Rule clarification

[tooblue]

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.

Lol -- what is this place a cult? CUF could use more Harry Reids and fewer I'vecomformedites.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lol -- what is this place a cult? CUF could use more Harry Reids and fewer I'vecomformedites.

I believe that this is the first time I have seen CUF characterized as a haven for conformists.

[JohnnyLingo]

I believe that this is the first time I have seen CUF characterized as a haven for conformists.

That said, you're definitely pushing towards more conformity here, right?

[Pheidippides]

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.

Maybe you should have thought of that when you announced you weren't here to make friends. Not that I agree with you - and just for the heck of it I'll be the third witness to tell you that you get special protection.

I would also like to specifically ask that there not be a reduction of our principles to a clear ruleset and that the current enforcement protocols continue. We are all adults here, or at least we ostensibly are. Coming up with a virtual set of commandments, as it were, will inevitably lead to the sort of thing I thrived on over at CB: finding all the gaps and exploiting them. No, a case-by-case approach by the EC is best, and I support it. Not that my opinion matters that much, since I don't pay for or administrate this site. I just find it a nice place to mingle with friends.

[beelzebabette]

That said, you're definitely pushing towards more conformity here, right?

More conformity ≠ less jackassery.

[tooblue]

I believe that this is the first time I have seen CUF characterized as a haven for conformists.

It most certainly is a haven for conformists to the CUF way of doing things. I'm not talking about individuals who have a different political point of view than the majority of members of the LDS church yet are still devout but rather individuals who don't conform to the views of the majority and it's hierarchy here on CUF.

And as far as being a nonconformist in the vein of a Harry Reid outside the anonymity of this message board -- not a single poster here should so flatter themselves.

[JohnnyLingo]

More conformity <> less jackassery.

I think they equal each other quite well. Tamping down on jackassery (good word, btw) is one way of increasing conformity among a society.

[TripletDaddy]

And as far as being a nonconformist in the vein of a Harry Reid outside the anonymity of this message board -- not a single poster here should so flatter themselves.

tooblue, this is interesting. what do you mean by this? I am genuinely interesed. might make an interesting conversation point here for us. I also read it with a hint of anger (or at the very least, frustration). Am I reading you correctly?

[creekster]

There is not going to be a set of specific rules. It will not happen. If that is what you need to be happy, this is not the site for you.

Lingo you complain about your treatment but you don't mention or explain your multiple duplicate accounts. IMO, and speaking just for me, that was the most problematic aspect of your behavior.

Finally, you were treated very fairly. I think I can say honestly that the EC considered your situation completely and thoroughly and your suspension was NOT the result of your lack of support or your lack of friends. TO think otherwise is simply self serving and childish.

[cougjunkie]

Look Lingo if the members of the Speasy had their way you would be off the site for good. The committee does not think that is fair so they have spared you on several occasions. Quite being a dickhead and you will not be treated like one in return. Its a pretty simple concept that you have obviously not yet grasped. You would think growing up with so many brothers and sisters you would have learned to play nice.

[scottie]

Lingo, I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this (I've probably even mentioned it before), but you'd be wise to take TripletDaddy off ignore -- he's giving you good advice.

[cougjunkie]

tooblue, this is interesting. what do you mean by this? I am genuinely interesed. might make an interesting conversation point here for us. I also read it with a hint of anger (or at the very least, frustration). Am I reading you correctly?

Tooblue is angry because he is missing all the good conversations in the Speasy. He was trying to make a statement by asking for removal, and when nobody noticed he left he got pissed off.

[creekster]

It most certainly is a haven for conformists to the CUF way of doing things. I'm not talking about individuals who have a different political point of view than the majority of members of the LDS church yet are still devout but rather individuals who don't conform to the views of the majority and it's hierarchy here on CUF.

And as far as being a nonconformist in the vein of a Harry Reid outside the anonymity of this message board -- not a single poster here should so flatter themselves.

I can olny speak for myslef in saying that I have always tried to encourage persons with different viewpoints to post here. I do nto think point of view has ever been the basis for a suspension. OTOH, this is essentially a socail site and we doo tend to hang otu with people we like and who like us, so a certain level of consistency in world view is inevitiable over time, I would think.

[JohnnyLingo]

There is not going to be a set of specific rules. It will not happen. If that is what you need to be happy, this is not the site for you.

Nebulous "whatever the mods want goes" party, it is, then.

Lingo you complain about your treatment but you don't mention or explain your multiple duplicate accounts. IMO, and speaking just for me, that was the most problematic aspect of your behavior.

I did explain my multiple dupe accounts, quite clearly, both here and in my communications to the EC while I was suspended. Did you read those?

Finally, you were treated very fairly. I think I can say honestly that the EC considered your situation completely and thoroughly and your suspension was NOT the result of your lack of support or your lack of friends. TO think otherwise is simply self serving and childish.

In your opinion, as a site administrator. Of course you're not going to say the suspension was anything but clean and fair. It's like expecting El Jefe to say that.

[JohnnyLingo]

Lingo, I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this (I've probably even mentioned it before), but you'd be wise to take TripletDaddy off ignore -- he's giving you good advice.

I don't have anyone on ignore.

Triplet has proved time and time again that his goal as far as I'm concerned is to piss me off. He lives for it.

I have no reason to take advice from someone like that, but thank you for your concern.