Zone1 Calling/accusing other members "groomer"

[Dogmaphobe]

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:


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

If you aren't protecting anybody, why was I banned for five days for posts YOU admitted were not violations, then?

Why am I being targeted with threats that I will be burned even if I do not violate any rules?

 

[Road Runner]

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:

That's the thing! Bob Blaylock mentioned somebody who activates the sexualization of children, but how are we supposed to prove that he himself is a pedo if police were to get involved? He is not quiet about advocating for it though. I know exactly who this person is though as I see it all the time on here.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

So there was a disagreement between mods. There will ALWAYS be disagreements between mods. Hopefully though, threads like this will help clarify things at bit more as to what is or is not an infraction.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

If you aren't protecting anybody, why was I banned for five days for posts YOU admitted were not violations, then?

Why am I being targeted with threats that I will be burned even if I do not violate any rules?

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.

If someone is threatening you, then give me links and add me to the DMs.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

That's the thing! Bob Blaylock mentioned somebody who activates the sexualization of children, but how are we supposed to prove that he himself is a pedo if police were to get involved? He is not quiet about advocating for it though. I know exactly who this person is though as I see it all the time on here.

You would prove it by doing the same thing you would on here when challenging someone on their views: quote their replies and provide links to them as well. Give your opinion and facts on why it is illegal, immoral, wrong, etc.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

Yes, I AM bringing it up on the open board so people can see the sort of shit you people pull.

NOBODY in this place should be targeted with threats that they will be burned for posts that are not violations.

Look, you can make this place as welcoming to people who want to sexualize children all you want. You can make it as hostile to those of us who oppose Child abuse all you want. It's your site.

Just don't play this game where you are denying the targeted nature of the posts you are removing, o.k.?

 

[Foxfyre]

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:


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

I would very much agree with that.

My only quarrel with all of this is singling out two sex-related crimes for explicit rules rather than making the rule that no member on a public forum may insinuate or accuse another member of a crime that is a legal offense.

 

[Foxfyre]

The protectorate has spake!

Not sure if you're agreeing with me or criticizing me here, but it's all good.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

If someone is threatening you, then give me links and add me to the DMs.

Coyote said:
Please. Spare us the disingenuous claims of innocence.

You: let’s see how close I can get to the line by a accusing members of being pedo without quite literally saying the P word.

Play with fire, you are going to get burned.

 

[Zincwarrior]

This is a robot.

I prefer the term synthetic person.

 

[Road Runner]

You would prove it by doing the same thing you would on here when challenging someone on their views: quote their replies and provide links to them as well. Give your opinion and facts on why it is illegal, immoral, wrong, etc.

Okay. My issues are:

1. I don't personally want to get involved with the police.

2. If the guy's not a pedo then I will be charged with filing a false report.

3. As I already said, the legal system is corrupt. I don't trust it at all.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

I would very much agree with that.

My only quarrel with all of this is singling out two sex-related crimes for explicit rules rather than making the rule that no member on a public forum may insinuate or accuse another member of a crime that is a legal offense.

We could very well change it to that. The only change made to that rule was adding the word "groomer". Pedo and beastiality have been there since CK posted the rules years ago.

 

[Zincwarrior]

What do you call the action of exposing children to pornographic images?

How do you refer to the person who just wants children to view pornographic images?

There is a difference between doing something and wanting something done. A statement that a poster WANTS to have something happen does not mean that HE is actually doing it.

You have accused me of being a homophobe MANY times for my objection to the sexualization of children using means such as these. Many times, indeed.

You don't object when it's hetero. But that's for another thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's the thing! Bob Blaylock mentioned somebody who activates the sexualization of children, but how are we supposed to prove that he himself is a pedo if police were to get involved? He is not quiet about advocating for it though. I know exactly who this person is though as I see it all the time on here.

If I were modding, I would say to a member: "Advocating or promoting or condoning the sexualization of children or exposing them to sexual content is wrong, evil, unacceptable, should be criminal etc., and it promotes grooming and pedophilia. But calling the person a groomer or pedophile is over the line. I think we're all bright enough to make that distinction.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You don't object when it's hetero. But that's for another thread.

You are lying

 

[BackAgain]

We could very well change it to that. The only change made to that rule was adding the word "groomer". Pedo and beastiality have been there since CK posted the rules years ago.

Pedo-bestiality involves some improper conduct with a puppy. I heard that from a smirking groomer.

Thank God that groomer isn’t a member here at USMB.

 

[Road Runner]

If I were modding, I would say to a member: "Advocating or promoting or condoning the sexualization of children or exposing them to sexual content is wrong, evil, unacceptable, should be criminal etc., and it promotes grooming and pedophilia. But calling the person a groomer or pedophile is over the line. I think we're all bright enough to make that distinction.

Point taken.

 

[Michelle420]

I have Zinc on ignore, there is a power imbalance so I have to just scroll past the screen name, unless they use gestapo red letters then I would be forced to read the nonsense.

SO MODS will need to use RED LETTERS if you are modding me otherwise I choose to ignore you.

I am sure it won't hurt a robots feelings.

 

[Lastamender]

Calling someone a "groomer enabler" is the same thing as calling them a groomer. Don't twist it. Don't imply it.

You can question people on their views without accusing.

View attachment 753952

Excuse me, but Biden supporters are enabling the destruction of this country. What is the difference?

 

[Foxfyre]

We could very well change it to that. The only change made to that rule was adding the word "groomer". Pedo and beastiality have been there since CK posted the rules years ago.

I think it would be good and appropriate to make a general rule of not accusing anybody on this forum of committing a crime or being a criminal. You can include the other specific prohibitions of not posting porn/beastiality etc. but singling out two or three things we can't accuse other members of I think does give the impression that such people are protected while all others are not. I think reasonable rules should be as universal and blanket as possible. Once you start naming specific crimes, it is too easy to think other types of crimes don't apply.

It was why some Founders objected to including a 'Bill of Rights' in the Constitution. Once you specify certain rights that are protected, many will assume that if a right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution then it is not a constitutionally protected right. The intent was that ALL unalienable rights cannot be infringed by the government.