Yeah, that thread last night was closed purely because Harold posted it. I doubt most people would have got warned for 'homo' either.
Henry warned him the other week because he assumed something he mistyped was meant to be racist (which it clearly wasn't) for fuck's sake.
Originally Posted by Toby
It's a shame Harold created that rod for his own back.
Actually the mods have been pretty consistent if you look in Room 101.
But there's only one person with such a problem with the subject (not just the one thread/post) for whatever reason, but unfortunately he's the one holding all the cards. And that's always been the case with whatever subject too.
I couldn't see too many others having a problem with the posts so why censor it altogether?
Most people wouldn't be using it as a pejorative in the first place, but if they did they'd be warned for it. You don't have any particular history of homophobia, tell us about how you got away with using 'faggot' as a result.
Be specific or fuck up.
That shouldn't be how it is though. I don't want to get involved in this discussion because I've no problem with the moderators, really, but it's not fair to close threads just because of who started them.
I've been in that boat and I remember sitting there genuinely baffled as to why my threads had been closed/I'd been banned. One time someone else even posted a thread on the same thing a few months later (it was Mario origami, lol) and it stayed open, albeit without much response. Still, like others have said, if someone like Hammerstein had started the thread instead of Harold, it would have stayed open longer. Although I've no doubt it would have eventually been closed once Harold had started to derail it.
I'm a twit
I don't think it is like that but if he's sometimes treated harsher than others then it's not surprising. He's a boring troll who I can't understand the sympathy for.
Henry was a cunt, similar to R-One.
Problem is we all have a baseline understanding of what we all want to see as a thread, naturally a shit thread will die out relatively quickly but nobody is as inflammatory, annoying and one way street as Harold. He's trolling, it's painfully obvious.
I'm glad I kept those 'Toby for Mod' t-shirts and over-sized hats.
RL, I guess the lol is fair, I'd misremembered the wording of the opening post in that thread, presumably muddling it with his later posts in the News of the Day thread. There's still an expectation when he posts something like that of how it's going to play out. It can hardly be called an unfair judgement when it happens so often.
It's not "censored". The thread is closed, not deleted. If you want to respond to it it was posted elsewhere. Nobody really has responded though, because nobody actually cares that much about the topic.
Yep. That's because if Hammerstein had started it it would have been a completely different thread and would have followed a completely different tone.
Our day will come.
As a decent mod and poster you're capable of more rationale than that. Don't always be trying to live up to the prick persona. You know full well what I'm saying and I'm right too. Ital has always been a joke as a moderator and now that he's only fleeting here it's high time he was removed. This whole situation is only coppe fastening it.
Your advice will be taken into consideration.
That's settling.
Bringing the old House Rules over in their entirety sums it up. They're like a charter for lameness.
One rule saying "don't be a dick" would be the best way forward but half the board would piss themselves over CONSISTENCY.
I await you, Harold and RL lining up outside my door with pitchforks.
This is some serious business.
It's OK because there already isn't any.
Does moderating really affect any of our lives except Harold's? As Lewis would say, ironically, it's just an excuse to moan.
What about the consistency though?
I for one will be up throughout the night taking all this in.
Ban proper porn and proper racism, and then just ignore Harold. We're not even a public forum are we? Yet that poorly thought-out 'homophobia' CLAMPDOWN is still running wild.
I think porn, or at least links to porn should be allowed, for fuck's sake.
Good job nobody ever mentioned pre-teens and I was proven correct then, eh? The reason nobody has responded is because I have been proven correct again. That's the truth.
Is any opposition to you lot 'wailing'? Seems like it.
I don't use it as a perjorative. I was clearly making something of a joke of Henry's completely wrong perception of me.
Pre-emptive action
Nobody else has these issues. Its just you being an utter cock. Stop it.
It's OK they'll tell us it's serious business another few times and all will be well again. The company line.
Can we ban Franny too?
You'd be lost you cocklord.
You were getting similar not so long ago. Less than a year, probably. Now, you may see no harm in being forced to change your opinions (or just not espouse them any more), but I do. This, in fact, is a manifestation of where society as a whole is heading. People are afraid of an opinion that difffers from the left agenda. They need to be protected from speech, apparently. And, in any case, the thread which was closed had nothing at all that anyone could possibly be offended about and, worse, it seems as though it was deliberately mischaracterised as being about 'children's sexuality' when it was nothing of the sort. That was either deliberate or those who whose to make that claim did not even bother reading it.
Oh great. Another fucking YouTube video.
Which you HAVE to watch.
'Oh great, another twat moaning about a video that he doesn't have to watch'.
Someone moan about this so we can keep the string going. It's fun.
Whether I can divine your meaning or not is irrelevant. Talking in allusions as you were is just sneaky arseholey. It's like someone fishing for an 'aww babe' on Facebook ,or the sort of thing Harold does to avoid actually saying anything meaningful he might later have to defend. If you're going to talk about this stuff, have the decency to make yourself clear and actually address the issue. If you're not willing to do that, just fuck up.
No. There was no wailing in this thread, for example, until you entered with your standard issue, off the peg victim complex. I'm happy to hear any issues people might have with my moderation, but it's possible to put those across in a way that isn't just 'woe is me'.
No, I'm disagreeing with you, and expressing it as such. It's no more 'wailing' than you or your lot have been doing in this thread.
Explain, if you will, what consititued RL 'wailing' in the other thread other than the fact he disagreed with you lot? And I refer to you in that manner because you all tend to close ranks and become detached from any opinions of your own on such issues.
The manner. It was that of a smacked child, hence the terminology.
I wouldn't say you're wailing now, for what it's worth, because while you're still miles of base and taking up a bizarrely wounded position on everything, you're at least engaging in something approaching a conversation.
I'd suggest it comes across in that manner because you see yourself and the discipline-giving parent. So any pushback in seen almost as insolence by you.
Was Kiko wailing about my video?
It's always good fun when you pick up on one use of language and try to redefine that word for TTH. I particularly enjoy it when you subsequently claim people are resorting to semantic arguments against you.
No, he wasn't. That was an exasperated sigh. Almost like that a parent might let slip when their child flings their plate of fruit on the floor for the fifteenth time.
Pathetic.
That's me exasperated, by the way. I'm not wailing!
Should probably put this in a way that'll be understood.
Strength in numbers, lads. After all, words are scary.
Group hug?
That's an interesting direction to take so soon after your attempt at a call to arms speech aimed at Magic and your leaping to the defence of RL's wailing.
You're probably incapable of sensing sarcasm after all these years of playing the professional bore and offense taker.
Rumbled. It's not even like you've said anything in the last hour or two which makes it clear you do think we, the moderators, do retreat into a safety in numbers formation. You've done me there.
It's more a case of the uniformity. There's no way several people should think in exactly the same way like that. Now you probably feel you're such an important collective that you simply must have a party line and show unity. Because, after all, the importance of words being read that someone might not like doesn't bear thinking about.
I'm glad you quoted that again for everyone to see. Perhaps one of my finest wails.
I think you might be overthinking things slightly.
EDIT: Actually, even as I wrote that, I realised how implausible the idea is. Never mind.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote