Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Decency Line...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Blueflame View Post
    Actually, there's nothing even remotely amusing about Shane's fabricated tale of another poster being a pedophile simply because he has visited Thailand and disagrees politically with Shane. It's weird, creepy and disgusting. And unacceptable.

    You're correct that there's nothing wrong with the word "LAPredator" -- unless the context of the post makes it obvious that "predator" is being used as merely a substitute word for "pedophile" and the reference still is to Shane's malicious lie. In that event, the moderator team easily could determine that it is, in fact, actionable. Context matters in every single discussion the team tackles.

    The family smack rule is probably the most strictly-enforced rule on the forum. It depends entirely on context. A lighthearted "yo Mama" joke is ok but might not be, depending on context. One's truly safest just avoiding mentioning other posters' family members. Same concept applies to the more-recent controversies.

    Or as the Forum Guidelines say -- Rule #1: Use Your Head. TJ was like the Founding Fathers writing the Constitution in trying to foresee and cover all situations we as a message board community might face.
    The bold implies there is some other context in which GB16's use of "LAPredator" could be interpreted.

    There is not.

    Perhaps if GB16 had begun using the epithet "LAPredator" prior to Shane's accusations, then you could allow for the possibility of some other contextual interpretation, but his use of the moniker is clearly and unequivocally a reference to Shane's original remarks.

    To allow for the possibility of some other context in which "LAPredator" could be interpreted, in this instance, is to provide GB16 with a loophole.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GreatBronco16 View Post

      I wasn't talking about the username. And calling someone LAPredator is not ban worthy. This was already covered by Dom.
      Wrong.

      You keep ignoring the bold part:

      Originally posted by DomCasual
      I'll be specific with this, since there might seem to be some ambiguity. Saying someone goes on "sex vacations" is probably okay (albeit stupid, IMO). Saying someone is a predator is also probably okay (heck, some sports teams have been named predators - in some contexts, it would be considered a compliment). Neither of those things are illegal. Implying that either of those things pertains to children is baseless (as it pertains to anyone here), gross, and not acceptable here.

      https://www.orangemane.com/forum/jib...55#post2628055
      That's EXACTLY what you are implying when you use the epithet "LAPredator."

      If I'm wrong, and if your intention is to imply something else, then I invite you (for about the third or fourth time) to clarify or explain here.

      Comment


      • Comment


        • lmao. This guy still crying about being called names.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ShaneHannity
            lmao. This guy still crying about being called names.
            You're still crying about your "ban" for falsely accusing me of abusing children, I see.

            Sad!

            Comment


            • Comment


              • Good dog!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Blueflame View Post
                  Actually, there's nothing even remotely amusing about Shane's fabricated tale of another poster being a pedophile simply because he has visited Thailand and disagrees politically with Shane. It's weird, creepy and disgusting. And unacceptable.

                  You're correct that there's nothing wrong with the word "LAPredator" -- unless the context of the post makes it obvious that "predator" is being used as merely a substitute word for "pedophile" and the reference still is to Shane's malicious lie. In that event, the moderator team easily could determine that it is, in fact, actionable. Context matters in every single discussion the team tackles.

                  The family smack rule is probably the most strictly-enforced rule on the forum. It depends entirely on context. A lighthearted "yo Mama" joke is ok but might not be, depending on context. One's truly safest just avoiding mentioning other posters' family members. Same concept applies to the more-recent controversies.

                  Or as the Forum Guidelines say -- Rule #1: Use Your Head. TJ was like the Founding Fathers writing the Constitution in trying to foresee and cover all situations we as a message board community might face.
                  Good post Blue, I think we should ditch this forum for a month. Wipe all the history of it and then start it back brand new.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimtheFin View Post
                    lmao. This guy still crying about being called names.
                    OMG. The irony. More than half of your 500+ posts are crying, whining, sniveling..... "oh, poor Shane!!!*

                    Someone needs to get you some wine and chocolates -- a lifetime supply of Kleenex... or maybe counseling for your creepy stalkerish fixation on Shane? Good Lord.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Blueflame View Post

                      OMG. The irony. More than half of your 500+ posts are crying, whining, sniveling..... "oh, poor Shane!!!*
                      The other irony is that he still can’t (or won’t) see the difference between “being called names” and being falsely accused of a felony.



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Blueflame View Post

                        OMG. The irony. More than half of your 500+ posts are crying, whining, sniveling..... "oh, poor Shane!!!*

                        Someone needs to get you some wine and chocolates -- a lifetime supply of Kleenex... or maybe counseling for your creepy stalkerish fixation on Shane? Good Lord.
                        It’s because he’s Shane. Dude has multiple personalities on here.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mile High Salute View Post

                          It’s because he’s Shane. Dude has multiple personalities on here.
                          Yep.

                          He is essentially whining about a ban that's not really a ban.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mile High Salute View Post

                            It’s because he’s Shane. Dude has multiple personalities on here.
                            An army of one.

                            Comment


                            • Comment


                              • Originally posted by Blueflame View Post

                                OMG. The irony. More than half of your 500+ posts are crying, whining, sniveling..... "oh, poor Shane!!!*

                                Someone needs to get you some wine and chocolates -- a lifetime supply of Kleenex... or maybe counseling for your creepy stalkerish fixation on Shane? Good Lord.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X