|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rook and Hell
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...I remember the freedom-waving things I said about censorship of cartoonists during the whole Mohammed cartoon debate. If I am going to preach freedom of expression, I have to suck it up when it's my turn to be expressed on. ...
Exactly.
I also consider the source. RooK, trolling sophomorically? I'm shocked, shocked. RooK, repeating a line he's been tossing around for a full Great Year? I suppose it's easier than coming up with a new catchphrase, but this one isn't exactly "the wine-dark sea".
I did like his LOLCat-in-a-bonnet avatar. Now, that was well done.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
RooK has given offense very easily with this comment, and for no good reason.
I disagree. Unless RooK has a more detailed understanding of the Offendability Quotient of each individual regular poster aboard the Ship than I'm prepared to give him credit for, how can he know who will take offense and to what extent? I grant you that he can probably be reasonably assured that someone may take some offense at the imagery (despite its antiquity and possible overuse), but why exactly is this RooK's problem? Is it part of RooK's job description to never, ever give offense to any Shipmate? That's not in the realm of the possible, and you know it.
As to "no good reason," I personally feel that the mock-shock imagery was very apt to the point RooK was making at the time. Were there gentler ways to make the same point? Sure. Is it in RooK's job description to treat the denizens of Hell with kid gloves at all times?
I didn't think so.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If he were not top-Admin man he would have been taken to Hell immediately. He would have given and been given as much as he got. All would have been well.
It's his ship position which is the problem here. Not one which can be resolved imo. Best just to suck it up.
While I respect the fact that this may be your perception, I am not sure there's evidence to support it. !-mark and others may be unwilling to take RooK to Hell, but I for one am not willing to place any bets on this being due to RooK's Adminly status. This not being Hell, I'll keep other thoughts on that topic to myself.
Nor do I think it has anything to do with cleverness with words (which admittedly RooK possesses; I can't speak to your own, but you seem well-able to make yourself clear). I think a sincere poster with a sincerely-thought-out gripe will, once past the "dire ire" stage of most Hell calls, get a reasonable hearing and reasonable treatment from both Shipmates and from RooK. The fact that he has a way with words and sometimes exploits that ability to shock doesn't mean he's unreasonable or unfeeling. He just has (and is entitled to) a different point-of-view. Get over it.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I think a sincere poster with a sincerely-thought-out gripe will, once past the "dire ire" stage of most Hell calls, get a reasonable hearing and reasonable treatment from both Shipmates and from RooK. The fact that he has a way with words and sometimes exploits that ability to shock doesn't mean he's unreasonable or unfeeling. He just has (and is entitled to) a different point-of-view. Get over it.
Yes - I can see your points here. But the question remains, why is one poster warned then banned for using 'Bishopesses' when RooK gets away with a use of words which is just as much a wind up.
I am serious when I say RooK didn't offend me - but my problem here is that it still looks like 'one rule for some' when it comes to deliberate wind ups.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But the question remains, why is one poster warned then banned for using 'Bishopesses' when RooK gets away with a use of words which is just as much a wind up.
He was warned because 'priestess' (etc) has a very, very long history on the Ship. And there's the matter of posting record. It's one thing to let rip in Hell occasionally and another to persist in using a word or phrase that one's been warned about. It's not the word, or the behaviour itself that's the issue, it's the flouting of a ruling.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
The ship has had in the past endless shit over the word “priestess” (and Hence I guess by extension Bishopess). Those of us around to remember know not to go near the word. It is sexist. There is ship history and I suspect any of the Admins would have pulled the same pin. The poster was warned.
RooK was just being RooK, he was not putting down half the world he was poking fun at Jesus, just like most of the other people round the cross that day at Golgotha.
Oh what is this? That still when they cry “Come down of your popsicle” He still loves them.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
p.s. and in case you had not figured it out. Life is not fair.
x-post Ql
[ 01. December 2012, 16:05: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But I suspect others are not doing so because he's top-Admin and wouldn't be warned in public anyway. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
I am fairly sure that is not true - as in it has actually happened in the past re another issue. Possibly before your time on the ship though.
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Am I understanding this latest bit of discussion correctly? The word "priestess" is considered offensive and one would be banned if used? I presume it is just fine to use "priestess" in Hell, just not elsewhere. Correct?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
You might presume wrongly if you had a posting history of using such terms at nearly every opportunity, all over the boards. The first time you might just get a warning,
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Am I understanding this latest bit of discussion correctly? The word "priestess" is considered offensive and one would be banned if used? I presume it is just fine to use "priestess" in Hell, just not elsewhere. Correct?
That word has a very long and consistent record of not being permitted anywhere on the Ship, except in The Styx where you can ask questions about it. The poster in question had been specifically told not to use it. He used it. He was banned. QED.
It's more like a ban for contempt than for the offensiveness of the words themselves.
x-p with PeteC
[ 01. December 2012, 16:59: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
You might presume wrongly if you had a posting history of using such terms at nearly every opportunity, all over the boards. The first time you might just get a warning,
So.. someone who has no knowledge of the screamishness of the management of this bulletin board of the word 'priestess' would get a warning, but someone who has been here for years can use the kind of blasphemy which is inevitably going to offend members of something which self-defines as a Christian website.
Riight, yeah that makes sense.
Join me in Hell where I shall piss all over your dislike of the word 'priestess'.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
If you check the posting history of the guy in question, you might find out why he got banned. I can remember many many posts that got hostly warnings over the years. This wasn't new.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If you check the posting history of the guy in question, you might find out why he got banned. I can remember many many posts that got hostly warnings over the years. This wasn't new.
I refer you to the answer given some moments ago. I don't need to know the history, apparently. If I use the word priestess, I'll get a warning.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
At times the ship seems like a gnostic cult, where there is considerable hidden information. To have to search for a poster to understand a specific rule, that's ridiculous. Spell it out please. I want to know how it is that some offensiveness is good offensiveness and how other is bad offensiveness.
And are there other words in addition? First I've heard of it. May we have a list? The seven words not to be heard on the ship or something? I'm certainly not getting the offense with "priestess", or is it all words with possible female ending? Or is it context specific? I would have absolutely no understanding of this specific banned word, unless it means something different than what dictionaries indicate.
(edit, re several cross posts)
[ 01. December 2012, 17:11: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
You'll have to check with the admins, but if you look at the guy's posting history, he had a long history of being very sexist. It wasn't just a word, it was a whole history of posting.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You'll have to check with the admins, but if you look at the guy's posting history, he had a long history of being very sexist. It wasn't just a word, it was a whole history of posting.
Oh, what like RooK's recent history of trolling?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The problem with 'priestess' is it effectively acts as a dogwhistle for the ordination of women Dead Horse. Which means whenever its used people get annoyed and then divert into that debate very quickly - so usage disrupts debate threads repeatedly.
Brackenrigg had been warned repeatedly in the context of generally sexist posting - and then he did it again.
[crossposted + edit for right name !]
[ 01. December 2012, 17:18: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Okay, thanks. That would rather clearly argue that the word "priestess" and similar, are just fine, it's rather how the words might be used and where. That would be sensible. The idea that a word if used might caused either the explosion of a warning or the larger explosion of a banning is incomprehensible. Like a landmine. It is one thing to step inadvertently on an explosive while walking in a park and another to be shot while holding a rifle and wearing a uniform.
Can you please revisit this hosts and admins and advise?
{cross post again). Appreciate knowing the name of the person. I would not agree that in all contexts the word priestess is negative nor sexist. By happenstance, I was looking up the etymology of the word bigot and came upon the following.
quote:
From http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php
This work is dedicated to all those who seek the old paths,
the well-worn, unpaved hill-ways;
and especially to those who honor the elder teachers;
and in particular to one priestess.
Beannachtaí Dé Brighid oraibh agus orainn
Does this offend the ship management?
[ 01. December 2012, 17:19: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I find the idea of "the explosion of a warning" rather odd. It is just someone (outside hell) saying please don't do that.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Am I misunderstanding? I understand from the above discussion that even in Hell, "priestess" is banned.
The explosion of warning would be the inadvertent and unknowing poster using a word on some mystery list and getting a warning, with no idea there was an offence. Some of you are rude and caustic in your warnings, hence explosion. Even if this is a list of only a very few words it needs to be plain what they are.
[ 01. December 2012, 17:26: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
So, help me understand this:
Beyond the pail: someone who disagrees with the notion of women priests on the basis of a theology against priestesses.
Totally acceptable: someone posting something which is obviously offensive to the vast majority of this website (not just the few who take exception to this use of the word priestess) which he self defines as being for his own amusement.
And the best bit is that the person who did the latter is going to be the one who decides whether my crime of knowingly doing the former is reason to be disciplined.
Does nobody else see this as Orwellian doublespeak?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
As I understand it, it was unacceptable in the context of the use of the word priestess to refer to a priest who happens to be a woman. Several reasons for that, there are connotations of pagan religions in the word priestess, it also has an implication that women should not be priests, which is a dead horse, and it's sexist.
Coupled with a history of sexist posting and a number of warnings for this, it can become a banning offence.
Cross posted with the long ranger, addressing no prophet
[ 01. December 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
As I understand it, it was unacceptable in the context of the use of the word priestess to refer to a priest who happens to be a woman. Several reasons for that, there are connotations of pagan religions in the word priestess, it also has an implication that women should not be priests, which is a dead horse, and it's sexist.
So? You can't post things which are sexist in hell, even if it is an honestly held opinion - or even for a bit of a laugh to wind up everyone else?
I don't understand why you are defending this nonsense.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The explosion of warning would be the inadvertent and unknowing poster using a word on some mystery list and getting a warning, with no idea there was an offence.
But he wasn't an unknowing poster. He was a persistently disruptive poster who had been warned on several occasions. It wasn't a "mystery list" to him because it had been pointed out explicitly that the word wasn't to be used and told that if he did, he would be banned. This isn't something that suddenly came out of the blue. The same goes for any banning or suspension.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Beyond the pail: someone who disagrees with the notion of women priests on the basis of a theology against priestesses.
What evidence to you have for this ridiculous assertion?
quote:
Totally acceptable: someone posting something which is obviously offensive to the vast majority of this website (not just the few who take exception to this use of the word priestess) which he self defines as being for his own amusement.
Posting offensive stuff has always been acceptable to a certain extent. Each case has to be looked at individually. If RooK (or any other poster for that matter) had used every opportunity to make offensive remarks about the Eucharist, reagardless of the board or the context, he would have been pulled up on it. If he persistently refused and/or thought he could get away with it by disppearing for a few months before coming back to do the same thing all over again, he would likely have been banned.
quote:
And the best bit is that the person who did the latter is going to be the one who decides whether my crime of knowingly doing the former is reason to be disciplined.
No, because we work as a team. As I said above, banning and/or suspensions are never taken lightly.
quote:
Does nobody else see this as Orwellian doublespeak?
No.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Wow, multiple X-posts!
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
You can't post things which are sexist in hell, even if it is an honestly held opinion - or even for a bit of a laugh to wind up everyone else?
That's pretty much it. The difference is that in Hell we'll normally let the regular posters rip you apart first. If you keep doing it though, the 10 Commandments still apply.
All my 3 posts above were in my capacity as an Admin.
[ 01. December 2012, 17:46: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So, help me understand this:
Beyond the pail: someone who disagrees with the notion of women priests on the basis of a theology against priestesses.
Totally acceptable: someone posting something which is obviously offensive to the vast majority of this website (not just the few who take exception to this use of the word priestess) which he self defines as being for his own amusement.
And the best bit is that the person who did the latter is going to be the one who decides whether my crime of knowingly doing the former is reason to be disciplined.
Does nobody else see this as Orwellian doublespeak?
If you look at the Ship's rules as an attempt to impose some morally consistent standard of behaviour, you'll never understand them. That's not what they are for.
Look at them instead as a set of guidelines which have been found to work as a way of allowing discussion to happen between people who strongly disagree on subjects which they often care deeply about. You might still disagree with them, but they'll make a lot more sense.
On this example, this is how it seems to me:
You won't find a clear distinction of ethical principle between calling Jesus 'a dead Jew on a stick' and calling one of his priests 'a priestess'. Both are gratuitously offfensive. The reason that one is allowed here, and the other isn't, is practical. The licence to abuse people's beliefs in Hell facilitates discussion elsewhere on these boards by keeping all the snark in one place. So offensive comments, even gratuitous ones for which there is no justification at all, are allowed there.
'Priestess' is not allowed because it is the sort of word that kills discussion. Using it (if one knows it to be offensive) is a refusal to discuss. It is all but impossible to have a meaningful discussion about female ordination with someone who insists on using the word 'priestess', just as it would be all but impossible to discuss homosexuality or race with someone who insisted on saying 'faggot' or 'nigger'. The word is so inflammatory that it becomes the issue, to the detriment of any other exchange of ideas. So it's not allowed, not because it is nastier to say 'priestess' than 'motherfuckingcunt', but because saying it has no place on a discussion board.
[ 01. December 2012, 18:55: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But I suspect others are not doing so because he's top-Admin and wouldn't be warned in public anyway. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
I am fairly sure that is not true - as in it has actually happened in the past re another issue. Possibly before your time on the ship though.
Do you mean the Amber situation?
If so, you would be wronger than a wrong thing. Shipmates not only took to the Styx to defend Rook's right to say what he did but to defend the appropriateness of it. Simon closed the thread in Hell because he was worried about the possibility of getting sued in the UK. Erin was upset that Ship of Fools was no longer a place where the "r-word" could be safely used. Rook was never publicly reprimanded for it. On the contrary...
Many Shipmates lost credibility with me after that. I now tend to roll my eyes when Ism claims are made on Ship of Fools. Words from Scripture and the movie Tombstone come readily to my mind.
Oh...and Rook doesn't always post as an Admin when he expect his posts to be taken as authoritative. Evensong can testify to that. Little wonder she finds the idea of calling him to Hell so unthinkable.
For the record, I don't find Rook's comment any more offensive than when a 4 year old boy says "poop" and then giggles. Both comments reflect the same level of maturity. But, hey, immaturity isn't illegal and you getting all bent out of shape over the 4 year old's potty talk is exactly what the 4 year old wants.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
IRRC The site owner and other admins made statements about the issue and he was required to make a formal apology.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
RE: Beeswax Altar
Ohhhh.
Just go ahead and post like an adult and see if we care.
[Damn, I never reply to a post soon enough.]
[ 01. December 2012, 19:03: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Rook eventually apologized but he was never publicly reprimanded.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Completely opaque to those who hadn't joined the ship until later it would seem. R word, Ism? Neither of these seem comprehensible, nor does a search assist. The r word is usually "retard" says an internet search, and Ism could be any number of things: http://www.abbreviations.com/ISM
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Rook eventually apologized but he was never publicly reprimanded.
And the apology was accepted.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Yeah, I'm lost too, because my memory of the infamous auger episode is that RooK drew a public reprimand from Erin and was required to apologize. But maybe that's not what's being referenced here.
The thing is, you don't need to know about all of that to understand that only a long-standing pattern of jerkish behavior drawing a series of warnings will eventually result in a banning.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The r word is retard. Rook called a Shipmate with Asperger's Syndrome a retard (technically he called her a weetard). Ism is any kind of -ism like racism or sexism. I take all -ism claims on Ship of Fools with a grain of salt after that incident.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Am I misunderstanding? I understand from the above discussion that even in Hell, "priestess" is banned.
The explosion of warning would be the inadvertent and unknowing poster using a word on some mystery list and getting a warning, with no idea there was an offence. Some of you are rude and caustic in your warnings, hence explosion. Even if this is a list of only a very few words it needs to be plain what they are.
What the fuck is that last paragraph in English?
Maybe it's because I do a lot of my ship-hanging-out in Eccles, but I know that "priestesses" referring to Christian clergy is a No-Go.
"Priestesses" would probably be ship-legal if one was referring to pagan leaders, but as others have noted, it's a dog-whistle for a Very Dead Horse when referring to female Christian clergy. Dead Horses are in Dead Horses because they tend to color/take over all other discussion if they're elsewhere.
Brackenrigg got banned because he had been warned several times for "priestesses" (among other rude/jerkish behaviors) and decided to ignore it and escalate. Someone who hadn't done it before would have been warned. It's not a case of "say the secret word, get banned." It's a pattern over time of multiple 10C violations. Bans don't come out of the blue.
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
Yeah, I'm lost too, because my memory of the infamous auger episode is that RooK drew a public reprimand from Erin and was required to apologize. But maybe that's not what's being referenced here.
There was no public reprimand! Erin was one of Rook's biggest defenders. Simon closed the Hell thread in question because of concerns over a lawsuit. Erin then went ballistic over the fact there were limits to what could be said in Hell. Neither of them publicly reprimanded Rook. I have no clue what was said on the Hosts board or by PM. Nor do I care because that's not public.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The r word is retard. Rook called a Shipmate with Asperger's Syndrome a retard (technically he called her a weetard). Ism is any kind of -ism like racism or sexism. I take all -ism claims on Ship of Fools with a grain of salt after that incident.
And he apologised to the person he said it too and they accepted it. The incident resulted in some changes to the Hell guidelines as well. There was a ton of behind the scenes stuff too. I'm sorry that none of that was enough for you, but we're not reopening discussions into the rights and wrongs of something that happened two years ago and was dealt with then.
Tubbs
Styx Host
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Doublethink brought the two year old incident up. I was just correcting her memory of it. I noticed you haven't made the claim that he was given a public reprimand.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Doublethink brought the two year old incident up. I was just correcting her memory of it. I noticed you haven't made the claim that he was given a public reprimand.
And I notice that you're attempting to continue a conversation that you've been asked to stop ... It happened. It was dealt with at the time. It's done. We're not doing it again because you weren't happy the first time.
Tubbs
Styx Host
[ 01. December 2012, 21:38: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
If people know from experience that RooK's posts may offend them, I suggest that they scroll past all his posts.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If people know from experience that RooK's posts may offend them, I suggest that they scroll past all his posts.
Can't afford to. Contrary to popular belief, RooK does sometimes make official pronouncements in posts not marked as such.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
But he wasn't an unknowing poster. He was a persistently disruptive poster who had been warned on several occasions. It wasn't a "mystery list" to him because it had been pointed out explicitly that the word wasn't to be used and told that if he did, he would be banned. This isn't something that suddenly came out of the blue. The same goes for any banning or suspension.
Fine. Except that you chose to enforce a ruling that was a sensational two years old. I don't know Brackenrigg from a hole in the ground, but banning him was an obvious injustice. "I bet you thought we'd forgotten about this," you asked. Well, you should have, after two years. Defamation and malicious falsehood have a statute of limitation under UK law of one year. The proper way of dealing with this would of course have been to remind Brackenrigg of "been there, done that", and reinstate the ban on him or her using the word - not to plank instantly. But I guess you felt that it was a good riddance...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
But he wasn't an unknowing poster. He was a persistently disruptive poster who had been warned on several occasions. It wasn't a "mystery list" to him because it had been pointed out explicitly that the word wasn't to be used and told that if he did, he would be banned. This isn't something that suddenly came out of the blue. The same goes for any banning or suspension.
Fine. Except that you chose to enforce a ruling that was a sensational two years old. I don't know Brackenrigg from a hole in the ground, but banning him was an obvious injustice. "I bet you thought we'd forgotten about this," you asked. Well, you should have, after two years. Defamation and malicious falsehood have a statute of limitation under UK law of one year. The proper way of dealing with this would of course have been to remind Brackenrigg of "been there, done that", and reinstate the ban on him or her using the word - not to plank instantly. But I guess you felt that it was a good riddance...
It's hard for me to tell if brackenrigg has been posting for the last two years, but I don't recall seeing him/her on the boards. Unfortunately being banned seems to get you deleted from the directory, so I couldn't check the last fifty posts. But the phrase "My my, look what the cat sicked up" makes me tend to think brackenrigg hadn't been seen about for a while. And if brackenrigg had showed up after a long hiatus specifically to snipe with that phrase, IMO I think the ban was justified.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And if brackenrigg had showed up after a long hiatus specifically to snipe with that phrase, IMO I think the ban was justified.
(admin hat off)
That guy was pretty much completely off my radar, so I was only dimly aware of the backstory, but that was the conclusion I reached as well.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And if brackenrigg had showed up after a long hiatus specifically to snipe with that phrase, IMO I think the ban was justified.
Nope, not at all. Immediately reinstating the prohibition of that word for that poster, if he was a major "problem user" before, I can see that. But an instant ban over just this is plain ridiculous. Particularly so, if he or she came back after a long hiatus.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Given Curiosity killed...'s link to the posting history and the fact that brackenrigg didn't pop in suddenly just to make that remark, you might have a point, IngoB.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
It's a common dodge with people who get a last warning to go away, wait till they think we've forgotten about it and then come back and as soon as they work up the courage, do the same thing they were given a final warning about. All that happens if you let them off with it, is rinse and repeat. I'm totally in favour of those chancers getting planked the minute they are spotted up to their old tricks.
And of course when the chancer belongs to a different school of churchmanship, the people who complain vehemently when 'one of theirs' gets shown the door are quiet little birdies. When it was one of the ultra liberal posters who got caught sneaking back and planked, none of the people making a fuss about Brackenrigg had anything to say. And of course the people who did their nut about that are nowhere to be seen about Brackenrigg. In both cases the 'sneak back and do it again' tactic got exactly what it deserved.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm going to mention a word I already mentioned a couple of times upthread. Context.
Context context context.
The Ship doesn't operate on a set of mind-numbingly detailed rules such that someone can sit there and go "ah yes, 'priestess' is allowed on Kerygmania, Ecclesisastics and Circus between the hours of 9:30pm and 6:30am GMT (no adjustment for summer time)". It operates on a set of general principles.
And YES those principles are open to interpretation. It's inevitable. And there's simply no other way to make the Ship sail than to have a group of people whose task it is to do the interpreting.
And that interpretation is always going to be a contextual thing. Not only the context of which board, but also which topic, which thread, where the thread has been going, how long it's been going, which poster, the experience of the poster, whether the poster's been given warnings there or elsewhere, whether other posters have been given warnings recently on that thread...
Context. Lots and lots of it.
(We haven't even got to the part where it could depend on which Host is reading this pap at the time, and whether there's enough Vitamin K in their diet. Because we're human beings, and as much as we TRY to be consistent, we have different personalities, and hosting is not double-entry bookkeeping.)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose - when I linked the posting history I had hoped you'd have looked at the posts. Of the three made recently there was the one I linked to in Hell and this gem in Purgatory. If you look back through that hosting history you'll see a lot more like that.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
