ActRaiserTheReturned

*Ahem* Important Question(s) On New Policy In Moderation

So, I get it. You warn once. You once.

My question is, um. . . What if someone accidentally posts something that kind of fits the bill for what's allowed and what's not allowed at the same time?
I mean, I had to be warned repeatedly, and banned for good in Old Guild for being "Racist", "Bigoted", even though, I didn't really do anything to warrant such moderation. I'm a little confused on safe such a "warn once", "ban once" policy is. Such, "Zero Tolerance" policies are, IMHO stupid, whether or not anyone asked me for my opinion. It isn't a good idea to adopt zero tolerance policies. They eventually lead to zero reason and zero responsibility from those in moderation of a message board. I've seen it too many times, not that I"m talking about RolePlayer Guild, but many others.

Answer violence with violence?

Ahem.
Well, yes. We must somehow stop a bastard from acting like a bastard. If the jerk does something like this to a child, they must be stopped. I would prefer we get to mash their balls to paste so they never get to abuse another child again from their own progeny but I KNOW that's wrong. lol.

But in all seriousness, there's nothing wrong in giving them some sort of physical pain equal to what they've done to a child, or at least close enough to it so that they won't harm them again. You could, for example, cane them the French way, until their ass cheeks are almost sliced off lol. One thing that is possible is that a perpetrator only succumbs to a moment of lunacy and/or idiocy once, and never does their crime again. In that case, perhaps very light corporal punishment and a fine is good. If they are repeat offenders, the said child must be given to the custody of a compassionate person, and the "Father" or whomever abused the child should be punished severely. Not necessarily permanently, but in a way which is very hurtful to drive home the point that they are being punished and WILL NOT abuse children again, or ELSE!

Something like this should be done for non-Parents, just abusers in general as well.

I think 90% of the people with an opinion about the "Nice Guy" serial killer

Jster said
Do you mean biologically? Or just using the word Bastard as an insult?

Well like the guy who told me to read the Manifesto said, it's possible he was actually crazy, but it doesn't mean his insanity caused his violent actions.
He could have been both a bastard an a crazy.

I think 90% of the people with an opinion about the "Nice Guy" serial killer

The Nexerus said
What Rex obviously meant is that he didn't deserve a relationship, represented by the formerly universally accepted but now suddenly politically incorrect phrase, "getting a girlfriend". A phrase that is not remotely sexist on its own and that can, does and has travelled in both directions.He was mentally unstable and wildly egotistical. He wouldn't have been able to carry on a relationship. That is why he didn't deserve one.It wasn't society that made him murder four men and two women, it was his own mental issues. All of the claims that "the patriarchy" or misogyny are to blame for his murders are absurd.

He was a bastard, most likely. Not some psycho nut, although some murderers are.

Kute Role Play *Kitties, Puppies, Hedgehog, etcetera*

antman0623 said
So, whats the deets?

This is fine. But still not enough players for any significant kind of character sheet.

Hell Is A Giant Insane Asylum *Survivor Horror*

4weekcoma said
Interested? What level will this be? (Casual?,

yes, Casual.

The Isla Visa Shooter, Elliot Roger, was disturbing to the highest level

He was evil.
The end.

Well thats one spammer down.

Raxacoricofallapatorius said
Hm, Jorick is too closely tied to the mods and other influential members, tyranny would be (is?) too easy. We should elect someone from outside their circle.

I'm a good idea.
Everyone ignores me.

Well thats one spammer down.

I finally have a neat little gif in my signature.

Well thats one spammer down.

Hmmm. . .
What's all this?