Is Miss Ragga Poorly?

First topic message reminder :

I cannot see any off her posts.

You didn't mention 4ever by name so I assumed you were talking about the person I was talking about; rags
Miscommunication that's all. And for the record, I like 4ever as a person, I just think she goes on about her grudges for too long.

As for me "going off course" well, not the first time you've complained about that, is it? But I'm a poster first. Not the first time I've explained that, is it?

The interpretation by Tommy on one of the protected species, Sassy, is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

Tommy Rockz

Leave sassy alone. She's not here to defend herself in the first instance and nobody is a "protected species" .

eddie wrote:Leave sassy alone. She's not here to defend herself in the first instance and nobody is a "protected species" .

Neither was I for a few weeks, did you say the same, eddie.

I cannot believe you think this way eddie, you have shocked me.

eddie wrote:You didn't mention 4ever by name so I assumed you were talking about the person I was talking about; rags
Miscommunication that's all. And for the record, I like 4ever as a person, I just think she goes on about her grudges for too long.

As for me "going off course" well, not the first time you've complained about that, is it? But I'm a poster first. Not the first time I've explained that, is it?

I don't mind if you want to post. But, it's all the more reason for you to be painfully careful how you apply the rules as a mod.

For example, your rules say certain words are outlawed, but there is no place where the list is published. You can't call it due process of law when the words are unspecified. You guys play it like, we'll know it when we see it! That's no standard at all.

The other thing is looking for inter-subjective consensus among yourselves, up in the mod room. Just because you guys vote among yourselves that something is wrong, is not justice when you fail to fully post your rules.

Even among your rules, there are lots that are void for vagueness. Like the 'no goading' rule, which is overlooked when your friends do it, but hauled out when someone of an opposing view does it.

Like I have said, you guys need a legally-trained supreme court justice. Then, before you guys ban or jail someone, you should have to specify your rule, and make the case that 'X' has broken it...and how.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:You didn't mention 4ever by name so I assumed you were talking about the person I was talking about; rags
Miscommunication that's all. And for the record, I like 4ever as a person, I just think she goes on about her grudges for too long.

As for me "going off course" well, not the first time you've complained about that, is it? But I'm a poster first. Not the first time I've explained that, is it?

I don't mind if you want to post.  But, it's all the more reason for you to be painfully careful how you apply the rules as a mod.

For example, your rules say certain words are outlawed, but there is no place where the list is published.  You can't call it due process of law when the words are unspecified.  You guys play it like, we'll know it when we see it!  That's no standard at all.

The other thing is looking for inter-subjective consensus among yourselves, up in the mod room.  Just because you guys vote among yourselves that something is wrong, is not justice when you fail to fully post your rules.

Even among your rules, there are lots that are void for vagueness.  Like the 'no goading' rule, which is overlooked when your friends do it, but hauled out when someone of an opposing view does it.

Like I have said, you guys need a legally-trained supreme court justice.  Then, before you guys ban or jail someone, you should have to specify your rule, and make the case that 'X' has broken it...and how.

That told em.

Exactly why the term PROTECTED SPECIES is used, glad someone else has put it into script.

Major wrote:I cannot see any off her posts.

She is being unusually quiet but she's posted today MS so hopefully she's OK!

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:You didn't mention 4ever by name so I assumed you were talking about the person I was talking about; rags
Miscommunication that's all. And for the record, I like 4ever as a person, I just think she goes on about her grudges for too long.

As for me "going off course" well, not the first time you've complained about that, is it? But I'm a poster first. Not the first time I've explained that, is it?

I don't mind if you want to post.  But, it's all the more reason for you to be painfully careful how you apply the rules as a mod.

For example, your rules say certain words are outlawed, but there is no place where the list is published.  You can't call it due process of law when the words are unspecified.  You guys play it like, we'll know it when we see it!  That's no standard at all.

The other thing is looking for inter-subjective consensus among yourselves, up in the mod room.  Just because you guys vote among yourselves that something is wrong, is not justice when you fail to fully post your rules.

Even among your rules, there are lots that are void for vagueness.  Like the 'no goading' rule, which is overlooked when your friends do it, but hauled out when someone of an opposing view does it.

Like I have said, you guys need a legally-trained supreme court justice.  Then, before you guys ban or jail someone, you should have to specify your rule, and make the case that 'X' has broken it...and how.

It's a  forum not a court of law FGS....run without profit and for the entertainment of people like yourself, so don't be so bloody patronising.

Syl wrote:It's a forum not a court of law FGS....run without profit and for the entertainment of people like yourself, so don't be so bloody patronising. Rolling Eyes

But we are discussing the rules part, not the entertainment part.

Read more carefully what I have said about rules and enforcement. We all will be much better entertained if we get the disorderly part out of the way.

I read your post twice...I found it even more patronising second time round.

Syl wrote:I read your post twice...I found it even more patronising second time round.

It's not supposed to be about me.  Perhaps you are reading without listening.

The post is intended to address classic judicial issues, previously encountered by anyone who has any familiarity with rule enforcement.  There are standard, established ways of interpreting, and solutions that have been worked out ages ago. Most are in the Rules of Evidence. I'm merely suggesting thst we treat the problem in the professional manner.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I read your post twice...I found it even more patronising second time round.

It's not supposed to be about me.  Perhaps you are reading without listening.

The post is intended to address classic judicial issues, previously encountered by anyone who has any familiarity with rule enforcement.  There are standard, established ways of interpreting, and solutions that have been worked out ages ago.  Most are in the Rules of Evidence.  I'm merely suggesting thst we treat the problem in the professional manner.

You know how hard it is to stick to the rules all the time and treat everyone the same OQ.
It would be nice if it was that easy but it never is as you always bump into someone or other that gets your goat more than most

blackie333 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not supposed to be about me.  Perhaps you are reading without listening.

The post is intended to address classic judicial issues, previously encountered by anyone who has any familiarity with rule enforcement.  There are standard, established ways of interpreting, and solutions that have been worked out ages ago.  Most are in the Rules of Evidence.  I'm merely suggesting thst we treat the problem in the professional manner.

You know how hard it is to stick to the rules all the time and treat everyone the same OQ.
It would be nice if it was that easy but it never is as you always bump into someone or other that gets your goat more than most

Yes...however your argument augers for trying harder, not quitting. That's why I think that someone who has a head start is worth a try.