WHAT DO YOU THINK ?

[Cracker]

Jesus. What are you, 12?

[Julie]

::lol::

[ramseycat]

And I stand by my statement: I would LOVE to answer questions about why I was so offended. Go for it.

Why were you so offended?

[sally]

Hey Duch, would I get banned if I called another member a nigger?

I'm going to call whoever I want a nigger. I don't use the word often, but if the shoe fits then I feel I should be able to say it. If I get banned for it then this is not a place I want to be anyway.

Oh and you're a fucking moron for even asking that question.

[Cracker]

And I stand by my statement: I would LOVE to answer questions about why I was so offended. Go for it.

Why were you so offended?

Really?

You are not a governmental agency. I will only answer to them, since ACORN is trying the 'veiled threat' thing. I'm not skeered.

[Cracker]

::lol::

I can really see that at night.

[FAHQTOO]

And I stand by my statement: I would LOVE to answer questions about why I was so offended. Go for it.

So you're just asking to be banned, is that it?

[Julie]

Per admin's instructions & the information I have, I am done engaging you on this topic in public.

Thanks.

[ramseycat]

Hey Duch, would I get banned if I called another member a nigger?

I'm going to call whoever I want a nigger. I don't use the word often, but if the shoe fits then I feel I should be able to say it. If I get banned for it then this is not a place I want to be anyway.

Oh and you're a fucking moron for even asking that question.

I was being sarcastic moron.

[Cracker]

And I stand by my statement: I would LOVE to answer questions about why I was so offended. Go for it.

So you're just asking to be banned, is that it?

Nope. Look at the post I was referring to in my response.

If she wants to follow me around with her laughing emoticon, fine, but she needs to let it go. I am not afraid, though. Duchess is smart enough to see who is instigating. She is trying to get me banned and trying to keep Lumpy banned. She thinks the rest of you like her.

[Julie]

The difference is an lol emoticon will not get anyone banned, but your brazen attempts to keep things going may.










::lol::

[sally]

Hey Duch, would I get banned if I called another member a nigger?

I'm going to call whoever I want a nigger. I don't use the word often, but if the shoe fits then I feel I should be able to say it. If I get banned for it then this is not a place I want to be anyway.

Oh and you're a fucking moron for even asking that question.

I was being sarcastic moron.

Well excuse me. It's hard to tell when you're doing something other than just being stupid.

[FAHQTOO]

And I stand by my statement: I would LOVE to answer questions about why I was so offended. Go for it.

So you're just asking to be banned, is that it?

Nope. Look at the post I was referring to in my response.

If she wants to follow me around with her laughing emoticon, fine, but she needs to let it go. I am not afraid, though. Duchess is smart enough to see who is instigating. She is trying to get me banned and trying to keep Lumpy banned. She thinks the rest of you like her.

Did it ever occur to you to just not reply at all. So she's post's a smiley, big fucking deal.
Do you seriously think that her following you around with a rabid icon is something anyone cares about?
You 2 are like 2 fucking toddlers that needs their asses spanked and their nose in a fucking corner. Both of you STFU already....or better yet, keep it going and we can all be rid of both of you.

[Middle Finger]

Hey Duch, would I get banned if I called another member a nigger?

I'm going to call whoever I want a nigger. I don't use the word often, but if the shoe fits then I feel I should be able to say it. If I get banned for it then this is not a place I want to be anyway.

Oh and you're a fucking moron for even asking that question.

I was being sarcastic moron.

Well excuse me. It's hard to tell when you're doing something other than just being stupid.

::lol::

[The Antagonist]

Ant, you misunderstood. I did not mean for Duchess to read PMs just cause she can or just to make sure, etc. I would never suggest that. I was referring to people reporting PMs and them coming to her attention. Just like people have reported rule-breaking PMs to me on my sites in the past. I had to take action when someone was harassing, spamming, etc. through PMs. Ant, you assume A LOT when we argue and it almost always results in your error and embarrassment.

So yes, I believe the standard should be that PMs are not be conduits of disseminating personal info rule-breaking material. How well that can be enforced or if that standard should be put in place is not my decision. It was just my opinion, bitch-frog.

I know exactly what you meant. I twisted your words just to show you how YOU do the same to me. Asshole. Sucks doesn't it?

I am not embarrased about a goddman thing. YOU assume more than anyone else. I haven't violated any personal information.

Ant has a hard time differentiating between someone being paranoid and someone feeling that a certain standard would be best for their favorite site, for the long-term. She is more concerned about her short-term emotional needs, Lumpy, etc. while I am more concerned about protecting you, the site, and it staying a cool place for the long-term. Totally frowning upon this personal private info shit can only be good for the site, but bad for the assholes. That is why Ant is all worked up. She is an asshole defending other assholes. It's really that simple, and sad.

And where in my above statement did I stick up for anyone? All I did was call you out on your overemotional response to what was done to you. I have again, never defended anyone, friend or not, saying that posting personal info is OK. I have and I will continue to defend something I feel is right and I've done it with people I like and dislike equally. Prove me wrong on that one.
You could have denied it and taken it to PM as a warning to Lumpy.Your overreaction admitted openly what you didn't want put out there.

As for you protecting me (or anyone else from this past month backward)? I guess when OP blabbed my username that I do business with and then continued for a year to slander me and you said nothing is you idea of protection? You going on and on how untrustworthy I am KNOWING I had links to this site on my business site was protecting me?
I bet if I did some deep digging I may even come up with some things you joined in on as well.

It was his suggestion to make it a rule. You're the admin, you'd be reading PM's for violations. Just more work he thinks you need. At least that was his implication.

You're an Admin., do you take orders from your members ?...Would you take kindly to your members saying you did ?...How would you like it if the preception was that a dude was controlling your every move...Hmmm ?...I am not incompetent, I'm capable of making decisions, good or bad, I take responsibility for them...I'll do what I can & learn as I go, sometimes by trial & error...If there is something I can't do and it needs to be done, I will pay to have it done by someone who does know what they are doing...Give me a fuckin' break here.

Just pointing out the ridiculousnesss of Middle Finger's suggestion.

Now in the spirit of the NEW rules and to continue to enforce the old, I think anyone who does business by another "username" as well as their real identity should not be used to address or use as cannon fodder from here on out. That includes calling Middle Finger by his name as he's allowed everyone to do from nearly day one here. I mean it's too much of an identifier in a lot of circumstances. I've lost enough over this in this vein. (Go on MF - say how I deserved it again)

And to answer your questions about being an admin and dealing with this shit - I've never in all my years of owning sites had to deal with this bullshit. I've never had a site that generated so much animosity and I've never had my members not understand my rules. My rules are quite clear and have never been questioned. I banned one member for racism and that's it. No one has ever been banned for their behavior. No one has ever PM'd me whining about another member and I've never had the report button used on any of my sites.

Middle Finger's mistake opening this site was not protecting privacy with real names and usernames from other sites. But hey, I was an overemotional asshole when I suggested that he curtail that shit before it erupted into shit when I mentioned it to him two years ago, isnt' that right MF?

[The Antagonist]

wow, I missed a couple of pages while posting that.

Ok Duchess, that's the last of this on my end. I just hope that the username thing I said is seriously considered. Thanks.

[Middle Finger]

Ant, just relax already, Christ ... besides your site being far less active and therefore hard to compare to Mock in terms of numbers and reports, etc. Duchess is on a good track it seems to me. Let's remain positive and respect her standards and rules - even if they evolve over time, which is normal.

[The Antagonist]

Quit whining you twat.

[Middle Finger]

That was whining? ::lol:: OK ...

[SyberBitch]

I'm going to consider making Mock private...Right now, it's just a thought, I'm not leaning one way or another...If, and that's a big if, that were to happen, I would leave a portion of her open as a "tease", if you will...I'm interested in reading your thoughts on this...I do understand that there are pros & cons of doing this, that's why I would like to read your opinions.

Well, I've already given my opinion on the subject, but to sum it up, I definitely think the majority of Mock should be private to members only, with a small portion readable by non-members.

My reasoning (aside from my own personal, selfish reasons), is that Mockers should be able to feel more 'protected', like this is our own private club.