I haven't banned someone for a single utterance of any of those words with the possible exception if it was a player that was raging an unhealthy amount and was obviously going to be continuing to be using the slurs.

So no, you haven't shown any inconsistency with my position, different mods have different tolerance and most that were super strict have softened after a time in acceptance that the majority of KDice doesn't want an overly politically correct level of discourse.

But then you agree that other mods would have or still would ban for those words, right? And likely for what you said as well?

Other mods in the past have, that wasn't a point of contention, and in general came to accept that they were being overly zealous. I cannot speak to what the future holds but my best guess would be the current moderation tends accept that rather crude language will be used around here.

How long ago is the past because I consider 1-2 months ago pretty recent and that's when Jurgen was banning for "faggot" still.

Semantics but I hope you understand where I'm coming from and that we can leave it at that.

Gangsterrrr,
Once again I am surprised at how poor your debate skills are!
1) How does "to know nothing" about someone, contradicts "to know a little" about someone? I hope you are joking because if do not understand that, it is more of an IQ thing than a debate problem.
2) "you cannot do character assasination, if you do not know someone": wrong argument as it assumes that you are actually writing in good faith which is not clear to me because of point number 3).
3) Veta and myself agree that we need consistency across the site; what is funny is that you always attack Veta but never answers any of my arguments (and please be mature enough, not like Matt, not to write that the reason is that they dont make sense; i am 40 year old and have a doctorate and is known in my work to have good common sense) which leaves me to believe that you actually do character assasination.

Now Sam, i do understand your point but i do not believe it is correct. "i am not banning for things i do, even though these things i do might appear wrong to other people". Society have been built with laws that applies to everybody. You know why? So that human being can try to leave peacefully.

To take an extreme example, imagine a Mod that cheats and never bans accounts for cheating. He would be consistent with his own policy, but do you think it could create tensions on the site?

This is why laws apply to everyone and it would be good to have a set of rules on this site. And if you think, it is impossible to do, i believe the human race has come up with more difficult things.

Veta suggests...

** I can verbally attack things I know nothing about. Often it is the case that we fear what we do not know and attack what we fear.... **

you cant be serious... are you? omg...you are... Man, having to re-iterate some pretty basic shit I've already addressed can be pretty frustrating and one of the reasons why these posts become so lengthy. I partially blame your kind for that.

There's a couple basic if not gigantic problems with your rebuttal. First of all. Fear?... That's your counter? Hinting that perhaps I'm attacking your character out of fear because "people do that". lol, c'mon man. I don't disagree, perhaps "some" do. Alternatively however, if you're NOT ACTUALLY SUGGESTING.... that I'm attacking you because I'm "personally" afraid of what I don't understand about you... Then, you'd be out of context. And since it doesn't apply here then, it merely represents a -contrary- example you scratched around for to dish up... serving what purpose exactly ? (Trust me, I've no phear of THE Veta, heh, settled?)

Secondly, nice dumbfuck "edit" you went and pulled off. You'll notice i stated... (accurately) attack. The part I DELIBERATELY placed in brackets FOR YOUR BENEFIT, but, gosh darn it, alas?.. to no avail. Because you are that THICK, placing it up on a fucking billboard might not have helped.

What part of....---> attacking the character of the person who accurately quotes the 1st law of thermal dynamics.... IS IRRELEVANT... Do you NOT GET ??

I'm not denying a person can...TRY... to lessen the person's argument. Go at er. It's of no use chump. Attack the personal character ALL YOU LIKE... In the end AFTER ALL THE ASSAULTS, his quotation will stand up backed up by the facts. No experiment has proven his statement to be wrong to date. As a TOTALLY DISABLED DROOLING INBRED, he has that going for him, beyond any need for "mental gymnastics" as you like to say.

Another critical aspect which escaped your "mad skills" in debating was... given a topic, lets say the migrating and mating habits of the Angolan Hairy Bat which I know nothing about, my chances of.... wait for it...(accurately) attacking someones legitimate knowledge on the thing is pretty slim. May as well throw darts. He has proven information, whereas I might as well have a bingo machine. Clear enuf ? Instead of "editing out" a rather critical piece of criteria, thereby distorting what I put down in black and white, kindly read the fucking text before getting back to me.

You continued with...

** "You don't know me Gangster but you do probably have some funhouse mirror idea of who I am/how I behave. I'm going to break it to you, what you know about me is probably bullshit, probably slander. **

Actually, I've made a point of ignoring all the other slander because you're probably right, chances are it is largely bullshit...(truth) So I MADE UP MY OWN "bullshit"-"funhouse" mirror of you which if you MUST KNOW involves you ass up and a fictional character called Miss I'phukmenup and... well, never mind, Let's just say your smeared lipstick and anguished facial expression really adds to it. :)

Again, I re-iterate. Your personal character is of no consequence to me. I've explained why that's the case already, which even to the layman ought to appear fairly uncontroversial in my opinion. Lets try to move on.

you continued with...

** I wholeheartedly disagree with you here. Maybe it's because I've been around kdice more than you or maybe because I've had more experience in real life than you - but in reality the most sound argument does not necessarily win. **

Has that been your experience ? If so, that's kind of interesting. You sure seem to enjoy tipping your hand without realizing it. I like that about you. (truth again).

Win?... there is no "winning" pally. A certain percentage of cortically capable knowledgeable human beings who understand the way of the method would not be so foolish to DISPUTE UNDENIABLE, PROVABLE FACTS that continue to show themselves with consistency upon investigation. When in the company of such individuals should your propositions stand up to "the test" they will be embraced REGARDLESS of ones dooshy dooshed up character. Individuals or "peers" unable to function in such a way are prone to being exposed as intellectual frauds. I like that about the method. As far as sound arguments falling on deaf ears (not mentioning names), I can't help you. That will probably always be the case up until such time the current social structure evolves radically. Try and understand something, that, in the end, whether or not your argument is...WINNING !!! the minds of those your are presenting it to does not INVALIDATE A PREMISE ALIGNED WITH THE FACTS. The United States during WWII dropped the bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's uncontroversial. It happened. Project paper clip was a clandestine operation carried out by the US in hopes of importing German nazi psychological warfare and propulsion scientists before the Soviet Union got hold of them. Fact.... No amount of mouth noises and unsupported verbal disagreement makes those events go away ... or MAKES THEM LESS REAL. I kinda figured that "winning" was part of your crusade, by your own admission it seems I wasn't far off. I've no interest in "winning". Bring me the quickest, fastest, most efficient way to a meeting of minds that PRODUCES TANGIBLE - USABLE "results" and I will call that..... success !!!. Happens all the time.

Veta summarizes with..

** Ever heard the term "kangaroo court"? That's what the forums become when every moderator and their friends support their mistakes or credibility. Moderators make mistakes, this was one of them. Defending Sam here is tantamount to participating in the kangaroo court that is this thread. Not going to attack your credibility like you did mine - but I will say I haven't ever seen you give an even handed analysis of one of these arguments. You're always in support of thraxle/jurgen/sam/monte whoever and always with some wall of text bullshit that amounts to SAT words and little to no substance. **

There's some validity in what you're saying. However, lets remember I HAVE NOT suggested using the term downys and faggots are all that different. In my opinion they're pretty much on par. However, as an advocate of free speech virtually at almost every level in our society (aside from a few EXTREMELY marginal circumstances)(even outlawing hate speech in my opinion is not only insane but very dangerous) I'll suggest he has the right to say whatever the fuck he wants. So, yea, perhaps I'm not the best guy to be asking that. Nonetheless, has there been a resultant element of hypocrisy in some cases ? Seems so. Can't really argue that either. The big question is... how "consequential" is any of that. It seems that "according" to the site owners and the mods who have chimed in on this some, not too much.. and THAT I will wholeheartedly SUPPORT even if I feel (in my opinion) it's maybe fucked up or not in the best interests of the sites overall functionality. All of that goes to something I've ALREADY addressed in a previous wall of text, which was met with agreement from a few mods.

I cannot say it any clearer. The arrangement here at kdice is..... Unilateral.

Conventional tenets AS THEY APPLY in other circumstances collapse when applied here because the underlying "premises" are at odds with each other. If nothing else hear that part.

Subsequently there is no "civic duty" or as you said, or an OBLIGATION to be had here by you or anyone in having to correct anything or keep anyone accountable.... aside from, the site owners themselves and it's accompanying support team/mods etc. Arguing supreme court precedents as it applies to pornography might make you "appear" duly "informed" on the topic but is irrational when placed up against a website which could, at the extreme end make policy suggesting that avatars of Horse Cock fellatio is acceptable, whereas perfectly natural hot sweaty man2man gay porn has exceeded the acceptable boundaries of this particular website. Irrational beyond imagination? Perhaps, but it's UNCONTROVERSIAL that it falls within their right to do so.

DOMAIN.... The issue is of domain. In the PUBLIC DOMAIN, certain types of discrimination and restriction of free speech will get you in trouble, and there can be severe consequences. However, in my own domain, here in my house, I have the right to say get the fuck out, no one says THAT in my house, right after I SAID IT MYSELF. And then there's....website domain. So on and so forth.

Veta closes with...

** We done here gangster? **

probably not... why ? tl;dr ?

Given your approach, I've been a little more respectful towards you even though I still consider much of your underlying premises to be flawed. However, I do believe you're actually earnest about most of your shit. I won't knock that. You'll find I can be rather accommodating on a good day.

^^1523 words o_O

ehervey writes....

*** Gangsterrrr, Once again I am surprised at how poor your debate skills are!
1) How does "to know nothing" about someone, contradicts "to know a little" about someone? I hope you are joking because if do not understand that, it is more of an IQ thing than a debate problem.
2) "you cannot do character assasination, if you do not know someone": wrong argument as it assumes that you are actually writing in good faith which is not clear to me because of point number 3). **

heh, well, umm... lol? I can actually say I've no idea what the fuck it is you're talking about...

In short what I'm suggesting to Veta is that it's difficult to attack something "with any accuracy" I've virtually little knowledge in. He posits that a person can. I agree they can surely TRY but my chances of succeeding (accurately) are essentially a crap shoot. Regardless of any attempts in character assassination, the facts will invariably win out as they come out in the wash, character assignations aside. Understandably this assumes reasonably intelligent human beings willing to apply the method as such are participating in the entire production. The unsupported mindless dismissals forwarded by the remaining class of individuals does not in any way diminish the validity of something shown capable of standing up to the test.

Other than that, yea. Hands down you got me brutha. I've no idea what you're trying to say.

Sam, you are a hypocritical piece of shit. You have banned me for saying "faggot."

Take a break for a bit and think about why hate speech is wrong. -changeAvatar -chat -play -post MadHat_Sam 2:37 PM, Friday July 9, 2010 CDT

I lost my playing abilities for 3 days.

Time served. +changeAvatar +chat +play +post MadHat_Sam 10:06 AM, Monday July 12, 2010 CDT