General Announcement from the new Owners / New Forum Ruleset

[Asher]

When did I ever say this?

[action=Asher]sigh[/action]

[Lorizael]

Asher, Ben, Laz: This is not the thread to discuss personal issues.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think you'll find I was asking for the digression to stop.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I like the new rules.

The plans for the content and secret project are very interesting too! Best of luck to everybody involved in making Poly a better place.

I agree with DrSpike about the rule against personal attacks. It is listed, but then again the same could have been said about the old Poly rules, and that track record was somewhat spotty.

But things are looking up. Thanks again to Jeroen and Robert for stepping up, and to Jon Miller, Lorizael and MikeH for filling in.

[Ben Kenobi]

Apologies Laz.

That's all I have to say.

[Asher]

Asher, Ben, Laz: This is not the thread to discuss personal issues.

Please don't avoid the question. It's not a personal issue except that you know as well as I do the only reason I'm asking is a certain poster is getting away with speech considered to be hate speech in at least one country.

When one poster makes comments universally about a minority in a negative way, it is deeply offensive if not hateful. It should not be permitted, and this is the relevant thread to discuss where you draw the line.

As I said, I would expect if somebody made a thread saying "Blacks are not to be trusted" that this poster would be found to be in violation of the rules. This is the same situation as saying "Gays are not capable of monogamy". Note that this statement isn't "Some/most gays choose not to be monogamous", it's a far more absolute statement in many ways: it encompasses ALL gays and it encompasses what they are CAPABLE of, not what they choose to do.

I trust you will reevaluate your position.

[Lorizael]

Sorry, Asher, I wasn't avoiding your question. The tiff you were having with Ben was personal, but your question about what is and is not permitted is not explicitly personal, and I'll answer that now.

It should be noted that while I had input in the rules-making process and I am a moderator of the off topic, I don't speak for the administration. My stance here is based on how I am choosing to moderate the off topic forum based on my interpretation of these rules. I suspect that JM and MikeH will have similar positions, based on the fact that they seem to be just as, if not more, hands off than I am.

I am not sure you understand. Saying "some gays are not capable of monogamy" may be borderline okay, but to say "gays are not capable of monogamy" is an absolute moral judgment.

"Gays are not capable of monogamy" is an absolute statement, but it is not an absolute moral statement. The quality of monogamy, while generally accepted to be a good thing, is not in and of itself a measure of a person's goodness. I see nothing inherently wrong with discussing, believing, or expressing the viewpoint that gays are not capable of monogamy, however silly said viewpoint may be.

Absolute statements that do make implicit or explicit moral judgments are over the line. Stating that "gays are not capable of not murdering people" is an absolute moral statement because, by almost any measure, murder is wrong. If an opinion such as that were repeatedly expressed in a hateful manner, I would take action against the poster.

[Krill]

...Can we get all of the posts since BK joined the convo moved into a new thread in the OT?

[Asher]

Sorry, Asher, I wasn't avoiding your question. The tiff you were having with Ben was personal, but your question about what is and is not permitted is not explicitly personal, and I'll answer that now.

It should be noted that while I had input in the rules-making process and I am a moderator of the off topic, I don't speak for the administration. My stance here is based on how I am choosing to moderate the off topic forum based on my interpretation of these rules. I suspect that JM and MikeH will have similar positions, based on the fact that they seem to be just as, if not more, hands off than I am.



"Gays are not capable of monogamy" is an absolute statement, but it is not an absolute moral statement. The quality of monogamy, while generally accepted to be a good thing, is not in and of itself a measure of a person's goodness. I see nothing inherently wrong with discussing, believing, or expressing the viewpoint that gays are not capable of monogamy, however silly said viewpoint may be.

Absolute statements that do make implicit or explicit moral judgments are over the line. Stating that "gays are not capable of not murdering people" is an absolute moral statement because, by almost any measure, murder is wrong. If an opinion such as that were repeatedly expressed in a hateful manner, I would take action against the poster.

You're very wrong, Lori. Hiding behind the semantics that monogamy is not necessarily moral is just pathetic. Don't mean to be rude to you, but it just is.

That kind of comment is extremely, extremely offensive to many people and it should not be able to stand. It's little comments like that which have made a certain poster a derisive target for many, because the comment was very hateful and belittling in ways that you cannot, apparently, comprehend.

I'm hoping other people on the admin team can see the light, because this just isn't going to cut it. It's bad enough to let people who are potential felons back, it's quite another to let bigoted comments applied absolutely to every member of a minority stand.

You are opening a can of worms. You just know certain people are going to take this precedent and milk it now, since it's now officially sanctioned to be intensely offensive to a minority group so long as the comment isn't absolutely immoral. If you'd ever taken a basic ethics class, you'd know there's no such thing anyway.

Who should these people target first? The Jews?

[Ben Kenobi]

Can we get all of the posts since BK joined the convo moved into a new thread in the OT?

My question's been answered, so I support Krill's request.

[Robert]

This is the only part that worries me. Robert, I don't know if you are aware but the Human Rights commissions up here have sued people for posting the bible.

They quote the exact same language you use here. All I am asking is if the teachings of Christ and those of the Catholic church are considered to be appropriate for the site.

citing the bible as a clear citation would not be against any rule.
Pulling biblical quotes out of context and post them in such a way that they are hate speech however is.

Remember that Jesus didn't copy all of the old testament either. He didn't stone the women who committed adultery and he disagreed with the 'eye for an eye' rule.
Every book, holy or not holy, takes place within a certain context. Therefore you can't copy phrases of books and post them like they are your own opinion here if they are hate speech in our context.

Regarding the gay/monogamy thing, imho neither gays nor hetero's are very good at that. As far as I know do both groups oftenly fail to be true to their partner. This is only a personal opinion, but I think you'd better be a bit more careful when expressing opinions like that. People are reading your posts that might be hurt by hem. Is that what you want? Or do you want to discuss the topic. The latter is allowed, the first is not. Do you want to bring your message across? People won't listen to you if you deafen(?) them first by verbal noise. But once again, that's just a personal advise from CyberShy, not a rule from Robert Plomp the polyowner.

[Lorizael]

You're very wrong, Lori. Hiding behind the semantics that monogamy is not necessarily moral is just pathetic. Don't mean to be rude to you, but it just is.

That kind of comment is extremely, extremely offensive to many people and it should not be able to stand. It's little comments like that which have made a certain poster a derisive target for many, because the comment was very hateful and belittling in ways that you cannot, apparently, comprehend.

I'm hoping other people on the admin team can see the light, because this just isn't going to cut it. It's bad enough to let people who are potential felons back, it's quite another to let bigoted comments applied absolutely to every member of a minority stand.

You are opening a can of worms. You just know certain people are going to take this precedent and milk it now, since it's now officially sanctioned to be intensely offensive to a minority group so long as the comment isn't absolutely immoral. If you'd ever taken a basic ethics class, you'd know there's no such thing anyway.

Who should these people target first? The Jews?

You're misinterpreting my semantic argument due to what I believe is emotional bias, so I'm going to be clear here: I will not stop people from expressing offensive opinions; I will only stop people from intentionally trying to hurt other posters.

[Ben Kenobi]

Regarding the gay/monogamy thing, imho neither gays nor hetero's are very good at that.

Thanks Robert. You said it better then I did. I understand your concern, and I don't wish to trouble you in the future.

[Guynemer]

You're misinterpreting my semantic argument due to what I believe is emotional bias, so I'm going to be clear here: I will not stop people from expressing offensive opinions; I will only stop people from intentionally trying to hurt other posters.

Devil's Advocate, Lori:

This is a very geeky bulletin board for a very, very geeky computer game. There aren't going to be a lot of racial minorities posting here, relative to the general population. So a comment like "Blacks are incapable of monogamy" would be unlikely to personally hurt other posters. Would such a post be allowed? You seem to be saying yes, it would be. By that logic, I can't see any reason why "Gays are incapable of monogamy" would be allowed, as we do have many homosexual members.

[Guynemer]

Also, regarding the Dale situation:

Morally, I strongly disagree with inviting him back, for reasons that are well known. However, I don't think it makes any practical difference, because the odds of him actually showing his virtual face back here are somewhat less than the Lions winning the next Super Bowl.