I think we ought to apply the rules to moderators as well

Author: TheRealNihilist ,

Posts

Total: 70
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Poll (Say Yes or No)
Discussion (Why)
Moderator opinions (Mods say something)

My main argument is that it doesn't actually improve the site. It just allow people to simply say whatever they like to conflate their ego. It creates clutter and nothing is gained apart from knowing how shallow people are. I advise the rules to be enforced universally not disregard when it comes to moderators. 
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,330
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Obviously everyone here is going to agree with this. The implication you are making here is that this is not already the case. Do you have examples to back this up?

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit

Commanding moderators to do something without giving constructive criticism. The latest example.  
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,330
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @TheRealNihilist
Which part of the CoC does that violate?
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Rules do currently apply to moderators. Indeed, moderators have more responsibility to behave properly and fewer protections against attack than other users.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Which part of the CoC does that violate?
9. Excessive Trolling
Trolling is the use of inflammatory language or extreme and unsupported claims aimed at provoking a negative emotional response. Excessive trolling is strongly discouraged and is prohibited when it significantly interferes with site user experience.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
"This website is officially under fascist rule" 

I guess this fits as well for trolling. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,295
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
way to hide a call out thread!
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,330
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
I see the pattern here now. If you don't like Dr.Franklin so much then just ignore him.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
I see the pattern here now. If you don't like Dr.Franklin so much then just ignore him.
Clearly shown he adds nothing informative to the conversation. 

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,330
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @TheRealNihilist
so you admit this is about Dr.Franklin and not about the mods. Good, at least you are being honest now.

Anyway whether he 'adds anything informative' or not I think ignoring him would be a lot more productive than claiming he is breaking the CoC when he clearly isn't and would also help you give off less of a creepy-obsessed-stalker vibe.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
so you admit this is about Dr.Franklin and not about the mods. Good, at least you are being honest now.
It is about the mods but you asked a question about Dr.Franklin so I answered.
Anyway whether he 'adds anything informative' or not I think ignoring him would be a lot more productive than claiming he is breaking the CoC when he clearly isn't and would also help you give off less of a creepy-obsessed-stalker vibe.
It is not hidden that I dislike him. 

He does break the CoC like:

c. Hate Speech
Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users. Whether aimed against other users or not, hate speech is treated as aggravating factor in weighing moderation responses to other violations of the COC. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech.

and

f. Fighting Words
Fighting words are posts intended solely to provoke or incite another user into taking prohibited actions. Fighting words are considered personal attacks, even if they themselves might not meet the abovementioned criteria.


This was all found on page 2. 



TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Above
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,330
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @TheRealNihilist
Okay now I am convinced that you are trolling.
David
David's avatar
Debates: 84
Posts: 1,206
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
No one is above the rules, including the moderators. For example, bsh1 removed a few of my votes that he felt went against the COC. Similarly I think I removed one of Ramshutu's votes for the same reason. 


crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
Idk if i should say this. But if a mod removes a vote. I don't think they should be allowed to vote on that debate after removing votes.

This has not happened. but lets say a mod removes a con vote but then votes pro. anyway the mods here are great. I just think this makes sense as a rule
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @David
No one is above the rules, including the moderators. For example, bsh1 removed a few of my votes that he felt went against the COC. Similarly I think I removed one of Ramshutu's votes for the same reason. 
And you or Ramshutu did what to bsh1?

bsh1 like he mentioned in the spam thread he changed stated:
is ultimately my job to decide. 
Which means he get to decide what is or isn't on this site. bsh1 is above the rule because he makes them and states how it should be implemented. 

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Okay now I am convinced that you are trolling
So you think he was joking? 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,295
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Yes, they should have been banned with half naked men on their picture
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 507
2
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
2
5
8
--> @Dr.Franklin
Men are allowed to not wear shirts in public. If men can do this, why shouldn't Bsh1 be able to post a picture of a shirtless male? 

Also, the clause in the CoC precludes people from posting pornography, not nude people. I'd say there is quite a difference between posting a shirtless male and posting porn. Wouldn't you agree?

Oxford defines pornography as such:
"...Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."

The tummy isn't a sexual organ unless you are into some diabolical kink I don't know about.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,295
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @blamonkey
I generally don't care if men wear no shirt, my problem is that he was in a sexual position with his finger to his mouth. I think if the photo is suggesting some sexual act, which is totally was, it should not be banned
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,295
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @blamonkey
****should be banned****
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 507
2
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
2
5
8
--> @Dr.Franklin
I don't think suggestive poses constitutes as pornography. Look at the CoC again. It bans pornography. It doesn't ban promiscuous or scandalous photos that only imply sexuality. I could go to any grocery store in the US and probably find something just as "adult" on the magazine rack where any curious kid could glance at it. Sports Illustrated, Cosmo, and other magazines feature fit people donned in swimsuits and sometimes adopting poses worse than a finger in the mouth. Hell, marketing has been sexualized for years. I don't see the photo causing as much harm on a site that targets older people and not 8 year olds. Also, in the event that an 8 year old does come on this site, I would think that the parents would object much more to the language. We are not children though, and we don't need to have our "innocence" protected.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,295
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @blamonkey
It's not about the innocence, this is a debate website, not a wesbite to get free half naked dudes
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 507
2
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
2
5
8
--> @Dr.Franklin
Whether it is appropriate or not, it doesn't violate the rules.