Rule clarification

[JohnnyLingo]

Is it okay if we took some time and clarified some fuzzy points of CUF Rule Doctrine?

For example, referencing the fact that someone is obese = terrible, way over the line, and a sign that you are a monster.

Meanwhile, telling someone to fuck off is fine. No worries there.

I really don't see how one is bannable while the other is not.

Can someone on the committee post a list of a few things that the community feels are worthy of a ban?

TIA.

[wuapinmon]

Is it okay if we took some time and clarified some fuzzy points of CUF Rule Doctrine?

For example, referencing the fact that someone is obese = terrible, way over the line, and a sign that you are a monster.

Meanwhile, telling someone to fuck off is fine. No worries there.

I really don't see how one is bannable while the other is not.

Can someone on the committee post a list of a few things that the community feels are worthy of a ban?

TIA.

No one called you a monster. The EC appears to be making a move towards a little more decorum on the board. I did not instigate what happened to you, but you might consider the spirit of why you were banned vs. the exact reason why you were banned. I did the same thing when I was banned and have, mostly, reformed my behavior.

I'll spare you the rest of the modicum of introspection talk while you lick your wounds.

[JohnnyLingo]

No one called you a monster. The EC appears to be making a move towards a little more decorum on the board.

No one used the word monster, no. But wow, you'd have thought I had punched their mom in the face. You have a few friends here, wuap.

And the problem I have with this move "towards a little more decorum on the board" is that this is vague. This gives power to the mods to suspend people if they feel like it.

Without either

A.) a concrete rule of law or

B.) a policy where the masses police themselves,

I don't think the board can function very well. This nebulous place in between isn't a good place to be, IMO.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is it okay if we took some time and clarified some fuzzy points of CUF Rule Doctrine?

For example, referencing the fact that someone is obese = terrible, way over the line, and a sign that you are a monster.

Meanwhile, telling someone to fuck off is fine. No worries there.

I really don't see how one is bannable while the other is not.

Can someone on the committee post a list of a few things that the community feels are worthy of a ban?

TIA.

Here you go:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=8060

I don't see any reason to get more specific than that. This is admittedly a subjective process, so it will never be perfect. We do the best we can under the circumstances.

Your offense was fairly mild, hence the light penalty. Your multiple dupe accounts didn't help matters.

Welcome back.

[WashingtonCoug]

It's more the spirit of the law than letter of the law.

[Fiyero]

fuck

We don't use that word anymore. If you don't believe me, do a search. Save it for FHE.

[I.J. Reilly]

Ugh, I can't believe I am about to post on this.

Obey the spirit of the law. Don't take the fun out of the board by constantly pushing the lines to see where the boundaries really lie. Stupid, nitpicky rules are the result of this and create the wrong type of atmosphere. Imo, (I am not on the committee, and hierarchically am probably on the the lower end of posters) CUF is an attempt to create a real community that prompts real discussion of a wide variety of issues. Hard line, reactive and restrictive rules prohibit this.

The totality of circumstances determined your ban, and have done so for any other poster. By constantly calling a poster fat you kept hitting a note that you had been repeatedly asked to leave alone. You knew that the poster was personally sensitive on the issue and you refused to give it up. You have issues that you are personally sensitive on and have asked people not to talk about. With a little prodding, people mostly left it alone. You refused to leave it alone.

There is no need for strict rules. People rarely run into a problem unless they won't leave what they have been asked to alone. There are plenty of places on the internet that you can call people fat repeatedly w/o repercussion. Ditto for telling people to f*** off. If that's what really thrills you, by all means, go there.

[JohnnyLingo]

We don't use that word anymore. If you don't believe me, do a search. Save it for FHE.

Sorry, I should have disguised it better.

The totality of circumstances determined your ban, and have done so for any other poster. By constantly calling a poster fat you kept hitting a note that you had been repeatedly asked to leave alone. You knew that the poster was personally sensitive on the issue and you refused to give it up. You have issues that you are personally sensitive on and have asked people not to talk about. With a little prodding, people mostly left it alone. You refused to leave it alone.

There is favoritism in this approach. Wuap gets protection because he has friends on the board and he's a member of the SE. If people attack areas that are sensitive to me or go after exUte, it's fine.

I'm just asking that there be a clear ruleset that isn't enforced based on personal feelings.

[I.J. Reilly]

This nebulous place in between isn't a good place to be, IMO.

This seems to be more revealing of your nature than anything else. You need concrete rules. The majority of the board doesn't.

There is favoritism in this approach. Wuap gets protection because he has friends on the board and he's a member of the SE. If people attack areas that are sensitive to me or go after exUte, it's fine.

I'm just asking that there be a clear ruleset that isn't enforced based on personal feelings.

From my point of view, this is an absolutely untrue statement. I am not privy to the discussions of those that ultimately resulted in you being gone for a day and then more, but from where I sit, you and exie receive more protection, not less. People want to make sure your person is not maligned just b/c you are in the minority.

Now quit whining about treatment bestowed upon you and go post on how Glenn Beck isn't getting a fair shake

[TripletDaddy]

Here is some clarity on the rules: you are on a shorter leash because you are generally not well-liked, most of which is self inflicted. You seem to be daring someone to admit this openly, so I am happy to oblige. Making friends is always going to be better than making enemies. Again, I speak for myself on this but it is fairly evident in any group setting that fools are not suffered gladly.

If you are in doubt, don't post it. If you wish to have greater license to post, make a greater effort to befriend the group.

Here is another tip...if you wish to cease being the butt of jokes, stop resetting the same garbage. Some friendly advice: this topic is old. Complaints about the Speakeasy are old. Complaints about the injustices of group/pack mentality is also old. It doesn't do you much good to keep bringing it up. In fact, I would say that it probably does less good and more harm (if we had to quantify it all).

Someone should have taught you these things when you were in Primary. But there it is.

That right, ladies...I'm still as pithy as ever!

[JohnnyLingo]

This seems to be more revealing of your nature than anything else. You need concrete rules. The majority of the board doesn't.

I need concrete rules only because the current system means I'll get dinged for stuff I don't consider ding-worthy.

I was fine with things they way they were, when there were no suspensions.

From my point of view, this is an absolutely untrue statement. I am not privy to the discussions of those that ultimately resulted in you being gone for a day and then more, but from where I sit, you and exie receive more protection, not less. People want to make sure your person is not maligned just b/c you are in the minority.

Wow. I'd hate to see what it looks like if that wall of protection ever comes down.

Oh, and I don't believe you.

[wuapinmon]

Sorry, I should have disguised it better.



There is favoritism in this approach. Wuap gets protection because he has friends on the board and he's a member of the SE. If people attack areas that are sensitive to me or go after exUte, it's fine.

I'm just asking that there be a clear ruleset that isn't enforced based on personal feelings.

I was banned for attacking someone. What protection I have from friends, if any, was earned. And, if I my comportment towards other people paralleled your own, I guarantee you that Tim, et.al, would not stand up for me, nor would I expect or ask him/them to do so. My history on this board has been anything but a millpond; I eventually conformed because I'm not above CUF and because I recognized the wisdom in not acting like a know-it-all-walking-talking-phallus all the time. You appear intractable in your defense of your ways, and the reception of that intractability will continue to disappoint you should you persist.

[TripletDaddy]

I was fine with things they way they were, when there were no suspensions.

Samuel Bowles is a genius.

take note.

[JohnnyLingo]

I was banned for attacking someone. What protection I have from friends, if any, was earned. And, if I my comportment towards other people paralleled your own, I guarantee you that Tim, et.al, would not stand up for me, nor would I expect or ask him/them to do so. My history on this board has been anything but a millpond; I eventually conformed because I'm not above CUF and because I recognized the wisdom in not acting like a know-it-all-walking-talking-phallus all the time. You appear intractable in your defense of your ways, and the reception of that intractability will continue to disappoint you should you persist.

Spare me the lecture, wuap. After your cleverly disguised F*** YOU a couple weeks ago, you have zero room to talk about playing nice.

[beelzebabette]

Oh, and I don't believe you.

What protection I have from friends, if any, was earned.