Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007 15:53 Post subject: Pretty pathetic when you apply rules that don't exist yet.
Bad form it all you want. I was making a valid point and you guys are sucking as moderators if you try to enforce based on rules that "should be there." Not my fault you didn't think about it before. She made her picture accessible to this forum and I used it on this forum to make a valid point.
Pathetic.
By the way, were was your zealousness when I called her out on her violating the rules yet again. If one of you had actually done your job then I wouldn't have to over explain the arbitrariness of a claim that is insulting to certain members including me. And the hypocricy behind such aclaim as it can easily be applied to the multiracial Whites Powell so ardently espouses.
While you are at it, how about setting up a rule that reposts of the exact same thread over and over again (because they were ignored before) is considered spam as well.
Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007 16:44 Post subject: Re: Pretty pathetic when you apply rules that don't exist yet.
Salsassin wrote:
Bad form it all you want. I was making a valid point and you guys are sucking as moderators if you try to enforce based on rules that "should be there." Not my fault you didn't think about it before. She made her picture accessible to this forum and I used it on this forum to make a valid point.
You misunderstand. You were not suspended because of the photo. You were suspended on the grounds of rule 4.5 for your incessant gratuitous goading of another member.
Regarding the photo, the family photos forum is visible only to registered members. This is for reasons of security. Your deliberately moving a personal family photo from the private members-only forum into a general public forum is not why you were suspended, although it upset some of the moderators (including me).
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007 17:06 Post subject: Re: Pretty pathetic when you apply rules that don't exist yet.
Salsassin wrote:
Bad form it all you want. I was making a valid point and you guys are sucking as moderators if you try to enforce based on rules that "should be there." Not my fault you didn't think about it before. She made her picture accessible to this forum and I used it on this forum to make a valid point.
Pathetic.
By the way, were was your zealousness when I called her out on her violating the rules yet again. If one of you had actually done your job then I wouldn't have to over explain the arbitrariness of a claim that is insulting to certain members including me. And the hypocricy behind such aclaim as it can easily be applied to the multiracial Whites Powell so ardently espouses.
While you are at it, how about setting up a rule that reposts of the exact same thread over and over again (because they were ignored before) is considered spam as well.
You are an attorney, you should know about privacy rights, especially on the internet. You used the photo to make a point granted. But you were also using it to get at AD. This is wrong. Furthermore, just think of the precedent you would have set if we let this go. The Pictures Forum is private for registered members only. You compromised the security of a member and this web site by publically displaying the photo. This is a huge no no, and you should know this.
Salsassin wrote:
Not my fault you didn't think about it before. She made her picture accessible to this forum and I used it on this forum to make a valid point.
That is arrogant. Granted, these pictures are not copyright protected, but that still does not give you the right to use someone elses pictures publically for all the world to see, particularly when they were posted in a private forum, without the permission of the owner. That is extremely bad form, discourteous, unethical, just flat out wrong. I for the life of me, cannot figure out why you think just because the pictures are posted here, that you have the right to use them at your disposal. Attitudes like this will make people not want to post pictures on this board.
Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007 20:39 Post subject: Re: Pretty pathetic when you apply rules that don't exist ye
fwsweet wrote:
You misunderstand. You were not suspended because of the photo. You were suspended on the grounds of rule 4.5 for your incessant gratuitous goading of another member.
Hypocritical. Her attacks on light skinned Blacks of Which I have a few in my family are as incessant and that was not goading that was calling her on her bullcrap.
Quote:
Regarding the photo, the family photos forum is visible only to registered members. This is for reasons of security. Your deliberately moving a personal family photo from the private members-only forum into a general public forum is not why you were suspended, although it upset some of the moderators (including me).
Was not aware of the difference in forums. Just noticed the fine print.
Posted: Wed 08 Aug 2007 20:40 Post subject: Re: Pretty pathetic when you apply rules that don't exist ye
DChapman wrote:
You are an attorney, you should know about privacy rights, especially on the internet. You used the photo to make a point granted. But you were also using it to get at AD. This is wrong. Furthermore, just think of the precedent you would have set if we let this go. The Pictures Forum is private for registered members only. You compromised the security of a member and this web site by publically displaying the photo. This is a huge no no, and you should know this.
See above.
Quote:
That is arrogant. Granted, these pictures are not copyright protected, but that still does not give you the right to use someone elses pictures publically for all the world to see, particularly when they were posted in a private forum, without the permission of the owner. That is extremely bad form, discourteous, unethical, just flat out wrong. I for the life of me, cannot figure out why you think just because the pictures are posted here, that you have the right to use them at your disposal. Attitudes like this will make people not want to post pictures on this board.
By the way, it is an oxymoron to call any humans who have overpopulated this earth mulattos. After all mules are generally sterile (there have been exceptions). Or biracial. As we are all of one race, the human race. So all people that call themselves biracial or multiracial or mulatto are all oxymorons.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Thu 09 Aug 2007 03:13 Post subject:
''By the way, it is an oxymoron to call any humans who have overpopulated this earth mulattos.
''As we are all of one race, the human race. So all people that call themselves biracial or multiracial or mulatto are all oxymorons.''
Vedddy interesting.
Since there is no, um, race....and, well, you know some say this but ignore that, then...well, the above quoted comments have to be right.
Frank Sweet says the photo business, while irritating, isn't the reason for the possible suspension, goading another member is. DC Chapman ''ignores'' this aspect but is sufficiently agitated about the poster using the picture to prove a point. So which one of the two has more weight in the conference room discussion. Is it both. If so then it seems like the two attitudes can be deadlocked to the point of dismissal; from my point of view obviously.
Finally, Salsassin has already admitted his error in not looking a bit closer at the picture rule.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 09 Aug 2007 12:43 Post subject:
Andrew Waters wrote:
Frank Sweet says the photo business, while irritating, isn't the reason for the possible suspension, goading another member is. DC Chapman ''ignores'' this aspect but is sufficiently agitated about the poster using the picture to prove a point. So which one of the two has more weight in the conference room discussion. Is it both. If so then it seems like the two attitudes can be deadlocked to the point of dismissal; from my point of view obviously.
Actually, the picture was used unethically to intentionally goad and irritate another member. I perhaps did not make that clear, that is my fault, but it was intuitively obvious what the intentions were, particularly the history that Jaime and AD have among each other. He knew full well that taking that picture from a private forum to make a point on a publc forum would upset her and it did. He knows better.
Other members were upset about this as well, particularly members who have pictures in the Pictures Forum. This is a security violation. It compromises the security of both the member and this web site.
The consensus of the moderators is that Salsassin's suspension is upheld but reduced to two weeks' duration. The moderators do not opine on the substance of the original debate.
It is upheld because the basic reason is valid. The moderators agree that Salsassin repeatedly used this website to launch personal attacks on another member, attempting to goad her into retaliation. This violates paragraph 4.5 of The Rules. In essence, the moderators have grown increasingly intolerant of Salsassin's one-on-one quarrel.
Salsassin's suspension is reduced to two weeks' duration because the specific act that Salsassin committed, (publicly posting a private photo), which the moderators found to be in violation of 4.5, is not a forbidden act per se. As paragraph 4.5 states:
The Rules: 4.5 wrote:
The moderators have the discretionary authority to suspend your posting privilege if you habitually antagonize or insult other members, even if you stay within the letter of these rules. For example, if you often get into flame wars, or habitually express yourself in ways that others find objectionable, or deliberately goad others into overreacting, the forum moderator can suspend your posting privilege even if you have broken no specific rule.
The wording is clear that a paragraph 4.5 suspension does not require an explicitly forbidden act. A pattern of hostility suffices. Nevertheless, the act of publicly posting a private photo should have been explicitly forbidden. As Salsassin himself pointed out in his defense, it may not be obvious to everyone that some forums are public and others are private. It may not be obvious to everyone that material from a private forum thread should not be moved to a public forum without the permission of all of the participants of the private thread. With this in mind, the suspension is reduced to two weeks, ending at midnight, August 19, 2007. (Salsassin's most recent prior suspension was for two weeks: 5/1/2007 - 5/14/2007).
Finally, the moderators do not opine on the substance of the original debate. The substance of this particular debate was whether "light-skinned Black" is an oxymoron. This is a trivial semantic debate (over the denotation of the word "oxymoron"). It is trivial because pivots on both parties' deliberately conflating phenotype with ethnic self-identify. Hence, it does not deserve discussion as per paragraph 3.7.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
