Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

If anyone cares, here are my thoughts after reading your post.1) Who had the bright idea to let normal members discuss moderator actions? That can never lead to a good thing. People will get pissy over the slightest things.2) It seems that Rrhain was wrong saying you banned all those people, but since I haven't read his side of the story, I'll reserve judgement for now. Not that my judgement will make the slightest amount of diference anyway.3) Since the forum is still here, I'd say it hasn't collapsed.

I've read up until message 28 now. So far, all seems fine. I would have to read the thread Berberry is referring to to see if he is justified in his anger towards Nemesis Juggernaut. I can see how calling gays animals and rapists can be highly insulting to them. But since being "insulted" is a subjective thing, I'd have to see the way he worded it to judge that. For the record, no I don't think gays are like animals and rapists, and anyone who does think that is a bigoted fuck we can easily do without as a species. I'll keep reading the thread and see if I run into anything later on. Fair enough.

'twas Drjones*. And Adminnemooseus.

What puzzles me is how he misinterpreted that to mean that NJ thought homosexuals are kids and dogs. Is this what got all that started, cause it seems like an overreaction to me.

Weird. Could one of you (Taz? Frog?) explain to me how saying that is comparing gays to dogs/kids?Edited by Huntard, : did quote wrong

Indeed. I still can't quite wrap my head around it.

I must be reading things quite differently from you, because that is not what I take away from those quoted paragraphs.For instance: According to you this is where "NJ tells [you you're] gay".But that's not how I read it at all. The final sentence, where he says "For some reason, they are incapable of distinguishing that, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, they assume that I must somehow hate them for it.", the "them" there does not refer to anyone mentioned there, it refers to homosexuals in general. At least, that's how I read it.Or a possible second meaning, that he doesn't hate you for thinking homosexuality isn't a sin (or for failing to distinguish that he does), again not calling you a homosexual.I just cannot see it, I'm sorry.

I don't think he said that at all. I think he meant that he doesn't hate homosexuals in general for being gay. He never mentions you specifically, the "them" can refer to homosexuals in general. Quite.But that's not the sentence NJ used was it? He used something more along the lines of:"I believe that bank robbery is a crime, but I don't hate them for it, Huntard, Straggler and Bluejay".That's how I read it anyway. Again, I don't think that's what he meant. What does it matter anyway, so what if he thinks you're gay?

I wouldn't read it like that.Perhaps I happen to have friends or family that are "retarded", and your work has made life easier for them. Perhaps I simply like the way you work with "retarded" people, and you have inspired me to be a good person as best I can. All this would fit in with what you said. I'm not one to immediately assume the worst when a person writes something like that.Secondly, I couldn't give a flying fuck if you did call me retarded.My response to something like that? (If I thought you were insulting me)"I find it admirable that you take your time and spend it changing peoples diapers, because they can't do it anymore themselves."And that's a mild one.

Thank you. Well, like I said, if I thought you were insulting me, I'd say that. But then again, I wouldn't immediately assume you were. Well, I wasn't there, and haven't had the "pleasure" of conversing with NJ really. So I guess I'm not informed enough to accuraterly asses the situation.I will bow out of this thread. Thank you for the conversation.

He expects to make money out of the software of this site, which he wrote himself completely.

So, I did have the pleasure to converse with you.Well, in all this time you haven't struck me as someone who would do the things you are accused of here.So, either you've changed, or they're wrong.

Well, how about that! So, the "them" you used was indeed referring to homosexuals in general and not Taz, Dan, Crash and Berb. I rock! Hey, I was defending, you, and I "never met" you. Apparently.I'm glad my interpretation was the right one. Welcome back, I guess!

Nothing. There's no obligation on the part of the offended one to read any of it.If he pursues the offended one, and comments on all his posts with the material found offensive, then I think he should be asked to cease that behaviour, and perhaps open up a thread to discuss his views. A thread the offended ne has no obligation whatsoever to read. Of course if he persists, then I think a suspension should be in order, ever longer, until there is no way back and we'll have to say goodbye to that member. In this case he was being a bit of an asshole.Being offended does not make you special, however, there's some limit to civil discourse that should be taken into account.Note that I only think action should be taken when a member actively pursues the offended member. Not if he posts to a thread the offended one also posts to.

I agree. However, if you were to go around, pursuing said vegan, and replying to all of the vegan's post with something like "Heh, you should eat some meat", or other things in that category, I think being asked to cease such behaviour would be the right thing to do. Don't you think?