Proposed rule against discussing whether or not you want to rape anyone's children

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Carol Stream

No, there aren't.

[Mod note]Enough. Instigation rarely corrects the problem you claim to find so annoying, and it ceased being even mildly amusing after the first 10 times or so. [/note]

[Ken S.]

Victim blaming psychopath.

[WednesdayAddams]

That goes for you, too, Ken. So far this board has been relatively free of 7th grade drama. Mainly because our posters are adults capable of recognizing when things tip toward too stupid to continue. We're there. The topic itself is important. The sniping is old.

[Carol Stream]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

[Mod note]Enough. Instigation rarely corrects the problem you claim to find so annoying, and it ceased being even mildly amusing after the first 10 times or so. [/note]

What rule has been broken? Please, do tell.

[Panacea]

BOX! BOX! BOX!

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Carol Stream

What rule has been broken? Please, do tell.

This ain't the Durp. They can box anyone they feel like. Rules are for Little Ed.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Carol Stream

What rule has been broken? Please, do tell.

Did I say you broke a rule? No. I said stop instigating. It's the same thing as holding your finger half an inch from your sibling's face and saying 'I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. ' I told you to knock it off. It's distracting from the conversation. If you continue, THEN you will have broken a rule. And I'll Box you.

[Carol Stream]

Originally Posted by Wolf Larsen

This ain't the Durp. They can box anyone they feel like. Rules are for Little Ed.

Well, of course they can. But DioKen is the one who's trolling. Why not box him?

[Annoying Retard Nonny]

Originally Posted by Carol Stream

Well, of course they can. But DioKen is the one who's trolling. Why not box him?

God you're stupid.

[severe delays]

How did the child's personal details magically find their way onto the internet?

[Carol Stream]

Originally Posted by Annoying Retard Nonny

God you're stupid.

Why are you calling God "stupid"? He prolly doesn't appreciate it.

[Darmund]

You guys do realize Snuffles is MC right? Dude's a total psycho.

ETA: And I'm sure he's tickled pink to have caused all this outrage.

[Veb]

[mod]Issuing rules to protect posters against possible hurt feelings or even sincere outrage is a sure formula for an unworkable clusterfuck. Everybody has a sore spot. Odds are somebody, sometime, will bump against it, accidentally or by design.

If it's by design, and it keeps happening, then that's stalkery crap. Of course a lot depends on how much the stalkee feeds the drama. Any way it happens, it has limited appeal to onlookers even as a gawking "can you believe that shit?" disbelief that adults insist on behaving like morons.

There's an ignore function. Use it, if you have to. Show up just to behave a dickwad and we'll let you be as obnoxious as you want in The Box, after your potential for recreational mockery is exhausted. Post actual contact information and we boot your ass.

Seems to me to cover it.[/mod]

[Carol Stream]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Did I say you broke a rule? No. I said stop instigating. It's the same thing as holding your finger half an inch from your sibling's face and saying 'I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. ' I told you to knock it off. It's distracting from the conversation. If you continue, THEN you will have broken a rule. And I'll Box you.

What conversation? This thread is about a proposed rule. According to Wolf Larsen, there aren't any rules. So which is it?

[Annoying Retard Nonny]

Originally Posted by Carol Stream

Why are you calling God "stupid"? He prolly doesn't appreciate it.

He deserves it for putting the trachea so close to the esophagus. What the hell was He thinking?

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Carol Stream

What conversation? This thread is about a proposed rule. According to Wolf Larsen, there aren't any rules. So which is it?

Snuffles is a loser.
Dio is a loser.
You are a loser.

I say box 'em all!

[Carol Stream]

Originally Posted by Veb

[mod]Issuing rules to protect posters against possible hurt feelings or even sincere outrage is a sure formula for an unworkable clusterfuck. Everybody has a sore spot. Odds are somebody, sometime, will bump against it, accidentally or by design.

If it's by design, and it keeps happening, then that's stalkery crap. Of course a lot depends on how much the stalkee feeds the drama. Any way it happens, it has limited appeal to onlookers even as a gawking "can you believe that shit?" disbelief that adults insist on behaving like morons.

There's an ignore function. Use it, if you have to. Show up just to behave a dickwad and we'll let you be as obnoxious as you want in The Box, after your potential for recreational mockery is exhausted. Post actual contact information and we boot your ass.

Seems to me to cover it.[/mod]

I agree. So why did your fellow traveler "wenz" issue her stupid mode note?

[Veb]

Originally Posted by Carol Stream

I agree. So why did your fellow traveler "wenz" issue her stupid mode note?

Maybe because you fall under the "only show up to behave like a dickwad" part?

[Carol Stream]

Originally Posted by Veb

Maybe because you fall under the "only show up to behave like a dickwad" part?

You mean like Dio's entire posting history?

[Carol Stream]

.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Carol Stream

What conversation? This thread is about a proposed rule. According to Wolf Larsen, there aren't any rules. So which is it?

[mod note]#5. Please stop derailing the thread. I would also strongly suggest reading the entire page, most particularly the last sentence:

Please note that these rules are merely intended to give posters a sense of the boundaries: we have no interest in your strict constructionist interpretations of the wording.

We do not play the semantics game here. Your next post should be on topic.[/note]

[Carol Stream]

On topic then, why would anyone, even his brother, think there should be special rules for the DioShow?

[WednesdayAddams]

While Cricetus suggested it specifically because of the current situation, if we were to implement such a rule it would apply to all posters. I'm not in favor of such a rule; I think 'don't be an ass or we'll Box or ban you' is sufficient, but we're still discussing it.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by severe delays

How did the child's personal details magically find their way onto the internet?

Some cunt like you went researching.

[Darmund]

I would like to propose a rule that anybody who wants to respond to Carol Stream must first punch themselves in the face really hard.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

Some cunt like you went researching.

For someone not wanting to weigh in, you sure have a way of making your presence known.

Might I suggest using a sock in the future?

[Ken S.]

I have not expressed an opinion on the rules.

[WednesdayAddams]

FFS.

[Carol Stream]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

While Cricetus suggested it specifically because of the current situation, if we were to implement such a rule it would apply to all posters. I'm not in favor of such a rule; I think 'don't be an ass or we'll Box or ban you' is sufficient, but we're still discussing it.

Dio has caused major drama on at least three message boards that I am aware of, moreso than even Opal or jarbabyj. Does the "don't be an ass" rule apply to him?

[WednesdayAddams]

Yes, and if he threatened to rape someone's child if that rule went into effect, he would be Boxed, too. I don't care what he did on other boards. I care about what he does/says here.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

I have not expressed an opinion on the rules.

Agreed but please let's keep this thread to discussing rules and/or guidelines. We can take yet another discussion about the incident that sparked this thread elsewhere.

[mlerose]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

Some cunt like you went researching.

Really? You're really going to call sev_delays a cunt? I mean, you're perfectly within your rights to do that here, but I don't see how it's warranted.

I think her posts in this thread have been perfectly reasonable, and I'm almost positive she, like most of us here at the geeb, couldn't care less about what happens on the nonny forums.

Personally, I don't understand why this thread even exists. It's clear to me that anyone actually advocating child rape or posting the personal details of others is violating the one rule we have and will be boxed. I also don't understand why this miasma of BS has followed you here, dioken, but I could certainly do without thread titles referring to child rape in a forum not dedicated to utter shite like the pit or the box.

[Darmund]

Ooh, and also! We should have one of those signs like at the amusement park that say "you must be this tall to ride" but it should be a picture of Ken and it should say "you must be this drunk to post here."

[Carol Stream]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Yes, and if he threatened to rape someone's child if that rule went into effect, he would be Boxed, too. I don't care what he did on other boards. I care about what he does/says here.

Nobody threatened to rape anyone's children.

[WednesdayAddams]

Enjoy the Box.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Darmund

Ooh, and also! We should have one of those signs like at the amusement park that say "you must be this tall to ride" but it should be a picture of Ken and it should say "you must be this drunk to post here."

I was about to reply to CS but instead of punching myself in the face I directed my reply here.

Thanks D!

[hajario]

In case it wasn't clear, Ken and Carol Stream are both in the Box until tomorrow.

[Veb]

[non-mod interjection]Surreal little piece of street theater. Not exactly a testament to the benefits of self-reflection either. "Gosh! If I behave like X then maybe people will think of me like...wait a minute...almost got it...uh...X?" [/n-m i]

[wring]

I don't think a rule for this is necessary, course I didn't think it was necessary to point out to some one that saying "I hope your mom dies in a fire" (paraphrased) to some one whose mom had just, like, died in a fire, would be necessary, either.

OTOH, I'd also point out that pointing to your own personal pressure points and then expecting that everyone, including folks who don't like you, would refrain from poking at them is pretty foolish. And often results in seeing that particular insult where it wasn't either. (as in Guin's post about being 'against' child rape - why on earth would anyone decide to rail against that one? Either she was being sincere, which would mean you're being a dick to call her a cunt for it, or she was being an asshole, in which case, calling her a cunt about it would tell her she hit the mark. )

[Sleeps With Butterflies]

All y'all's Mommas

[wring]

Originally Posted by Sleeps With Butterflies

All y'all's Mommas

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by wring

(as in Guin's post about being 'against' child rape - why on earth would anyone decide to rail against that one?

That was actually pretty much the only post I've ever seen from her (that I can recall) that I thought was funny.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by wring

C'mon! Let's all pile on Sleeps!



er... um... verbally...

[Muffin]

"Don't be an ass" is enough of a rule, provided that there are good moderators. If there are not good moderators, then any rule or number of rules would not suffice.

Some folks have a way of behaving that tends to stir up a lot of noise around themselves. Putting an ever more burdensome set of rules in place will not do anyting to stop the noise that surrounds them -- quite the contrary, it will simply give more excuses for more noise to be made.

As far as kids go, there are many children-safe sites on the web. I have no interest in participating in such sites, and trust that this site will not become one of them.

[wring]

Originally Posted by Darmund

That was actually pretty much the only post I've ever seen from her (that I can recall) that I thought was funny.

I have no problem w/that interpretation, either. In either case, Ken's response was not wise.

[Annoying Retard Nonny]

Originally Posted by Sleeps With Butterflies

All y'all's Mommas

More like your momma

[wring]

Originally Posted by Muffin

As far as kids go, there are many children-safe sites on the web. I have no interest in participating in such sites, and trust that this site will not become one of them.

and this, too. I don't care how 'mature' you think your child is, to invite them to participate in an adult venue then to demand that the adults change their behavior so as to not hurt the childs feelings is foolish. This doesn't excuse the whole 'rape a kid' thing, either. Both are assholish things.

[Mr. Plumbean]

I'm glad we had this talk.

[wring]

Originally Posted by Cricetus

I'm glad we had this talk.

really?

[severe delays]

Someone went researching, huh? Researching what, exactly. The child has no internet access. She cannot have put her details online without a caregiver authorising that. And even if everything down to her shoe size was online that would not link her to the nickname adopted by a random person using one specific messageboard on the internet. So if someone has made specific threats against your child then it is because you or another caregiver breached her privacy.

Now I'm not saying this to have a go at you, despite your rudeness. My point is that you can't have everything. If you want your kid to have free access to messageboards then for her peace of mind you are going to have to avoid letting her access places where you like to troll. If you deliberately post in an inflammatory manner then you will likely rile some people up. By failing to protect your child's privacy you open her up to abuse which would otherwise be directed at you. If you are going to let her personal details online then ensure they do not link to any identity you adopt which could be described as less than stellar. Parenting involves sacrifices. Those sacrifices are to *your* freedoms. Not ours.