TOS Violations and Moderator Responses

[GandD 5,966]

Why was it a violation?

A number of the responses to the OP were in violation of the following stipulation of TOS:

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would also suggest that we go back to the rule that a copy from a reputable news source be required as the basis for all new threads in CE&HT forum. As of lately it has become a plenary for racism and bigotry, with threads based on 'copies' - and I use the term loosely - gleaned from hate websites.

There should certainly be some standard of quality in posted articles.

[JohnR! 5,495]

There is none. Most of the threads in CE&HT are derived from yellow journalism, tabloids or extremist websites. Only a few resort to reputable publications.

There should certainly be some standard of quality in posted articles.

[Boiler 45,486]

A number of the responses to the OP were in violation of the following stipulation of TOS:

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users.

We were talking about the original post.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

A number of the responses to the OP were in violation of the following stipulation of TOS:

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users.

Which basically means you can't call someone who is obviously being a giant "donkey" out on it, otherwise you are the one in trouble. LOL.

Next perhaps we will have lashings in public for having a logical opinion of something?

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Which basically means you can't call someone who is obviously being a giant "donkey" out on it, otherwise you are the one in trouble. LOL.

Next perhaps we will have lashings in public for having a logical opinion of something?

Can try calling someone 370H55A

[Dakine10 5,452]

We were talking about the original post.

as the poster is described as an obvious troll, then:

Create user accounts by automated means or under false or fraudulent pretenses.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Which basically means you can't call someone who is obviously being a giant "donkey" out on it, otherwise you are the one in trouble. LOL.

Next perhaps we will have lashings in public for having a logical opinion of something?

The whole point of "not feeding the troll" is to not feed the troll. That's how they go away.

[Boiler 45,486]

as the poster is described as an obvious troll, then:

Create user accounts by automated means or under false or fraudulent pretenses.

That would be the dodgy document posts, not this one.

[Dakine10 5,452]

That would be the dodgy document posts, not this one.

False means not true. As in making something up.

[Pooky 3,784]

Only a few resort to reputable publications.

What publications/media sources would you describe as "reputable" ?

[Pooky 3,784]

In that case, and considering this is an immigration forum, perhaps CE&HT should be done away and consolidated with 'Off Topic. Anything other than germane immigration threads should, by definition, fall under Off Topic.

P&R, now CE&HST, was split off from Off Topic to give those posters who wanted a less confrontational atmosphere a forum where they could post "lighter" subject matter, without fear of every topic being derailed by drama.

Recombining the two would be a bad idea, in my opinion, as Off Topic has its own regulars, and gets by largely without the belligerence that is prevalent in CE&HST.

[TBoneTX 45,286]

So who's country are we enforcing the rules for? Saudi Arabia?

Perhaps Captain Ewok will soon explain in detail.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

Perhaps Captain Ewok will soon explain in detail.

The explanation given last time had something to do with search engines, but that doesn't explain the overzealous ban on some images and modifying some words to get around the profanity filter. Those are things unrelated to the original explanation.

If the explanation is that we are trying to be "family friendly", then why are admitted registered sex offenders, some of whom committed crimes against children, allowed to post on this site?

Edited April 15, 2015 by N-o-l-a

[Boiler 45,486]

You can take a pee behind a tree and be classified as a sex offender.

I am amused when I use my tablet which does not have an ad blocker and I see all these adverts for scantily clad young ladies from Asian countries who want to meet me.