Terms of Service and Moderation on GSoM...

Mods

are going overboard with the warnings IMO. I slipped in a few “eff” literally spelled like that and I get warned for swearing? How is what the “eff” different from what the frick? or frickin?
Are you going to tell me I can’t say “BS” either? Its absolutely ridiculous.

Also the capitalization thing is going overboard too… I come to this site because I enjoy the community and have fun interacting with other fans. Forgive me if I forget to capitalize a word here or there. No need to send me a warning every single time.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 10:14 AM PST reply actions 9 recs

I cannot agree more!!!

censorship empowers seemingly offensive language or concepts. it stygmatizes them, thus reenforcing the superstition that any word or idea in and of itself possesses a definable quality (anyone who’s seen the new episode of south park about harley riders has born witness to a great example of the invalidity of this theory). the reality is that language is not static. it evolves over time so that words and ideas become offensive and benign, and back again as time progresses. for example, the word “gay” has, in many circles, gone from a reference to one’s mood, to a reference to one’s sexual orientation, and most recently, to refer to virtually anything offensive, including homophobia (i.e. “homophobia is totally gay, dude!”)! when any group or individual decides to supress or abstain from the use of certain words or concepts, it is because of THEIR PERSONAL/GROUP subjective ideation, and this does not reflect IN ANY WAY the valididty or invalidity of their opinion.

put simply, censorship is a dying form of superstition derived primarily from arcane, obsolete judeo/christian ethics. put more simply: censorship sucks and i implore my fellow GSOMers to resist it whenever possible!

as far as the warnings for capitalizion, for which i have myself been warned, i must say they are so idiotic as to not deserve analysis. i can think of a myriad of more pressing issues with regard to the content on this site (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, mixed metaphor, lack of critical thinking/reason, etc.) that are far more important than capitalization vis a vis clearly presented ideas. by the logic inherent in such a warning, perhaps it would be more appropriate to require all postings and comments to be submitted in pdf fromatted calligraphy. at least that silly rule would add SOMETHING of potential value or interest, whereas capitalization requirements presumably are there only to please imaginary copy editors.

perhaps the problem is that conventional methods of editing have yet to catch up with the free-form, post-journalistic format we all enjoy so much here at GSOM. whatever the case, kudos to the GSOM and SB Nation staff for offering the venue for such a debate to occur, and i hope they get some good food for thought out of this!

Henry Kissinger and Brack Obama: Brothers in Peace

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 6, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs

perhaps the problem is that

we don’t have anything better to think, write, or read about?

it’s one thing when these are topics in July, but for inseason?

… sadly this team and this discussion are in perfect sync

by hardcore on Nov 8, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

what are you talking about?

are certain discussions off limit in season? That’s ridiculous, especially considering the subject at hand. We spend a lot of time here, we should understand the rules and express our opinions on how the boards are moderated.

by warriorsvictim on Nov 9, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with your arguement

I do not disagree that language is rather malleable, especially over time. But using that as an excuse to justify the use of any language, or, more importantly, the deliberate communication of any idea fails to recognize that communication happens between more than one person. It is completely reasonable for parties in a conversation to set ground-rules that define whether and how they will continue to participate in a conversation. Such ground-rules actually allow for better communication to take place, as those involved have a better understanding of what others are trying to say and how they will respond to what is said.

Further, such ground-rules are hardly censorship in any meaningful sense of the word. If you wish to say the things these ground-rules limit you are more than free to start your own bog, setting whatever ground-rules you wish and inviting as many people as you wish to participate in the discussion there. Your success in doing so will largely hinge upon the appeal of your message, including the appeal of the words and imagery you choose to employ. No legal force is being applied to prevent your expression of the words and ideas you wish. All that is being prevented is the hijacking of a conversation that has been defined from the start to have a different tone and purpose than you want. It is your choice to join it and abide by it’s rules, or leave it and, if you choose, start another. If, by some chance, you manage to change the ground rules of this conversation more to your apparent liking, then I will have a choice: to stay and put up with it, or leave and continue my conversations elsewhere.

by toddaverth on Nov 10, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

If people can't communicate without cursing, they need to take some linguistics and/or anger management classes.

Are the mods a little overzealous? Yeah, sure, but it’s far, far better than the alternative.

If you really, really feel the need to curse, insert “(site decorum)” instead of “eff” or frick, or whatever.

Do I know all those words? Yes. Do I like hearing/reading them constantly (which is what would happen without the ban)? nope. A few loudmouths (not pointing fingers at you, mind you) would absolutely ruin this community. Can we at least laud the mods for keeping it civil in that respect?

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 10:25 AM PST reply actions 7 recs

civility is an illusion

Henry Kissinger and Brack Obama: Brothers in Peace

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 6, 2009 6:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Does it really matter

If SpongeBob says “tarter sauce” instead of “shit”?
We all know he means “shit”. My kids knew it at 7 years old.

We should stop tiptoeing around “bad” words. They arent a big deal unless they are pointed at someone specific in an abusive or defaming manner

by warriorsvictim on Nov 9, 2009 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bad words represent bad ideas

Bad words represent bad ideas and should be avoided as such. Most often their use begins to be justified as an expression of extreme displeasure: ie. this use of the “s-word” can be explained as “this situation is not healthy in any way, has a displeasing odor, and is therefore like human excrement.” While the obvious appeal of such an analogy is that it is quick and to the point, it is in fact no more expressive and decidedly less personal than Sponge Bob’s exclamation – presumably he considers tartar sauce to be unfit for consumption, possibly stink, and representative of the potentially unpleasant (to a citizen of the a society made up of fish) idea of eating fish. On the other hand, Sponge Bob’s exclamation has absolutely no offensive connotation to those viewing the show, for whom eating fish is a fairly common occurrence. While it is used in a very similar manner – such that on the surface “it means the same thing” – the first represents an – often unwarranted – appeal to one of the worst things that can happen to a person (exposure to human excrement, if not counter-acted properly, leads to sickness and death) while the second is both communicative and personal, without offending its audience by its impropriety at all.

The secondary consideration is actually something the Mr. Coles pointed out earlier – language tends to drift over time. As the use of bad words is justified, they are employed for ever more benign exclamations, to the point that for many the “s-word” and others are now roughly synonymous with “Um” or “Wow!” The result of this change in meaning is a need to find an even more extreme expression of unpleasantness to replace it. Hence cometh the “M- F-” phrase which is now enjoying its own march to “mildness.” The result is a rather crude and unpleasant language that fails to express much yet offends many, all because a significant group of people can’t see the benefit of employing a little moderation and thought in what they say.

by toddaverth on Nov 10, 2009 10:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

If we stop worrying about bad words, they will be used more frequently, and eventually become as meaningless as any other words unless used in a directly threatening manner.

by warriorsvictim on Nov 10, 2009 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Just like if we ignore racism, sexism, etc.

It’ll just be meaningless if we ignore it, right?

warriorsvictim, you clearly missed this part:

The result is a rather crude and unpleasant language that fails to express much yet offends many, all because a significant group of people can’t see the benefit of employing a little moderation and thought in what they say.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 10, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Re: language that fails to express much yet offends many

You’ve broken this down quite logically, but I believe your premise needs to be given the same careful attention as your supporting argument.

“Offends” is an entirely subjective term. Just because something “offends many” does not make it something that should be limited or eliminated. Calling something “offensive” is an arbitrary distinction based solely on the opinion of the individual making that accusation. It has no logical value. It has no basis in anything other than someone’s own prejudice, emotions and programming combined with his/her willingness to impose his/her arbitrary standards of decorum on somebody else.

I can’t imagine being offended by crude language but I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be. What gives you the moral authority to declare something as absolutely offensive? (It reads as hostile but I assure you this is out of genuine curiosity and no hostility is intended).

Again, this is all moot in the context of this Fanpost because it is up to GSoM to do whatever they like which includes randomly banning someone just cuz. It’s up to us to keep coming back or not.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 10, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"Shit" is not unoffensive

It is not “The Catcher in the Rye.” The term is originally from old English, but it’s only modern usage is generic vulgarity. How often do you see it used to refer to fecal matter? Rarely. How often do you see it used to refer to “something that frustrates me,” or “something I’m too lazy to actually describe.” Its use is not “creativity,” rather it is either the desire to do/say something taboo or offensive or, more commonly, the desire to vent frustration/negative energy without having to actually think or express anything of value.

There’s a reason there’s only one word that can be used as the only verb, subject, and adjective in a single sentence. It’s because the word a completely generic term, used in modern English to mean “I AM BEING VULGAR!!!!!” or “I AM MAD AT YOU AND BEING VULGAR!!!!” The only way it carries any other mean is if you’re saying “I am going to copulate with you/him/her/your sheep, and I don’t mind being vulgar about declaring of my intentions.” Now, if that turns him/her/the sheep on, great, but that’s between you two/three/eighteen/… If it doesn’t, you’ve potentially just lost out on a pretty fun opportunity.

If you were to go around cursing people out with a creatively descriptive, yet vulgar tongue, I’d be delighted to read what you had to contribute. You can call someone an idiot or a moron if you back it up with seriously damning reasoning. However, people who blurt “shit” or “eff you Stephen Jackson” are not in any way shape or form contributing anything meaningful to their comment or the community by the use of their vulgarity… Really? You’re frustrated with Stephen Jackson? Thanks for sharing.

Looked at from another direction: There is nobody that will be offended by your use of the word “tartar sauce,” even though people know you mean it only as an exclamation of frustration. Yet there are people who will be offended by your use of the word “shit.” If you’re unwilling to make even a minor change in your vocabulary so as not offend other members of this community, then the moderators (and I) would rather lose you and your unbending sense of entitlement to curse than somebody who only wants to stop hearing/reading the common, unimaginative vulgarity that regularly spews forth.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 10, 2009 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Again, offensivness of "shit" is entirely in the (brown)eye of the beholder

What is or is not offensive is going to vary from person to person. I rarely use foul language here. This is entirely because the GSoM moderators have asked us to “keep it a family show”. I don’t curse at work because it’s thier house and I do what they say in exchange for money. If I was in your home and you asked me not to curse I’d obey the house rules, just like I (mostly) do here.

Those are all situations where one party has power over the other. I can get banned from here, fired from work or kicked out of your house. That doesn’t make cursing universally offensive it just means that certain people and institutions feel that way.

Outside of situations where one party has the right to dictate rules to another, why does your definition of what is “offensive” overrule mine? Same question I asked toddaverth, what gives you the moral authority to declare something definitively “offensive”? You saying something is offensive is the same thing as you saying that you personally don’t like something. It has no logical value beyond that. It’s your emotional reaction to something.

Some people get really offended when people don’t stand during the National Anthem. Do you think that stadiums should force everybody to stand? The stadiums don’t although the overwhelming majority of people during ballgames stand. Do I find it offensive? Not at all. I am more offended by people who get in those people’s faces and berate them for not standing. I also somewhat offended that the most powerful nation in the world has such a crappy song for its anthem. I’m sure someone finds that offensive.

There’s at least two sides to every potentially offensive issue: religion, marriage, animal rights, Stephen Jackson, not saying “bless you” when somebody sneezes, not holding your silverware properly, forgetting to put the toilet seat down, 2 Live Crew, the whole “no homo” thing, the bank bailout, any number of wars, socialism and not wearing deodorant on public transit. Some people find The Big Lebowski offensive.

My issue is with the attitude that something can be objectively “offensive” when it is entirely based on the accuser’s personal opinion. I don’t understand how that jives logically.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 10, 2009 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

this is one of the most valuable comments so far

30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ

by Lat We N Trash on Nov 10, 2009 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The title of that comment was not representative of the content

Sorry. My issue with terms that mean poop, copulate, female dog, etc. is that they’re generally used interchangably with just about anything, and thus convey nothing other than “I am frustrated and angry,” or “I don’t care to actually think about communicating with people who don’t already know what I’m talking about.” Those words convey nothing of substance, which makes them useless in any rational discussion. Likewise, if somebody went around saying “Dood” and “Sweeeet” all the time, it’d be useless. I don’t want to have to read through endless drivel of people being.

This point still stands, and I think you mostly agree with it:

There is nobody that will be offended by your use of the word "tartar sauce," even though people know you mean it only as an exclamation of frustration. Yet there are people who will be offended by your use of the word "shit." If you’re unwilling to make even a minor change in your vocabulary so as not offend other members of this community, then the moderators (and I) would rather lose you and your unbending sense of entitlement to curse than somebody who only wants to stop hearing/reading the common, unimaginative vulgarity that regularly spews forth.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 10, 2009 5:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And I really hate people who refuse to edit their comments

And thus have all sorts of unfinished ideas in them. They’re such morons :-P.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 10, 2009 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

:)

30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ

by Lat We N Trash on Nov 10, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yah, I agree that sticking to your guns despite having no reasonable justification is, dare I say, offensive to me. My #1 problem with the pro-cussing contingency is not the cussing but the irrational sense of entitlement to do what they want on someone else’s blog. The “free speech” argument is just laziness IMO.

So, we mostly agree.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 10, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My #1 problem with the pro-cussing contingency is not the cussing but the irrational sense of entitlement to do what they want on someone else’s blog. The "free speech" argument is just laziness IMO.

Well, the users will ultimately decide what they want and vote with their feet if they get tired of the warnings. I don’t have a problem with anyone using their favorite language and I’d hate to see the site lose interesting input just to keep the puritans happy. It’s the hosts house but he might make it so unpleasant that noone wants to come over?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 10, 2009 10:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It’s the hosts house but he might make it so unpleasant that noone wants to come over?

Exactly. And I think we all know that we’re not even close to being close to that becoming a remotely realistic possibility.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 11, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i have no proble with ‘cursing policy’ if it’s based on context
i much rather rely on ‘common sense’ than different kind of policing based on ‘rules’ -because any rules without common sense are useless -even ’don’t piss off mods’ is way better than list of 1000 words you’re not allowed to say

IMO here should be different kind of policies in game threads fanposts and regular comments
cursing like anything else fills some role besides being representation of vulgar person -it helps reduce pain -and what is GSOM if not the ‘world of pain’ (at least in most game threads)?

i am not advocating low language here -i am just trying to say that sometimes posting ‘!@#$ U Jax’ is best way out of frustration (in game threads) -it’s sports blog
while in any regular comments people can and should control their language -same as they should conrol their grammar when they are posting fanposts

period
common sense

30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ

by Lat We N Trash on Nov 11, 2009 6:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Same question I asked toddaverth, what gives you the moral authority to declare something definitively "offensive"?

A couple of thoughts:
1. When something is offensive to me, I am willing to say it is offensive to me. I recognize that I may be asked to explain why it is offensive.
2. Vulgar language is usually widely considered to be offensive for well known reasons (or reasons that were once well known.) These usually relate to social mores regarding public health and social interaction, and, as you have pointed out, often have religious connotations. Different words have different histories, but it isn’t like their histories and meanings are secret.
3. As I have explained elsewhere, a large part of the offensiveness of a given word is it’s inappropriateness. For instance, I have no problem with the use of damn and hell to describe the consequences of sin, but dislike immensely their use in casual conversation.
4. As DFiB has pointed out, vulgarity is used with the intention of offending, appealing to shock value to create emphasis. In other words, it wouldn’t be used unless it were already acknowledged by both parties as having an offensive quality.

by toddaverth on Nov 12, 2009 5:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, you're mixing objectivity and subjectivity

I also want to preface this with I mean no hostility at all with this discussion. I really like to understand why people think the way they do and you’re clearly thoughtful enough to have an honest discussion. Plus, a discussion about something other than Warriors “basketball” right now is welcome.

1. When something is offensive to me, I am willing to say it is offensive to me. I recognize that I may be asked to explain why it is offensive.

That’s the thing, I know why you are offended but that doesn’t make it offensive to everyone. That’s the distinction I’m trying to draw here. Your personal feelings are not objective truth.

2. Vulgar language is usually widely considered to be offensive for well known reasons (or reasons that were once well known.) These usually relate to social mores regarding public health and social interaction, and, as you have pointed out, often have religious connotations. Different words have different histories, but it isn’t like their histories and meanings are secret.

I’m not arguing that people don’t understand the different connotations of certain words, I’m saying that the fact that you or your friends or 100 million other people feel that way doesn’t make it objectively “offensive” or wrong, it just means that’s your personal opinion based on your personal biases and a lot of people happen to agree with you and a lot of people happen not to. Again, what gives you the moral authority?

Also, what is your definition of “widely considered”? How many people is that 20%? 51%? 80%? That’s a logically valueless term. I’m not nitpicking on semantics here either, I’m trying to demonstrate that this term is as subjective and objectively valueless as the word"offensive".

4. As DFiB has pointed out, vulgarity is used with the intention of offending, appealing to shock value to create emphasis. In other words, it wouldn’t be used unless it were already acknowledged by both parties as having an offensive quality.

I agree that it’s primarily used to" create emphasis" but I think that most people who cuss are not trying to offend anyone. Otherwise, why not just personally offend that individual directly? Swear words, like any other instrument of communication, can be used to convey many different sentiments, based on the context, the messenger and his/her message. It doesn’t make the use of word intrinsically bad or good. It just means it’s a word that has several understood meanings. Even if you were to find the context and the message and the word offensive, it still doesn’t mean that the messenger intended offense or that every other recipient of that message viewed it through the same filter you did and came to the same unfavorable conclusion. Some people may have thought: “exactly what I was thinking!”.

3. As I have explained elsewhere, a large part of the offensiveness of a given word is it’s inappropriateness. For instance, I have no problem with the use of damn and hell to describe the consequences of sin, but dislike immensely their use in casual conversation.

Right, and it’s safe to say that a lot more people on this planet find your religion* offensive than are offended by the casual use of damn and hell. Does that make your religion offensive? Does it make it less or more offensive than using damn or hell without considering that those words have a serious spiritual connotation?

It really comes down to you asserting your personal beliefs as absolute and I’d like to hear why you think that your personal beliefs/feelings/opinions are intrinsically more valid than mine or anyone else’s.

*I’m completely inferring this but I assume that being offended by the callous use of the words “damn” and “hell” indicates a religious background. Please correct me if I’m off base.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 12, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am religious. No need to apologize for your questions either (though I appreciate the clarification. It does help maintain civility. Thank you for that.)

I think you are misunderstanding me.
Point 1 was meant to acknowledge that we may or may not always have the same basis for judging what is offensive. I am not trying to impose a hard and fast rule that says, “Thou shalt not ever say anything that toddaverth might find offensive!” Rather, I’m arguing for the policy that each of us should acknowledge that some things are offensive to others and try to avoid saying such things, appreciating the polite feedback they get when they do offend. I have also tried to explain why I believe they are offensive to provide added perspective – hopefully, so others will be persuaded that the effort to be polite is worthwhile and have additional clues as to how to do it.

Points 2, 3, and 4 are attempts to point out that vulgarity is employed because it is vulgar and understood to be offensive in general. In the specific instance of its use the speaker (or author) may not be trying to offend, but he or she is relying on the known offensive nature of the word or idea to create the emphasis they want. Regardless of whether you would accept that the subject matter of any vulgarity is objectively objectionable, this reliance on offending others – even if only employed indirectly – to make a point creates a more hostile, more fractured, and less loving attitude in the individual employing it and those around them, and therefore the culture in general. That more hostile attitude and culture is both objectively observable and measurably bad for both the individual (most of the time) and society (in almost any circumstance.)

Now, I happen to believe that the ideas represented by almost every vulgarity I can think of – and many other subjects that are discussed quite regularly in casual conversation these days – are objectively bad things to discuss causally for one reason or another. The reasons are varied, but generally hinge on the need for humans to show love and respect for one another (as I’ve said, vulgar speech deliberately fails to do this.) I also acknowledge that my religious experiences play a large part in my coming to this conclusion though, so, unless you want to sit down with some LDS missionaries, seriously consider what they have to say, and then ask God if it’s true, it might be hard for you to gather sufficient evidence to recognize an objective standard in my views. I recommend such an exploration as well worth your time, but I’m not even slightly interested in trying to force you to see things my way.

by toddaverth on Nov 12, 2009 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Of the original seven words you can’t say on TV

S____
P____
F____
C____
C____SUCKER
MOTHER______
T_TS

I would say “mother…” is the only one that in which the idea represented is “bad to discuss casually.” All the others are pretty natural things, some of them even quite beautiful…

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Nov 12, 2009 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would say "mother…" is the only one that in which the idea represented is "bad to discuss casually."

Guess Shakespeare din’t know that rule?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 12, 2009 9:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

All the others are pretty natural things, some of them even quite beautiful…

Natural is such an interesting adjective in moral debates because it gets used both to defend and deride various actions, with very little explanation as to why. Many actions that we would probably both consider morally reprehensible are common in the animal world and have there roots in drives and desires that are common among all humans, that is, natural. Murder is an extreme example. I expect more from my fellow man than just following such unrefined impulses.

To be clear, I don’t believe that there is anything ugly or wrong with sex or the human body. Just the opposite, they are both incredibly sacred and beautiful. Vulgar language and attitudes fail to treat them as such.

by toddaverth on Nov 12, 2009 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

we may or may not always have the same basis for judging what is offensive.

Language evolves and word meanings change. Constant use of a word makes it acceptable where it might not have been in the past. A clean conscious and a pure heart is not afraid to hear any word, the constant use of swear words does make them boring though.
I’m more worried about the thinking behind the words than the words themselves, for instance to use a cliche such as god to avoid thinking about what one can really see.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 12, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A clean conscious and a pure heart is not afraid to hear any word

That’s about as true as saying a clean body is not afraid to ingest any substance. In other words, it isn’t true at all. Maintaining a clean mind and a pure heart takes actively choosing good things and rejecting bad ones. It takes controlling ones own thoughts. The most consistent way to accomplish this is to actively seek out things that reinforce good thoughts and actively avoid (or, when necessary, replace) destructive ones. The things you think about are a strong predictor of the things you do. The things you hear are a strong influence on the things you think about. Don’t drink the hemlock tea.

by toddaverth on Nov 12, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maintaining a clean mind and a pure heart takes actively choosing good things and rejecting bad ones.

Exactly, hearing bad things doesn’t make you bad unless you want to be bad and saying good things doesn’t make you good unless you want to be. Actions not words are what matter.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 12, 2009 10:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Actions not words are what matter.

Words are actions and have consequences. For one things, they influence future actions – yours and others.

by toddaverth on Nov 13, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

they influence future actions – yours and others.

You should not let them rule you. Use them to your advantage.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 13, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I agree. But I also believe in using my words for others advantage. That’s why I don’t curse and encourage others not to as well.

by toddaverth on Nov 13, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: use a cliche such as god to avoid thinking about what one can really see.

So your views on statistics and creationism are the one-in-the-same?

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 12, 2009 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

statistics and creationism are the one-in-the-same?

In that stats are a report of a happening and creationism is a dogma?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 13, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You can draw all kinds of conclusions when you pick and choose the evidence you want to believe. Apply this as you choose.

by toddaverth on Nov 13, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Apply this as you choose

I choose to believe first the things I’ve seen and experienced and second the things that can be verified by multiple sources that I trust, taking into account their interest in the effects their report might have on the outcome of matter.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 13, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As do I.

by toddaverth on Nov 13, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rather, I’m arguing for the policy that each of us should acknowledge that some things are offensive to others and try to avoid saying such things

I am completely acknowledging that. This is why I brought up that National Anthem example followed by my laundry list of things, serious and mundane, that have been considered offensive by some and not others. My point is that everyone is offended by their own special package of pet peeves. The possibilities for what might offend someone is as limitless as your imagination. Trust me, I lived in San Francisco for 7 years where their major export is righteous indignation.

Your suggested policy would basically be limitless in what people could take offense to, and I think you’ve now been here long enough to know the general maturity level won’t help you pave the slippery slope that would create.

I have also tried to explain why I believe they are offensive to provide added perspective – hopefully, so others will be persuaded that the effort to be polite is worthwhile and have additional clues as to how to do it.

I happen to believe that the two most important things in communication is clarity of message and intellectual honesty which trumps politeness and form. Of course, a funny joke trumps both. That’s just my opinion, but it’s the opposite of yours. Based on however long you’ve been here, surely you realize that people being polite as a rule isn’t a viable long-term goal. I’d settle for “mostly coherent”.

vulgarity is employed because it is vulgar and understood to be offensive in general.

Not always. Sometimes it’s the best tool for the job and sometimes that job is a joke, an artistic expression or an empathetic moment between people (“F’ing A man”). It depends on your audience as well and the vocabulary they are comfortable using in relaxed situations.

Regardless of whether you would accept that the subject matter of any vulgarity is objectively objectionable, this reliance on offending others – even if only employed indirectly – to make a point creates a more hostile, more fractured, and less loving attitude in the individual employing it and those around them, and therefore the culture in general.

I don’t have that same black and white relationship with vulgarity that you do and nor do most people I know. I get where you’re coming from though. I think the main difference here is that I grew up with a casual, linguistically flexible relationship with swearing and it has always been “discouraged” as unquestionably bad.

I would also offer that by your having such a negative relationship with swearing, you will put more negativity out into the world by cringing or even expressing your offense to a tired man sighing the “F word” at the end of a long ordeal than I would by only registering that this is a man who is very tired.

That more hostile attitude and culture is both objectively observable and measurably bad for both the individual (most of the time) and society (in almost any circumstance.)

That’s solely your opinion. A hostile attitude is subjective based on the context of the situation and the individuals involved. What you observe is always subject to your filters based on how you were raised, what you’ve experienced, your ability to process information and your eyes’ and ears’ ability to bring your brain that information. You also can not measure “bad”, but again you’re using your subjective worldview and objective fact interchangeably. Because . . .

I also acknowledge that my religious experiences play a large part in my coming to this conclusion though

This is the impasse. You know the “truth” and that tells you what is objectively good and bad and right and wrong and that’s it. I think these things are subjective because I don’t have faith as an endpoint to my questioning. That we can not agree on, and I wouldn’t insult either of us by pressing you further on that.

Would you agree that your views on swearing can be deconstructed down to your personal morality whether or not you believe that your personal morality is the ultimate truth?

so, unless you want to sit down with some LDS missionaries, seriously consider what they have to say, and then ask God if it’s true, it might be hard for you to gather sufficient evidence to recognize an objective standard in my views.

I’ve actually had a lot of contact with your church (for a non LDS) and have had many conversations with LDS people I grew up with and lived with. I tore my ACL playing pick-up at your Fremont church. I also did a report on your organization for a hereditary class in college.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 12, 2009 11:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Your suggested policy would basically be limitless in what people could take offense to

Logically, yes. In practice no. The policy actually tends to counter-act the very slippery-slope you are identifying. If I find something you have said offensive I can – and should – actively (try to) avoid giving offense in return, even if I feel it is an important enough offense to bring up. In thinking about whether and how to respond I have the opportunity to consider whether the person intended any offense and act accordingly. In other words, I can recognize that the tired man is tired just the same as you and forgive him for innocently employing a hostile, but unfortunately common cultural norm.

Sometimes it’s the best tool for the job and sometimes that job is a joke, an artistic expression or an empathetic moment between people ("F’ing A man"). It depends on your audience as well and the vocabulary they are comfortable using in relaxed situations.

Not the point. The reason the vulgarity makes a “useful” tool in the joke, artistic expression, or empathetic moment is that it is recognized as vulgarity. It is the acknowledged offensive nature of the expressed idea that underlies its use – even if it isn’t the direct purpose of its use then.

That’s solely your opinion. A hostile attitude is subjective based on the context of the situation and the individuals involved. What you observe is always subject to your filters based on how you were raised, what you’ve experienced, your ability to process information and your eyes’ and ears’ ability to bring your brain that information. You also can not measure "bad", but again you’re using your subjective worldview and objective fact interchangeably.

This is pure relativism. By this logic nothing is observable or measurable or objective. While there is a kernel of truth to what you are saying, the sun is (or isn’t) shining whether or not you and I see it – or so I think ;-). It just isn’t very useful to reduce discussions to this level because it makes it impossible to come to even temporary conclusions that can lead to a happier life.

The person who employs vulgarity on a regular basis reduces his own chances for successful and happy relationships and increases the likelihood that he will not see danger in vulgar actions. If you talk about murder as if it were no big deal, you are more likely to think about it in this way (or influence someone else to,) and therefore increase the likelihood it will happen. This is an observable and measurable phenomenon. It doesn’t require adopting my religious views to see it. It is an example of a class of phenomena that devalues human life and happiness, which is why I call it bad, vulgar, or inappropriate.

You know the "truth" and that tells you what is objectively good and bad and right and wrong and that’s it.

You say this almost as though it isn’t true for everyone. we’re all individually responsible for determining what we will or will not believe is true. No one and no thing can take that responsibility away from us. I happen to believe that’s why we are all here on earth, to have that experience of learning to recognize good and evil and determining for ourselves what we will believe and incorporate in to our lives.

Would you agree that your views on swearing can be deconstructed down to your personal morality whether or not you believe that your personal morality is the ultimate truth?

I recognize my religious beliefs as a significant influence on my views on the matter. I also recognize that someone without similar beliefs may come to entirely different conclusions. That doesn’t mean I think the evidence is lacking, just that we don’t always have the ability to see all the evidence. You are welcome to believe what you are persuaded to by the evidence you see and share that with others. That process helps us all learn.

I’ve actually had a lot of contact with your church (for a non LDS) and have had many conversations with LDS people I grew up with and lived with. I tore my ACL playing pick-up at your Fremont church. I also did a report on your organization for a hereditary class in college.

I’ve played some very enjoyable basketball at the building on Decoto Rd. I also had my car broken into in the parking lot one night. sorry to hear you tore your ACL; that must hurt.

My point was, unless you have your own prayers answered and therefore have your own personal evidence that the doctrines I believe are true, then I can’t really rely on those doctrines as objective evidence of anything when trying to persuade you. I believe them to be true. I dare to say I know them to be true. But until you have your own experiences that provide you similar evidence, you’re left deciding whether you believe my testimony and want to do anything more to find out for yourself.

by toddaverth on Nov 13, 2009 8:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Logically, yes. In practice no. The policy actually tends to counter-act the very slippery-slope you are identifying.

Actually, in practice we have a lot of people with a lot of different backgrounds, beliefs and levels of maturity. You’d find a lot of gremlins in your machine both by people honestly objecting to having someone else’s morality fed to them along with a number of people who want to push the technical limits of the rules just for kicks. This is why I think the site owners should be able just unilaterally ban someone without reason or explanation and let us decide if we want to keep coming back. It’s less effective and will cause even more unrest if you set up a policy that you can’t enforce and then constantly get accused of discrimination. Just tell everyone up front not to expect any explanation, just do your best to behave. If your best isn’t good enough to us, we’ll ban you.

In other words, I can recognize that the tired man is tired just the same as you and forgive him for innocently employing a hostile, but unfortunately common cultural norm.

I don’t think most people would interpret that as hostile, I certainly wouldn’t even think about it. In this case, the negativity is all caused by your internal response to what he said based on your bias towards the word. The only way that you could logically spin this as hostile is that the man is hostile towards his own exhaustion which is a stretch because he could have said the word "man" in the same context and in the same manner with the exact same sentiment and I would have interpreted it exactly the same way. You would not have. That doesn’t make it "unfortunate" for our culture, it just makes it "unfortunate" for you because you’re creating negativity where none exists. Only you are suffering from offense at that moment. There doesn’t need to be a law or a rule to protect you from your own prejudice.

Not the point. The reason the vulgarity makes a "useful" tool in the joke, artistic expression, or empathetic moment is that it is recognized as vulgarity. It is the acknowledged offensive nature of the expressed idea that underlies its use – even if it isn’t the direct purpose of its use then.

You are injecting the offensiveness into the equation because of your particular world-view. If there are three people present: you and those two. You would be the only one of the three finding the interaction vulgar or offensive. That’s on you. You’re entitled to your viewpoint, but that’s all it is. If you want to blame other people or society’s declining emphasis on "traditional" values and etiquette, that won’t change anything. It’s probably healthier for you to not be offended when no offense to your person was intended, why take on the extra stress that a negative reaction puts on your mind and body?

This is pure relativism. By this logic nothing is observable or measurable or objective. While there is a kernel of truth to what you are saying, the sun is (or isn’t) shining whether or not you and I see it – or so I think ;-). It just isn’t very useful to reduce discussions to this level because it makes it impossible to come to even temporary conclusions that can lead to a happier life.

There are certain probabilities that must be taken as absolutes in order to survive as a species like assuming the sun is there and will rise tomorrow. Offending people’s subjective sense of vulgarity is low on the survival pyramid whereas ignoring your internal translation of whatever thirst is, is universally going to kill you. That’s universally true. Agreed though, that was poor choice of wording on my part that takes us down another path entirely.

The person who employs vulgarity on a regular basis reduces his own chances for successful and happy relationships and increases the likelihood that he will not see danger in vulgar actions.

We’re back to toddaverth’s morals should be everyone’s. You have the advantage of having a moral template that is absolute in your eyes but the vast majority of the world sees things in all sorts of different ways. It only reduces the probability that you will have a successful relationship with someone who is offended by the same things you are and for a lot of us, we don’t want to be around people who are rigid moralists.

If you talk about murder as if it were no big deal, you are more likely to think about it in this way (or influence someone else to,) and therefore increase the likelihood it will happen. This is an observable and measurable phenomenon. It doesn’t require adopting my religious views to see it. It is an example of a class of phenomena that devalues human life and happiness, which is why I call it bad, vulgar, or inappropriate.

That is not an "observable and measurable" phenomenon. There is no direct, isolated, cause-and-effect relationship between being callous toward murder and being able to murder someone else. What about morticians? Coroners? Is there a higher homicide rate among people in those vocations?

You say this almost as though it isn’t true for everyone. we’re all individually responsible for determining what we will or will not believe is true. No one and no thing can take that responsibility away from us. I happen to believe that’s why we are all here on earth, to have that experience of learning to recognize good and evil and determining for ourselves what we will believe and incorporate in to our lives.

I don’t think like that, but you’re right, most people do. On serious subjects, I try and find out "why" something happened or "why" someone said something instead of just saying "that was good" or "that was wrong". Not questioning the basis of your morals and not asking "why do so many people feel differently than I do" and then relying on those morals as a basis on which to judge people seems like an incomplete analysis to me. But that’s faith right? Again, I’m not going to argue with you about the validity or absoluteness of your faith.

I just want it to be clear that , for better or for worse, you are pushing your personal values because you believe them to be universally true. I think that frames this very clever statement: "we’re all individually responsible for determining what we will or will not believe is true" to really mean something more along the lines of "it’s up to you to get with the program or suffer the consequences once you are dead".

That doesn’t mean I think the evidence is lacking, just that we don’t always have the ability to see all the evidence. You are welcome to believe what you are persuaded to by the evidence you see and share that with others. That process helps us all learn.

Agree 100%.

Now it’s just about time to watch something that is universally and absolutely vulgar and offensive: Warriors Basketball.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 13, 2009 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I only got to listen to last nights game, but it sounded rather entertaining, if strange. Stephen Jackson at Center! WOW! Just, “Wow!”

by toddaverth on Nov 14, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I just want it to be clear that , for better or for worse, you are pushing your personal values because you believe them to be universally true. I think that frames this very clever statement: “we’re all individually responsible for determining what we will or will not believe is true” to really mean something more along the lines of “it’s up to you to get with the program or suffer the consequences once you are dead”.

I think you are inferring something far more sinister than is actually there. I could just as easily interpret what you are saying as, “it’s up to you, toddaverth, to get with the program or suffer the consequences.” Whether or not there are consequences to suffer is a function of what is or is not, not what you and I think. The worst you can view my statements as is a warning based on what I see, which I have repeatedly couched in your GPS’s standard disclaimer, that you should use your own good judgment.

by toddaverth on Nov 14, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't consider what I was inferring as sinister

I’m not making a value judgment, I don’t consider your personal beliefs good or bad. I assume that you feel that they are good for you so that’s all that matters IMO.

My point was, that based on our discussion, that your assertions as to what is and is not offensive are your personal opinions which are rooted in your religious beliefs. I think you’d agree with that. I’m trying to distill this conversation down to its root.

Whether or not there are consequences to suffer is a function of what is or is not, not what you and I think.

Agreed 100%.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 14, 2009 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That is not an “observable and measurable” phenomenon. There is no direct, isolated, cause-and-effect relationship between being callous toward murder and being able to murder someone else. What about morticians? Coroners? Is there a higher homicide rate among people in those vocations?

Are Corners and Morticians really more callous toward murder than average? Or are they just more accustomed to dealing with death? There’s a substantial difference between being able to accept and deal with the fact that people die and being comfortable with the thought of killing people. On the other hand, gangs, juntas, paramilitary groups, terrorists, mafia, and even more benign organizations like police and military are more comfortable with the thought of killing people and educate people to do the same. I think you will find higher murder rates than the general populace among all these groups.

by toddaverth on Nov 14, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There’s a substantial difference between being able to accept and deal with the fact that people die and being comfortable with the thought of killing people.

Right, but that’s not what you said. I might have misinterpreted it.

If you talk about murder as if it were no big deal, you are more likely to think about it in this way (or influence someone else to,) and therefore increase the likelihood it will happen. This is an observable and measurable phenomenon.

This was the quote I was responding to. I was trying to give some other examples of people who think about death differently. Who are you trying to describe when you say " talk about murder as if it were no big deal"? My point was that you can not objectively measure or prove this claim nor can you make the leap to say that swearing, regardless of context or intent, leads to X. What does swearing lead to and why is that bad?

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 14, 2009 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You are injecting the offensiveness into the equation because of your particular world-view. If there are three people present: you and those two. You would be the only one of the three finding the interaction vulgar or offensive. That’s on you. You’re entitled to your viewpoint, but that’s all it is. If you want to blame other people or society’s declining emphasis on “traditional” values and etiquette, that won’t change anything. It’s probably healthier for you to not be offended when no offense to your person was intended, why take on the extra stress that a negative reaction puts on your mind and body?

Again, you’re not understanding what I am saying. People use vulgar language because it is considered vulgar. If a word loses its vulgar connotation than people who are inclined to use vulgarity stop using that word and replace it with something that is considered vulgar. My presence in a conversation, reaction to that conversation, sense of “traditional values and etiquette,” and health is irrelevant to that.

This clearly isn’t an argument that vulgarity is generally defined by objective measures, but it is a counterpoint to your argument that there isn’t a commonly understood and agreed upon definition of what is vulgar that can be usefully employed within the GSoM community.

by toddaverth on Nov 14, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, you’re not understanding what I am saying. People use vulgar language because it is considered vulgar.

I’m telling you that I do not. Again, it’s on you. If you and I are the only two people in ear-shot of the man sighing about how exhausted he is, you are the only one of the three of us who are offended. That’s your problem, caused by your worldview. That’s the path you choose for yourself but pushing it on people who aren’t “offended” by this will result in more negativity.

your argument that there isn’t a commonly understood and agreed upon definition of what is vulgar

The kind of split attitude in this Fanpost should tell you that your assertion that your definition of “vulgar” or “offensive” isn’t only not “commonly understood” but completely rejected by a good number of people.

Which is irrelevant in regards to my greater point: One person or many people feeling that something is offensive or vulgar does not mean that it needs to be limited or eliminated.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 14, 2009 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

a hostile, but unfortunately common cultural norm.

I will admit that my interpretation of hostile is being applied to crude language here. This statement does reflect my world view and morals. The point was that I could recognize that a man employing a vulgarity might not share those morals or even if he does, realize he is employing a word which connotes something undesirable and easily forgive him for it, even if I don’t enjoy the language.

A world where literal filth, meaningless sex, extreme punishment, objectification of others, etc. is common is highly undesirable. Since language is a strong precursor to action and, regardless of whether action ensues, evokes imagery, the use of language that denotes these things creates just such a world. Why would anyone want that?

by toddaverth on Nov 14, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

meaningless sex,?

there is no meaningless sex just like there’s no meaningless breath.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 14, 2009 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A world where literal filth, meaningless sex, extreme punishment, objectification of others, etc. is common is highly undesirable. Since language is a strong precursor to action and, regardless of whether action ensues, evokes imagery, the use of language that denotes these things creates just such a world.

I disagree with your assertion of cause-and-effect. There’s no way of making you believe me but I can tell you for certain that if I hear the F-word in a non sexual or a nonviolent context, I don’t think about sex or violence at all. Words’ meanings morph over time and some of these words have developed meanings independent of their origin. Some people, like you, internally refer to back it’s roots and infer a connotation that was not intended and some, like me, do not.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 14, 2009 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the vast majority of the world sees things in all sorts of different ways. It only reduces the probability that you will have a successful relationship with someone who is offended by the same things you are and for a lot of us, we don’t want to be around people who are rigid moralists.

The only rule that I have proposed we employ is one that recognizes that “the vast majority of the world sees things in all sorts of different ways” and encourages people to try to be cognizant of this by using language and imagery that do not expect to drive others who have a differing worldview than them away. As a corollary principle I have advocated being willing to listen humbly when someone explains why they were offended and change accordingly (with the caveat that changes that are deemed too extreme can be ignored until one or the other party ceases to participate in the conversation.)

For instance, you and I clearly have differing world views and yet have had a very lengthy and, for my part, enjoyable conversation. If any offense has been given it was not intended. Perhaps the very fact that I have a differing world view than you (that I am willing to state) will drive you away a cause us not to be friends, but, if so, then I cannot regard this as my fault. When forced to choose between making a friend and holding to what I believe to be true I will choose the latter every time; there are simply too many differing world views out there to try to adopt others beliefs in an attempt to make friends. On the other hand, I can and readily will accept and respect the fact that others see things differently than me.

by toddaverth on Nov 14, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: enjoyable conversation

Absolutely.

When forced to choose between making a friend and holding to what I believe to be true I will choose the latter every time; there are simply too many differing world views out there to try to adopt others beliefs in an attempt to make friends. On the other hand, I can and readily will accept and respect the fact that others see things differently than me.

Agreed.

Also, we’re not going to agree on the “swearing” issue, so I think we can stop now.
Both arguments are completely laid out.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 14, 2009 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is why I think the site owners should be able just unilaterally ban someone without reason or explanation and let us decide if we want to keep coming back. It’s less effective and will cause even more unrest if you set up a policy that you can’t enforce and then constantly get accused of discrimination. Just tell everyone up front not to expect any explanation, just do your best to behave. If your best isn’t good enough to us, we’ll ban you.

Interestingly, the only difference I see between your proposed solution and mine is that mine offers an educational component that gives people at least a chance to understand how they have offended someone. I see your point that some will deliberately provoke a ban and others will cry foul when they do not understand the explanation given, but as long as it is agreed that, for this site only, the owners have unilateral authority I see greater benefit to including the educational component than leaving it out.

by toddaverth on Nov 14, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bad words represent bad ideas…

there is no good or bad, profane or sacred, colloquial or formal. these are abstractions. their meaning is dependent upon one’s viewpoint. i enjoy m_f_’s march to kitschy mildness, and savor it’s outrageous replacement to come! probably something crotch related…

the public option is a pathetic compromise. death to the insurance companies!!!

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 13, 2009 2:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

By this argument there is no existence. The “abstractions” good, bad, profane, sacred, colloquial, and formal grow out of the more basic concepts of “is” and “is not” or, in other words, “true” and “false.” Our perceptions of what is good, bad, profane, sacred, formal and colloquial are based on what we recognize as true or existing, and thus “depends on one’s viewpoint.” But the actual nature of good, bad, profane, sacred, formal, etc. depends only on what is and what is not. True, good, sacred, right – these are all ways of saying that something agrees with what actually is. False, profane, evil are all ways of saying that something misrepresents what actually is.

The hidden premise of your argument is that there is something there to have a perception. Something must be in order for there to be any perception of what might be.

by toddaverth on Nov 13, 2009 9:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

…the actual nature of good, bad, profane, sacred, formal, etc. depends only on what is and what is not.

yet there is no definitive being or not being. quantum mechanics teach us that particles phase in and out of existence readily. the reality we percieve around us is our nervous system’s interpretation of what science tells us is mostly empty space. everything we percieve exists as a reflection of our perception.

True, good, sacred, right – these are all ways of saying that something agrees with what actually is. False, profane, evil are all ways of saying that something misrepresents what actually is.

yet by this logic gay rights should be denied because they are definitively “profane”, and imperialistic wars should not be questioned because they are waged by the “good guys” against what GW bush would describe as evil terrorists, and others would describe as communities full of familes. my point is not that these ideoligies are definitively mistaken, although that is fairly obvious, but that they are at the very least controversial. one man’s trash is nother man’s treasure. one man’s moral high-ground is another man’s philosophical shackle.

the public option is a pathetic compromise. death to the insurance companies!!!

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 13, 2009 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by this logic gay rights should be denied because they are definitively "profane", and imperialistic wars should not be questioned because they are waged by the "good guys"

Not so. Recall that I said

Our perceptions of what is good, bad, profane, sacred, formal and colloquial are based on what we recognize as true or existing, and thus "depends on one’s viewpoint." But the actual nature of good, bad, profane, sacred, formal, etc. depends only on what is and what is not.

The decisions we make regarding rights and war and what we eat are of clearly dependent on our perceptions, but this is reflective our connection to reality, not reality itself. In other words, you cannot correctly say, “There is no good or bad, profane or sacred, colloquial or formal, only perception” because the fact that you are perceiving something indicates that you are and thus, by my earlier logic, that something is good, right, and true (insofar as it exists.)

Neither does your quantum mechanics reference deny my logic: regardless of whether a particle simply enters our perception and then leaves it or actually is created and then destroyed the perceived process reflects some reality.

I will grant – and have frequently already granted – that none of us is fully equipped to definitively state what reality is, and therefore we cannot definitively state for another what truth, good, sacred, etc. are, but that does not in any way prove that reality does not exist. The fact is, even if I cannot fully understand it, I am perceiving things, therefore I know that I exist, therefore I know that some thing is real. The rest I will agree is our best guess. I think that is how it is supposed to be.

by toddaverth on Nov 14, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am perceiving things, therefore I know that I exist,

unless you are just a character in someone else’s dream.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 14, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: SpongeBob says "tarter sauce" instead of "shit"

That would absolutely be my new sigline except that it would me banned which would then render having a sigline utterly pointless. It would be like some fecal tartar sauce version of Gift of the Magi.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 10, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the anti-cursing policy is quite ridiculous, actually. As implied above, a quick perusal of the other SBN blogs will show how rare this blog policy is, and that—for the most part—it is not needed.

The equation of ‘family blog’ with ‘no cursing/rough language’ is also dubious. What is this policy actually accomplishing?

Prospective parent of new pick, Zack Wheeler. Projectable Righty stolen from the braves. Of course, I stalk my son's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/zackwheelerbaseball

"Obviously I’m not doing things like going toe-to-toe with a ninja. Find me a ninja, for one."--Brian Wilson

by haverecords on Nov 5, 2009 10:45 AM PST reply actions 5 recs

What is this policy actually accomplishing?

Perhaps it is not needlessly chasing away intelligent people* who don’t appreciate ‘cursing/rough language.’ I try to keep my life G-rated. There are enough unseemly things in life without deliberately seeking them out.

* – this is not to say that people who don’t look at it this way are not intelligent. This forum is better because of the diversity of opinion we see. Adjusting our language to accommodate discussion with the larger audience is wise.

by toddaverth on Nov 6, 2009 2:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

if you don't appreciate cursing/rough language...

…maybe you’d be better suited to an antiquing enthusiast site. you certainly don’t want to know what the players, coaches, and staff are saying in the NBA.

Adjusting our language to accommodate discussion with the larger audience is wise.

i cannot argue against this, but by the same token, it is perhaps wiser to adjust the rigidity of one’s relationship to language.

Henry Kissinger and Brack Obama: Brothers in Peace

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 6, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Please note that I don’t usually complain to anyone on this site for choosing to use language or imagery that I would not (and don’t appreciate.) I’m not here to impose my beliefs on people. But, when having a conversation, it’s often best to stick to language and imagery that they can relate to. If you choose to say things that they don’t appreciate, they will likely choose to stop conversing with you.

The terms of service establish ground rules about what everyone who comes here can expect. They aim to do so in a way that does not require anyone to make too significant a sacrifice; certainly not any more than they would be expected to in many other aspects of public life.

The NBA (wisely) filters the language of players, coaches, and staff (through the media) so that those of us who might not appreciate the tenor of their message don’t have to put up with it. This is done for the same reasons that I just used to justify the terms of service.

by toddaverth on Nov 8, 2009 3:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i think the fact that the media filters the language used by players and coaches speaks to the fact that our society is plagued by the inborn neurosis of christianity.

the public option is a pathetic compromise. death to the insurance companies!!!

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 13, 2009 2:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

plagued by the inborn neurosis of

“there is no good or bad, profane or sacred, colloquial or formal” except of course when you explain it to the rest of us. ;-)

by toddaverth on Nov 13, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

i’m only human, after all! there’s no place for holistic thinking in bigotry, and i am an avid bigot!

the public option is a pathetic compromise. death to the insurance companies!!!

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 13, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and an entertaining one at that!

by toddaverth on Nov 14, 2009 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The equation of ‘family blog’ with ‘no cursing/rough language’ is also dubious. What is this policy actually accomplishing?

I think it makes everyone feel more comfortable here? If the other sports blogs are cruder then why not go there? What makes this one attractive ? Maybe the more creative language?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 8, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What is this policy actually accomplishing?

maybe teaching people how to express themselves better?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 5, 2009 10:55 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

As someone whose own speech is littered with f-bombs, I’d be a hypocrite to say that it offended me. Nonetheless, I think as a policy, it tends to keep the quality of the discussion up a bit.

If nothing else, for many people, it requires that they think just that little bit more about what it is that they are writing rather than going with a reflexive train-of-thought-to-keyboard. Those tend not to be the better posts. They tend to be overly heated, without the zealotry balanced by anything remotely rational, and, generally, little interest to anyone other than the individual who posted. My own experience is that those heated posts I’ve tossed up are not the ones I’m most proud of.

Tools that make people think more rather than less are usually good things.

by jae on Nov 5, 2009 11:55 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Keep in mind

I am talking about the open comments thread where your first reaction to Nellie benching Ar righr away or Mags shooting another jumpshot can only be described in anger.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not

to mention that the open comments thread has no actual discussion but a bunch of reactions.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah. I’ve never participated in an open game thread, so I’ll refrain from commenting about.

(Believe it or not, as stats-and-data-mad as I am, I don’t like to have a computer anywhere near me when I’m watching a game.)

by jae on Nov 5, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Tools that make people think more rather than less are usually good things.

Michael Moore thanks you for the backhanded compliment.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 11, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes they are going crazy about warnings

by thecity23 on Nov 5, 2009 12:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I find it pretty strange that people have a big problem with the no-cursing rule. Is cussing that big a part of your life?

If the site owners want that rule, it’s their perogative.

"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.

by Goofus on Nov 5, 2009 12:48 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

By the way do the mods hate me?

or does everyone get warned for not capitalizing and/or spelling mistakes? Sometimes I see posts without words capitalized and I wonder if I should flag that post so the mods can warn that person.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 1:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

By the way do the mods hate me?

haha, the whiny wheel gets the hate.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 8, 2009 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is GSoM...

Every SBnation Blog is different. They all have different rules, and even the sites with similar rules many times choose to enforce them differently. It seems like each blog is allowed quite a bit of leeway when it comes to what they deem acceptable. For instance on Bloody Elbow (the MMA blog) one of the rules is simply “don’t piss off the mods”. They also don’t allow “fighter bashing.” Very different than what is allowed here.

It doesn’t really make sense to me to say that since the TOS states that SBN is not intended for people 13 and younger means that you should be able to behave how ever you like. The guys that run GSoM have come up with their own set of standards that they ask us to abide by if we want to participate. This is their party at their house, and if you want a keg but they are only serving soda then I guess you are at the wrong party.

If you feel that they are being too hard on you, then send them an email to discuss it. If you feel that they are not playing by the SBN rules (you mentioned something about copyright stuff?) then it would probably be more appropriate to also contact them directly. It’s been my experience that, despite some prolonged and somewhat contentious basketball debates with Atma, they have always been very friendly and reasonable when you approach the situation that way. These are good, understanding guys that put in tons of their personal time and effort to keep this place going. They have always been open to input from the community.

I’m not sure why but it seems like we need to have this discussion every few months. It’s really a testament to the GSoM boys that they allow posts like this to stay up and be discussed openly instead of pulling it down and sending you a warning.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 1:28 PM PST reply actions 5 recs

Yes GSoM is different

But, there has to be a limit to this cursing policy. 99% of the cursing I see is reactionary cursing to a dumb call, play, or player and it is never directed to a fellow blog member. I also rarely see one of these words fully typed out, it usually is shortened or filled with numerical characters. In fact I have not seen a derogatory put down in a long time, if not ever. I can understand fully when a warning or ban is issued for a derogatory put down, but as a reaction? It seems too strict. The fact of the matter is that alot of the acronyms we use (I’m not going to name them) are as bad as those said words and those comments are never moderated. Just going through the first 3 Open Game Threads I see alot of comments like these that are not hidden.

It’s not only intended for those 13 or younger, it’s just not prohibited. Behavior also is a broad subject as anywhere you go whether its in the public or in a professional setting, you will always see or hear bad stuff, it’s inevitable, sports is no different and it can be certainly worse than what it is.

Like I said, I’m all for warnings and bans against putdowns and hateful or derogatory remarks. But reactionary comments of frustration? Let em be, just hide the comment, or be more lenient.

Welcome to the Warriors, Stephen Curry, the 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year.

Panda's and Curry in the Bey Area. Who would've known?

Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!

by ejdacanay on Nov 5, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But, there has to be a limit to this cursing policy.

No, there doesn’t. If they don’t allow cursing on their site then those are the rules you have to follow if you wish to continue posting here.

Just going through the first 3 Open Game Threads I see alot of comments like these that are not hidden.

I’m not going to get into specifics but the sheer volume of posts doesn’t allow the Mods (for lack of a better term) to hide every comment that deserves it. It should make sense that if you’ve been warned for swearing then you should know not to do it again. It’s easy to point to perceived double standards when fishing through the sea of comments in an open thread, but lets face it… they don’t owe it to you or I to be perfectly fair and even handed. They can’t be expected to see every violation, or be in a position to take the time to hide a comment and issue a warning. They do their best. If you see something that you feel should be hidden then flag it.

It’s not only intended for those 13 or younger, it’s just not prohibited

I’m not sure what you mean. If you are saying that cursing is not prohibited by the SBN TOS, then I should point out that cursing is prohibited by GSoM.

If you are pointing out that posting by a 13yo is prohibited then I guess you should bring it to the attention of the mods if you are aware of any kids that are posting on GSoM.

Either way it doesn’t follow that just because there aren’t supposed to be kids here that we should adopt your own personal sense of decorum. Maybe Atma just doesn’t want to read cursing on his blog. That’s his prerogative. “Family Show” is just an easy way to explain what he expects from people. It doesn’t actually mean that he runs the site for the entertainment of children. Let’s face it TOS or not, kids do come here to read whether it’s prohibited or not. Whatever his reasoning, Atma has decided not to allow cursing on his blog.

Like I said, I’m all for warnings and bans against putdowns and hateful or derogatory remarks. But reactionary comments of frustration? Let em be, just hide the comment, or be more lenient.

I don’t think that’s an unreasonable point of view. But it’s your point of view and this isn’t your blog. It’s really not up to you to decide what is acceptable here. Have you sent Atma an email? I’m sure he would appreciate your feedback, and he might even consider changing his mind at some point. If not then I guess you’ll just have to learn how to restrain yourself when you get the urge to curse in an open thread.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I sent GSOM crew a email before

They unbanned me for my non-capitalizing ways but that might also be because I started flagging every single post I saw that had people missing capitalization or spelling words wrong.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I started flagging every single post I saw that had people missing capitalization or spelling words wrong.

that’s pretty petty. but, being banned for not capitalizing your words is pretty silly.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

See...

You didn’t capitalize “that’s” I could flag you right now and you would be warned.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm glad you appreciated my joke

Now, grow up. Just because somebody acted towards you in a childish manner, doesn’t mean you should too (If only I could listen to my own advice…).

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 4:56 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Haha

I think it’s pretty safe to say that they unbanned you because you sent them a friendly email and not because you decided to go on a flagging spree.

I personally think the whole capitalizing and punctuation thing is going a bit overboard, but if those are the rules here then is it really that hard to hit the shift key every once in a while? It seems like they mellowed out about that a bit lately anyway.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

I just got hit 2 days again with another capitalization warning.

I can only assume its because of this
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2009/11/1/1109952/nba-lauches-live-game-video-for
“this is saying that if you buy the regular league pass it won’t include the mobile league pass.

mobile league pass is its on separate thing so if you have one you have to pay for the other.

$40 is not a bad price but blacking out warrior games kind of kills.
"

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said...

I think it’s a bit extreme, but those are the rules. When Atma was looking for input I said as much. It doesn’t bother me at all, but I’m not in charge.

I should ask though, since they have made it clear that they expect you to use proper capitalization why don’t you? Everyone makes mistakes on occasion, but it seems like you have a bit of a reputation with the guys in charge at this point.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Because some times

I type and I forget to capitalize. Sometimes I am on my phone. Sometimes I am IMing people and I get used to not capitalizing. Many reasons.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 9:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rec

100% agreed.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 5, 2009 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

REC

It should also be noted that GSoM existed before it became an SBN blog (I think), thus it had preestablished rules, some of which were kept.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

I think GSoM has always been SBN. Before that the same guys ran a blog under a different name that I can’t recall at the moment. I could be wrong though…

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Athletics Nation was the prototype IIRC

This whole SB Nation Enterprise and interface is a spin-off of this blog: http://www.dailykos.com/

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 5, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you feel that they are being too hard on you, then send them an email to discuss it.

i actually put a good chunk of my day into writing what i thought was a thoughtful, polite inquiry into the nature of a warning i recieved for capitalization, or lack therof. i recieved no response. as i am lacking in an understanding of the need for capitalization in such an exceedingly informal format, i feel compelled to ignore this rule.

Henry Kissinger and Brack Obama: Brothers in Peace

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 6, 2009 6:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand why they gave me a warning for saying "f..k those refs"

in a game thread when Andris was called for his third foul. Why do you think I used the dots? Shouldn’t I rather have used the whole word and get the same warning then? Should I use the sentence “I hope the dogs(if any of them have one) don’t welcome them when they come home”, in a game thread with over 1000 comments? Okay I understand the rules but if you stick so close to them then I wasn’t supposed to get the warning because I didn’t use the curse word.

by buky on Nov 5, 2009 3:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well...

apparently using a thinly veiled curse word is the same thing as spelling out the entire word here. Just be glad you aren’t in the NBA, that would have been a $15,000 fine. ; )

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 3:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

$15k fine

When you’re making a couple of million is nothing.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Easy for you to say...

Go try to take $15k from Jackson and tell me how he reacts. ;-P

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He might come to your house trick or treating!

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 4:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

where does one draw the line?

f… those refs?

f those refs?

screw those refs?

it is an entirely subjective decision which ignores the fact that all of those statements mean something similar, and the difference is only meaningful to those who have yet to understand that it is subjective. why not simply advocate critical thinking, and forget all about censorship?

Henry Kissinger and Brack Obama: Brothers in Peace

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 6, 2009 7:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

An art instructor will often give an assignment that limits the media an artist can use in order to help them learn to be more expressive.

I personally dislike all of the examples you suggested precisely because they do have essentially the same meaning, but the line is often drawn either with actual use of certain well -known words or clear substitutions meant to skirt the rule. It is a subjective rule, reflecting a compromise between the impractical and undesirable extreme of controlling everything that everyone says and the equally undesirable extreme of never correcting rude behavior that drives other people away.

by toddaverth on Nov 8, 2009 4:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: The Sites are not intended for and may not be used by children under the age of 13

It’s good to see someone finally gave Mike Fox a break.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 5, 2009 3:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It’s not our site. It’s not our rules. This is a “you don’t like it you can leave” situation.

(Don’t leave, I think you are a quality poster, and I am just speaking in generalizations.)

by belilaugh on Nov 5, 2009 8:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Haha, don't trip, the only two places to discuss the Warriors is here and WarriorsWorld which I don't like

Welcome to the Warriors, Stephen Curry, the 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year.

Panda's and Curry in the Bey Area. Who would've known?

Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!

by ejdacanay on Nov 5, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Make no mistakes, this is not a personal issue at all as I’ve been warned only once or twice in my 2 years here and I don’t want nothing “owed” to me.

Since this is more of a blogging community issue, I want to see a clarification on these rules by the GSoM crew. For one, you can’t find the GSoM specific ToS anywhere unless you’re new to the blog or you get warned. Secondly, if I remember correctly the ToS is extremely vague in what it states. As OM mentioned there will be inconsistencies in these rules and a perception of double standards will be questioned. This is why, we as a blog, need to know how these rules are. This goes for the cursing, the grammar issues, and those issues not enforced that I mentioned in the Original Post.

Welcome to the Warriors, Stephen Curry, the 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year.

Panda's and Curry in the Bey Area. Who would've known?

Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!

by ejdacanay on Nov 5, 2009 9:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

clarification

Family site. No cursing. Pretty simple. Is it feasible or worthwhile for the moderators to search through the game threads to find it. If you see something that bothers you, flag it. Grammar issues are very different. There’s a reason people get warned. I’ve been warned a few times, myself. It’s not like they kick you off or anything, they just give you a heads up that it’s a family site and that they don’t allow cursing. It’s a much better way to inform people, IMO, than blaring it on the front page or whatever. It only sends the message to the target audience that needs that message. They don’t do it rudely, from what I’ve seen.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Is it feasible or worthwhile for the moderators to search through the game threads to find it. If you see something that bothers you, flag it.

  The game open threads are pretty well controlled by peer pressure. If someone is too obnoxious he gets told to cool it.
   This site works better than most I’ve been to due to the quality of the warriors fans that come here. I think the balance is pretty good these days, maybe a bit tamer than the pre SB Nation days but still fun.
   I do have a problem with the grammar and punctuation police, I think it’s boring to have everyone speak the same way ,I like the variety and don’t want to discourage anyone from posting for educational or preferential reasons. I don’t think basketball skill or knowledge requires good english skills?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 5, 2009 10:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think basketball skill or knowledge requires good english skills?

No, but if we all want to be able to communicate seamlessly, we should all try to communicate identically… or at least in commonly accepted manners. TYPING IN ALL CAPS HURTS PEOPLES HEADS BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO READ BECAUSE WE’VE ALL BEEN TRAINED TO READ THINGS A CERTAIN WAY BY BOOKS.

Which one of the two above sentences did you actually read faster? There’s a reason for that.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Which one of the two above sentences did you actually read faster?

I think I read it as a paragraph in one look but my point was what if say Montay Ellis wanted to add something here. We don’t want to miss the input just because he can’t pass an english test? Lots of those mumbling kids at the local blacktop probably know a lot more about whats wrong and right with the warriors than we do and we don’t wanna discourage them from sharing it.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 5, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Man

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread where you guys don’t go at it… lol you guys are funny.

by bojangles408 on Nov 6, 2009 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

um, I agree with you, but...

I read the sentence in all caps faster. (Maybe it is because, I addition to doing a lot of reading, I studied drafting in high school and got quite used to all caps. So much so that I use all caps and/or small caps for almost all of my handwriting. It could also be a result of the capital letters having more negative space and therefore being easier for tired eyes to read.)

by toddaverth on Nov 6, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

totally disagree on this

if we all want to be able to communicate seamlessly, we should all try to communicate identically…

no way -what you see typed in net is just another way of spoken language (with more options to be different) -i can’t see any reason why people shouldn’t be allowed to speak even if noone can understand them
-while they aren’t offensive [cursing] or screaming [all caps] let them speak

while i can’t say i’ve suffered from any kind of “caps and commas police” i really think that everyone should be able to choose the way he wants to speak

here you can see example how looks short story written by me in latvian -no commas and no periods -while some people were complaining in comments that they got problems to read this text -i suspect it wasn’t because of capitalisation or grammar -most likely real issue was overelevated nose

30 Y 197 cm 115 kg 0 IQ

by Lat We N Trash on Nov 6, 2009 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs

If it was that “simple” then why are we at this conjunction now? Because of inconsistencies and not having a clear word on how this should be.

Welcome to the Warriors, Stephen Curry, the 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year.

Panda's and Curry in the Bey Area. Who would've known?

Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!

by ejdacanay on Nov 5, 2009 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's because some people think the site should function differently than it does

I say: Don’t fix what ain’t broken. It works seamlessly until you step outside the boundaries, at that point the moderators send you a nice little warning telling you how you stepped outside the boundaries. I really don’t see how you see an inconsistency in “No cursing.”

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because

the term “cursing” is ambiguous. Sure the obvious ones are obvious, but what about the others? If I say Jackson needs to “get hit by a bus,” Is that cursing(literal definition)?

If I say “Frickin Jackson.” Is that cursing?

If I say “WTF Jackson.” Is that cursing?

If I say “That was so BS” Is that cursing?

If I say “Darn that rim” Is that cursing?

If I say “Damn that was nice” Is that cursing?

If I say “Damn Lebron is killing us” Is that cursing?

If I say “Shiz, that was close” Is that cursing?

If I say “That was poop” Is that cursing?

If I say “Dangit that was nice” Is that cursing?

If I say “Why the hell is AR not in the game” Is that cursing?

If I say “Why the heck is AR not in the game” Is that cursing?

If I say “What the heck is Mags doing” Is that cursing?

If I say “What the hell is Mags doing” Is that cursing?

If I say “Jackson is acting like a beyotch” Is that cursing?

If I say “Jackson is acting like a (female dog)” Is that cursing?

Should I just assume anything that can vaguely be construed as a curse is forbidden?

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 10:22 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs

Haha, rec'd

This is exactly what I was thinking, but didn’t want to put myself in hot water.

Welcome to the Warriors, Stephen Curry, the 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year.

Panda's and Curry in the Bey Area. Who would've known?

Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!

by ejdacanay on Nov 5, 2009 10:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Is that cursing?

Haha, Nice list of suitable substitutes.
Just keep it creative and everyone’s happy.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 5, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But what

substitutions are acceptable?

Why isn’t “Effin” acceptable? Because it replaces the F-Bomb? Doesn’t frickin also replace the eff bomb? Doesn’t shiz replace the s- word?

My ideal GSOM would be just ban the big ones. Let us use replacements at least in the OPEN GAME thread where there is little actual discussion going on.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 10:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why isn’t "Effin" acceptable? Because it replaces the F-Bomb? Doesn’t frickin also replace the eff bomb? Doesn’t shiz replace the s- word?

Yeah, They all seem adequate, what’s the problem?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 5, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

Will this matter a year from now?

by girltothemax on Nov 5, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fine

There may be a gray area, but it’s pretty easily dealt with:

If it’s cursing to you, don’t do it. If you don’t think saying “Damn” is cursing, dowhatchulike until the mods politely ask you to do otherwise. If the mods think you’ve gone over the line, or if you get flagged by somebody, they’ll let you know. Just… don’t get your panties in a bunch about it.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs

Rec for common sense.

If it’s cursing to you, don’t do it. If you don’t think saying "Damn" is cursing, dowhatchulike until the mods politely ask you to do otherwise. If the mods think you’ve gone over the line, or if you get flagged by somebody, they’ll let you know. Just… don’t get your panties in a bunch about it.

Those are good GSoM rules to live by DFiB.

Have fun, try not to break the rules and if you do… try not to make the same mistake again. Nobody is being persecuted here.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 10:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But you don't know what mistake

you made because the rules are so ambiguous. A general “No cursing” warning doesn’t tell me anything if I made over 100 comments in a game thread. I have no idea what I said that offended someone.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And about the warning

system. I have some beef with that too. Exactly how many before we get banned? The first time(I hope the only time) I was banned because I had like 4-5 capitalization warnings. Mind you I’ve been on this blog for 2+ year and had not capitalized a single post before this Summer and had never been warned.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 10:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's just weird

And something you should bring up through email with Atma or something. I’m sure he’ll take the time to explain it.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do your best...

If you’re not sure email Atma and ask him to clarify. I’m sure if it appears that you are putting some effort into your posts you won’t get banned again.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 10:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I sent an email to them asking them to clarify the capitalization rules.

I sent this to goldenstwarriors@gmail.com
“GSoM is so strict now… everything has to be properly capitalized and
grammatically correct even in FanShots.
Does this also affect our Open Game Thread days? Are we not allowed to
leave play by play commentary now with off topic comments about food?
GSoM used to be so much fun and now its just all rules. I understand
if you want to keep the cluttering Fanposts out but at least be a
little less strict with the Fanshots since they are just that
Fanshots. Little thoughts and small pieces of news not topics worth
serious debate.

And by the way, what’s the point of banning someone’s account if they
can just make a new one.
I got saintdee banned for no capitalization and I just made a
saint.dee account."

I don’t think I ever got a response. What exactly is the email address to contact ATB1?

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 10:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NM

I checked ATB1’s GSOM profile. The email he provided is the one I just stated above.

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 10:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Correct me if I'm wrong...

You’re logged into “sainddee.” So, you got unbanned? But, in general, on comments, the punctuation should be more lax, but on published material, it’s insulting to the community not to take the time and effort to write, edit, and punctuate your work. If you’re not going to put the time and effort into your writing, why on earth should I put the time and effort into reading it? If it’s an issue with education… I don’t know, I might be able to find somebody who can help you out.

From my experience, the mods are usually pretty good at getting back. I sent an email to R Dizzle (don’t know why it was him instead of AB1) because I was stupid:

I signed up for Dubs Fan in Berkeley (cuz I moved back here and thought it’d be a bit of a misnomer), but screwed something up, don’t remember what but it was certainly my own stupidity, and emailed him. He got back to me in less than 24 hrs and told me to talk to SBN (which I haven’t bothered to do).

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 11:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

I agree with you on the Fanpost part. Fanpost should be well written. Fanshots on the other hand. I thought the whole point of Fanshots is so we can post weird stuff that isn’t well thought out? I mean we have one on Rick Kamela’s “racism.”

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 11:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fanshots are still published material.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 11:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Back in the old days (i.e. before my time)

Teachers used to have a ruler that they smacked your knuckles with when you did something wrong and kids used to get spanked (it’s when your mom pulls your pants down and slaps your butt). And you’re whining about a warning that you just have to click “accept” on? Puh-leeze (see below).

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

(see below)

Derr… above.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Derr… above.

all that spanking scrambled your brains?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 6, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I...

…referred to Jackson as an “ass” in an earlier thread, and I wasn’t warned. Then again, I could have been inaccurately attempting to literally state that he was a donkey.

by Zack Vank on Nov 7, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Inconsistency because it’s not enforced to what its own rules state. If its illegal, it shouldn’t be allowed. Pretty simple. Sure, let’s remove the cursing, but it has to be 100%. Not 50/50 like how it is right now.

Welcome to the Warriors, Stephen Curry, the 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year.

Panda's and Curry in the Bey Area. Who would've known?

Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!

by ejdacanay on Nov 5, 2009 10:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If its illegal, it shouldn’t be allowed. Pretty simple. Sure, let’s remove the cursing, but it has to be 100%. Not 50/50 like how it is right now.

Again, no it doesn’t.

I’ve assumed that you are aware of this, but GSoM doesn’t actually have moderators in the traditional sense. It has writers who also spend time cleaning up the community. If you see cursing then flag it. Problem solved. That is what the flag system is for. It allows the “mods” to find offending posts more easily.

Of course it doesn’t actually sound like you really want all the cursing removed. You’ve said that it should be allowed, which is my guess as to why you don’t take the time to actually pitch in and flag stuff. I really don’t see a problem with the system here.

I do agree with your point that the rules are a little too hard to find for the posters that need them the most. I remember before the big SBN redesign I would link to the rules all the time for people, and I’m not really sure how to do that now.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on Nov 5, 2009 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is why, we as a blog, need to know how these rules are. This goes for the cursing, the grammar issues, and those issues not enforced that I mentioned in the Original Post.

this argument is predicated on the idea that the TOS has a definable nature, which it most certainly does not, nor does any language. if there were such a thing as “how these rules are” this post would not exist. the reality is that the rules mean whatever you want them to mean. it is by this logic that attorney’s have a function in this world…bummer huh?

Henry Kissinger and Brack Obama: Brothers in Peace

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 6, 2009 7:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We have Mods on GSoM?

Beyond Golden State of Design... and than some!
http://www.tonypsd.blogspot.com/

by Tony.psd on Nov 5, 2009 9:54 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Aren't you one?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 5, 2009 10:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Methinks it was a joke

I would have though the fabled Skeptic would have gotten that one…

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 10:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Tony thinks he's the Devean George of moderation and get's a free pass?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 5, 2009 10:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I never...

…thought I’d read the words “the Devean George of moderation.”

by Zack Vank on Nov 7, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It probably won't matter but here's my two cents

1. IF you are under 18, you shouldn’t even be on here. You should be in the kitchen eating more high fructose corn syrup foods just like other kids under age 18 are doing.

2. I’m just talking to people in general—> NOT everyone is as intelligent as you in grammar, spelling, etc. So please, give everyone else a break.

3. I believe most on here are over 18, and if that’s the case you’re responsible enough to know what’s wrong and right, what’s good and bad.

4. Mods shouldn’t be playing “parents” on here.

5. I don’t use curse words on gsom, but sometimes I understand when others slip one or two from time to time. As Warriors fans, we are an emotional bunch and shouldn’t be penalize for that just because we show some kind of emotion (per typing anyway).

6. Fear. I hate that word. We shouldn’t have to feel fear that we would lose our account just because we misspelled a word or say a bad word.

Well, I hope no one is mad at me about this.

Will this matter a year from now?

by girltothemax on Nov 5, 2009 10:25 PM PST reply actions 3 recs

Well, I hope no one is mad at me about this.

No , but I’m pissed that you din’t post us a Klenna photo last game.
You over the boy?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 5, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You over the boy?

haha what is that, Skep?

Will this matter a year from now?

by girltothemax on Nov 5, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus

he spelled Kelenna’s name wrong

by saintdee on Nov 5, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I ain't over Kelenna.

Period.

But I can’t post pics cause some folks don’t like it. I guess it’s annoying. So I’ve decided to stop.

Will this matter a year from now?

by girltothemax on Nov 5, 2009 10:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I can’t post pics cause some folks don’t like it.

Keep em small so they load easily and they are no problem
If anyone gives you a bad time tell em to come see me :>)

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 5, 2009 10:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

1. IF you are under 18, you shouldn’t even be on here. You should be in the kitchen eating more high fructose corn syrup foods just like other kids under age 18 are doing.

A’men sistah!

2. I’m just talking to people in general—> NOT everyone is as intelligent as you in grammar, spelling, etc. So please, give everyone else a break.

There’s poor grammar, and there’s POOR grammar. If you can’t take a little gentle ribbing for using “there” instead of “their,” you need to lighten up a little bit.

3. I believe most on here are over 18, and if that’s the case you’re responsible enough to know what’s wrong and right, what’s good and bad.

And they’ve presumably learned to act like an adult around others. Do you go around loudly cursing in public? No, because other people would hear you and it’d be rude… either that or you actually are rude.

4. Mods shouldn’t be playing "parents" on here.

Telling people not to be rude to others is not parenting.

5. I don’t use curse words on gsom, but sometimes I understand when others slip one or two from time to time. As Warriors fans, we are an emotional bunch and shouldn’t be penalize for that just because we show some kind of emotion (per typing anyway).

Absolutely, but do you really want to see an endless stream of cussing?

6. Fear. I hate that word. We shouldn’t have to feel fear that we would lose our account just because we misspelled a word or say a bad word.

I don’t know why Naticus was removed, but others that have been banned have been done so for a reason. You do not have to fear being booted for cursing once or twice. If you continually do it repeatedly after being warned multiple times about the same thing, then you’re getting booted for your unwillingness to follow the predetermined rules of the community (that you signed into I might add). Tough luck, sign up for another account like everybody else, and try to be a positive member of the community.

If you fear getting booted when you’re about to hit the “Post” button, it’s probably for a good reason.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 10:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Telling people not to be rude to others is not parenting.

It does feel like it sometimes. We should just let parents do their job. And also, I never saw anyone use curse words towards other posters. Most of the ones that I saw are just reactions towards the game/s.

If you fear getting booted when you’re about to hit the "Post" button, it’s probably for a good reason

Well, I honestly don’t fear getting booted. If I do get booted though, I’d probably won’t come back. That would maybe mean more time watching the games in front of a real TV instead of atdhe.com. But since I’m still allowed to log on, I don’t mind being on gsom.

Will this matter a year from now?

by girltothemax on Nov 5, 2009 10:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It'd suck to lose you

We should just let parents do their job.

If only they all would… then we wouldn’t have incidents like what happened in Richmond a few days ago… that’s just scary.

Well, I honestly don’t fear getting booted.

Nor should most.

And also, I never saw anyone use curse words towards other posters.

I highly doubt that it’s never happened. And you know why? Because the mods warn people who curse in the first place, and delete any posts cursing people out.

That would maybe mean more time watching the games in front of a real TV instead of atdhe.com. But since I’m still allowed to log on, I don’t mind being on gsom.

The TV is much better than atdhe. If you enjoy it enough around here, I’m sure you’d sign up for another account if you got booted, even if it took a few weeks.

You have been DFiBrillated.

by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 5, 2009 11:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know why Naticus was removed

As I understand it, Naticus’ removal was the result of an error on his laptop which caused a comment to be resubmitted frequently coinciding with a large comment spam outbreak on SBNation that got a lot of accounts “auto-banned.” When Atma saw what had happened he offered to re-enable the account, but he who once was Naticus and is now Naticus2 figured that it wasn’t worth the switch back with all of his previous comments gone.

This situation illustrates some of the technical and social challenges with running any kind of online community. It also illustrates how reasonable the GSoM team is and what an incredible job they do running this site.

by toddaverth on Nov 6, 2009 3:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

darn! (<---boring word, huh?)

i was hoping it had to do with his reprehensible politics! jk! lord knows if we get back into that debate i’ll be banned in no time! ;)

Henry Kissinger and Brack Obama: Brothers in Peace

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 6, 2009 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If I went to the trouble to actually fix holes in my socks every time someone said that I’d never have any time to do anything else. That would get boring, I guess.

If you’d like to “mend” the outcome of an event “darn” isn’t an entirely inappropriate euphemism, even if we all acknowledge that it is a euphemism. Still, I’d rather people recommend someone or something needs mending than they recommend eternal punishment, even if that isn’t really what they mean to say. For some of us the concept of eternal punishment is kind of a big deal and taking it upon ourselves to recommend doling it out – except of course for a blown foul call – is not something we’re comfortable doing.

Naticus’ politics might not seem so reprehensible to you if his presentation were a little less annoying to you, but maybe not. As I recall, the two of you appeared to be near polar opposites on a standard political spectrum.

by toddaverth on Nov 8, 2009 4:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i think if the concept of eternal punishment enters into one’s concept of reality, they will have a difficult time navigating the linguistic topography of a post-george carlin world.

the public option is a pathetic compromise. death to the insurance companies!!!

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 13, 2009 1:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope you enjoyed writing that sentence as much as I enjoyed reading it. It is a fabulously constructed piece of intellectual humor. I think it’s more accurate to say, “…have a difficult time enjoying the linguistic topography…” but that simply isn’t as much fun to read. Well said!

Now, I need to get back to reinforcing my defenses against the linguistic landmines left about by careless Carlin-esque authors.

by toddaverth on Nov 13, 2009 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i thought the carlin reference was a little dated…

the public option is a pathetic compromise. death to the insurance companies!!!

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 13, 2009 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The age rule is a bad idea

We brought it up a while ago that people under 14 can be here but if it’s a family show what’s the issue? It’s not like kids that are below 18 don’t swear.

Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"

by dubzfan on Nov 7, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

While we are on the AGE issue...

I have to raise it as I just noticed his avatar change. Mike Fox….I dont believe is 13 years old…by his own admission…

How then is he permitted to post? Having an adult avatar now does not change the fact that this blog is not for children…no matter how well versed in Warriors Basketball…

As to the language issue … I actually thought the post the other week (I forget who) that replaced all swear words with the full descriptive version was hillarious…

i.e. I think the man is whining like a (Procreating) (Female Genitalia)….

We all know what such a statement means, whether i should be allowed in terms of content is debateable… but is written within the law of the blog…

It’s a fine line…but as with everything…“a little common sense goes a long way”…

Oh and one last tip….after a night on the town drinking…..avoid ANY BLOG like the plague! ;)

GSOM Blog Beast!

by BritWarriorGSW on Nov 6, 2009 7:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Mike Fox….I dont believe is 13 years old…by his own admission

Do we still have to give him a break?

I didn’t buy it either, which is why I decided to admit that I am only 14 in Mike Fox’s first post because I felt that “my people” were being misrepresented.

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 6, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Fox….I dont believe is 13 years old…by his own admission… How then is he permitted to post?

Mikey has stepped up and improved his game a lot, I think he’s earned his posting rights?

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 6, 2009 9:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Mikey has stepped up and improved his game a lot, I think he’s earned his posting rights?

Well my “game” has gone to ~~hell~~ heck lately, when do I get mine revoked?

I give pressure the reach-around.

by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 6, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Mikey has stepped up and improved his game a lot,

Meh. If he has, I haven’t noticed. To me his posts seem as silly and pointless as ever. Whether he’s 13 or 28, he sounds like he’s 11. And either way, the “I’m in eighth grade, give me a break” line is pretty lame. If he wants to play with the big kids, he should expect to be treated like one.

I mean, there are plenty of grownup posters here with whom I disagree regularly and sometimes vehemently (Brit and Skep say hi), but I almost always respect and appreciate the unique perspective and voice they bring. Tykes like Fox and montadaboss … not so much. I’m not sure they’re really worth the effort to ban, but I often wish they would they would leave the den where the grownups are smoking / playing pool / drinking / shooting the shite and go out and play. Or at least: read more and post less.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Nov 6, 2009 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you said "shite"

/giggles

Thing A

by sam23 on Nov 7, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The argument that cursing should be allowed here since kids aren’t supposed to be here is absurd. Once again, it’s the owners’ party and we’re guests here. As guests, we abide by their rules or find another party.

When I throw a party at my house, smoking is not allowed. If someone stood up on a chair and started yelling “Hey everyone, Goofus’ ‘no smoking’ rules sucks! There are no kids here; he should let us smoke!”, I’d wonder who invited the jerk.

"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.

by Goofus on Nov 6, 2009 1:33 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

No one(or at least me) wants cursing

We/I just want clarity on what “cursing” is defined as.

by saintdee on Nov 6, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So basically you just want clarity on what “smoking” or “in the house” are defined as? Instead of forcing the guys who run the site to waste their time creating a list of unwelcome language that will just be ignored by 95% of the GSoM community, why not just try to stay away from them as much as possible and don’t take it so hard if you get a warning? If everyone adhered to this policy we wouldn’t need to have a discussion like this one every few months.

Thing A

by sam23 on Nov 7, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Jerk?....JERK?!?!?!?!?....

STONE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He said the J word…stone him…..

Its all in the definition… in the US…Pissed off is not bad…yet in the UK piss is a swear word no different to the s word…then again is shite… an oft used Irish word…considered a swear word?

The problem is… the Blog “Owners” need to step forward and say.. “thout shall not say a,b, c, etc….” anything is fine….

whithout that ..no one knows where they stand… Once you DO know, you can then make an adult choice as to where you go, or if you stay…

simple really… So AtmA, dizzle et al…get thinking fellas and make the rules clear and in black and white and then we can move on with no fuzziness…

GSOM Blog Beast!

by BritWarriorGSW on Nov 6, 2009 3:56 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

which is exactly why the concept of ownership is lame!

“standards”, if they must exist in any context, should be arrived at in the most organic, inclusive way possible. the only reason a TOS exists at all, as opposed to a set of guidelines or suggestions, is the presence of the ever-oppressive legal system.

take me for example. i am deepy in love with profanity, but i abstain from using it here. why? not because of the TOS but because i understand my opinion is the minority, and it behooves me to get along with my fellow dubs enthusiasts! f___ rules!!!

(note: that “f___” did not refer to any word that offends, or has offended anyone, ever. it refers to a word i just made up and will not tell any of you lest you become offended by it! :P)

Henry Kissinger and Brack Obama: Brothers in Peace

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 6, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

LIAR!

I am offended by all words that use the letter ‘f’, including that letter ‘f’ itself. I am only resorting to using that accursed letter now as there seems to be no other way to communicate with you horrible, uncultured, barbarians! How could you!

by toddaverth on Nov 8, 2009 4:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The concept of Ownership is lame?

So I suspect we are drifting into politics again – certainly philosophy – but I have to disagree. Clearly there are problems that arise from a completely selfish and individualist concept of ownership, but, as a proxy for stewardship and accountability it does rather well. For instance, in your post you use the phrases “my opinion” and “my fellow dubs enthusiasts.” You do so because these represent decisions (or the results of decisions) you have made and are willing to take responsibility for: an idea you actively seek to be associated with in the first case, a recognition of common interest in the second. It isn’t that no one else has had any input into creating these ideas you claim as your own. It is that you actively associate yourself with them and take responsibility for that association. Others may have helped you formulate these ideas or associated themselves with them first, but you have chosen them as yours, a choice you are willing to be responsible for.

Ownership, in a market economy/democracy with property rights serves to delineate who has responsibility for a thing. The owner has the privilege and responsibility for determining what will be done with respect to that thing. Economics has a concept of “rival goods” – usually things that are physical – that don’t allow for more than one person to take responsibility for their use (ideas, like your political views or enjoyment of the Warriors, are not usually considered rival goods.) Ownership of a rival good is often necessary to prevent misuse and preserve freedom. For instance, your body is a rival good; it can only be in one place at one time doing one thing. Legal provisions protecting your rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” guarantee, among other things, that you are the owner of your body and have the primary discretion and responsibility for how it is used, what it is used for, and the results of that use. No agreement that takes this primary discretion and responsibility from you is supposed to be enforced as legal. If you did not have that discretion and responsibility (and were capable of assuming it) we would consider you a slave.

Now, you may take issue with the concept of ownership extending to things that are not integral to how your body is used, what it is used for, and the results of that use. Indeed, many things are the result of more than one person’s choices (conversations are an example) or result from the use of things that do not have a clearly defined “owner” who is responsible for it (air, for instance); in some cases both. How we should deal with these questions regarding how ownership does or does not apply to various things is often a root distinction between philosophies, but, as I believe I have illustrated, the concept of ownership is essential to the concept of freedom and even identity. Any philosophy that rejects it wholesale fails to recognize a fundamental feature of human existence.

by toddaverth on Nov 8, 2009 5:40 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

the only reason i should want to own my body is the existence of people interested in using other people as commodities. your argument for ownership is predicated on the idea that we need some abstract “gaurantee” to preserve our “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”. i disagree. such laws are, in my opinion, no more than a simplistic reaction to the inevitably cannibalistic nature of capitalist “take as much as i can get” systems.

futhermore, i question the validity of the necessity of ownership, even in the abstract. to possess is to define various things and then make up arbitrary groupings to fit whatever a given society gravitates toward. why not redifine our relationship with what we percieve as “ourself” and the world outside of us, and accept the mutual responsibility we all have in our shared experience.

the public option is a pathetic compromise. death to the insurance companies!!!

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 13, 2009 1:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

why not redifine our relationship with what we percieve as "ourself" and the world outside of us, and accept the mutual responsibility we all have in our shared experience.

This statement, even after your redefinition, presupposes ownership, even if it is shared. Note your use of the word “our.” I will acknowledge that this is exacerbated by the limitations of our language, but that language has grown out of our collective experience at least as much as it has shaped it.

I see great good in the concept of mutual responsibility and mutual ownership. Note that I wrote earlier of ownership as an effective proxy for stewardship and responsibility. But, and this is a key, implementing such a concept requires complete and total selflessness from all involved or it quickly devolves into what you call “the inevitably cannibalistic nature of capitalist ‘take as much as i can get’ systems,” except that you then have the more selfless being more easily and more completely taken advantage of by the less selfless, to both groups’ detriment. This is compounded by (or perhaps just an example of) the problem of imperfect information; people will attempt to act “selflessly” based on inaccurate or incomplete information, causing them to often be wrong and do unintended harm. I don’t accept your implication that this is a problem with capitalism only; it is the primary failing of all forms of human government. The Constitution of the United States, with it’s clear reliance on the concept of the individual and individual ownership, was written so as to at least acknowledge such human failings and attempt to mitigate the damage they cause.

your argument for ownership is predicated on the idea that we need some abstract "gaurantee" to preserve our "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".

Not at all. The guarantee grows out of the fact that ownership is a fundamental feature of a human existence. As a human you acknowledge somethings as being “you” and other things as “not you.” You could have no complaint about others trying to use you as a commodity if you acknowledged them as you – what? are you a slave to yourself? Is your hand a “slave” to your brain?

I said, “the concept of ownership is essential to the concept of freedom and even identity.” As long as you and I have distinct intelligences with even the slightest of differing opinions you have to acknowledge some separation between my “self” and your “self.” For freedom and identity to have any meaning, for a human to have any existence, there has to be some realization of self.

Now, Christianity, that “plague” upon our society as you referred to it elsewhere, actually presents a solution: that humans willingly choose to lose their life for the purpose of becoming perfect and one, enabled by a being that already is perfect, knows all things, and acts selflessly, taking ownership and responsibility for all who will choose to let Him. This allows for the existence of self, while also acknowledging our mutual dependence on one another and refining us to the point where we are actually capable and willing to act selflessly. I have yet to hear a better plan and do not expect to.

by toddaverth on Nov 13, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

there is nothing more shameful than an intelligent, thoughtful person such as yourself getting your mind all sullied by silly theology! you’re too good for this! come join the dark side! christianity encompasses some beautiful ideas that all of us can learn from, but it’s got you caught in it’s spell! question authority a little, eh?

the constitution is a sad joke designed by new world aristocrats to appease their uppity wage slaves! the most noteworthy thing it’s ever done is “be eroded”, especially post-9/11.christianity causes poor americans to attend “tea parties” where they become enraged by the possiblity of actually receiving healthcare! it makes people think humans lived with dinosaurs ten thousand years ago, and makes them actually care whether gay peope marry. man do i not care about that! when their partner goes on life support they don’t get a say, man! christians are responsible for that.

it’s much easier to sleep at night knowing that we are all seperate from the world around us and each other, but the gears of progress turn on! what about jung’s collective unconscious? what about the mysteries of the brian? we have barely begun to conceive of the electro-chemical process that seems to generate our perception! who’s to say our intelligences are seperate?

i beieve that was what hippies refer to as “turning on”. you’re welome.

the public option is a pathetic compromise. death to the insurance companies!!!

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Nov 13, 2009 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i beieve that was what hippies refer to as "turning on".

no that was dope.

Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky

by Skeptic con Urquell on Nov 13, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand the poll!

AGE? is a pretty broad question.

If Bochy coached the Warriors Bengie Molina would start every game at PG.

by cybermaldonado on Nov 7, 2009 11:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

This probably all boils down to advertising

Are the advertising dollars in danger if there is swearing or nudity on the website?
That would have to cause a limitation on the advertisers whose ads can be placed here and we all know this site was built so the owners could make enough money to buy season tickets.
If that is the case, please acknowledge so we can all move on.

by warriorsvictim on Nov 9, 2009 2:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

more Laissez Faire and less Lazy Fare

I can’t believe that anyone gives a flippin’ rat’s patootie about some golly gee willikers swear words on this website. I sure as heckfire don’t and neither should any of you. Are people so emotionally and mentally weak or so dying to be offended that some sailor talk is going to give them the vapors? Seriously, so friggin’ what?

Does using bad words make someone sound less intelligent? Maybe, but I suppose it depends on how smart you think you are. Maybe you just don’t get it.

then again, if the site operators want to treat this site as a Catholic school classroom and markup comments with digital red pens and issue warnings with virtual rulers, then that’s their prerogative, but it isn’t necessarily that much fudging fun and increases the likelihood that what’s left will be a site visited only by a bunch of Pujols.

Left hand, right hand, it doesn't matter. I'm amphibious.

by Kobe on Nov 11, 2009 1:14 PM PST reply actions 1 recs