MS Update for Week Ending 6/25/03

according to the arbitrary standards of the anonymous Star Wars fan internet message board's owner

I hate to nitpick but let's call a spade a spade here. These are not arbitrary standards that Josh has put out. They are part and parcel to his religion. God does not allow swearing. God condemns homosexuality. Therefore, Josh makes a rule that on HIS site, there will be none.

Don't misunderstand me here. I am not disputing the swearing rule. I am simply pointing out that they are NOT arbitrary nor are they simply Josh's tastes in life. He is a Pastor for cryin' out loud.

 

I'd agree with you strilo, although I reserve the right to disagree with Josh at any time for any reason, including because he looks funny in a mumu.

Which he does.

 

now, farraday, it depends on the design of the muumuu and the colors/prints......

 

Actually... no I just don't think it does.

 

Okay, I completely understand how this can be frustrating to everyone. I remember what it was like as a regular member, the feeling that you're being ignored, that people aren't listening, that the administration has lost it, or that the rules don't make any sense. No matter how many good arguments you post, you feel that nothing is getting accomplished. Trust me, there are moderators who read everything that goes on in here. There are moderators who care about what goes on, and there are moderators who haven't lost it.

Even though it may seem like it, I find it hard to believe that any suggestions or ideas are shrugged off or ignored. Even if we don't agree with you, we'll read what you have to say, and we'll consider it. I know that I try to see things from multiple points of view, rather than just the view of a moderator. There have been times that I've accepted or enforced a rule that I probably would have never came up with, but I understood how it could benefit the boards. That doesn't mean that I was silent though, as I try to take part in all the discussions that come up regarding the rules. Even though I have these fancy colors and a title, I'm still a regular member at heart, and I care about what happens here. I don't want to enforce a stupid rule as much as you don't want to have to put up with it.

Keep in mind that some of the rules here are passed down to us in the same manner that we pass them on to you. Everyone doesn't always agree with the rules, and we can try to discuss or argue about them. Sometimes, we can make progress, and we can change something. But when it comes down to it, Josh has the final say. He owns this site, and so he has the right to make whatever rules he wants. Trust me, even in the instances where we can't change the rules, we make our opinions known.

That doesn't mean that every member of the administration agrees with every rule, because we don't. If everyone here had the opportunity to have Josh's position, to have the final say over what went on here, I'm sure most everyone, including many moderators, would have at least a thing or two that they would change.

Like it or not, just about every aspect of life has rules that you have to follow. Chances are, you're not going to agree with every single one of those rules. So, you have a couple options. One is to just accept the rules, and go on your merry little way. There's really nothing wrong with that, especially if you don't have any major objections to the rules. Another is to discuss the rules, explain why you don't like them, and explain how you would change them. Many of you do that, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

However, sometimes there comes a point when it becomes rather obvious that a rule isn't going to change. Does that mean that you have to like the rule? Of course not. Around this point is when the arguments start becoming cyclical. The same things are said over and over again by both sides, and nothing gets accomplished, and nobody is going to change their minds. I've seen this happen in real life, in the AOTC forum, in the JCC, and here in Communications. At this point, the least stressful option is to agree to disagree. You've said what you wanted to, and all the evidence is out there for people to make their own decisions. There's no reason to keep repeating the same things. Trust me, a lot of read the arguments the first time around, and you have made your stance known. If the rule doesn't get changed, at least you can applaud yourself for trying. You saw something that you didn't like, and you tried to make a difference. There always will be someone disagreeing with something here. The rules may go against popular opinion, but Josh still has the final say.

The administration fights some of the same battles in the Mod Squad that many fight in here. We make our positions known, so that Josh knows how everyone feels about the situation. We don't blindly accept everything, and we aren't afraid to argue or disagree wi

 

We are listening, and we do care what people have to say.

Congrats, Jeff, for saying something most people need to remember. The one problem is, Josh doesn't exactly care.

 

Liz, I don't believe Josh doesn't care, but I do believe he is adamant about certain rules he's established remaining in place, and that means no cussing in any size, shape, form..... and while we've all heard it in RL, I applaud him in keeping this place cuss-free, the majority I believe prefers it the way it is.

 

"God does not allow swearing."

Yeah, but limited swearing is allowed here. Pretty much the same rules as primetime TV. Excepting the "WTF" thing, but that's unique to the internet.

Amazing.

 

well, acronyms mean the same as the word, and is used primarily for it, so, yes, I can understand why Josh does not permit it. we normally don't say, Where's the Food, when we cuss, and it doesn't mean WTF either.

 

Unless you can pronounce the acronym, in which case it's mildly more acceptable.

 

Hey Rev. Griffin, how much money do you want for your share of TFN/JC ?

 

now when jeff says it, for some reason it doesn't antagonise the hell out of me.........i guess thats because he has used some tact.

no one in this debate as far as i can recall has taken issue with the no swearing policy, i personally have reconciled myself with that along time ago, along with a few other things that i shall not mention. So don't try and frame the critique in this thread as an attack on the no swearing policy, if thats the impression you have, then you should reread all the previous posts

What I object to is the unreasonable extension of what is a resonable policy to words/acronyms that are not swearwords. sure josh or whomever could say that sausage for example was a swear/bad word and administrate accordingly, but it wouldn't make it so, it would just be wrong

 

No matter which side of the swearing issue you're on, please don't take pot shots at people. Thanks.

Sausage as an enjoyable breakfast food atop an egg with some cheese is a perfectly acceptable word on the boards.

 

ssausage omlette this morning. pork rules !!!!

 

well speaking for myself, i had beef suasages for breakfast, with spag on toast..........while eggs were considered, they didn't make it past the fridge

 

HE, spaghetti on toast? sounds.... interesting.

 

strilo...
"I hate to nitpick but let's call a spade a spade here. These are not arbitrary standards that Josh has put out."

Certainly they are. The basic fundamental standards of this message board were generated essentially by despotic decree, according to the collective tastes of Scott and Josh. One can't get much more arbitrary than that. They knew what they wanted and they did it, and they are holding to it. And that's not a bad thing as the results of this site will attest to. 10 million posts later and some tens of thousands of users is rather conclusive proof that they generally made the right decisions.

"They are part and parcel to his religion. God does not allow swearing."

As you said, let's call a spade a spade. The words we are talking about - "****" and its three-letter abbreviation of "what the ****" as "***," are NOT "against God's will." To be clear, the only "swearing" that God condemns are those listed in the second commandment, which I'll classify as "misuse of the sacred." Taking his name in vain, damning people to Hell and the like. Yet, "hell" is perfectly acceptable as are mocking.

Slang for excretory and sexual acts are not covered under the 2nd commandment. And are therefore not the same as misusing the sacred.

And besides, let's certainly call a spade a spade. What God wants is very much open to interpretation. And certainly the Bible doesn't address the issue of abbreviating profanity. Nor does it have a list of taboo words that Josh has chosen to censor like the ModSquad has chosen to use.

As a matter of fact, the standards of this site are man's wants, not God's. Specifically, they are this site's administration's wants.

And contrary to popular belief, we're all mortal.

 

his name in vain, damning people to Hell and the like.

several months ago, Josh popped the decision to suddenly disallow "Jesus Christ" when not talking about the crucifiction. How is this not a decision based solely on religion? Society as a whole does not condemn saying "Jesus Christ", only religion does.



And contrary to popular belief, we're all mortal.

Speak for yourself. I fully intend to live forever. There was no world before me, there will be no world after me. You are all figments of my imagination and I am insane.

or, in the words of Freddie Mercury, who wants to live forever when love must die?

 

They are part and parcel to his religion.

Of course. But there are some here who are desperately trying to deny this.

God condemns homosexuality.

Some find this statement offensive. Should it be allowed here?

 

d00ds!


Good solid argument? The F in WTF stands for a word that is not allowed to be posted here. Therefore, WTF is meant to be read as having in it a word that is not allowed to be used here. Therefore, it?s not allowed. Whether you like the argument or not is irrelevant.

nope, still not a good solid argument. as i said before, trying to say that the censored version of something is a disallowable word itself contradicts the whole idea of censoring. once again, you're saying that the censored version needs to be censored. so i guess the asterisk in 'wt*' needs to censored too because you can still tell that it alludes to a letter that alludes to an entire word, a word not allowed.

and because i know where you're gonna go next...
since the censored word in this sentence- "kiss my ***" -is easy to figure out (given the syntax, juxtaposition, context, and familiarity of the phrase), the censored version needs to be censored. the asterisks need to be asterisked out. this of course is all going by the brilliant logic of censoring the censors. :rolleyes.

Ridiculous? Not nearly so ridiculous as 100 posts of people complaining it?s unreasonable that they cannot use a profanity that has an allowed synonym on an Internet message board.

i think i'm now pretty much convinced that people who keep repeating weak lines like this do so simply because they ain't got anything else.


Sorry to "complain" again, but one last thing must be repeated, originally posted by royalguard96: The wtf abbreviation is by itself a form of censorship. So we're in effect censoring censorship.

actually, it was me who first mentioned that. thx.


no one in this debate as far as i can recall has taken issue with the no swearing policy, i personally have reconciled myself with that along time ago, along with a few other things that i shall not mention. So don't try and frame the critique in this thread as an attack on the no swearing policy, if thats the impression you have, then you should reread all the previous posts

What I object to is the unreasonable extension of what is a resonable policy to words/acronyms that are not swearwords. sure josh or whomever could say that sausage for example was a swear/bad word and administrate accordingly, but it wouldn't make it so, it would just be wrong.

well said, brother humble. unfortunately some people have a hard time comprehending those ideas though.

 

spag on toast is divine


btw is there a clear policy set out about this religious aspect to the censorship policy? the terms of service maybe? cos i have to say, although i knew jboy was christian i didn't realise he had gone quite this far

 

actually, it was me who first mentioned that. thx.

No Pie, I didn't say he first mentioned it, he just said it best.

 

d00d, i posted about that before he did. plz die.

 

Genghis just to be clear here, I am a preacher's kid. Don't try to clarify the Bible's teachings for me. I am very well versed. What the Bible teaches and what Man teaches and adds TO God's Word are often two very different things. I was, in a way, sarcastically stating what Man has added to God's Word of his own accord.


"God condemns homosexuality."

Some find this statement offensive. Should it be allowed here?

Who finds this offensive? Have people complained to you about it? As for my reason for typing it, I will quote myself: I was, in a way, sarcastically stating what Man has added to God's Word of his own accord.