Zone1 Calling/accusing other members "groomer"

[AMart]

Then he gets to post articles teaching sex to kids. You can't just allow it.

It's up to mods. Why they would allow that is stunning. The best thing is that if all of the normal people who post here should put him on ignore, just ignore him.

 

[Michelle420]

It's up to mods. Why they would allow that is stunning. The best thing is that if all of the normal people who post here should put him on ignore, just ignore him.

Well my sister killed herself she was raped at 10 years old by a pedo and she never got over it. SO I can't ignore anyone normalizing it or posting articles that normalize it.

 

[Gracie]

Long story. Won't bother. I was molested when I was around 10 years old. No details. Just lots of shuddering remembering it from this thread. Solution right after it happened? "Ignore it. Here, have a piece of gum".

Yes. HAVE A PIECE OF GUM. IGNORE IT. And nothing was done.

So, y'all. Just IGNORE IT instead of FIXING THE WRONG.

 

[miketx]

You are prevented from accusing other posters only. If you believe they are in fact doing that you may report them.

Oh, that will take care of them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yet, this is exactly the sorts of posts getting censored.

It's all VERY selective.

Again I can't agree or disagree with you on that because I haven't seen the posts or participated in those discussions.

I at times have trained people in how to use Twitter back when censorship of conservatives was not only rampant but policy. (That was less than a year ago.)

My counsel there was/is always, get it said but be smart in how you say it.
For example, there is a huge difference between saying:
"Your statement/point of view is the very same that groomers use with their prey"
and
"When you say that, you are a groomer."

There is a huge difference between saying:
"Sending soft or explicit porn pictures to kids is evil, reprehensible, illegal, unacceptable"
and
"You're a pedophile."

The second statement in both cases is fair game to be censored. But if the first statement is censored, then I believe the censorship is excessive and does appear to protect an illegal activity.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's up to mods. Why they would allow that is stunning.

It's actually beyond allow when they actively protect him.

He absolutely LOVES rubbing people noses in the fact that he is promoting the sexualization of children through the use of gay pornography, and the mods are sending him the message that they have his back.

He's only going to rub it in more now that he's helping to craft the rules.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh, that will take care of them.

Remember, Mike, the quicker you contact a mod, the quicker nothing will be done about it!

 

[the other mike]

I was groomed to be normal. Damn you Mom for making me watch Mister Roger's.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Again I can't agree or disagree with you on that because I haven't seen the posts or participated in those discussions.

I at times have trained people in how to use Twitter back when censorship of conservatives was not only rampant but policy. (That was less than a year ago.)

My counsel there was/is always, get it said but be smart in how you say it.
For example, there is a huge difference between saying:
"Your statement/point of view is the very same that groomers use with their prey"
and
"When you say that, you are a groomer."

The second statement is fair game to be censored. But if the first statement is censored, then I believe the censorship is excessive and does appear to protect an illegal activity.

When one poster talked about the sexual awakening of 2-4 year old children, I pointed out that he was using language that pedophiles use.

I was censored and told I could not say such things.

I have been told explicitly that I do not have to actually break rules for them to infract me, censor me or ban me.

The word used was that I would be burned.

 

[Foxfyre]

When one poster talked about the sexual awakening of 2-4 year old children, I pointed out that he was using language that pedophiles use.

I was censored and told I could not say such things.

I have been told explicitly that I do not have to actually break rules for them to infract me, censor me or ban me.

The word used was that I would be burned.

So long as you are not accusing the person, but are criticizing or expressing an opinion about the argument the person makes, you should not be censored or warned. But insinuating--you talk like a pedophile; you act like a pedophile, etc.--or directly accusing a person of pedophilia or any other crime should not be acceptable.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So long as you are not accusing the person, but are criticizing or expressing an opinion about the argument the person makes, you should not be censored or warned. But insinuating--you talk like a pedophile; you act like a pedophile, etc.--or directly accusing a person of pedophilia or any other crime should not be acceptable.

Meh

I had three postings censored recently by Coyote who threated that she would burn me even for posts that didn't cross the line, and Aye has verified that they were not infractions.

I was banned for 5 days for posts that were not even violations.

Does it get any clearer than that which side of this whole child sex argument this forum is protecting?

I was removed because I am a very well spoken and very motivated opponent of child sexualization.

 

[Michelle420]

Long story. Won't bother. I was molested when I was around 10 years old. No details. Just lots of shuddering remembering it from this thread. Solution right after it happened? "Ignore it. Here, have a piece of gum".

Yes. HAVE A PIECE OF GUM. IGNORE IT. And nothing was done.

So, y'all. Just IGNORE IT instead of FIXING THE WRONG.

So sorry that happened.

 

[Foxfyre]

Meh

I had three postings censored recently by Coyote who threated that she would burn me even for posts that didn't cross the line, and Aye has verified that they were not infractions.

I was banned for 5 days for posts that were not even violations.

Does it get any clearer than that which side of this whole child sex argument this forum is protecting?

There is nothing you can say to convince me that Coyote intends to support grooming or any other sex crime or what should be sex crime. I just don't think she is that kind of person.

But I can see how the policy described by AyeCantSeeYou in the OP does make it appear USMB protects people in one kind of crime but not all. And again, without seeing the specific posts, I can't really evaluate whether they were over the line or not. I know I have been chastised on other boards/platforms for 'infractions' that I honestly believed were not and today believe they are not. So I give everybody benefit of the doubt.

Having been one, I also know mods are 100% human, often conflicted, don't always agree among themselves, sometimes get it wrong or let personal opinions/feelings/circumstances/relationships affect judgment in interpreting and enforcing the rules. As an 'unofficial' hostess with no disciplinary powers whatsoever, I run into that every once in awhile in the Zone 1 USMB Coffee Shop and really struggle at times deciding if somebody inadvertently strayed over the line with one of the few rules for that particular thread and I need to say something.

So I think the discussion on this thread is healthy. I hope the mods will re-evaluate singling out one or two crimes as illegal to accuse somebody but ignore all the other crimes that people can be accused of. And I hope a distinction can be made between attacking somebody's argument as supporting criminal activity and accusing that person of being a criminal because he/she promoted something we believe is criminal.

It should be illegal to accuse ANYBODY of committing ANY crime in an open forum here.

 

[Road Runner]

Did you read what she said? Put your money where your trashy mouth and mind is and report anyone who is a groomer to authorities yourself, or report to a mod that someone is a pedophile or pushing pedophilia and they will report it or permanent ban the groomer.

if you believe someone is truly a groomer, a pedophile, ......that is some serious shit that authorities need to know asap!

otherwise you are just flapping at the mouth at a political opponent to score some kind of disgusting dig points.

Yeah, but trying to prove somebody as a pedophile/groomer when dealing with the authorities is easier said than done and the legal system is as corrupt as it is.

There is nothing I could say to make anything better. It makes me feel physically ill to read these things. I'm sorry you had to live with this.

And

It's so bad now that me, a 30 year teacher, cannot say I love kids. It seems prurient, that's how far gone we are. Isn't that sad?

But simply for the fact that I am a public school teacher, I have been called a "groomer". That's uncalled for too.

Now false accusations are an entire different matter. The way I see it though are actions are louder than words when it comes to proving a pedo is a pedo.

There is a lot of misconception about the rule. All the mods discussed it. Flacaltenn essentially announced it months ago when this whole thing started and groomer became the new pedo word.

There are multiple people here who have been victims of childhood sexual abuse. Some are open about it, many are not. It is still to shameful. Most of us are older and of a generation where you didn’t talk about it. Bones pointed out that children today are encouraged to. They are taught from a young age that they have valid boundaries, they have the right to say no and are taught what is appropriate and inappropriate. That NEVER happened in my generation. The idea that I child could say “no” to an adult simply wasn’t allowed.

Today, the sexual abuse of children is THE MOST horrible crime a person can commit in our society. Worse than rape, worse than murder because it scars a child forever and the shame and feeling that you are somehow responsible for the act never leaves.

False accusations of pedo also have a devastating effect on a person and their family. I know of someone who was falsely accused and exonerated, but the damage was done. He committed suicide.

We have no way of knowing who is and isn’t a pedo here. This is an anonymous messageboard. We have members who think anyone who is a democrat is a pedo, anyone who is a teacher is a groomer, anyone who has differences in what is and isn’t age appropriate literature is a pedo or groomer. We can’t even talk about it anymore because some invariably gets accused.

You aren’t exposing pedos with this, you are ending discussion with a lynch mob because you THINK someone is a pedo/groomer and most of time, it is political.

Not being able to call a member that doesn’t stop you from attacking their ideas and arguments one bit, and that is all we are asking for here. Attack the content, not the member.

You also have a way to act, if you really think someone is pedo. Make your case to a Sr Mod, if they agree, they will contact the appropriate authorities and let you go after the member. Flac and other mods have stated this multiple times and no one has yet to contact them as far as I know. That leads me to think the accusations leveled at members is more likely advanced weaponry in our political warfare.

I know somebody who was falsely accused too and he isn't anything like a lot of the creeps that I've run across on here.

NO! What was stated is that calling another member a groomer is off limits. There have been far too many people on this forum using that word in place of pedophile. Context is everything! Instead of stating why someone thinks another member is a groomer, they just say the word itself. No explanation, no quoting replies, no anything .... just "you're a groomer". It's easy to accuse someone of something when no explanation as to why is required. There are more ways to show that someone is an enabler and/or groomer than by saying just that word. If someone is advocating for it, then challenge them on it! Point out WHY you see it that way. Tell them that their actions/thoughts (detailed) are what you consider something a groomer would do. It's not hard to do, just takes a few more keystrokes on the keyboard.

What if you do have context though? With all due respect, it still seems very much like you guys are trying to protect their precious little feelings.

Well my sister killed herself she was raped at 10 years old by a pedo and she never got over it. SO I can't ignore anyone normalizing it or posting articles that normalize it.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[miketx]

It's actually beyond allow when they actively protect him.

He absolutely LOVES rubbing people noses in the fact that he is promoting the sexualization of children through the use of gay pornography, and the mods are sending him the message that they have his back.

He's only going to rub it in more now that he's helping to craft the rules.

One can only wonder what a person who posts things like that next step will be when they tire of talk and reading.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There is nothing you can say to convince me that Coyote intends to support grooming or any other sex crime or what should be sex crime. I just don't think she is that kind of person.

But I can see how the policy described by AyeCantSeeYou in the OP does make it appear USMB protects people in one kind of crime but not all. And again, without seeing the specific posts, I can't really evaluate whether they were over the line or not. I know I have been chastised on other boards/platforms for 'infractions' that I honestly believed were not and today believe they are not. So I give everybody benefit of the doubt.

Having been one, I also know mods are 100% human, often conflicted, don't always agree among themselves, sometimes get it wrong or let personal opinions/feelings/circumstances/relationships affect judgment in interpreting and enforcing the rules. As an 'unofficial' hostess with no disciplinary powers whatsoever, I run into that every once in awhile in the Zone 1 USMB Coffee Shop and really struggle at times deciding if somebody inadvertently strayed over the line with one of the few rules for that particular thread and I need to say something.

So I think the discussion on this thread is healthy. I hope the mods will re-evaluate singling out one or two crimes as illegal to accuse somebody but ignore all the other crimes that people can be accused of. And I hope a distinction can be made between attacking somebody's argument as supporting criminal activity and accusing that person of being a criminal because he/she promoted something we believe is criminal.

It should be illegal to accuse ANYBODY of committing ANY crime in an open forum here.

What you THINK of Coyote has no bearing on the matter.

The truth of the matter is that she has, indeed threatened to burn me for making posts that are not violations, proceeded to do just that, and banned me for 5 days. Aye has confirmed that they were, in fact, not posts that should have been infracted.

That shouldn't be difficult for you to understand.

 

[miketx]

There is nothing you can say to convince me that Coyote intends to support grooming or any other sex crime or what should be sex crime. I just don't think she is that kind of person.

But I can see how the policy described by AyeCantSeeYou in the OP does make it appear USMB protects people in one kind of crime but not all. And again, without seeing the specific posts, I can't really evaluate whether they were over the line or not. I know I have been chastised on other boards/platforms for 'infractions' that I honestly believed were not and today believe they are not. So I give everybody benefit of the doubt.

Having been one, I also know mods are 100% human, often conflicted, don't always agree among themselves, sometimes get it wrong or let personal opinions/feelings/circumstances/relationships affect judgment in interpreting and enforcing the rules. As an 'unofficial' hostess with no disciplinary powers whatsoever, I run into that every once in awhile in the Zone 1 USMB Coffee Shop and really struggle at times deciding if somebody inadvertently strayed over the line with one of the few rules for that particular thread and I need to say something.

So I think the discussion on this thread is healthy. I hope the mods will re-evaluate singling out one or two crimes as illegal to accuse somebody but ignore all the other crimes that people can be accused of. And I hope a distinction can be made between attacking somebody's argument as supporting criminal activity and accusing that person of being a criminal because he/she promoted something we believe is criminal.

It should be illegal to accuse ANYBODY of committing ANY crime in an open forum here.

The protectorate has spake!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The protectorate has spake!

Her response was like one of those "oh, Billy, I know Uncle Burt and Uncle Burt would never do those things!"

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

What if you do have context though? With all due respect, it still seems very much like you guys are trying to protect their precious little feelings.

We aren't protecting anyone. Context is the key, always has been. You wouldn't go around calling someone a thief without being able to explain why, right? Why call someone a child groomer without reason? Foxfyre (and others) have already tried to tell people what we are asking:

My counsel there was/is always, get it said but be smart in how you say it.
For example, there is a huge difference between saying:
"Your statement/point of view is the very same that groomers use with their prey"
and
"When you say that, you are a groomer."

There is a huge difference between saying:
"Sending soft or explicit porn pictures to kids is evil, reprehensible, illegal, unacceptable"
and
"You're a pedophile."

The second statement in both cases is fair game to be censored. But if the first statement is censored, then I believe the censorship is excessive and does appear to protect an illegal activity.

The first statements are what we allow. The second ones are not.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

What you THINK of Coyote has no bearing on the matter.

The truth of the matter is that she has, indeed threatened to burn me for making posts that are not violations, proceeded to do just that, and banned me for 5 days. Aye has confirmed that they were, in fact, not posts that should have been infracted.

That shouldn't be difficult for you to understand.

Since you insist on bringing this up on the open forum, some of your posts in that particular thread did violate rules by containing all personal attacks and not containing content related to the thread topic. There were a few others that I would have left alone.