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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnoopRob
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 769
  • Views: 18K
  • Off-Topic 
ZenMode said:
I don't know what I have said previously, but what I meant is that homosexuality is abnormal, not that homosexuals should be labeled as abnormal people.
Click to expand...
This is basically saying hate the sin, not the sinner. In the case of homosexuality (and probably many others) that's a distinction without a difference...
 
SnoopRob said:
To be clear, I wasn't at the level where I got looped in on such topics, but this is my best guess is concerning those 4 things.

They care most about (b) and then (c) as those are the things that affect their business/bottom line. My hunch is that premium memberships are the most important revenue driver by far and that ads are very secondary, especially if you're talking about the ads that appear on the site. (They also have partnerships with local businesses and such that I would guess are more important to them than online ad revenue.)

As far as (a), I believe that IC views itself as an independent journalistic endeavor away from the university or the Carolina Athletic Dept, so I don't think they see their role as much as "enhancing and preserving the reputation" of the AD as much as reporting on the AD and its sports teams. However, they are certainly "friendly media" in that their subscriber/reader base are pro-Carolina and so I'd say they aren't likely to be terribly harsh on the AD or any team, nor are they willing to let unsourced and unproven rumors be spread using their message boards. They attempt to do their best to strike a balance between critiquing a team, players, coaches, the entire AD and not going overboard with consistent negative content; and they certainly want to be able to source what is reported by the site and allowed to be posted on the message boards.

I've never seen anything that suggests to me that IC/247 is trying to (d) track its users beyond the normal stuff done by pretty much every website. I'm sure they obtain the typical stuff any normal website would obtain when you visit the site, but I've never seen anything to suggest they do anything beyond that level of tracking.
Click to expand...
Just a word on D: if IC _COULD_ track its users better, we'd have a lot less trolls. 247 gatekeeps that stuff to a frustrating level.
 
altmin said:
Just a word on D: if IC _COULD_ track its users better, we'd have a lot less trolls. 247 gatekeeps that stuff to a frustrating level.
Click to expand...
How protective is 24/7 of subscribers? If IC or another publisher wanted to jump to another network would they just have to hope everyone follows them or is there any automated way to bring subscribers over?
 
NCK9 said:
How protective is 24/7 of subscribers? If IC or another publisher wanted to jump to another network would they just have to hope everyone follows them or is there any automated way to bring subscribers over?
Click to expand...
Doubt it is automated and if you are changing networks, not sure how helpful they will be. I am sure that is all negotiated.

In all past IC moves it was the network changing ownership, not IC changing networks.
 
hedge said:
This is basically saying hate the sin, not the sinner. In the case of homosexuality (and probably many others) that's a distinction without a difference...
Click to expand...
I don't want to label people as abnormal over a something they don't control.
 
UNCatTech said:
See i don't agree that homosexuality is abnormal, because that is a binary response to something that is not binary. There is a spectrum. Even from a biological stand point, there are people who have both male and female sex organs. From the stand point of chromosomes there are more than two options. Then factor in the mental aspect and any concept of binary is blown away.

I am happy that you state that homosexuals should not be labeled as abnormal.

Just as being left handed is not abnormal homosexuality is not abnormal.
Click to expand...
There is a spectrum for lots of human traits. Some people are born with no fingers. Others are born with 6, but there's no doubt that there is an established norm for the number of fingers, right?
 
ZenMode said:
I think it's more appropriate to label a specific trait as normal or abnormal.
Click to expand...
You're finally seeing my point although you persist in misapplying it. Why? Homosexuality is a single trait so, by what you just posted, that should mean that homosexuals are not abnormal even if that trait were to be considered abnormal. Since it's about three times more common than being redheaded and not particularly more dangerous, I'd say the verdict was still out.
 
ZenMode said:
There is a spectrum for lots of human traits. Some people are born with no fingers. Others are born with 6, but there's no doubt that there is an established norm for the number of fingers, right?
Click to expand...
There is an established standard, so do you call those with 6 fingers abnormal or outliers?

What is the percentage comparison? I believe that once the percentages are higher then more than one item in a group can be considered normal.

Like race, which one is the norm?

Google is my friend. (Actually google sucks and is more about advertising than search, but that's another thread)
According to available medical information, the percentage of humans born with six fingers (a condition called polydactyly) is estimated to be around 0.2% of the population, meaning roughly 1 in 500 to 1,000 babies are born with extra fingers on one or both hands.

Estimates are as high as 10% of people are not straight.

Left-handed = 10%.

Approximately 10% of the world population is black.

49% of the world population is female, is that close enough to not be abnormal?

So, if a person is left-handed, black, non-binary person they must be really abnormal...

Anyway. This is my last post on this topic. It is obvious that you have a very strict adherence to a definition of a specific word, that I do not.
 
SnoopRob said:
I still have an IC account. I am no longer a mod or have any other IC position.

The ZZL and politics was a difficult subject. There are a lot of topics that are pseudo-political but aren't necessarily political. It was really quite difficult to draw the line on those topics. It became especially tough once a small group of folks settled in who very much wanted to see how much they could get away with without getting attracting moderator attention.

A big mistake we made once we separated the ZZL and ZZLP, plus lost the ability to issue board-specific bans, was to make "Stay off the ZZLP" deals with long-time posters who couldn't handle the ZZLP but we wanted to allow to stay on IC. It was a voluntary agreement that the poster would stay off the ZZLP in exchange for not getting a site ban. The problem was we realized too late that it needed to be a "Stay off the ZZL and ZZLP" deal as all we did was create a disgruntled group of ZZL posters who wanted to discuss politics but couldn't be on the ZZLP and so they used the ZZL as a place to try to discuss politics and/or disrupt the board. No matter how things went down, they "won" because they either got to discuss politics or they got to bitch and moan about the moderation. I suggested that we retroactively make all "Stay off the ZZLP" deals to include the ZZL, but I didn't win that discussion.
Click to expand...
I am going to reply to this to make my own point, again, using your thread here. There are not really--to my best understanding and perceptions--"pseudo-political but not necessarily political" topics. It's actually like, does the recipe have fish head included in it or not. Is the light switch in the on position or not. You were, As I suggested, you were, I suppose to put it charitably, puppeteered by Ben, to engage in a pretense of ZZL as having no politics. That was false, and even with its "new" thought-crime free regime, still full of politics.

I checked the old ZZL for fun. On the board this second is an ongoing and highly political thread about Israel's strikes on Iran. There are about 12 or more political threads on the first two pages. A general topic message board has political topics.

Period.
 
an0maly said:
I am going to reply to this to make my own point, again, using your thread here. There are not really--to my best understanding and perceptions--"pseudo-political but not necessarily political" topics. It's actually like, does the recipe have fish head included in it or not. Is the light switch in the on position or not. You were, As I suggested, you were, I suppose to put it charitably, puppeteered by Ben, to engage in a pretense of ZZL as having no politics. That was false, and even with its "new" thought-crime free regime, still full of politics.

I checked the old ZZL for fun. On the board this second is an ongoing and highly political thread about Israel's strikes on Iran. There are about 12 or more political threads on the first two pages. A general topic message board has political topics.

Period.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the political threads I've seen keep getting locked by UNCChris. It typically takes him a couple days to notice and address them though. They'll never be able to keep politics off the ZZL-V.

I'm happy for @SnoopRob that he no longer has to deal with the BS that comes with being a mod on the IC ZZL boards. The vitriol OCS and his victimhood support group had for Snoop was disturbing.
 
finesse said:
He's got literary support.
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less-H. Dumpty
Click to expand...
There is an old principle in patent law that states, IIRC, "the patent applicant is free to be his own lexicographer."
 
ZenMode said:
The survival of any species of mammal is based on an attraction of different genders. That is how it's designed.... that's"normal". Same sex attraction is, by definition, abnormal. It would be unconstitutional for the government to punish anyone for saying as much. Clearly a privately owned forum is not bound by the same restrictions. I'm fine with that, but the fact that I was banned, for stating what was true, doesn't make it untrue.
Click to expand...
if you don't know the difference between sex and gender and are completely willing to give mammals "genders," you are completely unqualified both to make an argument from biology and to judge whether your ban for your comments on the subject was appropriate or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top