Updated TOS Rumors

Liatris2010

My two cents:

A little leeway in rules is good. If you want to consider the polar bear gifs trolling, then the puppy gifs, and bat signals, and crabs, and hydrogen peroxide all have to go too. I would be sad if there were no puppies.

Taking context into account is good. Sophhabobopha's signature gets reported all. the. time. But when SS # 7 reports it, I know it has been there and wasn't a personal attack against SS # 7, even if she is a bitch, because context. So the siggy pic stays and it is NBD.

And because the lines aren't hard and fast, you get 5 warnings before a ban. Seems pretty reasonable to me, and way more fun than if pictures, gifs, and tangents all become verboten.

KatWAG

thespeshulestsnowflake said:

levioosa said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

I have. Remember bscrazybeans?

I remember her, but did people actually change their signatures? I mean people reference crazies who have appeared, but usually in threads, not their signatures.

I am late to the game but didn't some SS get offended by Maggie"s sig like 1-2 years ago?

sophhabobopha

Liatris2010 said:

My two cents:

A little leeway in rules is good. If you want to consider the polar bear gifs trolling, then the puppy gifs, and bat signals, and crabs, and hydrogen peroxide all have to go too. I would be sad if there were no puppies.

Taking context into account is good. Sophhabobopha's signature gets reported all. the. time. But when SS # 7 reports it, I know it has been there and wasn't a personal attack against SS # 7, even if she is a bitch, because context. So the siggy pic stays and it is NBD.

And because the lines aren't hard and fast, you get 5 warnings before a ban. Seems pretty reasonable to me, and way more fun than if pictures, gifs, and tangents all become verboten.

It does? That's fucking hilarious

Maggie0829

KatWAG said:

thespeshulestsnowflake said:

levioosa said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

I have. Remember bscrazybeans?

I remember her, but did people actually change their signatures? I mean people reference crazies who have appeared, but usually in threads, not their signatures.

I am late to the game but didn't some SS get offended by Maggie"s sig like 1-2 years ago?

Probably.  I can't even recall what my previous sigs have been.  I did have a wedding pic of me and my sis walking as a sig once and one poster commented that I was fat and that my sister looked miserable (I think she was the crazy one with like 20 different dresses or something).  I think I got into trouble for calling her a f-ing bitch, but it was definitely deserved.

ETA:  Me calling her a f-ing bitch was deserved, not really my warning because come on.

Liatris2010

sophhabobopha said:

Liatris2010 said:

My two cents:

A little leeway in rules is good. If you want to consider the polar bear gifs trolling, then the puppy gifs, and bat signals, and crabs, and hydrogen peroxide all have to go too. I would be sad if there were no puppies.

Taking context into account is good. Sophhabobopha's signature gets reported all. the. time. But when SS # 7 reports it, I know it has been there and wasn't a personal attack against SS # 7, even if she is a bitch, because context. So the siggy pic stays and it is NBD.

And because the lines aren't hard and fast, you get 5 warnings before a ban. Seems pretty reasonable to me, and way more fun than if pictures, gifs, and tangents all become verboten.

It does? That's fucking hilarious

Yep and yes.

Maggie0829

sophhabobopha said:

Liatris2010 said:

My two cents:

A little leeway in rules is good. If you want to consider the polar bear gifs trolling, then the puppy gifs, and bat signals, and crabs, and hydrogen peroxide all have to go too. I would be sad if there were no puppies.

Taking context into account is good. Sophhabobopha's signature gets reported all. the. time. But when SS # 7 reports it, I know it has been there and wasn't a personal attack against SS # 7, even if she is a bitch, because context. So the siggy pic stays and it is NBD.

And because the lines aren't hard and fast, you get 5 warnings before a ban. Seems pretty reasonable to me, and way more fun than if pictures, gifs, and tangents all become verboten.

It does? That's fucking hilarious

I think this is the first time I am really looking at your sig (sorry, no offense against your sig).  I find it quite funny.

People can all me a bitch all they want.  It won't upset me because 1) this is the internet and I don't know you so why do I care what a stranger that I will most likely never meet thinks of me and 2) 60% of the time it is true

redoryx

So, out of curiosity, when we get a warning how long are we given to respond if we don't agree with it?

hellosweetie1015

I'm coming out of my (short) silence and going to tell you that I think the TOS are bullshit, only followed when it:

• suits the business ventures The Knot or XO Group are currently promoting
• becomes time for another forced purge of "trolling" users (based on your definition, ALL of the regs are trolls, myself included)
• makes the admins / mods happy to warn a user.

Bullshit warnings are useless. When they aren't applied consistently, there's no fucking point in having them. And - hey! GUESS WHAT! Your (vague as fucking fuckity fuck, nobody can actually understand that shit) TOS are being applied inconsistently. 

Why were these gifs:

warning worthy, but these:

hellosweetie1015 said:

were not?

Why was Ashley's middle-finger sig gif Banhammer worthy, but Magic's "Fuck that" is not? 

Transparency and consistency is fucking important to me. If you can't be transparent with your fucking policies, you shouldn't fucking have policies. And any policy that you cannot enforce consistently, should not be a policy. 

esstee33

Maggie0829 said:

KatWAG said:

thespeshulestsnowflake said:

levioosa said:

climbingwife said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

I have. Remember bscrazybeans?

I remember her, but did people actually change their signatures? I mean people reference crazies who have appeared, but usually in threads, not their signatures.

I am late to the game but didn't some SS get offended by Maggie"s sig like 1-2 years ago?


Probably.  I can't even recall what my previous sigs have been.  I did have a wedding pic of me and my sis walking as a sig once and one poster commented that I was fat and that my sister looked miserable (I think she was the crazy one with like 20 different dresses or something).  I think I got into trouble for calling her a f-ing bitch, but it was definitely deserved.

ETA:  Me calling her a f-ing bitch was deserved, not really my warning because come on.

Except whether you think she deserved to be called a bitch or not isn't the point. Your warning WAS deserved, because you broke the TOS. There are plenty of people I think deserve to be told what bitches they are, but because it's absolutely against the TOS to do so, I don't. Just because she called you fat doesn't make your name-calling any more noble.

Maggie0829

I am sure I will get shit for this (if I don't I will be shocked) but the TOS has always been vague.  And I don't think it can ever be written to appease everyone.  The TK Gods/Admins, whatever you want to call them, can do whatever they want.  And sorry but I don't think they are going to just lay out every single offense on these boards for everyone to see and comment on.  It just isn't going to happen.  They can be as transparent as they can be but I am sure people are still going to be all "WTF?!" and not agree with what is going on.  So I have taken the approach of what happens, happens.  If I get a warning for something that I deem dumb well then that is my problem.  Apparently TK Gods/Admins didn't see it as dumb.  So I then have to get over it.  If I decide to stay on here I have to correct my behavior, but if the TOS is so offensive to me and vague and incomplete and whatever else then why would I bother staying on this forum?  There are hundreds, thousands, millions of other forums to choose from.  So in the end, take the TOS as it is and if you don't like it or like how things are being imposed go somewhere else.  It really is that easy.

As for me I have only ever been given one official warning and that was for telling someone to remove the stick up their ass.  As much as I don't feel like that was a personal attack, I have decided to not repeat said phrase to any poster again and to just move on.

PrettyGirlLost

Liatris2010 said:

My two cents:

A little leeway in rules is good. If you want to consider the polar bear gifs trolling, then the puppy gifs, and bat signals, and crabs, and hydrogen peroxide all have to go too. I would be sad if there were no puppies.

Taking context into account is good. Sophhabobopha's signature gets reported all. the. time. But when SS # 7 reports it, I know it has been there and wasn't a personal attack against SS # 7, even if she is a bitch, because context. So the siggy pic stays and it is NBD.

And because the lines aren't hard and fast, you get 5 warnings before a ban. Seems pretty reasonable to me, and way more fun than if pictures, gifs, and tangents all become verboten.

To hell with puppies. Where are all the kittens and kitties?

This site has a clear bias against them and it's not fair!

ShesSoCold

Maggie0829 said:

I am sure I will get shit for this (if I don't I will be shocked) but the TOS has always been vague.  And I don't think it can ever be written to appease everyone.  The TK Gods/Admins, whatever you want to call them, can do whatever they want.  And sorry but I don't think they are going to just lay out every single offense on these boards for everyone to see and comment on.  It just isn't going to happen.  They can be as transparent as they can be but I am sure people are still going to be all "WTF?!" and not agree with what is going on.  So I have taken the approach of what happens, happens.  If I get a warning for something that I deem dumb well then that is my problem.  Apparently TK Gods/Admins didn't see it as dumb.  So I then have to get over it.  If I decide to stay on here I have to correct my behavior, but if the TOS is so offensive to me and vague and incomplete and whatever else then why would I bother staying on this forum?  There are hundreds, thousands, millions of other forums to choose from.  So in the end, take the TOS as it is and if you don't like it or like how things are being imposed go somewhere else.  It really is that easy.

As for me I have only ever been given one official warning and that was for telling someone to remove the stick up their ass.  As much as I don't feel like that was a personal attack, I have decided to not repeat said phrase to any poster again and to just move on.

Picture me clapping. 

esstee33

Yeah, it's been blatantly clear in many of your posts that you don't ever feel the need to question anything Maggie, but for those people who don't want to inadvertently break rules that were unclear to begin with, an effort to get actually clear rules is not a lost cause.

Maggie0829

esstee33 said:

KatWAG said:

thespeshulestsnowflake said:

levioosa said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

I have. Remember bscrazybeans?

I remember her, but did people actually change their signatures? I mean people reference crazies who have appeared, but usually in threads, not their signatures.

I am late to the game but didn't some SS get offended by Maggie"s sig like 1-2 years ago?

Probably.  I can't even recall what my previous sigs have been.  I did have a wedding pic of me and my sis walking as a sig once and one poster commented that I was fat and that my sister looked miserable (I think she was the crazy one with like 20 different dresses or something).  I think I got into trouble for calling her a f-ing bitch, but it was definitely deserved.

ETA:  Me calling her a f-ing bitch was deserved, not really my warning because come on.

Except whether you think she deserved to be called a bitch or not isn't the point. Your warning WAS deserved, because you broke the TOS. There are plenty of people I think deserve to be told what bitches they are, but because it's absolutely against the TOS to do so, I don't. Just because she called you fat doesn't make your name-calling any more noble.

I never said that my name calling was more noble because of what was said by that poster.  I think that poster deserved to be called that.  And I got a warning.  Do you see me crying about it?  I only noted it because I felt like it.  There is a difference between me thinking that a warning was dumb and me accepting said warning because of the TOS.  I didn't fight it or try to argue my way out of it.  If they want to warn me for standing up for myself while someone is trash talking me then go right ahead.

wandajune6

Given all of the questions, I'm curious: how should moderation work?

Moderators and admins are human so there is always a chance that things won't be 100% consistent at all times. It's the goal but no one is perfect and everyone perceives things differently. Even when mods think they're being consistent, it's clear that there will never be a decision that everyone can agree on.

So what do you think the solution is?

Should there be no moderation of the site at all?

Should mods only be allowed to do things like ban vendors?

esstee33

Maggie0829 said:

esstee33 said:

Maggie0829 said:

KatWAG said:

thespeshulestsnowflake said:

levioosa said:

climbingwife said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

I have. Remember bscrazybeans?

I remember her, but did people actually change their signatures? I mean people reference crazies who have appeared, but usually in threads, not their signatures.

I am late to the game but didn't some SS get offended by Maggie"s sig like 1-2 years ago?


Probably.  I can't even recall what my previous sigs have been.  I did have a wedding pic of me and my sis walking as a sig once and one poster commented that I was fat and that my sister looked miserable (I think she was the crazy one with like 20 different dresses or something).  I think I got into trouble for calling her a f-ing bitch, but it was definitely deserved.

ETA:  Me calling her a f-ing bitch was deserved, not really my warning because come on.

Except whether you think she deserved to be called a bitch or not isn't the point. Your warning WAS deserved, because you broke the TOS. There are plenty of people I think deserve to be told what bitches they are, but because it's absolutely against the TOS to do so, I don't. Just because she called you fat doesn't make your name-calling any more noble.


I never said that my name calling was more noble because of what was said by that poster.  I think that poster deserved to be called that.  And I got a warning.  Do you see me crying about it?  I only noted it because I felt like it.  There is a difference between me thinking that a warning was dumb and me accepting said warning because of the TOS.  I didn't fight it or try to argue my way out of it.  If they want to warn me for standing up for myself while someone is trash talking me then go right ahead.

But you did think your warning was undeserved because of the context. Whether you're "crying about it" is irrelevant. Whether you took the warning without a fight is also irrelevant. Your attitude and that post suggest that you believe that the TOS shouldn't have been applied in your case "because come on." You're not above the TOS just because you thought name-calling was warranted.

Maggie0829

esstee33 said:

Yeah, it's been blatantly clear in many of your posts that you don't ever feel the need to question anything Maggie, but for those people who don't want to inadvertently break rules that were unclear to begin with, an effort to get actually clear rules is not a lost cause.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?  I don't feel the need to question shit because I find it pointless.  This is an internet forum.  I come on here because I want to.  If I hate what goes on here or how the rules are laid out or imposed then why stay?  Seems kind of dumb to me and waste of people's time.  I don't think TK is going to change the TOS just because a handful of regs deem it vague.  You are not that important to them.  You leave and the world will continue to turn.  New posters will come and this up roar will be forgotten.

redoryx

esstee33 said:

Yeah, it's been blatantly clear in many of your posts that you don't ever feel the need to question anything Maggie, but for those people who don't want to inadvertently break rules that were unclear to begin with, an effort to get actually clear rules is not a lost cause.

This. 

No, TK will never write TOS that will please everyone. But vague TOS serve nobody but the people in charge, who can then warn and ban at whim and fall back on the vague TOS when it's beneficial. But, if someone else they don't want to warn/ban does the same thing, they don't have to because the TOS are vague enough to allow flexibility. 

These leaves those of us who have to follow the rules in a very tricky position, because while we don't want to think the Mods play favorites, vague rules allows for personal bias to play a role. That's both positive and negative bias and if we don't know which side we fall on we don't know if what we say or do will be given a warning or not. 

Straight forward, clear cut rules and consistency in enforcing them is the only way to keep it a level playing field for all involved, because we active in the community won't have to worry about our posts falling under the vague TOS and the Mods will be held accountable to not allowing personal bias to guide their decisions: they make like Person A and hate Person B, but if they warn Person B for something and Person A does the same thing, they'll have to warn them, too.

Maggie0829

esstee33 said:

esstee33 said:

KatWAG said:

thespeshulestsnowflake said:

levioosa said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

I have. Remember bscrazybeans?

I remember her, but did people actually change their signatures? I mean people reference crazies who have appeared, but usually in threads, not their signatures.

I am late to the game but didn't some SS get offended by Maggie"s sig like 1-2 years ago?

Probably.  I can't even recall what my previous sigs have been.  I did have a wedding pic of me and my sis walking as a sig once and one poster commented that I was fat and that my sister looked miserable (I think she was the crazy one with like 20 different dresses or something).  I think I got into trouble for calling her a f-ing bitch, but it was definitely deserved.

ETA:  Me calling her a f-ing bitch was deserved, not really my warning because come on.

Except whether you think she deserved to be called a bitch or not isn't the point. Your warning WAS deserved, because you broke the TOS. There are plenty of people I think deserve to be told what bitches they are, but because it's absolutely against the TOS to do so, I don't. Just because she called you fat doesn't make your name-calling any more noble.

I never said that my name calling was more noble because of what was said by that poster.  I think that poster deserved to be called that.  And I got a warning.  Do you see me crying about it?  I only noted it because I felt like it.  There is a difference between me thinking that a warning was dumb and me accepting said warning because of the TOS.  I didn't fight it or try to argue my way out of it.  If they want to warn me for standing up for myself while someone is trash talking me then go right ahead.

But you did think your warning was undeserved because of the context. Whether you're "crying about it" is irrelevant. Whether you took the warning without a fight is also irrelevant. Your attitude and that post suggest that you believe that the TOS shouldn't have been applied in your case "because come on." You're not above the TOS just because you thought name-calling was warranted.

You are splitting hairs here.  And you are trying to cause a fight when there is really nothing to fight about.  I thought it was stupid even though I knew what the TOS said.  The TK Gods didn't. Everyone moved on.  Like I said in my other posts, I accept how things are, including the TOS. I can think things are stupid sometimes.  But if the TOS got me as worked up as it is getting you and others then I would find the door.

esstee33

I am out with H now so I can't really respond much more, but I'd like to clarify that my post you asked "what the hell is that supposed to mean" wasn't a riddle. It was pretty self-explanatory. You make it very clear anytime anyone questions anything that you personally don't see the point. Other people DO see a point. You don't need to constantly chime in with how you don't see the point. We know.

photokitty

esstee33 said:

I am out with H now so I can't really respond much more, but I'd like to clarify that my post you asked "what the hell is that supposed to mean" wasn't a riddle. It was pretty self-explanatory. You make it very clear anytime anyone questions anything that you personally don't see the point. Other people DO see a point. You don't need to constantly chime in with how you don't see the point. We know.

So now we're telling people how to post.

How very SS of you...

VulgarGirl

So is it TOS or TOU? Cause @KnotHolly keeps saying TOU...which is what they said at TheBump. Which tells me she came from TB. Which is where everything ended so lovely and there were no problems at all.

@Maggie0829 if you don't like questioning the TOS...why are you on a thread for questioing the TOS? Just to point out how stupid the rest of us are for not sitting down and shutting up like you have? I have poem for you.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

esstee33

photokitty said:

esstee33 said:

I am out with H now so I can't really respond much more, but I'd like to clarify that my post you asked "what the hell is that supposed to mean" wasn't a riddle. It was pretty self-explanatory. You make it very clear anytime anyone questions anything that you personally don't see the point. Other people DO see a point. You don't need to constantly chime in with how you don't see the point. We know.

So now we're telling people how to post.

How very SS of you...

Oh what the fuck ever. I'm simply stating that just because SHE thinks it's without merit to clarify what fucking rules we're supposed to be following doesn't actually make it without merit.

VulgarGirl

photokitty said:

esstee33 said:

I am out with H now so I can't really respond much more, but I'd like to clarify that my post you asked "what the hell is that supposed to mean" wasn't a riddle. It was pretty self-explanatory. You make it very clear anytime anyone questions anything that you personally don't see the point. Other people DO see a point. You don't need to constantly chime in with how you don't see the point. We know.

So now we're telling people how to post.

How very SS of you...

You know PhotoKitty you seem to have a really vague idea of what "telling people how to post" actually means.

We all know Maggie doesn't see the point in complaining/venting/whining/ect. We know cause everytime we complain/vent/whine/ect she pops in to point out there is no point in doing so. Pointing out that we don't need her to do that every motherfucking time cause we know her stance is not telling someone how to post. It is commenting on their posting style. In this case a negative comment. But it is not telling someone how to/how not to post. 

I think mods should try to not make it so fucking obvious who they do and do not like. Moderators should be impartial. If they can't do that, they should step down.

And yeah, I just called a mod on her shit so I'm sure I'll get warned for trolling cause some admit doesn't know what the fuck trolling actually is. 

redoryx

Instead of feeding the drama, could the mods perhaps answer some of the questions and concerns that have been posted about the inconsistency that have been displayed? Or, at the very least, just acknowledge said questions and concerns? 

VulgarGirl

Maggie0829 said:

esstee33 said:

esstee33 said:

KatWAG said:

thespeshulestsnowflake said:

levioosa said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

I have. Remember bscrazybeans?

I remember her, but did people actually change their signatures? I mean people reference crazies who have appeared, but usually in threads, not their signatures.

I am late to the game but didn't some SS get offended by Maggie"s sig like 1-2 years ago?

Probably.  I can't even recall what my previous sigs have been.  I did have a wedding pic of me and my sis walking as a sig once and one poster commented that I was fat and that my sister looked miserable (I think she was the crazy one with like 20 different dresses or something).  I think I got into trouble for calling her a f-ing bitch, but it was definitely deserved.

ETA:  Me calling her a f-ing bitch was deserved, not really my warning because come on.

Except whether you think she deserved to be called a bitch or not isn't the point. Your warning WAS deserved, because you broke the TOS. There are plenty of people I think deserve to be told what bitches they are, but because it's absolutely against the TOS to do so, I don't. Just because she called you fat doesn't make your name-calling any more noble.

I never said that my name calling was more noble because of what was said by that poster.  I think that poster deserved to be called that.  And I got a warning.  Do you see me crying about it?  I only noted it because I felt like it.  There is a difference between me thinking that a warning was dumb and me accepting said warning because of the TOS.  I didn't fight it or try to argue my way out of it.  If they want to warn me for standing up for myself while someone is trash talking me then go right ahead.

But you did think your warning was undeserved because of the context. Whether you're "crying about it" is irrelevant. Whether you took the warning without a fight is also irrelevant. Your attitude and that post suggest that you believe that the TOS shouldn't have been applied in your case "because come on." You're not above the TOS just because you thought name-calling was warranted.

You are splitting hairs here.  And you are trying to cause a fight when there is really nothing to fight about.  I thought it was stupid even though I knew what the TOS said.  The TK Gods didn't. Everyone moved on.  Like I said in my other posts, I accept how things are, including the TOS. I can think things are stupid sometimes.  But if the TOS got me as worked up as it is getting you and others then I would find the door.

Good for you. But we don't give a fuck. We wanna ask questions. So we're going to.

God @PhotoKitty can't you see how Maggie is TELLING US HOW TO POST. 

VulgarGirl

scribe95 said:

Wow. We are seriously comparing rules of an Internet chat forum to the Holocaust. Amazing.

I am always against being told to sit down and shut up. I have a right to my voice. But here, have the NOFX song instead.

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums, 
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers, 
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

Looks like witches are in season,
you better fly your flag and be aware
of anyone who might fit the description,
diversity is now our biggest fear.

Now with our conversations tapped
and our differences exposed,
how ya supposed to love your neighbor
with our minds and curtains closed?
We used to worry 'bout big brother,
now we got a big father and an even bigger mother.

And you still believe
this aristocracy gives a fuck about you.
They put the mock in democracy
and you swallowed every hook.

The sad truth is 
you'd rather follow the school into the net
'cause swimming alone at sea 
is not the kind of freedom that you actually want.

So go back to your crib and suck on a tit
go bask in the warmth of your diaper.
You're sitting in shit and piss 
while sucking a giant pacifier,
a country of adult infants.
A legion of mental midgets,
a country of adult infants,
a country of adult infants.
all regaining their unconsciousness

VulgarGirl

Oh and lets agree no matter what mods post, even if it's something super private about their partner's...privates, they don't get the power to delete it. Even on "accident".

Hm...maybe TK could actually take some time to show their mods what everything does when they get their modding powers? @KnotRiley and @KnotHolly?

ShesSoCold

MagicInk said:

scribe95 said:

Wow. We are seriously comparing rules of an Internet chat forum to the Holocaust. Amazing.

I am always against being told to sit down and shut up. I have a right to my voice. But here, have the NOFX song instead.

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums, 
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers, 
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

Looks like witches are in season,
you better fly your flag and be aware
of anyone who might fit the description,
diversity is now our biggest fear.

Now with our conversations tapped
and our differences exposed,
how ya supposed to love your neighbor
with our minds and curtains closed?
We used to worry 'bout big brother,
now we got a big father and an even bigger mother.

And you still believe
this aristocracy gives a fuck about you.
They put the mock in democracy
and you swallowed every hook.

The sad truth is 
you'd rather follow the school into the net
'cause swimming alone at sea 
is not the kind of freedom that you actually want.

So go back to your crib and suck on a tit
go bask in the warmth of your diaper.
You're sitting in shit and piss 
while sucking a giant pacifier,
a country of adult infants.
A legion of mental midgets,
a country of adult infants,
a country of adult infants.
all regaining their unconsciousness

VulgarGirl

@KnotHolly and @KnotRiley haven't said shit since page 1.

Yep. This was a great discussion thread guys. Good work. Pat yourselves on the back.