Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vegas

My theory as to why liberal's ego far exceed their IQ

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Again, I ask, what are the rules?  

 

Because maineman clearly violated the STATED rule again making threats and you did nothing of any consequence.  

 

What did zaro do that was different?

As I have told you it's not for me to decide what to do with liberal posters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dontlooknow said:

Everybody got theories. 

society doesn't allow anyone to say anything absolute, it offends pretenders making up rule of law to keep reproductions picking careers as who they rather be cradle to grave serving realities instead of just adapting in the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kfools said:

As I have told you it's not for me to decide what to do with liberal posters. 

Kfools,

I have an honest question.

Why can't the moderators use a "warning", instead of a suspension?

As in "Hey, hey,.....no doxing and no death threats.  Keep it clean, boys".   Something like that.

We don't want to run people off.   This place is a little bit on the rough side and that is what

makes it better than the rest.   And some people consider No Holds Barred to mean...…...

speak what is on your mind without limitation.  I strongly advocate freedom of speech.  

And I am strongly against all this suspension stuff.   

That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Taipan said:

Kfools,

I have an honest question.

Why can't the moderators use a "warning", instead of a suspension?

As in "Hey, hey,.....no doxing and no death threats.  Keep it clean, boys".   Something like that.

We don't want to run people off.   This place is a little bit on the rough side and that is what

makes it better than the rest.   And some people consider No Holds Barred to mean...…...

speak what is on your mind without limitation.  I strongly advocate freedom of speech.  

And I am strongly against all this suspension stuff.   

That's all.

few years ago I annoyed LoreD and got blocked from posting in LO since. Let Zaro join the LO and not be able to post in nhb. Problem avoided from now on same as me not able to post in lo.

The instinctive midgets can feel larger than life over there reciting anything else is possible than being eternally sorted apart as reproduced individually here so far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 1:54 PM, XavierOnassis said:

Yeah, schools were so much better when bullies were allowed to run rampant.

Teachers, to teach must be EDUCATED. No education is required to be a voter.

Educated people tend to be Liberals, because they understand logic and history.

And there have been no IQ tests of people according to how they vote.

All you understand is that when you where a child instead of being breast fed your dad fed you his dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bludog said:

Get out of my hair troll.

 

I'm going to keep asking my questions until you reply in an informative manner.   Right now, except for a few people, we have no idea what the rule is about posting threats because clearly some threats are ok and other threats, which you are now hiding from us, are not.   I can see that being used against the people you don't like ... like me, bludog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taipan said:

Kfools,

I have an honest question.

Why can't the moderators use a "warning", instead of a suspension?

As in "Hey, hey,.....no doxing and no death threats.  Keep it clean, boys".   Something like that.

We don't want to run people off.   This place is a little bit on the rough side and that is what

makes it better than the rest.   And some people consider No Holds Barred to mean...…...

speak what is on your mind without limitation.  I strongly advocate freedom of speech.  

And I am strongly against all this suspension stuff.   

That's all.

We always start with warnings. It's usually violaters who do so multiple times that get phucked up.

 

We also want to suspend nobody. The rules are so easy to follow though that it's hard for me to believe that multiple violators don't do it on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

I'm going to keep asking my questions until you reply in an informative manner.   Right now, except for a few people, we have no idea what the rule is about posting threats because clearly some threats are ok and other threats, which you are now hiding from us, are not.   I can see that being used against the people you don't like ... like me, bludog.

 

Referring to Maineman:---

6 hours ago, bludog said:

I warned him.  He did not heed the warning.   Instead, he's looking for ways to game the system.  IIRC, he's been suspended twice before.  There's a good chance he will go over the line again, sooner or later

 

(To Maineman directly):---

As a mod, I do not approve this kind of extreme provocation;  getting so close to the line.  If nothing else, it makes my job MUCH harder.  You have been warned, again.

 

9 hours ago, bludog said:

First death threat, or threat of physical violence = several days suspension.  Second threat = considerably longer ...  And so on.

It has to be an actual threat, as determined by the mods;   Not by the Court of Public Opinion.

 

That includes you BAC.

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere and it's the mods job to determine where that line is.  To earn a suspension, a threat must be direct. For instance "I will hurt/kill you" or "We will hurt your family" or "I will strangle you" ....  The variations are infinite.  What qualifies for a warning but not a suspension would be something like "If only you would give me permission to put a bullet in your head" or "My greatest fantasy is to mangle your mutilated corpse".  Again, the variations are endless.

 

Maineman has been suspended twice IIRC for violating the threat rule.  Now he is gaming the system.  He has been warned again.  But he is likely to go over the line again, sooner or later.  If he does, he will be subject to suspension, again.

 

The line has been drawn.  And must stay where it is.  To redraw it would be like moving a goal post in a football game. 

 

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kfools said:

We always start with warnings. It's usually violaters who do so multiple times that get phucked up.

 

1 minute ago, bludog said:

 

Referring to Maineman:---

 

 

That includes you BAC.

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere and it's the mods job to determine where that line is.  To earn a suspension, a threat must be direct. For instance "I will hurt/kill you" or "We will hurt your family" or "I will strangle you" ....  The variations are infinite.  What qualifies for a warning but not a suspension would be something like "If only you would give me permission to put a bullet in your head" or "My greatest fantasy is to mangle your mutilated corpse".  Again, the variations are endless.

 

Maineman has been suspended twice IIRC for violating the threat rule.  Now he is gaming the system.  He has been warned again.  But he is likely to go over the line again, sooner or later.  If he does, he will be subject to suspension, again.

 

The line has been drawn.  And must stay where it is.  To redraw it would be like moving a goal post in a football game. 

 

Hope that helps.

We also want to suspend nobody. The rules are so easy to follow though that it's hard for me to believe that multiple violators don't do it on purpose.

Death threats are not under freedom of speech. I cannot go up to a person and threaten their life, then expect to get a slap on the wrist. It's illegal. I think you guys are putting yourself under unnecessary liability. You are the median to which this happened, if something were to manifest from the threat, then you guys will be questioned by authorities as much as the perp.I am not saying you would get in trouble, but why take the risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contingent on info supplied by you, BAC, I just suspended my buddy dontlooknow again, for two days.  (Seven OPs in a 24 Hr period).  This is not a game of partisanship but an effort to enforce the rules regardless of political leaning.  But no matter how it's done, feathers will be ruffled, often depending on who's ox gets gored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Vegas said:

Death threats are not under freedom of speech. I cannot go up to a person and threaten their life, then expect to get a slap on the wrist. It's illegal. I think you guys are putting yourself under unnecessary liability. You are the median to which this happened, if something were to manifest from the threat, then you guys will be questioned by authorities as much as the perp.I am not saying you would get in trouble, but why take the risk?

 

Despite a few simple rules, this is supposed to be NoHoldsBarred.   Setting too strict a standard for threats of violence makes of mockery of the name.  Under very strict standards, even suggestions that another member should harm him/herself would violate the rules.  For instance, very strict standards would include the suggestion to "go kill yourself" as a threat.  Many would argue that is not a threat, and I would agree.


There are too many variation and nuances of threatening speech, to set rules for each one.  A line must be drawn.  For now, that line is drawn at direct, "I/we will do it to you/yours".  That includes encouraging others to violence ...  I had to ban fellow Liberal RussianDisinformation for persistently encouraging others to violence.    For now, provocative statements, which are not actually direct threats, do not qualify for suspension.

 

This is a private forum with its own rules.  For instance:  The First Amendment does not apply within its confines.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Duck615 said:

Poor bludogfag

 

You must be homosexual.  There is no other explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

You must be homosexual.  There is no other explanation.

yes you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kfools said:

As I have told you it's not for me to decide what to do with liberal posters. 

 

You're being non-responsive to what I actually asked you, kfools.  

 

When you said "Just follow the rules and you are fine", I asked you 

 

Quote

 

What are the rules?  

 

Because maineman clearly violated the STATED rule again making threats and you did nothing of any consequence.  

 

What did zaro do that was different?

 

 

You do know the forum rules, don't you?  

 

Or are you moderators operating in the dark?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Taipan said:

Kfools,

I have an honest question.

Why can't the moderators use a "warning", instead of a suspension?

 

I think the bigger issue is do the moderators actually know the rules?

 

Are they all using the same interpretation of the rules?

 

If not, doesn't teacher need to step in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kfools said:

We always start with warnings. It's usually violaters who do so multiple times that get phucked up.

 

Did zaro threaten people with death multiple times?

 

Because maineman did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

You're being non-responsive to what I actually asked you, kfools.  

 

When you said "Just follow the rules and you are fine", I asked you 

 

 

You do know the forum rules, don't you?  

 

Or are you moderators operating in the dark?

 

 

The rules are posted homie. What are you getting at? Speak plain man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BeAChooser said:

 

Did zaro threaten people with death multiple times?

I don't think so. Hers was so plain though it wasn't really open for interpretation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

The line has to be drawn somewhere and it's the mods job to determine where that line is.  To earn a suspension, a threat must be direct.

 

The threat by maineman to Taipan was direct.   He told Taipan not to come to Freeport Maine.   And indicated quite clearly that if he did, something very bad would occur ... something that would result in his body NEVER being found in his 1 acre of woods.   That implies death.   And what he said before that suggested that Taipan would die by being wrapped in barbed wire and drug around behind a pickup truck.   A pretty grizzly death.    So did zaro say anything more specific or horrific than that and if so, how much more specific?   Because frankly, I think you're splitting hairs at this point.   And let me also say that I'd take a threat from ex-military a lot more serious than one from a poster who is a girl and perhaps even a teenager.   Just saying ...

 

1 hour ago, bludog said:

What qualifies for a warning but not a suspension would be something like "If only you would give me permission to put a bullet in your head" or "My greatest fantasy is to mangle your mutilated corpse".

 

maineman didn't say his threat was a fantasy.   He told Taipan, don't come to Freeport Maine.   Or else.   And permission didn't even enter into it.

 

1 hour ago, bludog said:

Maineman has been suspended twice IIRC for violating the threat rule.  Now he is gaming the system.

 

There you go.   Obviously a warning (which is all he got) isn't going to affect him in the least.   Because he doesn't respect you moderators.

 

1 hour ago, bludog said:

But he is likely to go over the line again, sooner or later.  If he does, he will be subject to suspension, again.

 

He wasn't subject to suspension this time.

 

And now I'm curious what EXACTLY he posted previously that resulted in suspensions for "threats"?   

I think we need to compare those statements with his current one to see if you're being consistent.

 

1 hour ago, bludog said:

The line has been drawn.  And must stay where it is.  To redraw it would be like moving a goal post in a football game. 

 

No, you're the one moving the goal post.   And in football they do video reviews and change official calls all the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kfools said:

The rules are posted homie. What are you getting at? Speak plain man. 

 

Again, you're being non responsive to all the discussion that's gone before.   I've asked SPECIFICALLY what makes what zaro said different than what maineman said?   What constitutes a threat that will get you suspended?   bludog says it has to be direct.   Well, I maintain that maineman's threat to Taipan was about as direct as it could get.   Now if you will post what zaro said, then all of use will see the difference.  Otherwise, there a HUGE grey area.    Is that plain enough, "man"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Again, you're being non responsive to all the discussion that's gone before.   I've asked SPECIFICALLY what makes what zaro said different than what maineman said?   What constitutes a threat that will get you suspended?   bludog says it has to be direct.   Well, I maintain that maineman's threat to Taipan was about as direct as it could get.   Now if you will post what zaro said, then all of use will see the difference.  Otherwise, there a HUGE grey area.    Is that plain enough, "man"?

 

You're a super jerkoff. Good luck on this forum, troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kfools said:

Hers was so plain though it wasn't really open for interpretation. 

 

mailman's statements weren't "really" open to interpretation.   He spoke of wrapping the person he posted in barbed wire and dragging him behind a pickup.  He said that "would be a FINE end for such a douchebag as yourself."    He said "don't EVER come to Freeport Maine" ... then warned that he has an acre of woods where he could hide "all sorts of things" (clearly implying the body of the poster that was dragged behind the pickup) and "and no one would EVER" (clearly implying the poster would be dead) "find" what he buried.    I see no room for interpreting what maineman said other the above ... unless you have a political bias and want to ignore what maineman said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

You're a super jerkoff. Good luck on this forum, troll.

 

Hey, I'm just trying to get the rules properly defined so YOU don't get in trouble, lefty.  Oh wait, you're a lefty, so you wouldn't get in trouble, would you?  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...