This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Gormy Cuss) on Sun Mar 10, 2013, 11:42 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

202 replies, 19195 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

202 replies	Author	Time	Post
This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]	Gormy Cuss	Dec 2012	OP
agreed	La Lioness Priyanka	Dec 2012	#1
Agreed -- and I also agree with LLP's suggestion downthread	obamanut2012	Dec 2012	#2
Thank you and yes.	Starry Messenger	Dec 2012	#3
I agree. I now know that it is absolutely needed.	Democracyinkind	Dec 2012	#4
Agreed	hedgehog	Dec 2012	#5
thank you. i too support the proposal of adding more clarity to this issue in TOS. nt	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#6
Agreed. IMHO the folks who are posting sexist	kestrel91316	Dec 2012	#7
Yeppp n/t	HonEur12	Dec 2012	#163
I'd like to see the language before I endorse it. nt	rrneck	Dec 2012	#8
As would I. Because even as a rape survivor I think a lot of the complaints here have been over the	peacebird	Dec 2012	#10
Nah, you won't be PPR'd.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#13
Do you think sexism and misogyny should be in the TOS?	obamanut2012	Dec 2012	#19
I don't know. It depends on how you put it in there.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#21
So, you are ambivalent that sexism and misogyny should be TOS offenses	obamanut2012	Dec 2012	#22
Strawman arguments should have some sort of repercussions too... n/t	DRoseDARs	Dec 2012	#27
Im ambivalent about endorsing a change in the TOS sight unseen.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#32
it really would have nothing to do with us. skinner would decide and word it. i trust him	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#43
I can understand that.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#59
he has it on du2. he can transfer it over. go find that. nt	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#66
Cool. Why dont you copy and paste it here. nt	rrneck	Dec 2012	#75
no. go find it. dont. i dont care. i am so fuckin tired of these fuckin games. nt	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#85
Well, if it's not worth a right click on your mouse	rrneck	Dec 2012	#95
What language from DU2 would you like transferred? Here are links to the rules:	Make7	Dec 2012	#147
IMHO, a subset of that second link.	Gormy Cuss	Dec 2012	#161
how would YOU word it ??	Tuesday Afternoon	Dec 2012	#31
I'd like to see what I'm endorsing first.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#63
Pretend you have been given the chance to word it. Write it into the Tos just like you are Skinner -	Tuesday Afternoon	Dec 2012	#72
I don't have an opinion yet.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#74
? you want I should word it for your approval ?	Tuesday Afternoon	Dec 2012	#79
Yes. That is why the OP was posted.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#94
refresh my memory - when did we get to vote on the ToS first go round? --	Tuesday Afternoon	Dec 2012	#103
I don't know that it needs to be reworded	rrneck	Dec 2012	#110
ok. understood and agreed the discussion should take place in Meta. There is a thread over there.	Tuesday Afternoon	Dec 2012	#121
Thanks.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#133
I agree with you. It really never was about the words HH used. It was his attitude -	Tuesday Afternoon	Dec 2012	#136
+1000	countryjake	Dec 2012	#151
I agree I'd like to see how it's worded and it's not too much to ask..	one_voice	Dec 2012	#33
skinner would decide on the phrasin and doubt he would be asking us, if he chose to adjust TOS.	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#39
Oh, I misunderstood...	one_voice	Dec 2012	#51
oh gosh, well, i do not know. i think we all have an idea that we would have influence in the	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#54
That would be the language	obamanut2012	Dec 2012	#62
Then that's easy.	Chan790	Dec 2012	#106
works for me.... nt	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#111
The admins will be the ones deciding how to word their own TOS...	Little Star	Dec 2012	#164
This is good. We need to have those two words "sexism and misogyny" in the text.	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#167
My expectation would be the inverse actually...	Chan790	Dec 2012	#88
I see the use of the word gender as the basic problem.	DURHAM D	Dec 2012	#56
If someone were to say...	one_voice	Dec 2012	#83
So you are against clarifying language?	DURHAM D	Dec 2012	#86
No, I said I wasn't against it in my last comment....	one_voice	Dec 2012	#93
okay. got it. thanks	DURHAM D	Dec 2012	#96
No member will decide the language. If the admins agree with proposal they will decide the language.	Little Star	Dec 2012	#36
How would you like for it to read? nt	rrneck	Dec 2012	#70
Personally, just adding the two words would be fine by me. Then like with all TOS..	Little Star	Dec 2012	#135
I'd have to go the other way.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#139
But we already DO ban words. We don't allow "n***r" or "fg".	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#168
Actually, for some reason I thought Little Star	rrneck	Dec 2012	#169
But I am wondering if we set such a high standards when it comes to race? Isn't the use of	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#170
About the best answer i can give you is little more than a policy statement	rrneck	Dec 2012	#171
but why is it so difficult to do this for sexist speech when it isn't for racist speech?	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#172
I see no difference.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#173
Two things: I am not familiar with what transpired with SalmonEnchantedEvening, so I don't	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#176
Well, like i said in #158	rrneck	Dec 2012	#179
Is this any different from the evaluation process we already do here, with regard to racist and	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#180
I don't necessarily agree with the inclusion of those terms.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#181
Well, as to your first point: is it any harder to discern sexism than it is racism or homophobia?	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#182
I've only been a member for four years	rrneck	Dec 2012	#183
As we speak (type?) the discussion is on about Salmon's decision to leave and about HH's wife's	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#184
I agree.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#185
I love that you are an artist, but we do disagree about whether there will be a change to the TOS.	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#186
So glad to see everyone working together on this.	DURHAM D	Dec 2012	#24
I agree	obamanut2012	Dec 2012	#26
yes... I see this as a very positive opportunity....	hlthe2b	Dec 2012	#53
Glad to see you.	DURHAM D	Dec 2012	#58
Back at ya....	hlthe2b	Dec 2012	#61
Skinner makes the decision on TOS violations.	boston bean	Dec 2012	#35
How would you like for it to read?	rrneck	Dec 2012	#73
Why yes I have.	boston bean	Dec 2012	#77
Thank you.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#78
why the sarcastic remark.	boston bean	Dec 2012	#82
Hmmmmm. More resistance.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#104
this	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#108
OMG, leave me alone please. this is becoming harassment.	boston bean	Dec 2012	#115
I agree.	graham4anything	Dec 2012	#9
"It should go without saying, but it needs to be said."	redqueen	Dec 2012	#12
Agreed. nt	redqueen	Dec 2012	#11
Honestly I've been avoiding these threads	d_r	Dec 2012	#14
Thanks for speaking out d_r.	Little Star	Dec 2012	#17
Beautifully said.	redqueen	Dec 2012	#18
Thanks, d_r. Well said.	freshwest	Dec 2012	#23
Wonderful post.Thank you. nt	sufrommich	Dec 2012	#25
Thank you so much for posting.	boston bean	Dec 2012	#37
can i record please, lol. i guess what i see is that for so many of us it is progression	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#38
you are too cool, d_r	Skittles	Dec 2012	#45
Awesome post	gollygee	Dec 2012	#64
IMO, your post is right-on-the-spot.	salin	Dec 2012	#65
No argument here	Tsiyu	Dec 2012	#107
d_r, thank you for laying it out so clearly.	Gormy Cuss	Dec 2012	#124
Thanks friend.	Starry Messenger	Dec 2012	#145
This should be an OP for EVERYONE to read. Well said d_r. Thank you. n/t	auntAgonist	Dec 2012	#156
+1. Well said. n/t	FSogol	Dec 2012	#165
Thank you!	myrna minx	Dec 2012	#166
Agree. Would love to see the women of DU make this so.nt	sufrommich	Dec 2012	#15
The last few days make it pretty obvious that DU needs...	Little Star	Dec 2012	#16
I also support this effort and believe it is needed. n/t	MadrasT	Dec 2012	#20
K&R. thanks.	Tuesday Afternoon	Dec 2012	#28
I agree	Ohio Joe	Dec 2012	#29
Yes	Kaleva	Dec 2012	#30
I agree that misogyny and sexism need to be added to the TOS...	Violet_Crumble	Dec 2012	#34
I am in 100% total support of this.	boston bean	Dec 2012	#40
yes	obamanut2012	Dec 2012	#57
thanks for opening this topic, we need input from Admin on this.	Whisp	Dec 2012	#41
yes	irisblue	Dec 2012	#42
No, it's not the best place; Meta would be better.	muriel_volestrangler	Dec 2012	#44
But it is about helping people.	Hatchling	Dec 2012	#188
sad that it is needed	Skittles	Dec 2012	#46
I support the idea, but I'm not sure it will help	Scootaloo	Dec 2012	#47
It will help with those who don't see it spelled out clearly, understand	boston bean	Dec 2012	#50
The problem is language is not static	jeff47	Dec 2012	#130
Yes. It needs to be clarified.	greatauntoftriplets	Dec 2012	#48
Agreed	LiberalLoner	Dec 2012	#49
Absolutely. It must be in the TOS since the absence	DevonRex	Dec 2012	#52
I've already posted my thoughts on the subject	Major Nikon	Dec 2012	#55
some clarifications could be things like	La Lioness Priyanka	Dec 2012	#60
+1 this -- great ideas	obamanut2012	Dec 2012	#68
those are very good ideas	boston bean	Dec 2012	#81
Sounds pretty complicated	Major Nikon	Dec 2012	#90
Agreed n/t	gollygee	Dec 2012	#67
So a subjective judgement will deem a violation of TOS?	Gman	Dec 2012	#69
being against marriage equality may seem subjective to some	La Lioness Priyanka	Dec 2012	#76
Well, unfortunately a lot of people here see some kind of slight in just about anything	Gman	Dec 2012	#89
yet some do. as should this one	La Lioness Priyanka	Dec 2012	#119
Isn't that the same with all the mentioned bigotries?	obamanut2012	Dec 2012	#80
just look at the hh wife thread, how many defended	boston bean	Dec 2012	#84
adminstration decide the tos. that simple. regardless of how they clarify the tos, they are the	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#92
Point well taken	Gman	Dec 2012	#99
absolutely. and they do not rush. they take the time. and a person gets plenty of rope	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#102
There should be	ismnotwasm	Dec 2012	#71
Somebody got a primer on the reason for this?	michigandem58	Dec 2012	#87
Sexism has no place on DU. nt	s-cubed	Dec 2012	#91
All for it. Here's the language from DU 2 that is pretty damn clear:	NYC Liberal	Dec 2012	#97
this. nt	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#105
I find it disgusting that many people apparently need to have this spelled out for them.	NYC Liberal	Dec 2012	#109
yup. nt	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#114
Thank you.	DURHAM D	Dec 2012	#113
Same here re: ageism. I noticed a good amount of it in 2008.	NYC Liberal	Dec 2012	#132
Me too.	Little Star	Dec 2012	#154
I like the first two paragraphs. I dont like banning specific words.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#118
I assume you are aware that the admin wrote it.	DURHAM D	Dec 2012	#122
That's what this thread is about.	rrneck	Dec 2012	#129
Yes, this.	MadrasT	Dec 2012	#125
I support a change in the TOS	maddezmom	Dec 2012	#98
I am in favor of addressing these issues with specificity in the TOS. Juries will fine tune	WheelWalker	Dec 2012	#100
No bigoted hate speech.	Behind the Aegis	Dec 2012	#101
Your suggested changes look to me to be just what is needed...	Spazito	Dec 2012	#120
This one looks good. nt	rrneck	Dec 2012	#126
that works also. nt	seabeyond	Dec 2012	#131
yeah, this works.	one_voice	Dec 2012	#140
K&R!	hrmjustin	Dec 2012	#112
I think Meta is the place you want to be	Tsiyu	Dec 2012	#116
Thanks, Tsiyu.	Gormy Cuss	Dec 2012	#141
it is depressing that, on what is supposed to be a progressive, democratic board, we actually have	niyad	Dec 2012	#117
I agree, clarity is needed in the TOS beyond using "gender"...	Spazito	Dec 2012	#123
An explicit statement will help everyone	caraher	Dec 2012	#127
I support an amendment to the TOS to make a prohibition against misogyny clear.	yardwork	Dec 2012	#128
Absolutely not. Words, alone, devoid of meaning should not be banned. Messages of hatred may be.	leveymg	Dec 2012	#134
not following ...	DURHAM D	Dec 2012	#138
So, a;; s;urs shuld eb allowed then?	obamanut2012	Dec 2012	#146
It all depends upon the context, what is the meaning and message.	leveymg	Dec 2012	#152
You know, I hate the word wars, and am often on the side of those who post silly and juvenile	msanthrope	Dec 2012	#137
Agreed.	JoeyT	Dec 2012	#142
Aye.	JustJoe	Dec 2012	#143
Agreed,	LadyHawkAZ	Dec 2012	#144
great idea!	bettyellen	Dec 2012	#148
Cross posting from Starry Messenger's thread..	Permanut	Dec 2012	#149
I understand the functionality of preventing people from using the absence of that specific language	patrice	Dec 2012	#150
Don't know where it's best to propose it...	countryjake	Dec 2012	#153
I support this! n/t	wildflower	Dec 2012	#155
What constitutes 'sexism' here?	The Doctor.	Dec 2012	#157
Having thought about this TOS thing	rrneck	Dec 2012	#158
Unfortunatly it appears to be needed	One_Life_To_Give	Dec 2012	#159
I support this! nt	stevenleser	Dec 2012	#160
It is a fine place, but not the only place	Tumbulu	Dec 2012	#162
One could argue this is already covered by the TOS in several places	justiceischeap	Dec 2012	#174
I can't speak to the instance you reference about this poster who is leaving since I have not	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#177
Looks like it is, GC. Nice idea, thanks. nt	Zorra	Dec 2012	#175
I think it already very much does...	ellisonz	Dec 2012	#178
I think clarifying that sexism and misogny are unacceptable can only benefit discussion.	misschicken	Dec 2012	#187
Great idea.	Hatchling	Dec 2012	#189
has Skinner said Anything about this to anyone?	Whisp	Dec 2012	#190
No comment AFAIK	Gormy Cuss	Mar 3	#194
I hope he realizes how insulting that is.	Whisp	Mar 3	#195
No it's fine as it is.	Waiting For Everyman	Dec 2012	#191
Agreed	wryter2000	Feb 2013	#192
Yes. I think it's time our terms of service included a prohibition on denigrating 51% of the	Squinch	Mar 3	#193
I support this 100%.	MineralMan	Mar 3	#196
Kick'n Reck'n	Vanje	Mar 3	#197
if nothing else, i would like to hear if this has been the administrations expectation and they	seabeyond	Mar 3	#198
Its worse than it was 10 years ago here	olddots	Mar 5	#199
Are you talking about DU.2 or DU.1?	Rhiannon12866	Mar 5	#200
This message was self-deleted by its author	seaglass	Mar 10	#201
Yes, unfortunately we have the answer.	Gormy Cuss	Mar 10	#202