When refs make bad calls

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

You see Kip, this is your mistake. You seem to think this kind of thing is funny, perhaps you even hope to make people angry with it. The fact of the matter is, it's just lame.

so if it's lame, why get mad about it?

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

As I see it YOU should care. After all - you are supposedly part of the moderation team.

Yet the code of conduct that other mods follow doesn't seem to apply to you. I find that curious.

ah yes, that old chestnut finally shows up...but but but you're a mod.....

everything was going fine in this thread until you decided to bait. that should be even more curious to you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so if it's lame, why get mad about it?

Let me ask you this Charles - is it wrong to make sexist comments on these boards?

Let's use Kip's comment as an example:

if they were doing their job and having more sex with their SO, they wouldn't have the time, want and need for that would they now ?

Should this be acceptable on VJ?

[Vi-Jay 218]

Let me do a "Vi-jay" as it was someone else who got on my laptop and posted that.

Hey now, That was a cheap shot. I'm here enjoying your thread. Why you want to take a poke at my personal family matters?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ah yes, that old chestnut finally shows up...but but but you're a mod.....

everything was going fine in this thread until you decided to bait. that should be even more curious to you.

The fact is Charles, that anything I say is a red rag to a bull with you. It's interesting that you characterise my post as baiting - because that seems to be a consistent rationale you use to take responsibility away from anything you post subsequently.

[natty bumppo 297]

Maybe you've cooked that craziness up in your head.

Generally speaking, if someone says bigoted, sexist things, then the reasonable conclusion would be that they are indeed a woman-hating bigot.

loads of assumptions on your part that also do not promote fairness (equal coverage for men women in regards to "bigoted, sexist things"). the suggestion was made that you ignored one sex entirely ...

unless you are "generally" speaking in hopes to impress the readers ...

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Oh for gods sake, it was done in jest. I mean it's not like any of us here are new to each other. Christ some of us on here (including myself) spend more time on here than we do with our SO's. It's all in good fun.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

loads of assumptions on your part that also do not promote fairness (equal coverage for men women in regards to "bigoted, sexist things"). the suggestion was made that you ignored one sex entirely ...

unless you are "generally" speaking in hopes to impress the readers ...

There are no assumptions there Natty. Your argument is a dog that doesn't hunt, I'm afraid.

Oh for gods sake, it was done in jest. I mean it's not like any of us here are new to each other. Christ some of us on here (including myself) spend more time on here than we do with our SO's. It's all in good fun.

Was it? If so, you seem to tell the same joke (a lot). Anyone would think that you do it deliberately to antagonise female posters.

Regardless - my question to Charles stands. I am curious as to what his position is in his "official" capacity.

[natty bumppo 297]

There are no assumptions there Natty. Your argument is a dog that doesn't hunt, I'm afraid.

Regardless - my question to Charles stands. I am curious as to what his position is in his "official" capacity.

so it's not okay to provide equal protection in regards to labels for men?

re: comment to charles ..... his position is probably sitting in front of the keyboard ...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so it's not okay to provide equal protection in regards to labels for men?

Let's do it this way, Natty.

Please assume what you think I think in the space above.

re: comment to charles ..... his position is probably sitting in front of the keyboard ...

That's as maybe. The issue is whether Charles, as part of the VJ moderation team, will go on record to say that making sexist comments on the boards is wrong.

Edited June 20, 2011 by fishdude

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Hey now, That was a cheap shot. I'm here enjoying your thread. Why you want to take a poke at my personal family matters?

lol... I wanted to make sure you didn't miss any of the post on this thread.

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

The fact is Charles, that anything I say is a red rag to a bull with you. It's interesting that you characterise my post as baiting - because that seems to be a consistent rationale you use to take responsibility away from anything you post subsequently.

oh wait, who replied to who first? oh right, you replied to me. what's that again about a red rag?

[Vi-Jay 218]

lol... I wanted to make sure you didn't miss any of the post on this thread.

Well, I deserve the shot. It's happened twice now. I thought I resolved it the first time. Happens one more time and my VJ playtime will be discontinued.

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

Let me ask you this Charles - is it wrong to make sexist comments on these boards?

Let's use Kip's comment as an example:

Should this be acceptable on VJ?

it didn't occur in my area of influence, so my opinion on it would be moot.

if you have a real problem with it, take it up with a global.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it didn't occur in my area of influence, so my opinion on it would be moot.

if you have a real problem with it, take it up with a global.

Where it occurred is irrelevant to the point. I was under the impression that moderation team is supposed to uphold the same TOS agreement.

So I ask - is it acceptable to make sexist comments on these boards? It's not a trick question.