Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A discussion on the rules.

Options
1…2930323435…89

Comments

  • Options
    #932
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.


    emmmm no, that wouldn't be all of us, thanks.

    Going on this....
    The half-dozen or so excellent contributors are surrounded on all sides by people who can barely spell, let alone debate. You're not exactly presiding over the Oxford Union.

    ...you're a dab hand at the "pontifical disdain" yourself.


  • Options
    #933
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #934
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm open to correction, but I believe that "scumbag" is one of the terms deemed "unparliamentary" and therefore taboo in the Oireachtas.

    You're correct:
    In Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas (Parliament) in Ireland, the Ceann Comhairle (chair) has ruled that it is disorderly for one Teachta Dála (deputy) to describe another as a brat, buffoon, chancer, communist, corner boy, coward, fascist, fatty, gurrier, guttersnipe, hypocrite, rat, scumbag, scurrilous speaker or yahoo; or to insinuate that a TD is lying or drunk; or has violated the secrets of cabinet, or doctored an official report.[5] Also, the reference to "handbagging", particularly with reference to a female member of the House, has been deemed to be unparliamentary.[6] The Dáil maintains a document, Salient Rulings of the Chair which covers behaviour in and out of the House by TDs; section 428 of this lists unparliamentary speech.[7][8] In December 2009, Paul Gogarty apologised in advance for using "unparliamentary language" prior to shouting "**** you!" at an opposition chief whip.[7] This phrase was not one of those listed explicitly as inappropriate, prompting calls for a review.[9]

    Not that it's relevant, particularly, but it's funny, particularly after the outbreak of hoity-toityness.

    entertained,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #935
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Would those half-dozen excellent posters want to use the term often or find their enjoyment of the site curtailed by not using it?

    I find it odd posters would complain about the lack of quality on the forum and then want to use the word scumbags, it just strikes me as a little off.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #936
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    It seems the terms deemed "unparliamentary" are only unacceptable in the context of their being used towards other deputies, so I guess it's not an accurate comparison.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #937
    Hayte
    Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭Hayte


    I'm frankly amazed that this is even an issue worth arguing about.


  • Options
    #938
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #939
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Most of the high-traffic fora on this website have certain phrases, topics, or - yes - even words that the mods have banned. In AH, "cool story, bro" "blast them with piss" and "yore ma" come to mind. Why? Because those terms were used ad nauseam and all it did was aggravate other posters. Even in the 1 out of 50 instances where saying 'your ma' would be objectively funny, posters still get dinged because all it does is open the floodgates.

    Soccer is another example: the fact that you have to 'apply' to participate in an internet forum may seem overly draconian, but these kinds of rules were put in place ostensibly to avoid consistent problems in the past.

    Within the context of this forum 99% of the time if someone uses the term 'scum', 'scumbags' etc, it is part of a rant - especially if it is in the OP. Rants, especially if they are on the first page of a thread, only seem to encourage more rantiness, rather than rational discussion - which is something that several of the posters on this thread have been pushing for, repeatedly.

    In short, most of the ticky-tack rules across this website exist because the 5% of posters with no cop-on cause 95% of the problems, so cutting them off at the pass - even if it means legislating for minutiae - ends up being the only manageable way to deal with things.


  • Options
    #940
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭MysticalRain


    What's the official policy here on using Irish vernacular words like cute hoors and gombeens?


  • Options
    #941
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It seems the terms deemed "unparliamentary" are only unacceptable in the context of their being used towards other deputies, so I guess it's not an accurate comparison.

    Luckily, I don't regard it as the yardstick in any case...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #942
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    MysticalRain wrote: »
    What's the official policy here on using Irish vernacular words like cute hoors and gombeens?

    Same as any word, really - if gets to the point of being spam, it may be banned, otherwise there's no particular policy on words, except obvious epithets and the childish red-rag terms like 'teabagger' for members/followers of the Tea Party and 'beards' for union officials.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #943
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Most of the high-traffic fora on this website have certain phrases, topics, or - yes - even words that the mods have banned. In AH, "cool story, bro" "blast them with piss" and "yore ma" come to mind. Why? Because those terms were used ad nauseam and all it did was aggravate other posters. Even in the 1 out of 50 instances where saying 'your ma' would be objectively funny, posters still get dinged because all it does is open the floodgates.

    'Your ma' is a taunt, bordering on ad hominem. It adds nothing to a debate and there is a strong rationale for its banning. It's also understandably acceptable to ban references to posters or their mothers here and I'd extent that to calling another poster a scumbag. Banning the term 'scumbag' is less easily justified as it is a descriptive term that conveys deep disgust, succinctly. Its use as ad hominem is covered by the rules on ad hominem.
    Soccer is another example: the fact that you have to 'apply' to participate in an internet forum may seem overly draconian, but these kinds of rules were put in place ostensibly to avoid consistent problems in the past.

    I'm not familiar with the soccer forum apart from entry needing approval. Do they rotate moderators? Is this within an elite circle? I had presumed the soccer forum was some mods little Internet kingdom.
    Within the context of this forum 99% of the time if someone uses the term 'scum', 'scumbags' etc, it is part of a rant - especially if it is in the OP. Rants, especially if they are on the first page of a thread, only seem to encourage more rantiness, rather than rational discussion - which is something that several of the posters on this thread have been pushing for, repeatedly.

    So, moderate. Rants are not acceptable so infracted or warn on that basis rather than the inclusion of a taboo word. Context matters, intent matters. Not bothering to make judgement calls on these matters is lazy moderation - that's not to take away from the generally good jobs you do under difficult and unpaid conditions.
    In short, most of the ticky-tack rules across this website exist because the 5% of posters with no cop-on cause 95% of the problems, so cutting them off at the pass - even if it means legislating for minutiae - ends up being the only manageable way to deal with things.

    As logical and fair as banning alcohol because a minority lose the run of themselves. Infract the problems, based on the context, whether it's a rant or ad hominem or a one word or trolling comment. You have the rules to moderate effectively without the need to ban words.


  • Options
    #944
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The problem with context is it's subjective!

    If its allowed for gangland killers or an armed nutcase going on a killing spree, some posters will think it's fine to call the IRA that, or indeed the British Army to use examples. They can point to cases where it is allowed, and in some cases have a legitimate point. The problem is it just gets up posters noses in cases like that and doesn't add anything other than to show how outraged they are, and there's a forum for that!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #945
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    As logical and fair as banning alcohol because a minority lose the run of themselves.

    Drinking, and/or being visibly and annoyingly drunk, will get you thrown out of quite a lot of public places. Much like the law, too, we don't mind what you do with the word 'scumbags' in the the privacy of your own home. If you want to sit in your toilet and mutter it comfortingly to yourself, work away.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #946
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Laminations wrote: »
    As logical and fair as banning alcohol because a minority lose the run of themselves. Infract the problems, based on the context, whether it's a rant or ad hominem or a one word or trolling comment. You have the rules to moderate effectively without the need to ban words.

    I used to work at a bar that had pool tables. Most nights they were fine. But a few times a month, a fight would inevitably break out - usually due to pool hustling, fights over gambling debts, etc. And even when certain patrons were banned, inevitably things would kick off again with a new crop of players. So eventually we got rid of the pool tables.

    If there was a bartender who could stand over the tables full time to be sure that there was no gambling or hustling, then maybe we could have left them in. But instead we ended up taking them out of the bar - which sucked for the 90% of people who didn't cause problems - because the 10% who did were SO problematic that the bad eventually outweighed the good. That 10% rule pretty much applies across this website, hence why you see forums with weird rules about seemingly innocuous behavior - and Politics is no exception.

    The moderators here are volunteers and have jobs, families and lives outside of these boards. I don't think it is asking too much of people to refrain from using terms that nine out of ten times cause problems on threads.


  • Options
    #947
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭MysticalRain


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Same as any word, really - if gets to the point of being spam, it may be banned, otherwise there's no particular policy on words, except obvious epithets and the childish red-rag terms like 'teabagger' for members/followers of the Tea Party and 'beards' for union officials.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I don't think 'teabagger' is the best example to use as that is what members of the Tea Party movement referred to themselves as, at least in the initial stages. I also don't see how words like "cute hoor" would seem out of place here, given that the term is widely used by "normal people" in every day conversations (as distinct from the Oxford Union brigade).

    The basic point here in that a lot of these terms are highly subjective, and that is why people have a problem with political correctness to begin with. Too much political correctness just kills debate. Which defeats the purpose of a debating forum in the first place.

    Also, regarding the point about 'spam', I don't see how the frequency usage of a word could make it appear inherently bad.


  • Options
    #948
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    I used to work at a bar that had pool tables. Most nights they were fine. But a few times a month, a fight would inevitably break out - usually due to pool hustling, fights over gambling debts, etc. And even when certain patrons were banned, inevitably things would kick off again with a new crop of players. So eventually we got rid of the pool tables.

    If there was a bartender who could stand over the tables full time to be sure that there was no gambling or hustling, then maybe we could have left them in. But instead we ended up taking them out of the bar - which sucked for the 90% of people who didn't cause problems - because the 10% who did were SO problematic that the bad eventually outweighed the good. That 10% rule pretty much applies across this website, hence why you see forums with weird rules about seemingly innocuous behavior - and Politics is no exception.

    So you recognise it's a weird rule? This isn't a bar, it doesn't need full time vigilant patrolling like the pool table example, problem posts are reported and directly attributable to the poster that made them, they can be identified and warned/ infracted/ banned. Using the misuse of a facility (or term) by a minority to ban its use by the majority is just wrong.
    The moderators here are volunteers and have jobs, families and lives outside of these boards. I don't think it is asking too much of people to refrain from using terms that nine out of ten times cause problems on threads.

    I do appreciate the work you put in, but it would seem far less of a workload to review reported instances of the use of a word, like scumbag, and make a judgement based on context and intent as to whether to intervene with a penalty. That seems like less work than trawling through every post and writing up any and all posters that use a word. And the ratios have reversed, now it's 9 out of 10 it causes problems which is in contrast with your 10% minority issue above?? Also it's been made quite clear that the ban isn't due to the derogatory nature of 'scumbag' causing problems as toerag, vermin etc are acceptable. It's simply due to it's fashionable use. And 9 out of 10 threads on NI or the Middle East end in a train wreck, should we ban those topics to make it easier on the mods?


  • Options
    #949
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Drinking, and/or being visibly and annoyingly drunk, will get you thrown out of quite a lot of public places. Much like the law, too, we don't mind what you do with the word 'scumbags' in the the privacy of your own home. If you want to sit in your toilet and mutter it comfortingly to yourself, work away.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    If you think this issue (which a number of posters have raised) is just about some deep seated desire to utter the word scumbag or fill every post with the term then you really have missed the deeper point. Which for me is around the need for logical and consistent rules and moderators being able to justify a word ban. Responding to me as if I am inclined to sit on the toilet muttering scumbag may raise you some chortles but it's really not constructive in a discussion of the rules.

    If scumbag is used as ad hominem it's dealt with by ad hominem rules.
    If scumbag is used as a one word or in a one line response, it's dealt with by regular posting standards rules.
    If scumbag is used to categorise people based in their colour, creed or class it can be dealt with by civility rules.
    If scumbag is used in an unsubstantiated rant, the rant can be dealt with as most rants are, by posting standards rules.
    But if it is used to describe a person or people with reference to their actions and as part of a more substantive post (which provides some context or justification) then by all means let posters challenge it (like one could be challenged for describing a figure as a dishonest crook) and than of the reply doesn't clarify the choice of that term with something deeper than 'I don't like him' it can be dealt with under current posting standards. If someone uses the term, it's up to them to justify its applicability. If they cannot do so when challenged, then the mods intervene but don't just ban the word because it's popular or frequently misused. When it is used to convey a deep disgust it has value.


  • Options
    #950
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote:
    If you think this issue (which a number of posters have raised) is just about some deep seated desire to utter the word scumbag or fill every post with the term then you really have missed the deeper point. Which for me is around the need for logical and consistent rules and moderators being able to justify a word ban. Responding to me as if I am inclined to sit on the toilet muttering scumbag may raise you some chortles but it's really not constructive in a discussion of the rules.

    The remark is, I think, rather obviously not intended seriously in that sense. However, it does apply in what it actually states. The rule on words such as 'scumbag' is a consistent one - we apply it when use of a word or phrase, usually 'humorous' or opprobrious, reaches epidemic proportions, as scumbag did. And we apply it, obviously, only on this forum - you're free to use the word elsewhere.

    That is a consistent rule. I shouldn't have to spell out why it doesn't apply to all opprobrious terms, because that logically follows from the rule in question. You're actually asking for an ideological consistency which doesn't exist, because it's not an ideologically driven measure in the first place.

    If you'd like us to review the question of whether, if allowed again, 'scumbag' will not again become epidemic, I don't have a problem with that. My own feeling is that it probably would, resulting in a fresh ban, because the incidence we see despite the ban is still larger than use of any equivalent term. But it's obviously a question that can be put up for discussion.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #951
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    MysticalRain wrote: »
    I don't think 'teabagger' is the best example to use as that is what members of the Tea Party movement referred to themselves as, at least in the initial stages.

    In the case of its banning here, it was banned at the request of those posters who identify with the Tea Party, and who found it offensive (I won't name them, since as libertarians they object to political correctness and petty censorship). The mods agreed that the use of it was primarily aimed at offending/annoying those posters, and instituted the ban.
    MysticalRain wrote: »
    I also don't see how words like "cute hoor" would seem out of place here, given that the term is widely used by "normal people" in every day conversations (as distinct from the Oxford Union brigade).

    Nor do I, though.
    MysticalRain wrote: »
    The basic point here in that a lot of these terms are highly subjective, and that is why people have a problem with political correctness to begin with. Too much political correctness just kills debate. Which defeats the purpose of a debating forum in the first place.

    Also, regarding the point about 'spam', I don't see how the frequency usage of a word could make it appear inherently bad.

    It became, at the point where it was banned, a form of visual litter and a form of sloganeering. A regular occurrence was where one poster said x or y were scum/scumbags, and a series of posts followed which did nothing more than repeat that they were, indeed, scum/scumbags. Further, there was a strong politically motivated use of it, in that it was applied particularly and very repetitively to nationalist paramilitaries, to the point where the term IRA rarely occurred without the suffix 'scum', particularly during the debates over Jean McConville's killing. That last was the straw that broke the camel's back in respect of the terms 'scum' and 'scumbag'.

    Why it should have been that particular pair of terms I don't know, but it was those terms in particular, and banning them helped break that particular cycle. Possibly it wouldn't occur again, but I don't see that those two words are in any sense vitally needed in debate, to the extent that the lack of them somehow curtails debate, as posters here have - rather hysterically, to my mind - claimed.

    And if it's not about those particular words, but opposition to any such censorship, then sorry, no dice. Nor will we be erecting some kind of cod ideology to give us the intellectual consistency (or rigidity) so desired by some, I'm afraid.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #952
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Why it should have been that particular pair of terms I don't know, but it was those terms in particular, and banning them helped break that particular cycle. Possibly it wouldn't occur again, but I don't see that those two words are in any sense vitally needed in debate, to the extent that the lack of them somehow curtails debate, as posters here have - rather hysterically, to my mind - claimed.

    No one is claiming it is curtailing debate, let alone doing it hysterically. This idea that those words aren't vital goes without saying. No words are vital in debate, that's the richness of the language, there are always 'other ways' that things can be said. So defending the ban by saying the words aren't necessary for debate is not a good defence. It's the forcing of posters to say things in certain ways (but not being consistent in that) that's at issue. There were other rules in place where those iRA posters could have been infracted -ranting, trolling, post standards, civility. And just because posters react badly to the IRA being called scumbags does not justify banning the word, if the shoe fits. Again if it was a baiting one word slur then deal with those posters under existing rules. Describing the perpetrators of the brutal murder and disappearerance of a mother conveys the posters deep abbhorance and disgust. Really why shouldnt a poster as part of their attack of the IRA and it's actions be allowed call them scumbags? Moderators aren't there to protect the sensitivities of IRA terrorist sympathisers. You are there to determine if a post or reply is appropriate. If scumbag isn't appropriate neither should toerag, gouger, vermin etc.

    Arguing vehemently does not equal arguing huterically.
    And if it's not about those particular words, but opposition to any such censorship, then sorry, no dice.

    why? Why not enforce the current rules on standards when complaints are made? Rather than ban words.
    Nor will we be erecting some kind of cod ideology to give us the intellectual consistency (or rigidity) so desired by some, I'm afraid.

    Again, why? Banning ways in which express themselves, which is how many other forum rules operate (standards, length, sources, civility) in that derogatory words are banned would be a more logical ban, not necessarily an ideological one.

    Anyway, this isnt a discussion, it's you stamping your feet and shouting no.


  • Options
    #953
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    On a separate note, is there a maximum term for moderators on these fora at which time they are recycled off 'active duty', so as to prevent mods running forums like their own private stomping grounds. I know there are.regular enough shake ups in the moderating panels, but what's the longest amount of time someone can moderate (or has moderated) the same forum?


  • Options
    #954
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #955
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    No one is claiming it is curtailing debate, let alone doing it hysterically. This idea that those words aren't vital goes without saying. No words are vital in debate, that's the richness of the language, there are always 'other ways' that things can be said. So defending the ban by saying the words aren't necessary for debate is not a good defence. It's the forcing of posters to say things in certain ways (but not being consistent in that) that's at issue. There were other rules in place where those iRA posters could have been infracted -ranting, trolling, post standards, civility. And just because posters react badly to the IRA being called scumbags does not justify banning the word, if the shoe fits. Again if it was a baiting one word slur then deal with those posters under existing rules. Describing the perpetrators of the brutal murder and disappearerance of a mother conveys the posters deep abbhorance and disgust. Really why shouldnt a poster as part of their attack of the IRA and it's actions be allowed call them scumbags? Moderators aren't there to protect the sensitivities of IRA terrorist sympathisers. You are there to determine if a post or reply is appropriate. If scumbag isn't appropriate neither should toerag, gouger, vermin etc.

    Nor are we there to determine that any one group can be called scumbags.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Arguing vehemently does not equal arguing huterically.

    Making overblown claims does, though.
    Laminations wrote: »
    why? Why not enforce the current rules on standards when complaints are made? Rather than ban words.

    The one is part of the other.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Again, why? Banning ways in which express themselves, which is how many other forum rules operate (standards, length, sources, civility) in that derogatory words are banned would be a more logical ban, not necessarily an ideological one.

    Virtually every forum bans some words, though.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Anyway, this isnt a discussion, it's you stamping your feet and shouting no.

    If you like. You haven't presented any meaningful argument for removing the ban on the word that I can see, other than your own rooted opposition to such bans. I, and the rest of the mod team, apparently don't share that rooted opposition.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #956
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Heh.

    the ironing is delicious,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #957
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    On a separate note, is there a maximum term for moderators on these fora at which time they are recycled off 'active duty', so as to prevent mods running forums like their own private stomping grounds. I know there are.regular enough shake ups in the moderating panels, but what's the longest amount of time someone can moderate (or has moderated) the same forum?

    There's no maximum I'm aware of. Mods generally withdraw when they just can't face it any more, which provides a reasonable attrition rate. Some people have moderated the same forum for years, but the attrition rate is higher on more active and contentious forums.

    As to preventing the mods treating forums as their "private stomping grounds", there's a supervisory structure of CMods and Admins for that reason, and a complaints system. Admittedly, that system is not always responsive to complaints that someone else is not running a forum the way you personally want it run, but that's life. Forums are rarely run to the entire satisfaction of small ideological groups, for example.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #958
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #959
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Nor are we there to determine that any one group can be called scumbags.

    But oddly you are when it comes to other words, like toerags, or vermin or leftists or zionists. I'd be of the opinion that you should be moderating how posters refer to individuals or groups (with the words chosen based on their actions or a justification with reference to behaviour). You would not have a problem with Anders Brevik being called a monster but the same term used to describe a SFer might just warrant a word from the mods.


    Making overblown claims does, though.

    Examples?

    The one is part of the other.

    Possibly, but one does not necessitate the other. Having rules does not lead on to a need for word bans.
    Virtually every forum bans some words, though.

    Argumentum ad populum. So it's the fashionable thing to do? Other forums don't have as strict and broad a rule set to deal with an inappropriate post. A post shouldn't be inappropriate merely because it includes a taboo word - you have rules on civility etc that can be applied to scumbag as much as toerag etc.
    If you like. You haven't presented any meaningful argument for removing the ban on the word that I can see, other than your own rooted opposition to such bans. I, and the rest of the mod team, apparently don't share that rooted opposition.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I'd argue that you haven't provided any justification for banning words when synonyms are allowed.


  • Options
    #960
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Admittedly, that system is not always responsive to complaints that someone else is not running a forum the way you personally want it run, but that's life. Forums are rarely run to the entire satisfaction of small ideological groups, for example.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Wanting logical and consistent forum rules is not an ideology.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #961
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement