---

What is difficult to understand is that you seem think that proposing a quid pro quo exchange with someone who has no vested interest in your answer to begin with in some way restricts your ability to answer questions.

---

---

It depends, do you want to be consistent with the absolute statement that you will answer any question that you can answer?

---

If you can arbitrarily set conditions that preclude you from answering, the distinction you tried to make there is meaningless.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

OK.  Update:  Guys.  I ran out of popsicles by page 9.  Why can't an agreement be reached?

---

Because there is no agreement to be made.

She wants us to moderate bad language in the interest of being "consistent." What she doesn't understand is that guideline is HUGELY subjective and up to moderator discretion pretty much fully and completely. The rule does not have a set standard set by the team, OR David.

"Excessive" means what? "Vulgar" means what? "Profane" means what?

When someone starts comparing the WORD "fuck" to pornography, you can't really do much with that person. When someone wants to compare apples to oranges and claim it's inconsistent moderation, you can't really do much with that person. When someone refuses to recognize a guideline can be SUBJECTIVE, you can't really do much with that person.

In the end, what she was asking us to do to preserve her view of "consistent" moderation would turn this website into nothing short of a nazi controlled teen website - where the word fuck is looked upon so harshly that it equals PENIS INSIDE A VAGINA.

Where would that end? How would we ever allow an advanced sexuality topic? How many topics would be tossed into the trash that were meant as jokes? What would become of the DTRM forum when "fuck" equals sexual images? If that's what she wants so this website can have what she claims is "consistent" moderation, I'd MUCH rather have the current system of "inconsistent" moderation.

In the end, when someone WANTS and ARGUES for censorship, they are probably way, way beyond any help someone can give them through debate, no matter how long you debate them. That explains why this has gone on so long, I think.

Post edited at 3:37 pm on Aug. 17, 2008 by The Professional

---

"Unlike you, I will answer questions if I can."

If you can arbitrarily set conditions that preclude you from answering, the distinction you tried to make there is meaningless.

---

---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 5:09 pm on Aug. 17, 2008

---

"Unlike you, I will answer questions if I can."  

 If you can arbitrarily set conditions that preclude you from answering, the distinction you tried to make there is meaningless.

---

If I set a condition for a particular question and that condition is not met, what might be my normal response of answering questions does not apply to that question. How does that invalidate my normal stance and make that distinction meaningless?

---

Because you didn't say you might answer any questions, you said you would. You'll note the subtle distinction.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 6:47 pm on Aug. 17, 2008

---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 5:09 pm on Aug. 17, 2008

---

"Unlike you, I will answer questions if I can."  

  If you can arbitrarily set conditions that preclude you from answering, the distinction you tried to make there is meaningless.

---

If I set a condition for a particular question and that condition is not met, what might be my normal response of answering questions does not apply to that question. How does that invalidate my normal stance and make that distinction meaningless?

---

Because you didn't say you might answer any questions, you said you would. You'll note the subtle distinction.

---

---

Quote: from jamesish at 4:51 pm on Aug. 17, 2008

---

OK.  Update:  Guys.  I ran out of popsicles by page 9.  Why can't an agreement be reached?

---

Because there is no agreement to be made.

She wants us to moderate bad language in the interest of being "consistent."  What she doesn't understand is that guideline is HUGELY subjective and up to moderator discretion pretty much fully and completely.  The rule does not have a set standard set by the team, OR David.

"Excessive" means what?  "Vulgar" means what?  "Profane" means what?

When someone starts comparing the WORD "fuck" to pornography, you can't really do much with that person.  When someone wants to compare apples to oranges and claim it's inconsistent moderation, you can't really do much with that person.  When someone refuses to recognize a guideline can be SUBJECTIVE, you can't really do much with that person.

In the end, what she was asking us to do to preserve her view of "consistent" moderation would turn this website into nothing short of a nazi controlled teen website - where the word fuck is looked upon so harshly that it equals PENIS INSIDE A VAGINA.

Where would that end?  How would we ever allow an advanced sexuality topic?  How many topics would be tossed into the trash that were meant as jokes?  What would become of the DTRM forum when "fuck" equals sexual images?  If that's what she wants so this website can have what she claims is "consistent" moderation, I'd MUCH rather have the current system of "inconsistent" moderation.

In the end, when someone WANTS and ARGUES for censorship, they are probably way, way beyond any help someone can give them through debate, no matter how long you debate them.  That explains why this has gone on so long, I think.

---

Post edited at 4:43 pm on Aug. 17, 2008 by major

-------
stumbling toward sublimation

---

fa, do you know how to read and then comprehend

---