Charles Darwin Appreciation Sector

[Cheerios]

If Darwinism is bannable but ok for a sig, I wonder why nobody sigs a Rick Roll besides it being outdated

[Ryko]

I'm very much of the "why do you even bother". At least come up with something not dumb. Or if you know it's ognna be dumb regardless, just say "I did it cuz I wanted to". Telling people that it was discussed and the result is that it is infractionable doesn't suddenly fault miz because sono either fucked up and put it in the wrong section or arbitrarily decided to pull rank and put it in a different section.

[Day]

You're not really that retarded are you? @scooter not ryko

[Rocl]

even when i had a cool name, mods=fags

cause you're taking it in the ass constantly from posters and admins and shits gay

i hated all those faggots in the mod forum then and i'll hate all those faggots now

let me say it again
mods=fags

not some mods=fags
not just the admins=fags
not only the mods i dont like=fags

mods=fags dawg

=fags

fags

[Ksandra]

Too* - and I get what you're trying to say here, and I am certainly not beefing with you specifically -- I get that you don't MAKE the rules. My beef is with the rules in general. They come across as really pussy and whiny. I mean, banning words simply because they get used too much? Welcome to the fucking internet. Banning people for mod sass? Interesting, but pussy. Why don't you just post a disclaimer that says "Hey guys, our mods get chosen because they kiss ass, and none of them are actually smart or well spoken enough to defend themselves when they take action, so we're just going to make it bannable for you to question them. Wah wah wah, they can't handle shit talk, etc." It's like putting mall security on a segway: sure, it makes things easier on them, but in the end it just makes them all look like retards.

I know you're not just trolling on me which is why I'm willing to have a convo with you lol versus ryko. I do understand the issue with mod sass, and like I said, for me, I can't even think of a hypothetical situation where I would use it. However, I wouldn't say the issue is the rule, but maybe how mods use it. There is always that talk of the "mod that abuses their mod powers", and it's that where the fault would lie. If a mod, say, banned someone for making a joke a la "you have a small penis", then it's not the rule, it's the mod abusing the rule. But lets say someone started saying very real sounding death threats to a mod because the mod removed a post. Then I would consider that action justifiable. In the end the poster should be removed for that type of behavior, and it would make sense to go under that category.





sometimes having many categories may sound annoying for the poster, but it's less of a headache for the mods. I do enjoy being a mod, however, many posters expect 150% from their mods in dealing with issues. And often I feel like spam expects a 5 page dissertation with cited sources from credited university textbooks for any action I make. I can only assume this happens to the mods that do take action. Sometimes having those rules just makes it a little easier on us, because we have something specific to back it up.

[Day]

say fag 5 more times and it'll be bannable

[Sera]

Do the mods actually LIKE these preschool-level rules they have to enforce? I'm just curious. I'd feel pretty fucking stupid, banning someone for using a word. I probably wouldn't be able to bring myself to actually do it.

[Day]

we only expect explanation when one is needed really

[Ryko]

I know you're not just trolling on me which is why I'm willing to have a convo with you lol versus ryko.

That isn't why you're not having a discussion with me. It's because I'm rather forward and make it seem like my word is infallible but news flash, I do that with everyone. It's not trolling to tell you that your actions are in clear contradiction to what another mod said, it's fucking factual. Last I checked, it's a mod team. If ONE mod says that the mod TEAM discussed it and posted a result for the general people to read, he should either rescind it or update it in the case that a solitary person decides to act otherwise.

Before you tell me to get on epical for it, he was speaking on behalf of the entire group, sorry. If it were remotely consistent I'd have just given you shit for the hell of it because you're so incredibly bad at defending yourself but try so hard to do so and I personally find it funny, that much I will admit.

Like I give a shit robert lost account number 12.

[Ksandra]

Do the mods actually LIKE these preschool-level rules they have to enforce? I'm just curious. I'd feel pretty fucking stupid, banning someone for using a word. I probably wouldn't be able to bring myself to actually do it.

If you see on the list "trolling" is in theory a bannable offense. But, it is very vague on what is and isn't trolling. It is up to us to decide which posts to fix and which to overlook. Of course I can't speak for other mods, but I do like the list, only because now I know that while we should still be getting rid of troll posts, I know for a fact that those specific ones aren't allowed. I'm definitely not perfect, no one is, it's always nice to have a list to go by, even if it's only an uncompleted one.

[Sera]

I know you're not just trolling on me which is why I'm willing to have a convo with you lol versus ryko. I do understand the issue with mod sass, and like I said, for me, I can't even think of a hypothetical situation where I would use it. However, I wouldn't say the issue is the rule, but maybe how mods use it. There is always that talk of the "mod that abuses their mod powers", and it's that where the fault would lie. If a mod, say, banned someone for making a joke a la "you have a small penis", then it's not the rule, it's the mod abusing the rule. But lets say someone started saying very real sounding death threats to a mod because the mod removed a post. Then I would consider that action justifiable. In the end the poster should be removed for that type of behavior, and it would make sense to go under that category.





sometimes having many categories may sound annoying for the poster, but it's less of a headache for the mods. I do enjoy being a mod, however, many posters expect 150% from their mods in dealing with issues. And often I feel like spam expects a 5 page dissertation with cited sources from credited university textbooks for any action I make. I can only assume this happens to the mods that do take action. Sometimes having those rules just makes it a little easier on us, because we have something specific to back it up.

Most of my posts are 100% trolling/joking around because I refuse to take anything seriously, but I guess that's why I'm so interested in this topic - it's basically people taking themselves way too fucking seriously. The rules that the admins give you to enforce aren't doing you any favors, and like I said before neither is the mod-sass protection thing. I mean, your mom could have made you wear a bike helmet and knee guards everywhere you went, and sure, you'd have probably been safer, but you'd also have looked like a complete tard and been made fun of on the regular. This shit cripples you guys, and if I were an admin I'd want to give my mods a way to empower themselves, to earn some respect, rather than just be "safer."

Death threats != "mod sass" -- that's something much more serious and I can see why death threats would be a problem, but then you have butthurt people on power trips who take shit to a whole new level, and because "mod sass" is so fucking vague, anyone can just interpret it however they want to. Sass is just the act of talking back. Threats are a completely different animal, so I am not sure why you'd bring up death threats to justify such a bullshit rule.

[Ryko]

Nah trick, you act like enforcing textual rules is like interpreting the bible. Shit doesn't need to be vague and up to interpretation. Set them, bomb the clear offenders, and don't give people two fucking stories.

[Ryko]

O da ironing, I say something dead srs and I get taken for trolling. Sera trolls and she gets taken ded srs.

[Sera]

If you see on the list "trolling" is in theory a bannable offense. But, it is very vague on what is and isn't trolling. It is up to us to decide which posts to fix and which to overlook.

And here is the problem: the list's vagueness doesn't do you any favors. Why not have more specific guidelines? Then you wouldn't NEED a mod sass rule to "protect" you. As I said before, I can get with banning threats etc, but banning "annoying words"? Seriously?

[Antithesis]

If you see on the list "trolling" is in theory a bannable offense. But, it is very vague on what is and isn't trolling. It is up to us to decide which posts to fix and which to overlook. Of course I can't speak for other mods, but I do like the list, only because now I know that while we should still be getting rid of troll posts, I know for a fact that those specific ones aren't allowed. I'm definitely not perfect, no one is, it's always nice to have a list to go by, even if it's only an uncompleted one.

Ksandra, just one question. Please explain to me why General is less mature than spam and why does General need these ridiculous, unnecessary rules? For ever ten General topics made, one spam thread made by BRP trumps it (I will even go as far to as to say IAS is more mature than General and that is just low.) Do you see something wrong with this picture?

[Ryko]

Btw I just reread the bible. Your significant others are going to be stoned to death if they slept in the same bed as you on your period.

Now if I were trying to be a prick I'd say that ksandra's fiancee is good as gone every time she mods a post like an idiot but I'm not trying to do that.

[Day]

Why is it always hate on IAS what the fuck does IAS ever do to you besides ban you from it Anti?

[Ryko]

Why is it always hate on IAS what the fuck does IAS ever do to you besides ban you from it Anti?

People hate what they don't understand, that's the whole point.

[Sera]

Don't get trolled, day

[Ryko]

Like I don't understand why you pretend to like sarah silverman.