Is Miss Ragga Poorly?

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

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.

Major wrote:I cannot see any off her posts.

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.

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.