Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/14/08 06:25 PM, Scrotaculous wrote:
So mods can just say faggot whenever they want because they are so cool. And it's such a nice just like every racial slur and whatnot.

Yup.

We used to post porn, too.

Ah, I miss the good ol' days....

At 12/14/08 06:25 PM, Scrotaculous wrote: So mods can just say faggot whenever they want because they are so cool. And it's such a nice just like every racial slur and whatnot.

Different mods have different views on what is acceptable.

Damn, I remember when they were allowed to kill and rape those who broke the rules.

At 12/14/08 08:29 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

At 12/14/08 06:25 PM, Scrotaculous wrote: So mods can just say faggot whenever they want because they are so cool. And it's such a nice just like every racial slur and whatnot.

Different mods have different views on what is acceptable.

Damn, I remember when they were allowed to kill and rape those who broke the rules.

They should still set the example considering one of "The Big Ones" is Using racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful language. Mods can't have different views on those or else they aren't doing their jobs.

You're being kinda gay Scrotaculous.

At 12/14/08 08:33 PM, Scrotaculous wrote: They should still set the example considering one of "The Big Ones" is Using racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful language. Mods can't have different views on those or else they aren't doing their jobs.

Oh, but they are, you see, not every moderator considers the word "faggot" to be homophobic or hateful. It's a bit like when two people look at a picture and they can't decide if a shade is purple or pink.

At 12/14/08 08:35 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

At 12/14/08 08:33 PM, Scrotaculous wrote: They should still set the example considering one of "The Big Ones" is Using racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful language. Mods can't have different views on those or else they aren't doing their jobs.

Oh, but they are, you see, not every moderator considers the word "faggot" to be homophobic or hateful. It's a bit like when two people look at a picture and they can't decide if a shade is purple or pink.

Well it is homophobic and hateful in the context he used it in, so therefore, he is either an idiot or is using the word to be offense towards homosexual. He wasn't describing cigarettes or firewood bundles.

At 12/14/08 08:38 PM, Scrotaculous wrote: Well it is homophobic and hateful in the context he used it in, so therefore, he is either an idiot or is using the word to be offense towards homosexual. He wasn't describing cigarettes or firewood bundles.

Well, first off, the word homophobic is a misnomer. Secondly, from what I understand from the sermons of Pastor Fred Phelps, Snr., the term faggot as a term of abuse came about from firewood and was used to describe sinners, because as firewood, they would burn in Hell.

If it's that much of a big deal, send TomFulp a PM about it. I hardly find this to be a crisis of leadership though.

At 12/14/08 08:44 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: I hardly find this to be a crisis of leadership though.

Yeah I guess you're right. There is nothing wrong with setting double standards about what is right and wrong to do in the forum. Obviously it's entirely fair for some mods to ban users for saying faggot at all, while other mods throw the word around like it's not a problem.

At 12/14/08 08:51 PM, Scrotaculous wrote:

At 12/14/08 08:44 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: I hardly find this to be a crisis of leadership though.

Yeah I guess you're right.

Might is right, that's the way the world works. That you are getting this worked up about a word is incredulous.

At 12/14/08 08:33 PM, Scrotaculous wrote: They should still set the example considering one of "The Big Ones" is Using racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful language. Mods can't have different views on those or else they aren't doing their jobs.

The word "job" implies I get paid.

I don't.

You were saying?

BTW, if you read the rules, bitching like a whiny 'mo about the moderation staff is ALSO a bannable offense, the main difference being I can ban you, and you CAN'T ban me.

Dig?

If I were to chase "homosexuals" around the forum calling them "faggot" then yes, yes, I'm being a "bad mod" (whatever the fuck THAT means). However, this is clearly NOT the case.

Jesus, whine like a little girl much?

At 12/14/08 08:52 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

At 12/14/08 08:51 PM, Scrotaculous wrote:

At 12/14/08 08:44 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: I hardly find this to be a crisis of leadership though.

Yeah I guess you're right.

Might is right, that's the way the world works. That you are getting this worked up about a word is incredulous.

There is absolutely no reason to use the word in that context. You are just an ignorant fuck that likes to argue about things. I could care less what you think of me, because i'm making a point and you are just ignoring the obvious.

At 12/14/08 08:24 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 12/14/08 06:25 PM, Scrotaculous wrote:
So mods can just say faggot whenever they want because they are so cool. And it's such a nice just like every racial slur and whatnot.

Yup.

We post porn, too.

Fixed.

At 12/14/08 08:56 PM, Scrotaculous wrote: There is absolutely no reason to use the word in that context. You are just an ignorant fuck that likes to argue about things.

I'm ignorant because I don't get offended by a word? I am well aware that people do get offended by the word, put people get offended by everything. I'm ignorant because I disagree with the principle that you agree with? That doesn't make sense either.

I am pretty sure that you are doing your best to use words that you don't have to use, just to add meat to your criticism of me and your criticism of me is quite simple: you don't like my point of view, therefore I'm wrong. That is the second time that you've misused a word. We all make mistakes, but you just seem to be on an antagonising and smearing campaign. Do you see me trying to give you abuse? No. I recall an episode in The Ingenious Gentleman, Don Quixote Of La Mancha, Volume I, where a priest tries to insult Don Quixote and Don Quixote's hosts are unhappy aobut this, but amused at it. Don Quixote doesn't rise to the occasion and says that men of the cloth use their tounges much like women do - because their profession does not allow them to settle arguments by arms.

Insulting people that you disagree with is not manly and it is not clever. In fact, it damages your side of the argument. It's an argument that you can't win, because it's about ideology, I can't win it either. The difference is, you are saying something should be and I am saying that something is and always will be.

The difference between our point of views are that mine hols that not only is Funk in the right, but that you are powerless to do anything about it. Go on, see if you can get him demodded for his awesome abuse of power. Power can't be abused. If you feel that he has failed as a moderator, go over his head, don't whine to people who are in no position to do anything about it and who wont necceserily take your side.

So.... should I ban this fag for being whiny?

I leave this in your hands, NG posters who give a shit about this issue....

At 12/14/08 09:06 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: So.... should I ban this fag for being whiny?

I leave this in your hands, NG posters who give a shit about this issue....

Is there a way that I can say yes without backseat modding?

At 12/14/08 08:53 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
The word "job" implies I get paid.

I don't.

You were saying?

Fine it's your responsibility as a forum mod. A job: anything a person is expected or obliged to do; duty; responsibility

BTW, if you read the rules, bitching like a whiny 'mo about the moderation staff is ALSO a bannable offense, the main difference being I can ban you, and you CAN'T ban me.

Dig?

I haven't insulted or harrased you, I asked you why you have double standards. So ban me and be all high and mighty.

If I were to chase "homosexuals" around the forum calling them "faggot" then yes, yes, I'm being a "bad mod" (whatever the fuck THAT means). However, this is clearly NOT the case.

You were using the word faggot to describe someone you consider gay, therefore setting the example that it's okay to call gay people faggots. So get over yourself.

Jesus, whine like a little girl much?

I'm surprised you didn't say faggot.....

At 12/14/08 09:06 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: So.... should I ban this fag for being whiny?

I leave this in your hands, NG posters who give a shit about this issue....

Dear God, YES!!!! Ban the little whiney bastard!!! I HATE HIS KIND!!!

At 12/14/08 09:08 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: Is there a way that I can say yes without backseat modding?

Yes. You just did it.

Let's see how many more votes this gets... I'm thinking three is about enough...

At 12/14/08 09:09 PM, Scrotaculous wrote: Fine it's your responsibility as a forum mod. A job: anything a person is expected or obliged to do; duty; responsibility

Mmmm.... yes... because we people who post on forums a lot are famous for being responsible... indeed. You do understand the ENTIRE purpose of having moderators is to keep whiny users like you from posting boring and uninteresting things on the forum, yes?

I haven't insulted or harrased you, I asked you why you have double standards. So ban me and be all high and mighty.

I will... if you get enough votes. Or not.

This is what we call "having fun."

You should try it. As opposed to getting all up assed that I called Kurt Cobaineeeeeee a faggot.

You were using the word faggot to describe someone you consider gay, therefore setting the example that it's okay to call gay people faggots. So get over yourself.

Um... I hang out with a lot of gay people, and in general, they say faggot as much as anyone else. ALSO, the rules state "OVERUSE" of the word faggot is bannable, NOT USING IT AT ALL.

Of course, none of that applies to me, because frankly, I could probably have that rule changed if I tried hard enough.

I'm surprised you didn't say faggot.....

OMG! YOU SAID THE "F" WORD!!! OMFG!!!! UR GUNNA GET BANNED!!!THAT'S AGAINST TEH RULEZ!!!

FUNKbrs should be banned for derailing BatDans topic into a train collision of trolling and moderator abuse.

And for having a small penis.

At 12/14/08 09:18 PM, AshfordPride wrote: FUNKbrs should be banned for derailing BatDans topic into a train collision of trolling and moderator abuse.

And for having a small penis.

I agree with BOTH of these!

yaayyyy!

At 12/14/08 09:18 PM, AshfordPride wrote: FUNKbrs should be banned for derailing BatDans topic into a train collision of trolling and moderator abuse.

And for having a small penis.

oh man...

the shit just hit the fan.

If you break these rules, you'll earn an instant ban regardless of which moderator sees the post(s).

* Using racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful language.

So where is the part about what you said. Oh that's right, you don't even care enough about being a mod to realize they changed the rules. Why don't you just get demodded since you just use it as an e-penis boost and to have power rather than be productive.

At 12/14/08 09:18 PM, AshfordPride wrote: FUNKbrs should be banned for derailing BatDans topic into a train collision of trolling and moderator abuse.

Hey, I derailed all of not shit. It's scroticle boy that got all up assed.

And for having a small penis.

You're just mad I won't let you see it.

ROLLING STONE
When I get my picture on the cover
ROLLING STONE
Gonna send five copies to my mother!

An article about Mr. Burns

At 12/14/08 09:30 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Hey, I derailed all of not shit. It's scroticle boy that got all up assed.

Yeah, sure. I agree. Because you're the mod. I MUST BE MISTAKEN. NOT YOU. OH INFALLIBLE ONE.

And for having a small penis.

You're just mad I won't let you see it.

(._. )

( ._.)

Ban for Scrotaculous, for derailing what appeared to be a decent topic with his bitching.

To stay remotely on topic, it's a tiny, tiny politics section, easily made fun of, but even easier to ignore. Just like the rest of the magazine. And Kurt Cobain? Decent at best.

I think I know a fair and decent way to settle this: if Kurt Cobain takes offense to being called a faggot, he can tell us and we can apologise to him.

At 12/14/08 09:39 PM, HitTheTarget wrote: Ban for Scrotaculous, for derailing what appeared to be a decent topic with his bitching.

but didn't FUNKbrs only add on to the problem by continuing the arugment with Scrotaculous? and shoudn't funk have not posted that banned word in the first place?

ethier way i don't wanna get involved.

At 12/14/08 09:50 PM, homor wrote: but didn't FUNKbrs only add on to the problem by continuing the arugment with Scrotaculous? and shoudn't funk have not posted that banned word in the first place?

ethier way i don't wanna get involved.

THE ROLLING STONE IS A MAGAZINE FOR MUSICIANS AND MUSIC FANS, AND THEREFORE IS NOT BY ANY MEANS AN EXPERT SOURCE FOR FAIR AND UNBIASED POLITICAL REPORTING. IN FACT, IT COULD BE SAID WITH SOME ACCURACY THAT THE ROLLING STONE WOULD PROBABLY PUBLISH ANYTHING THAT WOULD RESONATE WELL WITH IT'S READERS, MUCH AS THE INQUIRER OR WEEKLY WORLD NEWS DOES ALREADY.

homorsexual.

At 12/14/08 09:50 PM, homor wrote:

At 12/14/08 09:39 PM, HitTheTarget wrote: Ban for Scrotaculous, for derailing what appeared to be a decent topic with his bitching.

but didn't FUNKbrs only add on to the problem by continuing the arugment with Scrotaculous? and shoudn't funk have not posted that banned word in the first place?

ethier way i don't wanna get involved.

It may be controversial, but it appears to have some backing.