People who think CS is "NotAlwaysRight.com"

[Eisa]

Actually, to be fair, I see the most fakes on "Notalwaysworking" in the 'Unfiltered' section.

On the FB page, we think its usually the same person and call him/her "Suemitter". The Suemitter seems to think posting stories that supposedly happen in places like Japan, or Sweden, that people would automatically believe it.

Ah yes, that person. Where everyone involved uses shit-tons of profanity, it always ends with the fist of righteous justice ending, and for a while, they got married in every story.

[bex1218]

Ah yes, that person. Where everyone involved uses shit-tons of profanity, it always ends with the fist of righteous justice ending, and for a while, they got married in every story.

Don't forget the owner of that establishment was related to the OP. I miss the old ones to be honest .

[EricKei]

I do my best to avoid the Unfiltered section at the NotAlways sites >_> If I wanted pages and pages of idiocy and pointless cursing, there's plenty of that to be had elsewhere online.

[Peppergirl]

^^ And on the flip side, I on the other hand, want to know where I can find and read this 'unfiltered' section.

[Parrothead]

It's a link on the banner on the notalways site of your choice. or unfiltered.notalways____.com

It's only for right, working, learning and friendly

[HYHYBT]

People twisting my words around when the meaning was as plain as I made it is close enough to nonsense to need a reply.

Actually, yes, it IS the case that we need to enforce the FTSTS rule, along with all of the others. When we signed up to CS, or to here, or to anywhere else, we agreed to abide by all of the rules, whether we agreed with them or not -- and those of us who signed up to be mods, by extension, agreed to enforce all of the rules, for the same reason.

AMPLY covered by my specifying "collective you." You even describe how it would be done. I did not suggest individual moderators ignoring any rule, but that you, as a group (and it should be too obvious to have to mention, including Raps) didn't like the rule you could get it changed. Therefore, having the rule is a choice y'all collectively make.

Put simply, FTSTS is nothing but flaming by another name.

Put that generally, no. Not even remotely true. Certain instances are, but not even remotely all, and again it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. There is such a thing as honest questioning which, without being anything anyone speaking rationally could call flaming, runs afoul of that rule. I am not here arguing against the rule, but I'd very much appreciate being told why you feel the need to make false statements.

I'm really not sure how that equates to us (collective us) being dishonest when we say that there are often times that we _personally_ agree with the person who broke the rule.

I'd love to get ahold of whatever filter is between the posts I make and what you guys are getting out of them. I never said or implied THAT was dishonest, in any version of any post ever. And thank you very much for yours of 10:26, which I can't seem to quote from. And I'm sorry this has taken up so much thread space; hopefully it won't need any more.

[kaycivine]

Ah yes, that person. Where everyone involved uses shit-tons of profanity, it always ends with the fist of righteous justice ending, and for a while, they got married in every story.

I used to get so mad about the Japanese ones, because that's JUST now how it is like in Japan. Obviously Suemitter thought manga world was true representation. In a westernized point of view. ARGH.

[Peppergirl]

Thanks, guys. That sounds like a hoot...I'm gonna check it out tomorrow.

[EricKei]

*insert standard disclaimer here, speaking only for myself, etc - assume "collective you"*

I did not suggest individual moderators ignoring any rule

Your wording in the initial post sounds that way to me, however unintentional it may have been:

You know, it's not true that you have to enforce that rule.

I realize that you intended that as a jumping-off point to discuss potential rule modifications, but perhaps you could have phrased it better. Yes, I am aware that you're using the collective 'you'

As for allowing leeway -- for the reasons I mentioned that are *specific to that rule*, I must disagree - for now. As Peppergirl stated, maybe there will be a reasonable way to apply a "severity filter" to the rule in the future; I have no problem with that. As it stands, there is not.

You have every right to feel that such a zero-tolerance policy is a form of coddling, but the rule stands unless Raps says otherwise. Soft and fluffy it may be, but that's how CS is -- a (relatively) safe refuge from the general shitstorm that is the internet. More to the point, I am unaware of anyone on the mod team who disagrees with the existence of the rule per se. Speaking strictly for myself: Our zero-tolerance stance on FTSTS may be erring, but it is erring on the side of caution. The way it stands now may be imperfect, but it's what we have now, and we are expected to enforce the rules in whatever their current form may be. If you strongly feel that any rule should be modified, make a proposal to Raps and PM it to him, asking that he put it up for discussion among the rest of the team.

(I realize that referencing Raps so often may feel like a cop-out, but the fact it, it's his board, and therefore, his rules. He owns the URL, pays for the hosting out of his own pocket, etc.)

I stand by my prior statement that publically violating the FTSTS rule there IS a form of flaming. I will readily admit that what is or is not "flaming" is in the eye of the beholder; not every post that appears to be malicious, is malicious -- but, specifically on CS -- what the person making any given post feels is "flaming" or not is what counts. Put another way, violating that rule is, at the very least, a form of disrespect towards the OP, even if you do not personally feel any disrespect towards that poster. Just because a reply does not feel inappropriate to the person making the reply, does not make that reply appropriate.

There is such a thing as honest questioning which, without being anything anyone speaking rationally could call flaming, runs afoul of that rule.

While you may have a gripe with something someone has posted, even a minor public complaint could easily be interpreted by the OP as jumping down said theoretical OP's throat. Again, CS is a place where people come to vent their spleens without fear of retribution or flames.

If you have a direct issue with something a poster has said, or a legitimate question for them, send them a reasonably politely-worded PM. Our primary issue is, and has always been (AFAIK) calling people out in public. If they respond to a PM, you are free to discuss the issue with them through further PM's; if they do not, drop the subject. As long as a PM conversation doesn't end up in flaming territory from either user (PM's/message chains can be reported just like anything else), we don't have an issue with that.

I'd very much appreciate being told why you feel the need to make false statements.

I don't feel that I have. If you have what you feel is a relevant question, and aren't sure if it crosses the line between "reasonable inquiry" or "FTSTS," please ask. As I mentioned before, either PM the OP with a "I'm not trying to be a dick here, but..." message, or just find an online Mod and paste the response you wanna make into a PM, asking for a yea or nay; we'll discuss it with the other mods and let you know as soon as we can - with the caveat that we cannot always respond immediately. We're not gonna bite anyone's head off for asking us what would be appropriate; heck, we like it when people ask first -- we have an issue when something which people feel is inappropriate gets thrown up onto the board anyway, seemingly without regard to others.

[the_std]

And I'm sorry this has taken up so much thread space; hopefully it won't need any more.

If you really are, I have to wonder - why do you continue to beat on this dead, dead horse? It's so dead, in fact, that it is now skeletal remains of what a horse used to be.

We get it - you don't like the FTSTS rule. But the mods have been so exceptionally clear in every instance of this coming up - it isn't changing any time soon. So why do you keep trotting it out like you're uncovering this vast conspiracy theory that we Fratchers need to be informed of?

[Peppergirl]

HY - I..I really just don't even know what to say anymore.

This is *clearly* (for whatever reason) a very sore subject with you, and no amount of reasoning and explanation is ever going to make you change your mind, so that's fine.

[HYHYBT]

If you really are, I have to wonder - why do you continue to beat on this dead, dead horse?

I didn't bring it up. At all. It was an ongoing part of this thread for *ten days* by then.

So why do you keep trotting it out like you're uncovering this vast conspiracy theory that we Fratchers need to be informed of?

Not only did I not trot it put at all anyway, I also am not and never have treated it the way you claim. Why are you so grossly distorting what I say?

I realize that you intended that as a jumping-off point to discuss potential rule modifications...

Nope. Not at all. Nothing that even ought to suggest that, especially with my explicitly stating the opposite. Yes, I do believe the rule is wrong, though not for the reasons your response seems to assume. But *as I spelled out clearly a couple days ago* I didn't want to go through all that again. We've had that argument already.

Your wording in the initial post sounds that way to me, however unintentional it may have been

Sure, it could be misunderstood that way. But only with the "collective you" disclaimer, which you even acknowledge seeing, cut off. Still, people do misunderstand things now and then; it's the apparent determination (and not even from just one person) to take EVERYTHING I say on this subject, no matter how plain and clear, the wrong way, even it's nothing like, or even the direct opposite of, what I say that's aggravating. And as far as that goes, the topic doesn't even matter.

[EricKei]

In the (admittedly brief) time I've been participating in this thread, there has been precious little you have said that is even remotely "plain and clear."

As for how i saw your "You know, it's not true that you have to enforce that rule. You could revoke it; you could alter it to allow leeway for legitimate questions; you choose not to." comments:
-- One could take the first part literally, but we've dealt with that aleady. You've already said that this was not what you meant. So we can let that rest.
-- One could take both sentences together to as a suggestion that you support altering the rule. It seemed to me that this was your intent, but you then said that "you could alter it..." has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of potentially altering the rule. I've gotta admit, you've got me stumped there. I'm still trying to figure out where you "stated the opposite."
-- I'm sure there are other ways to see that -- the way you *meant* it appears to be a third option, from what you have said.

So, I suppose my question is: If you don't want to be "misinterpreted," why not simply explain what you mean instead of jotting down something that looks like a sound byte, and then getting all offended/arrogant/high & mighty when people don't gather your precise meaning from something so brief and uninformative? (If you've mentioned it elsewhere, please link it)

[the_std]

I didn't bring it up. At all. It was an ongoing part of this thread for *ten days* by then.

There were only three posts where FTSTS is mentioned before yours. One saying that FTSTS is a double-edged sword, because there was discussion of wanting to call out obvious embellishers. The other two were an inquiry of what FTSTS was, and an explanation. That's it. You were the one who brought up "you know you guys don't have to enforce it'. You are always the only one to bring it up. No one else, NO ONE ELSE, cares anymore. You are the one beating that poor dead horse over and over again.

Not only did I not trot it put at all anyway, I also am not and never have treated it the way you claim. Why are you so grossly distorting what I say?

It is not a gross distortion when you are the only one to question the mods about it. Repeatedly. After being given answers. Repeatedly. They are just not the answers you like. And if you don't like those answers, go somewhere that doesn't have an FTSTS rule, cause I know that it's getting to be pretty old to see you bring it up over and over again. I can imagine the mods are sick to the teeth of having to deal with it when nothing is going to change just because you bring it up repeatedly.

But *as I spelled out clearly a couple days ago* I didn't want to go through all that again. We've had that argument already.

THEN QUIT. BRINGING. IT. UP. Seriously. Everyone who is a serious poster knows how you feel about it. They also know the mods position on it, since it's a farking RULE OF THE WEBSITE. Y'know, the ones they enforce? No one else gives a flying farting fark, and you are just making yourself seem petty and pedantic if you bring it up, but "don't want to argue about it". The mods are being nice to you by trying to explain it, again, for the umpteenth time... But you know how this argument goes away? You don't freaking bring it up again! How simple is that.

[HYHYBT]

but you then said that "you could alter it..." has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of potentially altering the rule.

Great, now you're mot just misreading, but making things up entirely. The ENTIRE purpose of my post three or four days ago now was contained in the plain and simple, on its face meaning of what I said. No subtext, agenda, misdirection, or anything else. Why are y'all acting as if that were hard to understand?

For the umpteenth, please get it through your head(s) time: I did NOT want an argument over the FRSTS rule here. Pointing out (again, since various forms of the same false claim have been made before) that the rule's existence and the manner in which it is enforced is a CHOICE made by that site, not something that must eternally be, was the full and complete intent of that post. Anything else you see, you've added yourself.

So, I suppose my question is: If you don't want to be "misinterpreted," why not simply explain what you mean...

That is precisely what I have done each and every time in this thread, contrary to the bizarre and inexplicable way you've chosen to read them.

It is not a gross distortion when you are the only one to question the mods about it. Repeatedly.

As you can perfectly clearly see if you read my posts, I have not done that in this thread. Avoiding that was precisely why I specifically said I didn't want to have that argument again here. Trying to straighten things out when people continually misrepresent what I've said and done (a far sorer point than any objection I could have to that absurd rule ever could be) is a wholly different matter. But there's another question here: why do you mischaracterize my simply responding to what others say as "bring[ing] it up again?"