I'm a former IC ZZL/P Mod = AMA

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnoopRob
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 769
  • Views: 18K
  • Off-Topic 
LosPollosHermanos said:
"Abnormal" is not an appropriate way to refer to most groups of people and particularly protected groups, but the question again is whether one should get a permaban for doing so. The moderating was heavy handed for some, barely existent for others, and arbitrary in its enforcement. And the main argument I'm hearing for the moderating is "I got ten warnings and I deserved every one of them" when some of us didn't even get one. That's not a good argument.
Click to expand...
I can’t find the previous forum rules but this has been pinned at the top of the first page of the ZZL for more than 4 years now.

247sports.com

ZZL Board Rules - Updated 5/14/2020

ZZL Board Rules - Updated 5/14/2020
247sports.com 247sports.com

Rule 2.
Racial, ethnic and homophobic slurs and language are strictly prohibited. Depending on the usage, an immediate ban may be put in place. Severe violations of this rule may be a result in a site-wide ban. Please note that on this forum, the use of the words "gay" or "re_tarded" (and any synonyms of these words) as an insult to either a fellow poster or someone(s) not on this forum is not welcome. The classic example is trying to insinuate that a rival sports team or their fans are "gay." In the eyes of Inside Carolina, "gay" as an insult and such comparisons are a violation of board rules.
 
SnoopRob said:
The glory days of randman were before my moderator time, but he had a board-specific ban from the ZZL when those still existed. When that capability went away, he was given the first(?) of the "stay on the sports boards" deals, which he accepted and follows. He still posts on IC, although not anywhere near the frequency that he did back in the day.
Click to expand...
He's been a Facebook warrior for awhile now, thankfully preaching to a flock of only about half a dozen lost souls. I peek in occasionally to rap him on the beak and then move on...
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I'm happy to engage with others And take value from their views. I do it daily I did it daily on the old board. I'm not willing to back down because someone says something I don't agree with even if they say it over and over And a lot of other people in the echo chamber say the same thing.

And get out of here that I wasn't banned for my views. There were plenty of people doing a whole lot worse things than me that got overlooked, then multiple warnings, then temporary bans, well before they got the permanent ban if at all. You're not at all credible when you say it wasn't at least in part because of people's views.
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension ain't your strong suit is it gt? Snoop has by this point [page 9] given no fewer than 3 detailed explanations of your situation. And rather than responding to that, you just regurgitate your original "woe is me, why was I the only one picked on so unfairly" crap.
 
Is anyone at all surprised by the fact that folks who have been banned in the past nearly universally disagree they should have been banned in the first place?

Do we think another potential universe might exist where they're all sitting around going "Whelp, yup, I totally deserved that!"?
 
4thgenheel said:
it clearly is. this is such a strange hill that you've chosen to die on here.

again, per oxford:

ab·nor·mal
/abˈnôrm(ə)l/
adjective
deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
Click to expand...
Some Christians use the term abnormal about homosexuality with the connotation of abnormal like Charles Manson was "abnormal"--to mean against "normal" good human behavior. Such intentions are the main reason it's a bad term.

While we do have to be careful of not making a naturalistic fallacy in comparisons with the 1500 or so other species known to engage in homosexual behaviors (which happens for a myriad of reasons), there's good reasoning and research support for the idea that in extended family tribes, a segment of the group that does not reproduce would have a reciprocal altruistic benefit to the survival of the tribe by not contributing offspring.

Research on this:



 
gtyellowjacket said:
Sorry the thread didn't go the way you hoped it would go. I'm responding to every point you make and you're making a counterpoint. You know... the way discussions work. You're annoying the hell out of me with your lies and minimizations.
Click to expand...
Good to know that you're getting the hell annoyed out of you. Lets you know how the rest of us feel reading your posts....at least those of us that haven't put you on Ignore or Super Ignore yet.
 
uncsig said:
Good to know that you're getting the hell annoyed out of you. Lets you know how the rest of us feel reading your posts....at least those of us that haven't put you on Ignore or Super Ignore yet.
Click to expand...
It ain’t no fun when the rabbit has the gun, is it yellowjacket?
 
an0maly said:
Some Christians use the term abnormal about homosexuality with the connotation of abnormal like Charles Manson was "abnormal"--to mean against "normal" good human behavior. Such intentions are the main reason it's a bad term.

While we do have to be careful of not making a naturalistic fallacy in comparisons with the 1500 or so other species known to engage in homosexual behaviors (which happens for a myriad of reasons), there's good reasoning and research support for the idea that in extended family tribes, a segment of the group that does not reproduce would have a reciprocal altruistic benefit to the survival of the tribe by not contributing offspring.

Research on this:



Click to expand...
thank you for the insight and the links.

very interesting and makes good sense.
 
Ddseddse said:
Is anyone at all surprised by the fact that folks who have been banned in the past nearly universally disagree they should have been banned in the first place?

Do we think another potential universe might exist where they're all sitting around going "Whelp, yup, I totally deserved that!"?
Click to expand...
For me it was more about how it was done. A warning or two or a temp ban like the people that were constantly breaking the rules that were liked by Snoop would have gone a long way for me.

I don't think it's trolling to bring up things the majority of the board don't like but if Snoop or any of the mods had said this is what we want you to do or you're off, I would have complied. A warning in the middle of a thread where Snoop was participating and taking a different side in the discussion didn't really register.

I do think that conservatives and people that didn't adhere to all of the Democratic party platform were treated quite a bit differently but whatever. They can do that if they want although I definitely thought it made the place a whole lot less interesting. I guess I was in the minority but the "can you believe that Trump did this?" threads seven times a day and the 20 people saying he's evil over and over and over got pretty boring to me.
 
SnoopRob said:
You are welcome to find a generic term to describe the "personality type", but you aren't free to use a racially-derogatory term just because you think you use it in a "good" way. Just because you believe your intentions are honorable, doesn't make the terms you use any more acceptable. In short, you're giving yourself a sort of n-word pass, which isn't a thing you can do.

Twitter created the specific ability for their tweets to be shared in other forums, because they actively want those tweets to be shared in other places to expand their reach. Of course they have a claim of copyright, they don't want folks using tweets in non-electronic media formats (printed books, for example) and they want the ability to stop usage they wouldn't approve, but Twitter itself created the means for tweets to be shared across other forms of social and web-based media AND actively maintain the code that enables it. There is essentially no doubt that Twitter wants tweets to be able to be shared across other social media and web-based media forms barring any direct order by Twitter to stop.

You're tilting at more windmills than Don Quixote with these two things. I'm not particularly defensive over either of these issues, more amused that anyone would take either issue very seriously.
Click to expand...

SnoopRob said:
You are welcome to find a generic term to describe the "personality type", but you aren't free to use a racially-derogatory term just because you think you use it in a "good" way. Just because you believe your intentions are honorable, doesn't make the terms you use any more acceptable. In short, you're giving yourself a sort of n-word pass, which isn't a thing you can do.

Twitter created the specific ability for their tweets to be shared in other forums, because they actively want those tweets to be shared in other places to expand their reach. Of course they have a claim of copyright, they don't want folks using tweets in non-electronic media formats (printed books, for example) and they want the ability to stop usage they wouldn't approve, but Twitter itself created the means for tweets to be shared across other forms of social and web-based media AND actively maintain the code that enables it. There is essentially no doubt that Twitter wants tweets to be able to be shared across other social media and web-based media forms barring any direct order by Twitter to stop.

You're tilting at more windmills than Don Quixote with these two things. I'm not particularly defensive over either of these issues, more amused that anyone would take either issue very seriously.
Click to expand...
I really do appreciate how the board’s PTBs were faced with a challenge when dealing with racist hate speech. Beyond the obvious slurs, it becomes a grey area, and I can see how Uncle Tom would be offensive to a protected class. I tried to find a replacement term that conveys the same meaning. Kapo hit the mark, and I found no indication that it could convey bigotry or an offensive connotation to a protected class. I still don’t see that but was forced instead to rely upon awkward phrasing such as “a member of a class that trades on their antagonistic stance toward members of their class to achieve status and other gain via support from bigots.” It all reeks of performative political correctness to appease rightist critics; I complied albeit grudgingly.

But you still haven’t answered my question: What is the explanation for the board’s double standard of exacting to the point of mental gymnastics enforcement of “hate speech” vs never mind about posting copyrighted material?

I mean, regardless of Xitter’s rules, this is a much simpler call under the board rules to judge.

Again, it’s capriciousness.
 
SnoopRob said:
Sandi was a PTB ban, as were all the s-boys. Those were in place before I ever became a mod, although there was one time when they were briefly allowed to post again while I was a mod. Briefly.
Click to expand...
Who are the “s-boys?”
 
I don’t know what it says about me, that I am getting such amusement out of watching a grown ass man whine and cry and stomp his feet and throw such a public temper tantrum about something so trivial, but none of it can be good. Nonetheless, I shall endure.
 
sunnyheel said:
I really do appreciate how the board’s PTBs were faced with a challenge when dealing with racist hate speech. Beyond the obvious slurs, it becomes a grey area, and I can see how Uncle Tom would be offensive to a protected class. I tried to find a replacement term that conveys the same meaning. Kapo hit the mark, and I found no indication that it could convey bigotry or an offensive connotation to a protected class. I still don’t see that but was forced instead to rely upon awkward phrasing such as “a member of a class that trades on their antagonistic stance toward members of their class to achieve status and other gain via support from bigots.” It all reeks of performative political correctness to appease rightist critics; I complied albeit grudgingly.

But you still haven’t answered my question: What is the explanation for the board’s double standard of exacting to the point of mental gymnastics enforcement of “hate speech” vs never mind about posting copyrighted material?

I mean, regardless of Xitter’s rules, this is a much simpler call under the board rules to judge.

Again, it’s capriciousness.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting a moral equivalency between the historic , continuing, and new harms caused by racial prejudice to the harms of copyright law violation?

Are you further suggesting that you have no knowledge of the Fair Use doctrine?

Fair use - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
...

In short, we must often ... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
 
sunnyheel said:
I really do appreciate how the board’s PTBs were faced with a challenge when dealing with racist hate speech. Beyond the obvious slurs, it becomes a grey area, and I can see how Uncle Tom would be offensive to a protected class. I tried to find a replacement term that conveys the same meaning. Kapo hit the mark, and I found no indication that it could convey bigotry or an offensive connotation to a protected class. I still don’t see that but was forced instead to rely upon awkward phrasing such as “a member of a class that trades on their antagonistic stance toward members of their class to achieve status and other gain via support from bigots.” It all reeks of performative political correctness to appease rightist critics; I complied albeit grudgingly.

But you still haven’t answered my question: What is the explanation for the board’s double standard of exacting to the point of mental gymnastics enforcement of “hate speech” vs never mind about posting copyrighted material?

I mean, regardless of Xitter’s rules, this is a much simpler call under the board rules to judge.

Again, it’s capriciousness.
Click to expand...
I've answered the copyright question, do you just not understand it?

Twitter wants tweets shared far and wide. They created and continue to support the ability of their software that allows those tweets to be shared far and wide. There is no practical copyright issue at play here.

I've already said that the mods should have likely done a better job enforcing copyright for articles and the like that weren't publicly available.

What do you not understand in that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top