm not saying that you guys aren't making an effort to be impartial and objective. Of course you are! Any appropriate and likable administrator worthy of the praise I offered in the beginning of my post and striving to achieve the Confucian ideal in a 'Rule of Man' system is going to make genuine efforts to reach that goal.

I don't question your commitment, your work ethic, etc.
I'm saying that despite everything you're doing, it's only inevitable that under such a system and with such discretion, human beings are going to fuck up.

It's not "Fenris and Synk and POS are subpar Moderators." It's that all of us would be subpar moderators by virtue of simply being human. And in calling Liz an idiotic clod repeatedly -- as Fenris has admitted -- Fenris himself has proven that accurate.
Does that make any sense? Am I making the argument coherently?

I'm sure there is a general, common baseline of Mod discipline and behavior. I'm sure you all strive to do your best. That doesn't change the fact that fallible people, when given discretion and a fairly broad range of permissive behaviors and approaches within said discretion, are going to abuse it. Saying you'd abuse that discretion is not akin to saying that you're bad people. Even the best among us would abuse that discretion simply by virtue of being human and balancing one's obligations as a Moderator with everyday stresses.

I mean to be blunt? I don't really know how I could have been any more reasonable, evenhanded and downright complimentary with that post. I tried my damnedest to bend over backwards because I really do like you all and I want you to know that I appreciate what you've done for this community. My appreciation for your efforts, however, should not immunize you from criticism.

...If I've failed in conveying that, well, I botched it, but I didn't mean to.

And in this case, the criticism was beneficial in the sense that it led me to hear Fenris' side of the story, which I had not heard, and it allowed me to clarify some ambiguities and come to a more reasonable assessment of what actually happened. Given that Liz and Fenris are both friends of mine, it was important to me to do that.

...Also, I love that my effort to be brutally honest in the interests of full disclosure (and because, to be frank, it seemed somewhat unfair for me to criticize others without ever flashing that magnifying glass on myself) resulted in an implicit ban-threat. ;)

[Sifright]

*snip*

And in this case, the criticism was beneficial in the sense that it led me to hear Fenris' side of the story, which I had not heard, and it allowed me to clarify some ambiguities and come to a more reasonable assessment of what actually happened. Given that Liz and Fenris are both friends of mine, it was important to me to do that.
*snip*


Or like you could have just pmed fenris and asked him for his side.

edit: sorry that was silly of me I know you have to write up those dissertations. It's okay i understand.

:P

[Krylo]

Firstly: Chat bans and forum bans are handled separately for various reasons.

Secondly: I have a headache, just went through the log, and weighed in in the SECRET CABAL. This is too many words for me right now.

I will read this and get a post in later assuming it's still necessary, as of now it looks like Synk has handled things pretty well.

[POS Industries]

It's not "Fenris and Synk and POS are subpar Moderators."
Hey now, don't lump me in with these turkeys. I haven't made a bad moderating decision in nearly a year and a half.

[Solid Snake]

edit: sorry that was silly of me I know you have to write up those dissertations. It's okay i understand.

:P

It's all I'm ever good at, Sifright
IT'S ALL I CAN EVER DO

I was cursed with Snakepostitis at a young age, I tell you
CURSED WITH THE ANCIENT DISEASE

[Fenris]

Hey now, don't lump me in with these turkeys. I haven't made a bad moderating decision in nearly a year and a half.

Also, to be fair, I don't think synk has ever made one.

Just me!

[Solid Snake]

Jeez I literally just tossed your three names in there because you were the first three Mod names that popped into my head
There was nothing intentional about it :P

[POS Industries]

Also, to be fair, I don't think synk has ever made one.

Just me!
Now that you mention it, I think you may be correct.

[Sifright]

It's all I'm ever good at, Sifright
IT'S ALL I CAN EVER DO

I was cursed with Snakepostitis at a young age, I tell you
CURSED WITH THE ANCIENT DISEASE

Cursed you say... :ohdear::ohdear:

I suppose this calls for a good old fashioned medieval exercisim! Some one go fetch an Altar boy so he can bring a hand drill.

[synkr0nized]

things
*shrug*
OK, maybe I read too much the post. I know you care a lot about this place and many of us who post here, so I'll admit I likely assumed some things behind the words that perhaps weren't there. Fair enough.

Still, the part of your argument seemed to be that there should be more concrete descriptions of what is and isn't "cool" to do here, making the rule of Law more prevalent than the rule of Man. And in a social context like an Internet forum, that's nigh impossible to ever truly achieve. It's always an ongoing balance between a reasonably-vague outline and specific minutiae of detail with respect to wording overall rules on a forum. So as I read you're post there was a little bit of "Dude, what the fuck can we do that we didn't, or at least thought we did, to try to approach a more optimal setting?" And if I kicked back because of that when it sounds like I shouldn't have, all right, my bad I guess?

I do get that you weren't really calling anyone a bad person and all that. I do.


Also, my post was solely with respect to the ban. That your post meant to cover both it and Fenris perhaps means my response was not wholly complete due to how I limited my own scope.



...Also, I love that my effort to be brutally honest in the interests of full disclosure (and because, to be frank, it seemed somewhat unfair for me to criticize others without ever flashing that magnifying glass on myself) resulted in an implicit ban-threat. ;)

I re-wrote that sentence a couple times to attempt to reduce any feeling that it was an implicit "threat". My actual intent was to show that I believe it's important for us to be willing to go back and re-assess posts if anyone has issue with them. After giving a brief justification for why a ban was handed out here again, I think it's only fair to take what you're saying about folks "getting away with it" seriously and be open to that kind of discussion as well. It was also (poorly?) done with a little light-heartedness behind it to attempt to balance the use of "annoyed", as I'm not sittin' here all "Man that Snake guy comes back and already starts rubbing me the wrong way."

[Seil]

This thread had shiney post (nuklearforums.com/showthread.php)

From an admin's perspective, I'm occasionally frustrated when I see you wade into an argument and happily join in without considering the very fact that doing so as a mod/admin intimidates others because you have Authority and have the potential to abuse that. However I don't see you abuse it because I haven't seen anyone punished who hasn't broken the rules. I do think you should step back if you are getting into a heated argument, even if you may feel you are in the right or justified in your position, simply because of this leadership role here.

I think you need to work on not letting your frustrations and/or problems with one person spill over into what things, and how, you say to another person who happens to agree with them and just further a conflict.

Or avoid Noncon outright.

And frankly, you and Noncon are like the Tacoma Narrows; it's a bad situation waiting to happen. When I see you two interact what I'm reminded of is the time that shiney and Fifthfiend happened. Without assigning any moral weight or relative responsibility, I think we can all agree that that incident wasn't a bright and glorious moment in our history.

[Solid Snake]

GSo as I read you're post there was a little bit of "Dude, what the fuck can we do that we didn't, or at least think we did, to try to approach a more optimal setting?" And if I kicked back because of that when it sounds like I shouldn't have, all right, my bad I guess?



...But, yeah, that probably won't happen. And the Rule of Law has its own pitfalls, that I've kind of glossed over, but that merit mentioning as reasons that this probably won't happen.

I think I was fairly evenhanded about the likelihood that the Rule of Law 'ideal' that I talked up throughout most of my post was, in fact, unreasonable to apply as a practical matter.
Having said that, I'll concede that phrasing the 'compromise' solution as something the Mods should do "at the very least, and if nothing else" was poor wording.

I still think that a 'Rule of Law' system would ideally work better -- even if the explicit context of these forums -- but remember, I'm a lawyer. I'm always going to have that personal bias, and my solutions will often look to the Rule of Law as the ideal exemplar of "the way things should be" because that's what Law School has drilled into my head for three years.

I still believe the system I advocated has its merits, and I'd still argue for it passionately if I felt there was a chance in hell of it being supported. Insofar as it almost certainly won't happen, I'm not like, angry over it failing or anything. It essentially constitutes a personal recommendation that I thought would at least conjure up some discussion, and it served that purpose well, if nothing else.

What I personally think I botched most was the first and last sentences -- I was trying to be humorous with some half-serious, half-joshin' "Don't ban me, oh Mod overlords!" humor and it just doesn't flow well with the serious and complimentary tone in the rest of the post.

[MSperoni]

It seems to me that a mod ought to either not get into discussions that may take heated turns or immediately check out of discussions when they do, or have some rule that makes it so no one can get banned for arguing in political/social/news threads unless it is unequivocally warranted (or perhaps a mod that participates in a thread has their banning powers revoked for that thread, and if anyone is going to get banned it has to be up to another mod's discretion). When you involve yourself in a social debate about serious things that people are passionate about you are going to end up pissing someone off because it's very easy to do. Or you will get pissed off, and that might lead you to pissing off someone else (that's why I stick primarily to the entertainment threads -- and even they aren't exactly safe from getting people angry, but it's a different kind of anger there).

I mean, if I were a mod, and a dick, I could easily goad someone into getting themselves banned. We all know what buttons to push. Not that any of the mods here would do that, but you know how EASY it is to get someone (especially someone like Liz) angry to the point where they start lobbing ban worthy insults. Serious threads make people passionate, after all. NPF could always get rid of serious discussion threads, but that doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Sometimes a person can't help getting involved in a discussion, but I think a mod has to consider what they're discussing and the turns it could take and avoid at all costs adding fuel to the fire (if you can't avoid the fire outright).

(All that is easier said than done, though).

I hesitated to offer my opinion here, because I didn't know if it was my place or not, but I had those two cents and felt I ought to share 'em...And maybe what I typed has already been typed and discussed, I dunno.

[synkr0nized]

Neither Fenris nor shiney were involved in the thread prior.

What you're posting isn't necessarilly wrong, nor is it a bad idea, but it's not really applicable here.

[Bells]

since i was the one that created the thread, allow me to say this... specially since i never wanted anyone to be banned for it.

1- It not like it used to be, in the past we had a "serious" part of the forums where every rule was tighter to prevent bitchfighting. So much to the fact that some people would actively avoid that section of the forums to prevent the chance of loosing their cool and getting banned in a heated momment. Now, we have a "serious" tag for Topics. Not the same, but since there has been talking in this topic about "precedents" and "History"... i just wanted to point out that on these subjects, mods are extra-moddy ... i'm used to the concept of that, and ok with it. Don't know if it works the same for the others...

2- On Liz's anger... i felt trolled. I felt like someone was picking a fight with slim reasons. I said some stupid bullshit on a moment where i spoked my mind without thinking properly through... there were about a thousand ways to convey the same ideas on better ways, i just didn't think of those. So i apologized and took a step back even though i never really thought my general concepts or wrong or even being challenged or assaulted. Even by Liz.

But Liz, on that moment and everything after that, from my point of view... was Knife-twisting.

One thing the mods here do that i really appreciate is that they never forbid conversation or freedom to speak. They moderate. They pay attention to the conversation ,and more often than not, if things get too hot they ask people to step outside and take a breather before coming back. To me, that's reasonable 100% of the time.

Was it done in a dickish tone? Perhaps. Fenris is not the most subtle of beings when moderating, but hardly unfair or abusive...

My thoughts is that, if in a heated discussion you have to delete something someone said (even yourself)... don't. Edit the post to remove the content and replace it with an explanation as to why it was removed. Just deleting can easily be wrongly seen as being evasive, provocative or sleazy... Removing a post on proper reasoning, if done right, is just proper modding.

[Gregness]

Hey, so, look at the General Discussion forum living up to its description!

So, just some isolated thoughts on the whole situation (if not the incident in particular).

Liz tends to get extremely worked up about certain topics. (frankly, she needs a thicker skin)

This passion tends to lead her to be very abrasive.

For my part, it seems like a solid fraction of the posters here walk on eggshells around her to avoid arguing with her.

She seems like a nice enough person, but none of that makes for healthy communication and, by extension, healthy communities.

Now, for Snake's suggestions (and I did read the whole thing), it's probably unreasonable to expect that much to change, and I don't even think I want it to. In fact, one of my favorite things about this place is that it's a little rough around the edges. We can curse and heckle and be raunchy with each other in good fun and most of us know where the line is. It feels like a bunch of college buddies hanging out. In my mind, there's not really a need for an ironclad set of rules.

What we might benefit from is that any time someone is up for a permanent ban, we open a thread in the forum related stuff section discussing the evidence at hand (offending posts, number of repeat offenses, etc.) and let the community weigh in on it. The final decision is still up to the mod team, but this way if, for example, we all thought Liz's contributions outweighed her occasional (extreme) jerkitude, we can have a place to say so.

[POS Industries]

What we might benefit from is that any time someone is up for a permanent ban, we open a thread in the forum related stuff section discussing the evidence at hand (offending posts, number of repeat offenses, etc.) and let the community weigh in on it. The final decision is still up to the mod team, but this way if, for example, we all thought Liz's contributions outweighed her occasional (extreme) jerkitude, we can have a place to say so.
No, that sounds absolutely awful. I actually prefer the current system we have where we ban someone and if someone gets butthurt about it they can make a thread after the fact. The committee making these decisions is big and full of enough internal disagreement as it is, thank you very much.

[Bells]

We need a 3rd party candidate!! Ron Paul for NPF Moderator 2012!!

[Fenris]

No, that sounds absolutely awful. I actually prefer the current system we have where we ban someone and if someone gets butthurt about it they can make a thread after the fact. The committee making these decisions is big and full of enough internal disagreement as it is, thank you very much.

Can we at least continue the stipulation that of the person banned is the one who is butthurt about it, they're not allowed to make the thread?

Because that's a pretty sensible stipulation.

[POS Industries]

Can we at least continue the stipulation that of the person banned is the one who is butthurt about it, they're not allowed to make the thread?

Because that's a pretty sensible stipulation.
Yeah, I'm pretty okay with that.

[Loyal]

For my part, it seems like a solid fraction of the posters here walk on eggshells around her to avoid arguing with her.

Or in some cases, avoid interacting with her altogether, when possible, for the same reason.

[rpgdemon]

My opinion on Liz's rants:

She is almost always over the line. I don't care if I agree with the point or not, they're over the line, and I do not applaud them. In fact, they have caused me to leave threads because they're so awful towards the person they're against.


My opinion on Liz's banning:

The thing is, Liz has been told, many times, that when she's angry she goes over the line, and to cool down and leave. In fact, last time she got a temp ban, she was even told, "Anyone else and it would have been a permanent ban." I think that's telling that this wasn't a decision made to spite Liz, but instead because she's gone over the line one time too many. The fact that she was given so many pardons in the past shows that, barring the rants, she was a member of the forum who was worth keeping around. But this was (In the mod's opinion) the straw that broke the camel's back, and tipped the scale in the other direction. To me it looks like, the mods think that Liz showed that she was not willing to change her attacks towards people, and decided that even if they liked her everywhere else, it was harmful to the community as a whole to have those rants around.

I, generally, don't agree with permabanning. I think people ought to have second chances. I don't know if I agree with permabanning Liz, even if I honestly could not stand her attack rants, and am very happy to not see them anymore. On the other hand, Liz had many chances (More than a typical poster would be given), and that might be why the ban was made permanent.

That's MY opinion on it, but impartially considering the nature of the news subforum, and the actual rules, I don't think Liz ought to be banned from NPF proper. The news subforum rules say that bans would be carried out there, if people got too rambunctious, and I think those rules ought to be followed. Ban Liz from the news subforum, but until something happens outside of it that warrents banning, don't ban her from the entire forums.


My opinion on Snakes rant:

I skipped a lot of it, but I don't think having a regime change is in order. I think the mods just need to remember: The reason you have power is because there is a community here. The reason there's a community here is because people actually like to be here, not because they're forced to be here. If mods step out of line, nothing will keep the community here, doing what they're told. Mods have no real power, and to think that you do is a lie. Mods have to please the community, not the other way around. It's a sucky job.

[Japan]

I kind of figure that people get mad, some people more often than others. No one wants to put up with getting yelled at but I guess its just a part of the human condition. If you spend any amount of time on the internet you're inevitably going to lose your shit. Its just a question of when and where and under what circumstances.

I feel that if you like the individual enough to want to continue discourse with them in the future then give them the benefit of the doubt. Liz is an ok cat for the most part. This community is small enough that you don't really need any sort of by the book enforcement in my opinion.

What this boils down to is someone with an anger management problem and someone who that person upset who just happened to be a mod. But meh, if I were the one in charge I'd probably never perma ban anyone and just find great amusement in repeatedly temp banning the worst offenders forever. Then again I'm a pretty bored guy.

(Also I'm obviously biased since I've been pretty much ban dodging for over a year or something. I mean I'm sure that by the written law anyone could just ban me at any moment for no particular reason and I really wouldn't have much to say about it.)

[Azisien]

Since this thread vaguely involves me, I am going to set aside an hour later tonight to read it! Beats the newspaper!

[A Zarkin' Frood]

What? I thought Liz was banned for expressing her opinions in disrespectful ways and presented them as though they were 100% objective "opinions" and no other point of view could ever be valid no matter how justified it may or may not be. Because that has happened a lot. And it's the reason I don't argue with Liz, no matter about what. Because there's no use arguing with people who treat the people they are discussing things with like that.

People here make it look like Liz got banned because she was mean to Fenris. No, she was completely insufferable. Again. At least she didn't tell anyone to kill themselves this time. Don't get me wrong, I like her. But most likely only because I refuse to argue with her.

Of course I'm not a mod, so maybe Fenris really was all "fackyu liz ima ban u" I don't know.

[Japan]

That's a fair point too. I mean I'm not saying there was anything inherently wrong with banning her.

Given the number of second chances she'd been given I guess it makes sense. I guess I just don't get too phased by people calling me all manner of expletives on the internet. People will start screaming racist/nazi/republican at the drop of a hat anyways.

Oh and troll is something that seems to have lost its meaning in the common vernacular. I see it thrown around way too much these days.

"Hey you're wrong, I disagree with you."

"LOL TROLLLLLOLOLOL"

[Jagos]

I probably shouldn't weigh in on this given my own feelings but I'm taking a stab at this.

Liz has had a serious history of rubbing people the wrong way. It's not like her behavior hasn't been done before. I've had my run ins and had to read Liz's tauntings where I felt that she's gone over the line but chose to ignore it and move on. So I feel that it's more or less karma here. Yes, I stopped talking to her because if I ever did, the supposed backlash is something I just didn't appreciate myself.

Having said that, it's sad to have to watch the same thing over and over. Other people have been banned much sooner for what Liz got away with in regards to berating others for perceived slights. Why? That's just uncalled for in a forum. I think the best advice I ever got here from Krylo was to move from the keyboard if I ever got angry so I don't say anything I regret. And Krylo was saying that to someone else while I read it on TWC.

How many times should this same thing repeat? The community should be more important than the individual in some circumstances and everyone knows the rules. Maybe Liz is an ok person, but after a while, it just felt like she took this forum way too seriously in a number of areas.

(Yeah, I'm biased against Liz, but that doesn't mean I ever wanted to see her banned. Maybe after a while she can come back.)

[Fenris]

What? I thought Liz was banned for expressing her opinions in disrespectful ways and presented them as though they were 100% objective "opinions" and no other point of view could ever be valid no matter how justified it may or may not be. Because that has happened a lot. And it's the reason I don't argue with Liz, no matter about what. Because there's no use arguing with people who treat the people they are discussing things with like that.

People here make it look like Liz got banned because she was mean to Fenris. No, she was completely insufferable. Again. At least she didn't tell anyone to kill themselves this time. Don't get me wrong, I like her. But most likely only because I refuse to argue with her.Her being insufferable led to me warning her, which led to her being insufferable towards me, which led to her ban.

Of course I'm not a mod, so maybe Fenris really was all "fackyu liz ima ban u" I don't know.
To be fair, this is how I communicate with everybody, all the time.

[Gregness]

No, that sounds absolutely awful. I actually prefer the current system we have where we ban someone and if someone gets butthurt about it they can make a thread after the fact. The committee making these decisions is big and full of enough internal disagreement as it is, thank you very much.

Can we at least continue the stipulation that of the person banned is the one who is butthurt about it, they're not allowed to make the thread?

Because that's a pretty sensible stipulation.

Yeah, snark it up but the idea was that one of the mod's would make the thread and present relevant facts. Basically, someone would get temp banned, and the decision to make it permanent would happen later and any discussion would happen during the period of temp-banning so you wouldn't have to deal with butthurts and blowback or whatever from the person.

But hey, like I said I actually like the atmosphere of this forum as it is for the most part, and it was just a suggestion for a minor change that might address some of what snake was talking about.

[POS Industries]

Yeah, snark it up but
No, I'm actually dead serious.

[shiney]

Effective immediately all mods are fired, and then re-hired back at half pay with no benefits.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

The argument continued, Liz was increasingly upset about Sifright pointing this out, claiming that he was telling her what her opinion was when to my recollection he just wanted to know if her opinion had changed.
I and someone else were there, telling her to calm down. She told me, Sif and that third person to kill ourselves. To slit our throats.

I'm missing a lot of details but up until that point and beyond that point nobody but Liz was saying anything like that.

Bit late to the party here, but yeah. That's when the fecal matter hit the rotating oscillating device. I was that third person and if I recall correctly it was primarily aimed at me. I jumped in at the right/wrong time. Among being called a storm of profanities that I can't exactly recall verbatim..but yeah they were quite excessive. I chocked it up to Liz being Liz and just desserts have a way of being delivered so's I carried on my usual bwizniss and got outta that mess.

Flipping a hundred shits and telling one, two, or three people to kill themselves for having different opinions about the five hundred-thousand things that pisses Liz off is beyond toe'n the line. Shouldn't have ever gotten to eight, or whatever the number is, temporary slaps on the wrist. Always been a fan of three. But that's just me. Not tellin folk how to do their job and all. Healthy happy discussion.

It really comes down to if one can't avoid pissing in another person's sandbox it's time find somewhere else to play.

[Fenris]

Liz's ban has been reduced to one month as a result of the discussion upstairs.

[Bells]

Liz's ban has been reduced to one month as a result of the discussion upstairs.

t'hell you guys doing in the attic?

[Marelo]

I for one have never had anything but fun in attics. They are partying.

[rpgdemon]

t'hell you guys doing in the attic?

Buttsex.

[Marelo]

See? Partying.

[stefan]

As someone who generally agreed with Liz' positions on the various shitstorms that occur, I have to be perfectly blunt in saying that her problem is not an overabundance of passion as it is looking for a fight, any fight.

sorry, but noone is that reactionary all the time without having a goddamn heart attack.

[Aldurin]

Fuck, I go to work and a Snake thread I'm interested in reading explodes.

The cliffnotes version as I understand it:
Liz was recently banned for reasons.
Reasons and past reasons for other bans were brought up via this thread's OP, pointing out some flaw on the mod's part (seems a bit like trying to slander the Vatican in the early 2nd millennium, but I commend your bravery).
????
Profit! Liz's ban is reduced and other crap about the mods is brought up.
Attic buttsecks

Am I correct?

[Bells]

well, if there was a powerpoint presentation, those would be the Slides handles, for sure...

[synkr0nized]

Fuck, I go to work and a Snake thread I'm interested in reading explodes.

The cliffnotes version as I understand it:
Liz was recently banned for reasons.
Reasons and past reasons for other bans were brought up via this thread's OP, pointing out some flaw on the mod's part (seems a bit like trying to slander the Vatican in the early 2nd millennium, but I commend your bravery).
????
Profit! Liz's ban is reduced and other crap about the mods is brought up.
Attic buttsecks

Am I correct?

No, as your post implies the following:
-- the staff is not open to discussion and/or unwilling to hear issues users have**
-- this thread was why what was initially listed as a perma-ban is a month-ban

As in accordance with the rules and Mod conduct threads, any initial move for a "perma-ban" is reviewed by everyone and given up to a discussion and majority vote, if necessary to resolve disputes, before it becomes a reality. Please keep that in mind, all, as we aren't currently and, as far as I am aware, don't plan on tossing those around easily.


** You may be joking around, but I take this kind of thing (i.e. official policy and being available when there are Issues and the like) very seriously.
We're not face-to-face here, so it's a little more difficult at times to judge when we mean things and when we don't ("we" here being anyone).

[Aldurin]

Yeah, I did not mean to imply that, but imply that's what I thought others were bringing up. Hence why I have a "what the hell happened?" post to make sure I'm on track. I figured it'd be better than drunkenly stumbling in with a half-informed reply to the debate.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Other suggestions for solving forum disputes:
THUNDERDOME

[Token]

As someone who generally agreed with Liz' positions on the various shitstorms that occur, I have to be perfectly blunt in saying that her problem is not an overabundance of passion as it is looking for a fight, any fight.

sorry, but noone is that reactionary all the time without having a goddamn heart attack.

I've entirely agreed with her the last two times she got banned, but the aggressiveness seems unwarranted at times. I've been just as angry the past two times, if not more so, but I was able to look at what I typed, realize I needed to cool down, and go do something else instead of posting. That being said, I'm pretty sure I have a drunk rant saved about something McThar that caught made me uncomfortable and pissed me off in the Korra thread. I entirely understand her frustration, because when it comes right down to it, no one changes anyone's mind of anything in that forum, and when it's a serious issue that is made worse by the people causing it refusing to believe it's an issue, that can make anyone want to start yelling. A lot of people in both sides of that discussion were being angry douchebags, and while I don't think she was wrong to be so pissed, not stepping back when other people started to was a mistake. From the standpoint of the feelings of members of this community being more important than trying to get people to realize that they were supporting bigotry. I'm not entirely sure it was.

tl;dr, corey is tired and thinks everyone went about that thread wrong.

[Jagos]

I've entirely agreed with her the last two times she got banned, but the aggressiveness seems unwarranted at times. I've been just as angry the past two times, if not more so, but I was able to look at what I typed, realize I needed to cool down, and go do something else instead of posting. That being said, I'm pretty sure I have a drunk rant saved about something McThar that caught made me uncomfortable and pissed me off in the Korra thread. I entirely understand her frustration, because when it comes right down to it, no one changes anyone's mind of anything in that forum, and when it's a serious issue that is made worse by the people causing it refusing to believe it's an issue, that can make anyone want to start yelling. A lot of people in both sides of that discussion were being angry douchebags, and while I don't think she was wrong to be so pissed, not stepping back when other people started to was a mistake. From the standpoint of the feelings of members of this community being more important than trying to get people to realize that they were supporting bigotry. I'm not entirely sure it was.

tl;dr, corey is tired and thinks everyone went about that thread wrong.

Here's the problem with Liz though. It happens constantly. I dunno if that's a repeated pattern or not, but Liz gets way too emotional about everything. Once she's invested in anything and someone's crossed her in a perceived negative manner, all bets are off. So you watch as she does the same thing again and again. Yet if anyone calls her out on it, she just takes the wrath on the messenger. It's pretty frustrating in a number of areas. She'll apologize about the behavior then a month later there she goes doing the same thing she was banned for.

As others are saying it's not a first time occurrence. Maybe people should have handled it better (since I didn't really pay attention to the thread, I'm just taking other's word for it.) but I don't doubt if it wasn't this time that set off a chain reaction of unfortunate events, it may have been something else down the future.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Liz has the same reaction if you say "I think we should enslave black people" as if you say "Videogames in general are badly written". In fact of all the horrendously offensive things I say in chat the one that made Liz go mental at me was the latter. That's the problem, not calling racist people racist.

[Solid Snake]

But videogames in general are badly written!

I mean sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but when the gold standard in the industry includes the likes of Call of Duty, Halo and Grand Theft Auto.

Hell, I'm not even sure if I could describe MGS as well-written and it's one of my favorite series starring one of my favorite characters. There are moments of brilliance in those scripts, but a fair majority of what's written isn't really anything special. The gameplay, the innovations, the graphics, and even the voice acting (all of which, particularly back in the era of MGS1, was unprecedented in quality) really separated it from the pack.

Oh shit did I just agree with Smarty on any subject whatsoever?

...That's a sign that it's 4:30am here and I should not be awake.

Also Mods: How long have I begged and pleaded for a magenta-text name
And y'alls were like Nnnoooooo, Snake, that's not for you
But Smarty apparently gets his name all frickin' glittered up and smexy
Smarty, of all people
I just want you to think long and hard of the sins you've committed

[Token]

Call of Duty, Halo and Grand Theft Auto.

To be fair, Halo's EU is pretty fun and engaging.

[Seil]

Effective immediately all mods are fired, and then re-hired back at half pay with no benefits.

Can I come back at severly reduced pay?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Mods, do you want me to organise a union for you?

[Satan's Onion]

Mods, do you want me to organise a union for you?

but if we get a union, we'll have fewer complaints and a way to resolve them :confused: I think I'd rather let my resentment fester until I have an excuse to burn this motha down, tbh

[Premmy]

To be fair, Halo's EU is pretty fun and engaging.

God-damn you're a nerd

[synkr0nized]

Also Mods: How long have I begged and pleaded for a magenta-text name

I can do this now, and I like playing with names and shit, so enjoy. Consider it a welcome back/congrats gift!

[Token]

God-damn you're a nerd

It's one of my better qualities.

[Ryong]

Damnit I was going to post this yesterday but my internet went down.

Effective immediately all mods are fired, and then re-hired back at half pay with no benefits.

So they're still getting paid the same, then?

great words

Yeah, going out a limb here and saying Liz probably needs therapy - not that a lot of us don't too. You don't convince people by berserking. Also, picking your battles. If you "win" a discussion because you treat your opinion as anything more than what it is and as the opinion of others as something that can be changed - and they're horrible, horrible people if they don't - then throw a tantrum it's not going to be, y'know, good publicity.

Fuck, I was friends with Liz 'til she went full-on "must fight everyone".

[Marelo]

Can I come back at severly reduced pay?

You got it, mon! In fact, severely reduced pay all around!

[shiney]

I feel I should point out that my involvement in this kerfuffle (wherein I closed the thread and entered some snarky 'fuck you' text) was done from my mobile while sitting in a theater watching a premiere and listening to somoene making a speech. It was not borne of some giant discussion in private; in fact I didn't even talk to Fenris or any other mod before I closed that thread because I would rather close something, sort out everything, and potentially re-open prior to any further action being taken. Unfortunately I did not get to it before many things occurred, and it would appear the perception afterwards was that I closed the thread to shield Fenris from criticism?

Nope, just was a hasty move aimed toward killing an escalating situation, done in a brief period when nobody was on stage.

A few notes just from my perspective, being the owner/operator of NPF:

Ultimately I bear the final responsibility of the actions any of my mods take. (This is evident from Liz's communications filling my inbox.) If NPF lives or dies because of moderator conduct, it falls on me at the end of the day, as ultimately it comes down to if I am going to hire/fire/reprimand/condone whatever my people are doing. My policies, my desires, my whatever you want to call it, end up being how this place is run. The moderator staff is far more of a democratic process than the forums as a whole, and as the owner/operator I take an extremely hands-off approach in telling my mods how to do their jobs - any one of them will definitely agree that if anything, I never run roughshod over what they want; I almost always defer to the consensus and am happy to admit when I am making a poor judgment call.

What should be taken from this though, is that when a final decision comes down, it is not the decree of shiney, or a mod getting away with it. It is a joint agreement made across the team, after usually much discussion and disagreement. It involves the input of every member - this situation had input from me, Fenris, POS, Krylo, synk, McTahr, Meister of all people, and SO at the ass end of things. (Hi SO.) Every member discussed it, Fenris offered to put his reputation on the line if we so desired, he was soundly criticized (constructively) by Krylo and POS, and an understanding was reached. This all happened 'behind closed doors' as is the phrase du jour, which is one of the things that is somewhat decried by the SnakePost? Definitely decried by Liz. Difficulty here for us is, when making decisions on events like this that are emotionally charged and of public interest, I cannot in good faith require that it is discussed in public as my mods cannot speak their minds candidly. We don't hang out behind closed doors and continuously insult whomever is the subject of a reported post, but we do have disagreements on how to handle situations and the last hting we need, ever, is having the public calling into question these discussions. Even having access without being able to post, requires my mods to worry first about perception rather than "am I doing the right thing".

Liz brought up what we did to Fifth as her primary example of why behind closed doors is a Very Bad Thing. What she and others apparently do not realize is this is not how the mod staff works any longer, nor have we for probably years now. What we (and ultimately *I*) did to Fifth was honestly deplorable, a chapter in the history of the forums that I don't care to think about much because it really reflects what kind of person I was / have the potential to be, and it was done largely in secret; Fifth found out about what happened at the same time that everyone else found out. It was public humiliation really, and turned into something that got extremely out of hand. Everything changed after that with how we did business...but what won't change is where we do business.

I don't want to be the kind of boss that ignores these things, lets others speak for me. synk has done a phenomenal job already in talking things out, I still wanted to weigh in with my own feelings though. I'm sure there's a sizable contingent of "shiney is a terrible admin" people around...oftentimes I'm a member of it. Even with a small community like this it's still not an easy job because I wonder if my people are doing the right thing, or if they are overreaching against the community, is this going to be the thing that drives the most active people away or whatever. I like running this place because I like providing a place for you guys to chat and have fun, and it gets frustrating to have my leadership called into question when someone gets mad because I'm not ever in this for the politics of things or whatever, I just want people to have fun. Someone popular gets all party pooper and someone makes a misstep in handling it and I wonder if there's going to be huge fallout, or if it will go away?

What happens when that happens? I let my mods sort it out amongst themselves because I think they are the best equipped people to make a decision and present it to me. Liz wants Fenris fired - unequivocally, instafired because of repeated transgressions. Maybe she's right. Maybe the cold hard facts would warrant that. To do that I would have to ignore what every other one of my mods says though, to take Liz's word for it, to choose to side with the person who got in trouble or caused the situation and tell the others hey, thanks for the discussion you had, that is totally in line with what we want, I had a secret discussion with Liz over email and got called a shitty admin for tolerating this so Fenris is fired.

It makes me understand why Brian tried to cut us loose a while back. He has better things to deal with than being called a shitty admin of a forum because he makes decisions (or doesn't make decisions) that upset people. I have better things to do than be called a shitty admin by someone who got banned for being a jerk, and then complains the ban wasn't warranted because the mod who banned them was being a jerk at the same time. I have better things to do than have my forum's legitimacy called into question by people because of this stuff. I don't want any of that...running things comes with a responsibility, so I cant' just up and walk away of pretend like I'm going to shut down the forum or whatever. It's not going to happen. I just get sick of....of the insinuation that we're all terrible and corrupt and assholes, simply because we are fallible human beings who don't do things perfectly right every time.

I don't know necessarily if that's what you were saying Snake, and none of the preceding post was really in reference to you...ultimately I think you're pretty ace around here. You make SnakePosts, they are a Thing indigenous to this forum, you are well-received around here and have established a firm reputation. Last thing I want to do is make you think that I'm focused on your thread or reaction to this. Honestly i just kind of started writing and let my thoughts take me.

I like just about everyone here, and at least tolerate the ones I butt heads with because I'm not a petty ad-hoc punishment kind of person. I would hope people see this in how I approach my role. I also hope though that people, some people at least, would think that I'm probably not so much a shitty admin as I'm just a guy who hosts hangout for his pals. Sorry to anyone on the receiving end of a FenrisRage, or a MeisterClose, or anyone who's ever been quoted by Krylo. Reflects poorly on me. They're fallible too.

Blah blah blah. I can do SnakePosts too. You're not that special, fucker.

[Solid Snake]

Testing

EDIT: OH FUCK YES

Forget every criticism made about the Mods forever and for everything, everyone
These Mods are the best

EDIT 2: ...But no, Shiney's post actually does demand a serious response, so I'll get serious for a sec.

I think it's easy to conflate the positions of Liz and I into a single massive source of anti-Mod rage, but that's not exactly either the goal I seeking or a true reflection of my own position.

My initial Wall of Text was really a more general critique of the situation or the 'system.' I don't think it was as strongly worded as some people have made it out to be, but whatevs.
Unfortunately, due to its timing, a lot of people have just sort of assumed that I was stating an opinion against the punishment bestowed upon Liz. And, admittingly, the rant was inspired in part by some perceived measure of injustice there. But as I tried to reiterate in that Snakepost, I didn't really know the full story of Liz's banning enough to have an objective opinion on whether Liz's behavior merited a ban. My real objective was using Liz's banning as a jumping off point to discuss a perceived issue that excessive discretion could lead Mods to apply one rule to themselves (like Fenris) and another, far stricter rule to regular ol' commoners (like Liz.)

Personally, I feel Liz should have been banned -- not permanently, but a month, which is apparently what the Mod Squad settled on, seems reasonable enough. I think even Liz feels that way.

I do agree with Liz, though, on the fact that Fenris should have been reprimanded. I think Liz takes it a bit too far in calling for his head on a platter just this instant, but objectively speaking, Liz is right to be a bit miffed. I know this may mean that I disagree with some element of the Mods' official stance on the matter, but that's cool! Reasonable people can respectfully disagree all the time without resorting to personal hostility. And, for the sake of my friendship with Fenris, I'd rather not waste more time dwelling on exactly 'what kind' of retribution or reprimand would represent 'true justice.'
And, that being said, it's entirely possible that between the rebukes in this thread and whatever words might have been said on the Super Secret Forums, Fenris may have already been sufficiently chastised to realize his mistakes and learn from them, just as I hope Liz learns from the mistakes s/he has made.

In the end, I have the real Bar to study for, to practice law in a real jurisdiction, and I'd rather not waste more time contemplating what fake legal apparatus would work best here. Still, I'll leave it by encouraging the Mods to hold themselves fully accountable for their own inappropriate behavior, just as they're holding us accountable for ours.

[Krylo]

I do agree with Liz, though, on the fact that Fenris should have been reprimanded.

There were discussions, Fenris agreed not to enter chat for awhile after any moderating he does as that unfortunate things happen when he does. There was some other discussion, as well, but the chat thing was the main thing as that really what was said and done before the chat stuff was fine. Even after it MOSTLY.

So, basically, yeah this was done.

[phil_]

Blah blah blah. I can do SnakePosts too. You're not that special, fucker.This post was two pages in OpenOffice "Word." Snake's OP was six. You have a long way to go.

[Fifthfiend]

Draw Mohammad Day really is racist as shit.

what kind of person I was

Everything changed after that with how we did business

Not really.

Nothing else to say that I haven't said before.

[Solid Snake]

This post was two pages in OpenOffice "Word." Snake's OP was six. You have a long way to go.

No one can defeat the Snake in Snakeposting.

[shiney]

Posts longer than Snake's may result in challenging his status and him being dethroned.

As for fifth, we'll agree to disagree...except in the part of nothing to say that hasn't been said before.

Edit: serious response to Snake, I wanted to sort of clarify, I started out responding to your post and then kind of went off on one. The vast majority of my response was unrelated to what you'd actually said. I feel that synk and others addressed your points better than I could so I just sort of stole the opportuity to be wordy about how I feel about things.

[Bells]

Draw Mohammad Day really is racist as shit.

Not trying to stir the pot or anything like that at all, but... why? Mohammed is the Muslin prophet, and a central figure of Muslin faith. If by Racist you mean Race-ism... that connects to Ethnicity, and being of Muslim faith is not really an Ethnic background, is a Theological background, it's faith, religion, not race... So, wouldn't be "Bigotry" instead of Racism?

Actually... and i'm not saying you're doing that, or that Liz did that, at least not with conscientiousness anyway... Thinking of everyone that lives in that area of the world as being automatically of Muslim faith, isn't that actually Racist?!

I'm asking cause i'm honestly curious.

[shiney]

I would say not racist, but bigoted. It is nothing short of a direct insult to a large faith, purely because zealots and extremists of that faith do terrible things.

"Hey you know how your holy scripture says don't do this? (Or common law of your religion, whatever.) Well, we're going to do it, because the horriblest people who attribute themselves to your faith are in fact, horrible people. So this will learn all of you."

There is no moral high ground in this argument if you are defending the practice of intentionally insulting all the members of a religion.

So, wouldn't be "Bigotry" instead of Racism?

Derp saw that a moment too late.

[Terex4]

What Synk pointed out on the first page was my knee-jerk reaction to Liz being (until recently) perma-banned. Given my on and off posting habits here, things from my point of view are most certainly skewed but, it seems that Liz has been banned awfully frequently over her time here, most often for the same behavior. It really was a matter of time before the "Rule of Man" yielded to the "Rule of Law" cited in Synk's post.

Really, I don't think the ban dodge even contributed that much, if at all, to the decision. Naturally, I assume that based on what I've seen which, of course, does not include the mod forum.

The problem with the "Rule of Law" philosophy is that, on the internet, violations are largely a matter of interpretation. We have written rules for violations but oftentimes whether or not something falls into one of those categories falls under the umbrella of the "Rule of Man".

Hell, I didn't expect the ban to remain permanent in the end, which it isn't. Judging from the other posts here, I get the feel that folks here are really in more of an "intervention" mindset over Liz's abrasive behavior, perhaps with a dash of Fenris-needs-to-leave-Liz-to-someone-else on the side.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the "Rule of Law" vs "Rule of Man" but considering how I read Snake's post, if the "Rule of Man" didn't apply to our legal system in that each Judge makes interpretations of the law and crimes allegedly committed, Lawyers wouldn't be necessary to guide the process.

Just my 2 cents.

Also, I go on vacation for a week and a half and this is what happens? This is why you can't have the house to yourselves on weekends.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I draw jesus all the time but I only ever succeed in pissing off the iconoclasts. And I'm well over 1000 years too late :(

[Solid Snake]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the "Rule of Law" vs "Rule of Man" but considering how I read Snake's post, if the "Rule of Man" didn't apply to our legal system in that each Judge makes interpretations of the law and crimes allegedly committed, Lawyers wouldn't be necessary to guide the process.

Naaah, you've misinterpreted.
Or I did a poor job of explaining the terminology.

The "Rule of Law" and the "Rule of Man" are terms generally tossed about in comparative international legal courses -- the types that analyze the various legal structures in various countries.

Most western countries -- civil law or common law, including the US, UK, France, Germany, etc. -- essentially are "Rule of Law" jurisdictions. The existence of some degree of discretion, or judicial interpretation, is implicit in every one, but "Rule of Law" generally infers that said discretion is substantially curtailed by the existence of objective rules (in statutes, case precedents, etc.) that clearly define what can and cannot be punished.

There's two types of "Rule of Law:" Procedural and Substantive. Procedural is the stuff I learned in Civil and Criminal Procedure classes. Think the Fifth Amendment, as well as every jurisdiction's statutes dictating the procedures under which parties advance litigation. There are rules defining the limits of Discovery, which evidence is admissible and which is not, what the judge decides and what a jury decides, how and when a complaint must be issued, etc.

Substantive is, like: "Battery" is a tort with a definition that includes required elements (such as the fact that you actually have to make physical contact with the victim; merely scaring the victim from afar into physical injury is not "battery" but may be "assault.") Statutes and common law precedent (in the U.S. and U.K.) define what the required elements are. If the required elements are not met, a judge or jury can't find the alleged tortfeasor guilty of battery, even if the judge or jury thinks that the guy (or gal) is totally a jerk and did something wrong and deserves to be punished.

So we are a "Rule of Law" jurisdiction, and the fact that judges and juries still have a small degree of discretion in, for example, solving factual ambiguities or discerning the degree of punishment to inflict doesn't change the fact that there are concrete rules that regulate the process and provide notice to citizens regarding what behaviors will result in litigation and what behaviors are acceptable.

"Rule of Man" is most often associated with authoritarian regimes (in the bad examples) and the Confucian ideal in Chinese legal tradition (in the good examples.) There, complete discretion -- or at least, substantial discretion -- is vested in individuals perceived to be capable of discerning when violations have occurred.

The difference is that in "Rule of Man" societies, the men -- and not the laws -- define what constitutes a violation and can basically do so at whims.

So, say I scare you into falling off a cliff, but do not actually instigate any physical contact. I don't push you off the cliff, but I scream "Boo!" with the deliberate intent of frightening you into losing your footing. In an ideal "Rule of Man" society, the judge can say fuck the traditional definition of battery and find me guilty of committing battery anyway. Essentially, the rules can be bent a bit because we "trust" the benevolence and intelligence of the administrators to do what's right.

Unfortunately, in a less-than-ideal "Rule of Man" society, what can often happen is, for example, a definition of corruption that encompasses all cases of corruption that the government wants to prosecute, but does not encompass any case of corruption that the government deems desirable because it benefits the party in power.

In practice, the cynical legal realists out there would probably say that even "Rule of Law" systems have a bit too much "Rule of Man" discretion in them. After all, despite all our statutes and laws, the 'right' actors can still get away with corruption and not face prosecution because enough loopholes exist to avoid the just outcome.
Still, the distinction's important in theory, even if it doesn't often work out that way because humanity sucks.


S-S-S-SNAKEPOST AWAY

EDIT: REGARDING DRAW MOHAMMED DAY AND RACISM:

It is racist, but it's racist from the perspective of the motivation of many -- not ALL, but MANY -- of the participants in Draw Mohammed Day, not the perspective of the offended members of the Muslim faith themselves.

Yes, many Muslims are in fact East Asian (Indonesia), Sub-Saharan African, or Caucasian (Bosnia) in ethnic descent. They'd be equally offended by a picture of Mohammed, presumably.

But most the Europeans and Americans involving themselves in this bullshittery? They're too ignorant to perceive Islam as anything but Arabic. And their goal is to offend Arabs.
This would perhaps be easiest to display simply by showing a Draw Mohammed participant an image of a Caucasian Muslim and an image of an Arabic Coptic Christian. I'm betting the participant would knee-jerkingly assume that the Arabic Coptic Christian would be the target of said shenanigans, and would subsequently view the movement directed as a criticism of the perceived failings of the Arab, even though the Arab wouldn't actually be offended at all.

Given their motivations, it's right to call their participation -- perhaps even the movement itself -- as motivated by racism. Because a lot of hatred towards Islam is really just directed, as of right now, towards Arabs, and a lot of that hatred can't even distinguish between Arabic Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. To the average racist asshole, every Arab is Muslim, and no non-Arab is Muslim, and every Arab is the enemy, because fuck those guys for 9-11 or some shit.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Snake
really quick here, just one thing:
Do you have any idea how hard it is to read that and take it seriously when there's a gif of Pinkie Pie and Applejack right there?

[shiney]

Easy. Snake is Pinkie Pie, and NPF is Applejack.

Funny note I just saw that episode on Saturday. <3

[A Zarkin' Frood]

The problem with Snakeposts is ever since he became a huge-ass brony I can't take them seriously anymore because I imagine them being spoken out loud in the voice of Pinkie Pie. Alternatively: Sung.

[POS Industries]

So, wouldn't be "Bigotry" instead of Racism?
See, this is where I feel bad because the night the thread started I thought, "You know, I should mention this because the blanket term of 'bigotry' is really more apt here" but I had faith in everyone to not have a big shitfit over it because I am an idiot. Then I mentioned it to Liz after I got home from work the next day to see that y'all had a big shitfit over it and Liz ended up banned and she was all, "Oh wow, yeah, that would have worked a lot better."

So, um, my bad?

Like, "bigoted" works great because it totally cuts off the whole "naw man I don't hate brown people, just their stupid suicide bombing moon god religion" excuse before it can get going.

Though I'm actually on the side of it being totes racist because, come on now, do you think anyone involved in shit like "Draw Muhammed Day" pictures any Muslims at all looking like this:

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o159/posindustries/genericwhitefamily.jpg

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Hell no.

[Terex4]

That is much clearer, thanks Snake.

[BitVyper]

I just wanna say that since Liz was banned, I've opened up chat a few times to find people rejoicing that they don't have to walk on PC eggshells anymore. If Liz going off the deep end is only thing that keeps people from really throwing that racist, sexist bigotry of theirs around, then fuck it, give Liz an open license to be as angry as she wants. I mean don't get me wrong; I'm still kind of peeved at Liz for some crap she pulled in a discussion we had awhile back, but if putting up with that is the sacrifice I have to make so that everyone else thinks about what they're posting then welp, I guess I'll just deal with that.

[synkr0nized]

I just wanna say that since Liz was banned, I've opened up chat a few times to find people rejoicing that they don't have to walk on PC eggshells anymore. If Liz going off the deep end is only thing that keeps people from really throwing that racist, sexist bigotry of theirs around, then fuck it, give Liz an open license to be as angry as she wants.

I'm pretty sure this is likely not what anyone meant, but, I mean, yes, NPF, don't show to me that Liz is the only thing keeping your asshole side in check.

[Magus]

I just want to say that is the true acme of a Snakepost. I read the first three or four paragraphs, scrolled down and saw something regarding Rule of Man v. Rule of Law and I was just like "No. There is no way this will ever be worth my time. Ever."

I commend you on the length of this, Snake. My hat is off to you.

EDIT: Well in regards to Liz's banning how could they not ban Liz? I assumed she meant to get banned or she wouldn't have done that.

That topic devolved incredibly quickly anyway and was going to get shut in about one or two more posts besides.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

I just wanna say that since Liz was banned, I've opened up chat a few times to find people rejoicing that they don't have to walk on PC eggshells anymore.

Pretty much boils down to any topic under the sun could set off a drama tsar bomba at the slightest perceived provocation. Often gets referenced, but the Mass Effect thread is a golden example. If one's opinion doesn't align with Liz it was inherently wrong. No debate. No chance to explain. Just outright wrong and if you stick to your guns the rage knife gets twisted further and you're an idiototic racist hatemongering oppressive colorful expletive so-and-so.

That's what is being alluded to. I've expressed I'm sick of it, because I like all you's folks and don't want to have to second guess anything I say because it'll cause a flipout. I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, except when it pretty much would always devolve into a 'take verbal abuse or walk away' situation.

[shiney]

The true measure of a Snakepost can be summed up as "A post that is too long to read but I still feel compelled to answer".

At least, to me.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

A true Snakepost is a post I don't read but still rep.

I mean it's huuuge, so the opinions expressed within must be huge too.

[MuMu]

A true Snakepost is a post I don't read but still rep.

I mean it's huuuge, so the opinions expressed within must be huge too.

"Rep and tl;dr your posts! Your posts are huge! That means you have huge opinions!"

[Bells]

I mean it's huuuge, so the opinions expressed within must be huge too.

That combined with your Current Forum Name is just... the best.

[Amake]

Hey Snake have you ever posted a post that was so huge it had to be continued on the next post due to the 50 000 characters limit? Cause I have. :smug:

[Premmy]

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9300000/Oh-Snap-the-daily-show-9352783-152-184.gif

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I just wanna say that since Liz was banned, I've opened up chat a few times to find people rejoicing that they don't have to walk on PC eggshells anymore. If Liz going off the deep end is only thing that keeps people from really throwing that racist, sexist bigotry of theirs around, then fuck it, give Liz an open license to be as angry as she wants. I mean don't get me wrong; I'm still kind of peeved at Liz for some crap she pulled in a discussion we had awhile back, but if putting up with that is the sacrifice I have to make so that everyone else thinks about what they're posting then welp, I guess I'll just deal with that.

The problem is that walking on egg shells around LIz means having an opinion different from Liz upon literally any topic imaginable.

[Sifright]

The problem is that walking on egg shells around LIz means having an opinion different from Liz upon literally any topic imaginable.

^- nod-

[A Zarkin' Frood]

That combined with your Current Forum Name is just... the best.

Oh, and never mind the fact that Snake is still called Solid Snake.

But yeah, actually it was a Doom Comic joke, Mumu did it better, though.

[Osterbaum]

The problem is that walking on egg shells around LIz means having an opinion different from Liz upon literally any topic imaginable.
I like Liz, but this is mostly true Im afraid.

e: or it often feels that way, in any case

[POS Industries]

I'm just going to to note that Liz more often flies off the handle less at people who disagree with her and more with people who disagree with her using really terrible arguments to back up their opinions.

I'm not saying this excuses the outbursts and I'm sure many of you think that you presented your ideas in an intelligent, reasonable, and downright gentlemanly fashion, but trust me I was there and you didn't.

[Sifright]

I'm just going to to note that Liz more often flies off the handle less at people who disagree with her and more with people who disagree with her using really terrible arguments to back up their opinions.

I'm not saying this excuses the outbursts and I'm sure many of you think that you presented your ideas in an intelligent, reasonable, and downright gentlemanly fashion, but trust me I was there and you didn't.

I do hope that isn't in reference to the ME3 stuff, and is talking about other things.

[POS Industries]

I do hope that isn't in reference to the ME3 stuff, and is talking about other things.
Liz shouldn't have told you to kill yourself over it, but you did do a pretty bad job making your case.

And it's neither the first time you've done a bad job making your case nor, I assume, will it be the last.

[Sifright]

Yea see thats funny because I recall you specifically stating you paid 0 attention to the whole thing until Liz and K-resh started throwing around full caps. I really wish I could actually get a look at the logs to see how this is my fault though,

Edit: because like your basically saying that liz simply over reacted to me and that being annoyed with me was warranted.

edit edit: at least thats how it comes across to me

[POS Industries]

I said I wasn't paying attention when Liz told you to kill yourself (which, once again, I will point out that she shouldn't have done), but you know I was paying attention to the large share of the discussion because I, not being someone that actually cares about Mass Effect, was asking questions to clarify what the reasoning was that people on your side of the argument were taking.

It was not very convincing, and while my attention was divided between a couple different things, when I'd check it didn't seem like you were making your point well at all. I don't know if that was a failure on your part or if that side of the argument really is just that bad that even your masterful debate skills couldn't make it sound good, but it sure didn't work out well for you either way.

[Sifright]

Was an edit: Now a new post because it fits the discussion better that way

Triple Edit: how is the view "It's not nice to laugh at people who feel they got screwed because they trusted information from the project producer who wrote the final scenes of the game when he states the game will be one way and then it's completely the opposite" If thats all it takes to start you getting your haterade on then I think there are problems.

like the start of the conversation was liz being gleeful about people getting shafted over the ending and being disappointed. 'because they should have known better'


EDIT: not very convincing? How wasn't it convicing marketing and production team lied their asses off about content literally a month before the game came out. Explicitly stated shit that ran contrary to what was in the game. Between my self Skweeb and K-resh we showed perfect evidence in the form of links to images and articles and we articulated the point that Yea the production and marketing team for bioware lied their asses off and being gleeful and laughing at people who got screwed by it isn't cool.

[POS Industries]

Because they should have known better because you never trust information from the project producer.

[Sifright]

Because they should have known better because you never trust information from the project producer.

So that makes it okay to be happy and laugh at people that feel they got screwed? Also if you can't trust the person who literally helped write the final moments of the game to be honest about how it plays out when advertising or marketing the game then clearly law suits for false advertisement should be a thing. It's beyond ridiculous that lieing about content and function is allowed.

Double edit: Also that clearly warrants becoming angry about people saying that Yea the only mistake liz made was telling people to slit their own throats.:raise:

[POS Industries]

So that makes it okay to be happy and laugh at people that feel they got screwed?
Over the ending of a video game? Yes.

Over something that actually matters to people's lives? No.

Also that clearly warrants becoming angry about people saying that Yea the only mistake liz made was telling people to slit their own throats.:raise:
And you aren't making this argument from a point of anger yourself?

Like, I don't want this to come down to the two of us just going "U MAD" at each other, but it's not like either side of this discussion is based in cold, emotionless Vulcan logic. Except mine, I guess, but I firmly believe that my opinion on ME3 shouldn't have any bearing one way or the other what with never having played any of them.

[Sifright]

Over the ending of a video game? Yes.

Over something that actually matters to people's lives? No.


And you aren't making this argument from a point of anger yourself?

Like, I don't want this to come down to the two of us just going "U MAD" at each other, but it's not like either side of this discussion is based in cold, emotionless Vulcan logic. Except mine, I guess, but I firmly believe that my opinion on ME3 shouldn't have any bearing one way or the other what with never having played any of them.

I actually wasn't angry during that conversation. I was incredulous the entire way through because I couldn't believe how any one could take that kind of view point and not be trolling.

Edit: Oh you mean now? No i'm at work at kind of to busy to angry :P I'm actually kind of rushed and really shouldn't be spending any time on here!

[POS Industries]

I actually wasn't angry during that conversation. I was incredulous the entire way through because I couldn't believe how any one could take that kind of view point and not be trolling.
So you started out dismissing someone's opinion because you believed they couldn't possibly disagree with your own opinion without being a troll, especially someone whose major fault is being entirely too passionately sincere about everything?

I certainly can't see how that would piss off anybody.

Oh you mean now? No i'm at work at kind of to busy to angry :P I'm actually kind of rushed and really shouldn't be spending any time on here!
Then by all means, man, get back to work! The last thing this place needs is to be party to anyone getting fired.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

So you started out dismissing someone's opinion because you believed they couldn't possibly disagree with your own opinion without being a troll


This is every Liz post ever written though.
That Mass Effect thread was terrible but I wasn't talking about that cause I didn't read it. I'm talking about stuff like this:
Smarty: "I think videogames are badly written".
Liz: "Fuck you you stupid little troll. Ignore".
You can't criticise people for not having intelligent discussions with Liz. It's impossible to have intelligent discussions with Liz because she will just bitch and scream at you from the first post. Sometimes it is justified when someone is saying something pretty cuntish and I tend to agree with Liz a good proportion of the time but its not always justified and it makes it impossible to have good discussions.

[POS Industries]

Smarty: "I think videogames are badly written".
Liz: "Fuck you you stupid little troll. Ignore".
In fairness to Liz, we all do that to you. What with your history of blatant trolling and all.

[shiney]

Let's leave the ME3 discussion dead as it was, and maybe turn this less into a Liz-based referendum. The last thing I want is for Liz to come back and find everyone talking shit or whatever. Liz gets different results with different people; this is an effect of being a polarizing individual. Doesn't mean we should be critiquing her personality while she's banned.

[POS Industries]

^Fully agree with this.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I totally never troll. It's not my fault pretty much all of you dudes are up the ass of whichever rich white fuck you happened to be reading last.

[CABAL49]

You guys get so mad at Smarty over nothing. Being mad at Smarty is like being mad at a puppy for pissing on the rug. Just give Smarty a few belly rubs and you'll feel better.

[Osterbaum]

I'm just going to to note that Liz more often flies off the handle less at people who disagree with her and more with people who disagree with her using really terrible arguments to back up their opinions.

I'm not saying this excuses the outbursts and I'm sure many of you think that you presented your ideas in an intelligent, reasonable, and downright gentlemanly fashion, but trust me I was there and you didn't.
Well I'm sure you think that, but I'm assuming you more often than not agree with Liz's position and thus disagree whomevers arguments you are criticizing here. Even when I agree with Liz, which incidentally is more often than not, she often comes across as quite hostile and seems to have a tendency of blowing stuff out of proportion.

The thing is that it's often quite difficult to correctly guess someones tone from their post and I think quite a few of us here (if not everyone) tends to guess wrong in quite a few instances and this often leads to hostility, insults etc.

I'm all on board the idea that people with just outright stupid and wrong opinions don't always deserve to be treated nicely. But who exactly get's to decide what is a stupid enough opinion? It might be pretty obvious in some cases, like obvious bigotry or blatant racism, but quite a few times I remember reading put downs of someones post/opinion that I think where too harsh considering the subject matter.

Let's leave the ME3 discussion dead as it was, and maybe turn this less into a Liz-based referendum. The last thing I want is for Liz to come back and find everyone talking shit or whatever. Liz gets different results with different people; this is an effect of being a polarizing individual. Doesn't mean we should be critiquing her personality while she's banned.
Let's leave the ME3 stuff out of this thread, I agree. But I think everyone should be free to discuss Liz seeing as she is quite a big part of the discussion here, as long as nobody says anything they couldn't say to Liz in person or starts outright insulting her.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I agree with the stupid opinions rule. Cause that means I get to bitch at you dudes after pretty much every posts.
Except the ones going I agree with Smarty of course.

[POS Industries]

Even when I agree with Liz, which incidentally is more often than not, she often comes across as quite hostile and seems to have a tendency of blowing stuff out of proportion.
And that's a valid point. I have, over the years, been in that position on many an occasion, myself.

I'm just saying that there is a rosier picture some people are presenting of their own behavior than what actually occurred in reality, and I'm in no rush to run to them, grab them up in my arms, wipe the tears from their eyes, and tell them that they're safe now and everything's going to be okay.

[Osterbaum]

Yeah no, none of us are perfect at arguing and the internet environment doesn't necessarily make things better. Liz's blowing up has been, if not justified, understandable more than once.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I wish someone would hold me :(

And now we get to the secret at the heart of it all.

[McTahr]

^Fully agree with this.

This takes on a whole new meaning when one has forum display settings chronologically reversed.

I'm going to have to agree with Shiney, in that we should let sleeping dogs lie. It's hard to make an effort to move forward, should that be the desire post-banning period, when everyone is too busy dwelling on the past and airing their laundry.

E: Also I'm pretty sure insulting/talking down to another member in earnest is against the rules, banned or no. So keep your discussions constructive.

[rpgdemon]

Could I make the constructive suggestion that Fenris not be the one to deal with Liz in the future? I've brought this up before, but it seems like the two have heated interactions way more often than anyone else, and it ultimately ends with Fenris pulling the trigger because he has that power, then Liz complaining that she was baited into it.

[Fenris]

Could I make the constructive suggestion that Fenris not be the one to deal with Liz in the future? I've brought this up before, but it seems like the two have heated interactions way more often than anyone else, and it ultimately ends with Fenris pulling the trigger because he has that power, then Liz complaining that she was baited into it.

tbh this is a combination of factors - mostly I'm usually the admin that's online, so I see the things that go down the most.

Unfortunately I also have my own personality defects that line up with Liz's in that special way that gets all the blood boiling when we come to a disagreement.

[Marc v4.0]

Then I would suggest exercising restraint and just closing the topic outright with a disclaimer that the topic needs a bit of a cooldown and then ask someone else to take a look at it when they get the chance.


'Moving-forward' would be all well and good, McTahr, but at a certain point it becomes quite therapeutic for the community to air their frustrations, in a civil manner, in regards to a member that has so completely cultivated their a hostile and combative persona that it has become their identifying point.

I'm not going to say I have always made the best arguments or didn't deserve to be told I was making a terrible point, but Liz takes it too far, holds grudges, and won't relinquish an argument until the horse is glue and no one cares anymore.

[McTahr]

Fenny: I think it was discussed in the mod forum in the past that it's generally best in those situations to try and contact another mod, especially when you're involved. Granted this is coming from probably the least contact-able mod because I forget AIM and stuff exists but hey...

Marc: I'm not going to directly say you guys can't do this without further agreement from moderators, because maybe it is what the community needs, but don't say anything you wouldn't want to see coming back to a forum after a potentially embarrassing period. If all Liz sees coming back is negativity, well, there's not much incentive to invest in the community all over again.

E: Also, per something Shiney mentioned, the reason I'm so against it isn't because necessarily it's just a dishfest on Liz, because certainly things do need to be said.

It's because it's a dishfest on Liz, and she has no means to defend herself or even respond.

[Solid Snake]

The problem with Snakeposts is ever since he became a huge-ass brony I can't take them seriously anymore because I imagine them being spoken out loud in the voice of Pinkie Pie. Alternatively: Sung.

You make this sound as if it's a bad thing.
(I really should use some of my newfound legal monies to hire Andrea Libman to Pinkie-speak all my posts.)

RE: Liz being offended by what's written here and whatnot; I do feel bad insofar as there are some elements of this conversation that I wish Liz had a voice in -- and there have been a couple moments where I've tried to advance elements of arguments she's made to me, except perhaps with a tad more diplomacy and less vitriol.

Still, I'm not really sure if Liz can complain that much when she was originally so eager for me to create the thread in the first place. I don't think Liz wanted me to type everything I wrote; we haven't completely agreed on everything. BUT, Liz did want this all to be discussed. I'm not sure whether she wanted it discussed in the exact manner I did, but she did want the conversation to happen. And a natural consequence of desiring a discussion that airs out dirty laundry is going to be, well, the airing of dirty laundry.

That all being said, there have totally been moments where Liz was 100% right on an issue being discussed, and 100% justified with her anger. That's what often makes it so difficult to respond to Liz when she's irate, because you know she's being completely serious and you also know she generally has a pretty good head on her shoulders.

I just wish she more often felt assured that we were all, in fact, altogether decent people and good friends. Sometimes Liz's impulse to perceive everyone around her as The Enemy just feels an ingrained kneejerk reaction from someone who genuinely does not feel appreciated or accepted in everyday life. And that's when I wonder whether isolating or ostracizing her really has the intended effect or if it merely reinforces that narrative to her.

But I'm her friend, and I guess it's a friend's job to worry like that.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

You make this sound as if it's a bad thing.
(I really should use some of my newfound legal monies to hire Andrea Libman to Pinkie-speak all my posts.)

Well, if you can actually get her to read your posts I'm gonna listen to them AND start watching MLP.

[Nikose Tyris]

I believe there is a difference between justified anger, and the tone/words/actions, in combination, that have been witnessed. She is sometimes difficult to approach with even when constructive criticism is asked for, not even for her responses, but for the expectation of a severe negative response to it.

Thus our established viewpoints taint our interactions with her as well, and it is difficult to move past that. (Especially when we sometimes end up forcing our expectations to come true via pissing her off.)

[Solid Snake]

Vagina, you go watch MLP: FiM this instant.

Also is it okay if I call you Vagina?

[Marc v4.0]

Honestly, Liz is a good lass with a heart in the right place, I just don't enjoy debate with her or watching it happen with others.

[Premmy]

Also is it okay if I call you Vagina?
Only if he gets a pink name.

[Bells]

Vagy for close friends

[Aldurin]

Vagy for close friends

Really? I would have sworn it was Vag-Vag.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Only if he gets a pink name.

He could call me whatever he wants without that, but if it nets me a pink name I'm not saying no to that. Although i'd prefer red.

Close friends call Vaginatron XXX

[Token]

Although i'd prefer red.

I hate myself so much for all the awful jokes that sprang to my mind.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Thinking of menstruation jokes is a sign of a healthy mind. Dunno what you sick fuck were thinking, though.

[MuMu]

I'm appalled they went with "This Is a Vagina Joke" instead of "Mike Litoris".

[Satan's Onion]

Vagina Joke: That's right, he's the guy--the guy with the Good Attitude Towards Menstruation. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cLHBwvMVow)

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Vote to change thread title to "Let's have a civil discussion about menstruation".

[synkr0nized]

Well, on that note...