Ask the Moderators

[Annoyed]

Well we're certainly hoping that regulars will embrace the "spirit of the law," rather than toeing around the letter. Those who start testing the line to see where they can get away with crossing it will quickly find themselves on moderation.

As always, of course, mods are the final arbiters of what the rules mean and where the line is.

I don't like the new laws so I won't be embracing them, but I will abide by their intent.

[SoulReaver]

I would hope that take action against any individual posters who try end runs around the rules rather than closing threads.

why couldn't they have done that instead of closing the politics threads to begin with? the pretense was that those threads got hostile yet clearly nearly all participants abstained from any personal attacks & remained civil

[Bagpuss]

SoulReaver,you can have one last public reply from us before we go to private message.
You've been a member since 2004,so I think you should already know how things work,and shouldn't really need this spelled out.
However: here goes.Your claims are public,so they've already been read by others.

1)"They" already took action in various ways,and will continue to do so.See Darren's post.

2) We will not be listing who we've ever talked to or moderated.Members' privacy is more valued by us than you may realise.

3) Quite a few posts were deleted all along from that discussion,and from other those threads closed down recently - they aren't going to be reinstated and linked to,because that's long-standing policy here.
If that makes you or others think everything looks rosy,that's fine by us.

4) There's no "pretense" or deceit going on.Since this forum began,threads all over the forums were closed down or even removed from public view once they'd disintegrated into infighting or for other reasons.

5) We prefer to just lock threads,because that's easier on members and leaves whatever was said archived - minus any posts that were deleted by Mods or by the members who created the posts.

Do NOT reply here.I await your private message.This has been a statement not a beginning of a he said - she said conversation.

[Gatefan1976]

What will be GW's policy on political or religious topics -as they specifically relate to a show/episode-?
Shows like SPN and Lucifer simply cannot avoid some kind or religious connotation, and despite what some here say, politics or supposesed "SJW" topics have been a mainstay theme in nearly ALL scifi shows over time.
Not looking for an "out", looking to know what the rules are.

[Bagpuss]

Hi Gatefan!

In-show related discussion of those topics should be fine,as long as the discussions remain civil,and don't end up in infighting etc.

It'd be hard to not talk about religion in any way,given the whole premise of SPN being all about Angels,Demons and Hunters,or to say Trek discussions need to avoid any mention of the way the Federation and show/movie universe is set up - and the Prime Directive alone used to always provide good debatable issues re TNG!

[Gatefan1976]

Hi Gatefan!

In-show related discussion of those topics should be fine,as long as the discussions remain civil,and don't end up in infighting etc.

It'd be hard to not talk about religion in any way,given the whole premise of SPN being all about Angels,Demons and Hunters,or to say Trek discussions need to avoid any mention of the way the Federation and show/movie universe is set up - and the Prime Directive alone used to always provide good debatable issues re TNG!

Cool.
Just wanted to check, especially given some of the discussions around stuff like Dr Who ATM.

[Bagpuss]

You're welcome,GF!

Doctor Who has always included political and ecological issues the showrunners wanted to raise ,and current DW is no different.

[Gatefan1976]

You're welcome,GF!

Doctor Who has always included political and ecological issues the showrunners wanted to raise ,and current DW is no different.

I don't particularly want to consider this tangent here, it's simply not the place, but what I very much DO wanted to make clear is weather we posters can consider these issues when discussing our shows or episodes.
Thanks as always Baggie, much love.

[Bagpuss]

Understood,GF,and much love to you too.

[Gatefan1976]

Guess I better changer Rygel, dropping flaming pee all over everyone is not in the new mission statement

[Bagpuss]

No way! Any Farscaper knows he's a gem.

[Gatefan1976]

He's the lord Dominar DAMMIT!!!
but given WHY I chose the Avi, it might be best (there is always a deeper meaning)
I mean, how many of my posts have you had to delete??

[Gatefan1976]

Perhaps I should go for Stanly, he's pretty pedestrian and not well known. Zev might give the wrong impression

[Bagpuss]

Any deletions are now history,and not taken in any way personally by any mods who deleted them.

I can go look if you're serious,but I'd keep that to pm.PM away!

I'll also have to defer to you on which FS character to install as an avatar.It's been ages since I last had time to watch much FS or other fave shows aside from DW,so my memory's not great on who's who.

[Gatefan1976]

Any deletions are now history,and not taken in any way personally by any mods who deleted them.

It's done now, and that's the rules, I have no issues.

I can go look if you're serious,but I'd keep that to pm.PM away!

Done and dusted, I'm just accepting some cupability.

I'll also have to defer to you on which FS character to install as an avatar.It's been ages since I last had time to watch much FS or other fave shows aside from DW,so my memory's not great on who's who.

They were Lexx characters, perhaps a little bit to raunchy for GW
Especially Zev.
I'm a Story fan, not a series fan (they just help) SG-1 and SGA got my attention because they were fun little shows who told decent stories sometimes, more like 80's storytelling (90's got more focussed).
I like stories, what can I say?