Give me a log of who all was using sexually lewd terms and I'll ban them all.

~Tobe

Normally I hate playing devil's advocate and condoning the rebellious behaviour some people have (OMG! Teh Authortiy! MUST UNDERMINE!), but I've wondered the same thing about the one time when Lee was banned, a long time ago for saying his first action if he awoke as a woman would be to "tend to herself". Well, a different word was used, but these days I see that work in the chat every day.

As Vec says: "The kids of the Mobius Forum are growing up AND THEY'RE SCARY!"

But, yeah. I suppose the rules are becoming more suggested than absoloute these days. Not that this is a problem. My thoughts on the matter are "if no one complains, it's fine. If someone asks them to refrain and they are ignored, then action should be taken".

I do recall people complaining during some of the more select incidents in my head, though I was on "I have better things to do" vacation from the MoFo during Geo's ban, so do not know it's circumstances.

Either way, I feel the staff know what they're doing.

65% of the time.

EDIT: Ah, the log is in the other thread.

*Reads*

Ok. I have to say alerting a mod rather than politely requesting someone not use that language is rather unfair. Bad form on Saff's behalf.

I'm with Craig on his views as to how message content rules should be enforced in the chat. If the people present don't complain, I really don't see the problem with it. Most of the MoFoers are pretty mature in terms of their knowledge anyway. I can see a case being made for gaggings/kickings before complaints in situations where foo is being discussed in front of people who historically object to foo, but that's about as strict as I'd get with it.

Furthermore, I've never to my memory seen anybody on staff object to that scheme of enforcement. If a majority of the mods or someone higher up than me advises me otherwise then I'll change my moderating policies, but for now I'm sticking to my guns.

Considering the scenario in hand, look at who was present: Geo, who obviously doesn't object to the term blowjob as he was the one who used it; Saff, who I shall deal with separately; Crystal Toad - oh please, she's Acrio's sister; Stairmaster, the second horniest kid in the chat after CTSucks 007; and THS and Creo, with whom I have had far lewder conversations. Obviously I can't vouch for everyone in the chat, but I can't think of one person active at the time the log was taken so offended by sexual references that they would demand someone banned for saying "blowjob" once. The obvious exception is Modesty, but she wasn't there when Geo used the term. People aren't psychic; they can't predict who's going to come in and when, so in my mind they can be forgiven if they're talking about something mildly offensive that everybody active is happy to discuss and all of a sudden cute little Rosey McGumdrop (this is not a jab at anyone in particular) wanders into the chat. If anyone should have been banned (and I maintain that no-one should have been), if should have been Saff. After all, he's the one who used the term when he knew someone who objects to sexual references (Terg) was in the chat.

And quite frankly, if you're going to ban the word "blowjob" let's ban HPA for saying "yiff" and "boner" all the time while we're at it, as well as everyone who's ever used the phrase "I'd hit it/that". It was a singular, passing, slang reference to something everyone who uses the chat knows about; it's not like Geo was graphically describing it. Maybe if there'd been a really young or really sheltered kid in the chat, I could see a case for banning Geo, but that wasn't the case and really, the board upper limit is PG-13 and you'd get away with the word "blowjob" in a 12A movie over here, hell, probably even a PG.

Anyway, as for Saff's involvement (this is mainly a reply to Craig's "Bad form on Saff's behalf"): I honestly don't think he was offended (I mean c'mon, have you ever talked to the guy?) and I certainly don't think he was trying to tattle on Geo for saying "blowjob". I present the following snippets of the log for your consideration:

Saffron (10:32 pm): |-|SW (5:32 pm): and bam. blowjob.
Modesty has entered at 5:32 pm
|-|SW (10:33 pm): who swaid anything about a guitar?
Saffron (10:33 pm): *snicker*

The first two lines are actually one message: Saff is copying and pasting. Why? Observe the last highlighted line. He finds it amusing that Geo used the word "blowjob" immediately before the mod notorious for his conservative approach to enforcing sexual references on the MoFo entered.

Secondly:

Saffron (10:33 pm): Wait whoa!
Stairmaster wacks modesty with a golf club
Saffron (10:33 pm): nonononononononononon did not want
Modesty (10:33 pm): He's been warned about that before
Saffron (10:33 pm): 😥

These three lines make it flagrantly obvious that Saff was not intending for Geo to get banned.

Sorry, but this just strikes me as over-zealous moderating. Tergonaut claims Geo's been warned for being overly sexually explicit before. I can't remember him doing it that frequently, but maybe I wasn't there at the times, maybe I'm biased by my friendship with Geo, maybe I simply forgot the incidents (I am horridly absent-minded, after all). Show me the incidents in question and I might be inclined to change my opinion.

Yeah, I re-read that, and do apologise to Saff and shall do so in PM later when I have access to the chat, I was wrong on that count, my initial reading made it sound like Modesty walks in (He entered twice) and then Saff posted it. I didn't catch the snicker.

Therefore, for the 80th time today, I am wrong about something.

>>; this is becoming a habit. I should really quit talking...

No worries, Craig, I'm sure I've made far more grievous errors due to mis-reading things on this very forum. 😛

The event that happened was a mod known for being uber strict found out via tattling about a user known for being lewd and disgusting talking about sexual references in an all ages chat.

I imagine if HPA ran into chat with Terg in there and starting discussing how he wanted to stick his boner in someone, he'd get the axe too. The 'line' that separates innuendo from lewd on this forum seems to be that once you start describing sexual acts, its lewd. Adolescent junk like booger, wiener, poop, boner, balls, etc are just that. We all know the kids are going to do that and the mods are around to keep it from getting out of hand. However when they cross the line from ten year old playground talk to drugs and sex, bannings get handed out.

Thats my stance. And I guess this is notice. /shrug

~Tobe

How is saying the word "blowjob" any worse than saying the word "boner"? It's not like Geo was explicitly describing the act. If you want to use that logic, you should ban "boner" since having an erection is an act that is obviously sexual in nature.

I agree with Nuch. Making a passing remark referring to a sexual act, in front of people that are obviously not going to be offended by it, should not be a bannable offense. I mean, if Terg was in there when Geo said it, he could have just told him to please knock it off because it was offending him. No reason to immediately kick the guy out just because you're not mature enough to hear a small reference to oral sex once in a while.

>=(

*sticks twigs up Craig*

I also agree with Nuch and Deck here.

Quote:

---

you should ban "boner" since having an erection is an act that is obviously sexual in nature.

---

erection != sexual act

There are many ways to get an erection without it being related to sex.

Quote:

---

No reason to immediately kick the guy out just because you're not mature enough to hear a small reference to oral sex once in a while.

---

Ability/inability to want to hear sexual references has absolutely no relation to maturity.

Trudi (6:04 pm): The fact is people will dumb down the language when someone like Terg comes in, because they know how he feels on the matter
Trudi (6:04 pm): So it should have been left, if someone said it again when Terg was there is may have been different
Mr Creosote (6:04 pm): people change based upon who's in here
Mr Creosote (6:04 pm): which is probably the best idea

Oh, if you want my personal opinion, the chat and many other things around here should be cleaned up. It's one of the reasons why I left my board responsibilities in the first place. ;p

Quote:

---

There are many ways to get an erection without it being related to sex.

---

You mean like starting a fire or holding a midget like a baby?

If you don't get what I'm driving at, it'd be pretty weird if you got an erection without it being related to sex.
Unless, of course, you woke up in the morning and had to go to the bathroom really bad. Then you're excused.

Deckman and Nuchtos make perfect sense in their wisdom. But obviously they would, since they think before they type and speak with naught but reason and logic, which apparently doesn't fly here.
I forgot the part of the rules that say "Geogwe will be instantly banned for saying a single word related to sex in a situation where nobody can be and nobody is offended." Maybe there's just some bias against Geogwe because he's the only Lord of the BBQ, which is not a power that can be shared.

I do not agree, Deckman (which means I also do not agree with who you were quoting). Sometimes people would rather not hear stuff like that, but they don't speak up because they are afraid of being told to lighten up, or of looking "uncool." So just waiting until someone speaks up about being offended and politely asking the person not to say stuff like that probably won't work.

Besides that, the rules are the rules, and they shouldn't be bent just because of the age of people in the room. Age is not necessarily an indicator of maturity. Besides that, there isn't really a reasonable way for me or any other Mod to be able to tell how old every single person in chat is at any given time, so I can't operate on that basis either.

Geo shouldn't have brought up sex in the chat in the first place. It wasn't even necessary in the conversation. If he had left it out, I would have had no problem with anything else that he said.

If I come into the chat and if someone I have repeatedly warned both privately and publicly not to use that sort of language, uses that sort of language, bans are going to be handed out. This is the first time I have banned Geo without giving him a warning right beforehand, but I feel justified because I have given him plenty of warnings and bans for this very subject. And I'm willing to ban anybody else who feels they should be banned for talking about lewd subjects that same day or whatever. Free of charge.

Quote:

---

If you don't get what I'm driving at, it'd be pretty weird if you got an erection without it being related to sex.
Unless, of course, you woke up in the morning and had to go to the bathroom really bad. Then you're excused.

---

You just gave a reason, which negated your point. 😉

Arousal != sex

Arousal differs from person to person. It doesn't have to take thinking/seeing/discussing sexual stuff for arousal. Just because it's what you, or many others, may be thinking about doesn't make it the only way. ^_~

Oh, and basically what you're talking about depends on how one views how the chat should be moderated. If one deems the place an "all ages" place, then who is/isn't in the room doesn't matter (other than in regards to what will be "told" about). If one deems the place a "actual presence where rules change based on occupants," then that's a completely different story.

Who in the Mofo is cool? There's no peer pressure against whining about personal problems. It's ENCOURAGED. And you instant-banned him without even a hint of warning or that what he said was intolerable to you.

Also, True Red, I didn't negate my point. Holding midgets or starting fires is a stupid way to get an erection, and either way it would still be sexual. Just what do you think becomes erected upon the event of an erection? Didn't they show you one of those "YOUR GROWING BODY" videos in school? Did you not get a "The Birds and the Bees" talk? Don't try to tell me that what I said goes against what I said. You obviously didn't read what I said properly, or you're looking for an excuse to make a witty comeback.
"Erection" is sexual and the only way "erection" won't be sexual is if you change its definition in every English dictionary that ever was. Also, nobody wants to hear about peoples morning "I have to go to the bathroom" erections because what they're related to, which happens to be sexual. INTERESTING.
And just so everyone knows, I don't get my kicks from holding midgets.
Or do I?

Schnip, some people get erections without thinking about sex or being sexual. Sometimes it just happens. Hence why TR has been telling you that erections do not equal sexual. Besides, you're starting to split hairs here when the subject at hand does not require it. This isn't rocket science.

And you already know why I "instabanned" him. Because he's been given plenty of warnings already. He should know better. Whether he actually does or not is up to him.

He's been banned before when just saying the word "blowjob"?

I'd ban him again for saying it. There is hardly any proper context for "blowjob."

Your point?

ignore

I agree, when can we start banning people for using the term "boner?"

We can start right now!

But you didn't actually answer my question. You said he'd received plenty of warnings, so surely he's ACTUALLY received warnings for saying single words that you would deem "inappropriate" before this sudden banning.

I have told him to stop talking in a vulgar, sexual manner. If you will look at the log that he himself posted, it wasn't just a single word. It was set up with sexual context to make it clear what it was talking about. Hence it was not a ban over a single word and your argument is defused.

Next?

He didn't set it up with sexual context. He said that he'd play a song to a girl, and then "Bam. Blowjob." That was the only sexual part (aside from how fun , unless you think playing a guitar is SUPER-HOT.

5 days

that's the standard time for mods too lazy to edit the bantime manually so it actually makes sense

That's the best you can come up with?

It was clearly sexual because a blowjob is a sexual act - it cannot be otherwise or else it isn't a blowjob. And the setting-up context made it clear by his use of "getting some @#%$," which contributed to why I banned him.

Next? C'mon, I'm starting to get bored here.

Oh yeah, and he was banned for five days, which is the "standard time." He could have asked that himself a long time ago if he had cared to, in PM or here.

EDIT: Wow it even censored out the word that I was trying to quote - which should be censored in the chat as well, as I think about it. Someone will have to edit that.

You said he led up to it with a bunch of sexual context. "The best I can come up with" is the obvious, blatant truth. My bad if I can't insult my way out of things or not make any sense but use my ban powers to maintain my power over everyone or whatever.
There's obviously no point in me trying to reason, because no matter how right I am, you'll still be MORE right just because you're a moderator with super-mod-powers. Geogwe doesn't even actually care, but I tried to see what I could do against his wishes anyway.
I'll just surrender now, I certainly don't want to get banned for defiance.

Quote:

---

Oh, and basically what you're talking about depends on how one views how the chat should be moderated. If one deems the place an "all ages" place, then who is/isn't in the room doesn't matter (other than in regards to what will be "told" about). If one deems the place a "actual presence where rules change based on occupants," then that's a completely different story.

---

I think the board has changed to the point where it's not really an "all ages" place anymore. The way this place is moderated tends to fluctuate between fairly lax to incredibly strict, and it gets really confusing when the staff can't agree on what is appropriate and what isn't. "Don't post or link to anything most people wouldn't want a 10-year old to see"? Come on, who the hell listens to that anymore?

I'm just getting sick of arguing when Geo himself admitted to what I banned him for in his own thread. I am also sick of people accusing me of Mod abuse when they don't have any valid evidence for it.

O_Owhat does Tergonaut and (every1 who is not Tergonaut) expect the beneficial outcome of continuing this discussion to be

You're right. We've already covered the exact issue that was brought up, Geo's ban; it has been effectively refuted.

Closing this topic now.

1) Ultimatums make me want to ban you. They don't make me want to listen.

2) Insulting staff makes me want to ban you. It doesn't make me want to listen.

3) Continually arguing a point thats already been explained by a user, mod, an two admins makes me want to ban you. It doesn't make me want to listen.

4) This thread is over barring I receive an unscrewed with log of the 'incident'.

~Tobe (Damn users making mountains out of molehills. Where the @#%$ do that get all this dirt?)