Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I don't think there will be a coordinated campaign to get lucium permabanned.
I just don’t know what the point is to carping incessantly over an issue that as far as I can tell has been fixed.
The point is to grind down the mods until they quit out of exasperation. It's the reason the past 3-4 mods have quit. Just keep relitigating every singe moderation decision, complain about any kind of disparity, and demand simple rules be explained over and over, it's a surefire plan.
On one hand I don’t envy moderating this forum cuz it’s a dumpster fire no matter what you do and someone will always be mad
On the other hand I got banned because I kept intentionally misspelling luciom’s screen name
Pick your battles I suppose
On one hand I don’t envy moderating this forum cuz it’s a dumpster fire no matter what you do and someone will always be mad
On the other hand I got banned because I kept intentionally misspelling luciom’s screen name
Pick your battles I suppose
Lol, didn't you misspell it something like "lucumguzzlerom"? Easy mistake, I suppose.
That sounds accurate
On one hand I don’t envy moderating this forum cuz it’s a dumpster fire no matter what you do and someone will always be mad
On the other hand I got banned because I kept intentionally misspelling luciom’s screen name
Pick your battles I suppose
You called him a name for Satan. I feel badly about having to enforce ticky tack rules like that, but once someone complains and asks you to stop and it becomes an issue, I have to moderate it uniformly.
I’ve tried to back off a bit from that after feedback. All I can say is I’m sorry that you felt it was unfair. I really do like all you guys..
There wont need to be. For good or bad, he has shown he is not able to follow the proscribed rules (I admit I have similar issues) and the mods will eventually reach their limit and permaban him. And I am saying this as someone who enjoys his posting and wishes he was capable of staying within the rules. But I just dont think he is wired that way.
I….agree with Dunyain?
There wont need to be. For good or bad, he has shown he is not able to follow the proscribed rules (I admit I have similar issues) and the mods will eventually reach their limit and permaban him. And I am saying this as someone who enjoys his posting and wishes he was capable of staying within the rules. But I just dont think he is wired that way.
"Prescribed", Kel. You know, like rules.
tf?
If your point is that you "proscribe" rules, you are incorrect. It actually means roughly the opposite of that: to proscribe is to forbid. You can proscribe something by rule, you don't proscribe the rule itself.
But we all know that people who misuse it in this context are just thinking "what's a fancy way of saying 'rules'?" "I know, 'proscribed rules', that makes me sounds very smart".
You know how it goes cos we've been here before - the right and the libs stick together and play Let's Get The Lefties Banned, while the lefites don't really want anyone banned so ultimately will always lose out in forum wars.
This guy
The point is to grind down the mods until they quit out of exasperation. It's the reason the past 3-4 mods have quit. Just keep relitigating every singe moderation decision, complain about any kind of disparity, and demand simple rules be explained over and over, it's a surefire plan.
is one of the biggest ban lusters on any forum I've ever been on.
I actually think Kel is using the word correctly there.
No, Law does not "prescribe" things. Law "proscribes" things.Outside of situations where you are incarcerated or likewise, you are free to do anything you want, unless forbidden by law. If law were to "prescribe" things, it would be vice versa - you would be forbidden to do anything, unless explicitly permitted - basically, a state of perpetual incarceration.One letter, big dif
We had this discussion a year ago! As a forum, we all really lack for personal growth.
You know how it goes cos we've been here before - the right and the libs stick together and play Let's Get The Lefties Banned, while the lefites don't really want anyone banned so ultimately will always lose out in forum wars.
This guy
is one of the biggest ban lusters on any forum I've ever been on.
Just ban all the shitposters, then housenuts and I can finally have the place to ourselves.
Rules are not proscribed. Conduct is proscribed. d2 is correct in his usage: conduct that is "proscribed" is conduct that is forbidden by law or rules. Speeding is proscribed by law.
Conduct that is prescribed by law is the opposite, in that it describes conduct that is affirmatively allowed or required. For example, your right to free speech is prescribed by law. Your duty to maintain your vehicle in a safe condition would also be prescribed by law.
tf?If your point is that you "proscribe" rules, you are incorrect. It actually means roughly the opposite of that: to proscribe is to forbid. You can proscribe something by rule, you don't proscribe the rule itself.But we all know that people who misuse it in this context are just thinking "what's a fancy way of saying 'rules'?" "I know, 'proscribed rules', that makes me sounds
no that was not my point lol
yes, yes, yes
Rules are not proscribed. Conduct is proscribed. d2 is correct in his usage: conduct that is "proscribed" is conduct that is forbidden by law. Speeding is proscribed by law.Conduct that is prescribed by law is the opposite, in that it describes conduct that is affirmatively allowed or required. For example, your right to free speech is prescribed by law. Your duty to mainta
Right. The point is that the law itself is, if anything, "prescribed" (although I'd still consider this usage somewhat stilted). To say that a law or a rule is "proscribed" is nonsensical.
Remember when Charles the Affable died after smacking his forehead against a doorway?
Maybe in the israel thread there has been a misunderstanding as to what a proscribed terrorist organisation is.
