Damn, 2 out of 3... Well, I missed your comment here, but,to be fair, the ones you mention were in the Everything Else forums, and made in a humorous, not-to-be-taken-seriously fashion, and I could have sworn that girl was at least 18, officer... I hope this isn''t being logged...

Also, our CEO''s, despite what most people believe, are actually human, or have been human at some point of their lives, or have eaten human babies(feel free to stop me)
So they may have days when they don''t feel like dealing with another flamewar.

And after reading your comment, well, it does seem quite nasty, accusing Clinton of being an incestous father. I''d guess you''re smart enough to know why it seems a little harsher than your previous examples.

I never thought I''d see Ralcy''s thick skin being singed. There there, Ralcy, we all like you, deep down. Deep, deep down. Really, really, Jules-Verne-deep.

I don''tthink Confucius said that...

It''s a proverb, for all I know, not a quote from the Analects.

Please. It was an attack, no different than if I parsed out your statements and referred to your ""stupid whine"" (to draw an analogy to ""ugly sneer""). My point in bringing it up was not to point it out to you, since you can''t seem to keep the level of discourse out of mudslinging, but rather to show a clear example of a personal attack vs. a comment about a politician.

So what? That statement applies to several posts by anyone here - including yourself. If the standard is ""nothing that could possibly offend"" then everyone here needs to be threatened with banishment...

And again, so what? Last I looked, this forum wasn''t made up of people posting a lot of ""you''re right, I''m wrong."" I''m glad you have a particular argument you think you were right about, but that doesn''t make it objectively so.

By the way, surely you know that I will find offensive your implication that I am wrong and too stubborn to admit it. Should you be called to task for your offensive statement?

Good grief. This isn''t Brief Encounter, gentlemen. He''s still got two other forums to fart around in.

It''ll be quieter Tanacite and it may seem more left wing for a while, but I don''t think it''ll become a back-slapping festival. There will still be republicans and right wingers on the board and there''ll still be confrontation.

Well this just plain sucks. No more Ral vs. Robear or Ral vs. Gorilla? End of an era, man... end of an era.

... this sucks.

I agree. Though Ral seems a little to the ""right"" of me, I was always amused when I went to reply to a post, and found his reply was exactly what I was going to say (but usually worded better).

You should probably stress this instead of enhancing feelings of victimization or being singled out.

I think that Certis and Elysium should take note that calling Bush a Nazi or Hitler is rather equivalent to suggesting that Clinton would molest his daughter. I think the context does have some relevance though. i.e.

If one is a further explaination of political sentiments and another is meant as an insult or inflamatory rebuttal, I can see how one is more subject to moderation than the other.

Thread title: ""Fair moderation or double standard..?""

My vote: ""Fair moderation.""
Wipes nose
Yep, fair moderation. Warnings-a-plenty, lack of change, biting public last-ditch attempt to garner sympathy while still managing to rebel. Has all the markings of being ban-worthy. I always found it odd that someone who posts only in the political forum of a gaming site mocked people who talked about games in the regular forums.

True, but OTOH Hitler comes up in so many ridiculous comparisons I think we''re somewhat desensitized to it. But I do agree that a bit of a moderation double standard is happening here. Personally, I think anytime the prediction of Godwin''s Law comes true, the thread should be locked and the person who made the Hitler/Nazi comparison ridiculed.

Yes, Ral is obviously extremely perceptive. Thus I find it rather hard to believe that he doesn''t know when something he is about to post is over the line. And the cherry popping remark was way way over the line.

I think Ral gets attacked more than others not because of his skill at demolishing someone''s argument, but because I don''t believe he''s ever conceded a single point. I''m not saying he needs to admit he''s wrong -- conceding someone you''re debating with has a point isn''t the same thing as admitting you''re wrong. He doesn''t need to do this, but I bet he''d get attacked less if he randomly threw in a ""you''ve got a point there"" once in a while.

All that said, I don''t think he''s ban-worthy, but it''s not my forum either.

I have to agree with alot of my fellow posters on this decision in that I have seen Ral attacked and then singled out when he comes back in similar fashion. Rarely does the person who started the name calling/attacking get reprimanded publicly at least. Perhaps he could have went about handling this situation a little better ( I would have handled it a little more quietly, but that is the difference between me and Ral ). Perhaps it''s hard for people that disagree with someone most of the time to see when that person is being singled out while their side is left alone. For those of us who in the most part agree with Ralcydan''s points and views, it is hard to miss. I don''t want to come across as being against Certis and Elysium because I think they are great guys and have done a great job at making and keeping this site a fun place to come back to every day (many times per day ). In other words, please don''t hurt me!

I really would hate to see Ralcydan kicked out of the P&C forums, and especially hate to see him gone for good from GWJ. I feel that by removing him from P&C that may drive him off permanantly...and that would be a shame as this is a great site with alot of people that have made some nice online friendships. I know you have already spoken Certis, but I just wanted to add another plea that he be given another chance.

I''ve given your posts a lot of thought guys, especially Johnny''s since he shares the same ip Ral uses apparently

This isn''t something Elysium or myself take lightly and it''s most definitely not something I''ve done in a fit of anger or because I don''t like what Ral has to say. The problem is HOW he says things and his lack of respect or consideration when saying them.

If you re-read Ral''s opening post you will see that while intellectualizing and stroking his chin about the situation with the forums he does not acknowledge that he crossed the line in any way and he sure as hell doesn''t make any kind of apology for it. Even if he doesn''t think he did anything wrong a simple nod to indicate that he understands why someone may be offended by the remark and a polite apology would have done worlds of good.

Instead he remains on the offensive as usual and complains that Gorilla''s post wasn''t dealt with in the way he wanted it to be. Is Ral held to a higher standard? When he agrees not to ""take the bait"" and do his best to help raise the tone in these forums you''re damn right he is. It took mere days for him to come out with that Clinton remark after our exchange in private messaging. It felt like a real slap in the face and it appears to be in retaliation because I didn''t interpret Gorilla''s post in the same way he did. He had a chance to be an adult about it and move on and he blew it.

As for the comments that ""other people do it too"" that''s not going to cut it. This isn''t elementary school and we''re all adults here. People who break the rules will be dealt with as we see fit and we will not over-moderate and police these forums so others can feel better about showing some respect once in a while.

If you guys really want Ral to continue posting in this section of the forums I suggest you encourage him to issue a public apology for his behavior. Nothing else will convince me that he''s willing to turn over a new leaf and start over.

""With great power comes great responsibility""

I love that quote. Cheesy as it is, it remains the star by which we should all set our paths and guide our rudders.

Ral is undeniably one of the most intelligent guys on this forum, and also one of the most effective debaters. More than anything, that sharp wit and keen eye are, in a way, ""great power"" when it comes to debating.

To me, the better you are at doing something, the more restraint you need to show in the way you approach it.

If you''re the smartest kid in school, and you lord it over everybody, people are going to start resenting you. They''d be quite justified in feeling that way. If, on the other hand, you''re the smartest kid in school, but you respect the talents that others have and remember that you''re all still only human (including yourself), then you''ll probably be regarded much better.

I''m not trying to toot my horn, but I''m speaking from experience here. I was shocked in my senior year of high school when I somehow became one of the most popular guys in school. I was the epitome of the class nerd, but for one thing: I was also the epitome of the nice guy, and was very active in helping out many organizations. All that stuff I preach about how, from a philosophical standpoint, communism and socialism have their good points? I walked the walk (hell, I still do). It''s all about each person in a community contributing to lift up everyone and encourage everyone.

No, it doesn''t always work, but it''s worth trying.

What I''m trying to say is, given his high visibility and ""great power"" in debating, Ral has the responsibility to raise the bar around here. But in saying that, I am in no way taking that responsibility from anyone else. We all carry that responsibility. I''ve done my fair share of dragging us down into the low road. Those of you who recall my rant that I posted in the ""remember September 11th"" thread, that''s probably my worst to date. Do I stand by what I said? Yes. However, I regretted the manner in which I did it, and even went so far as to completely edit out the content of that post and replace it with an apology (the only time I''ve ever taken that drastic a measure).

I try to police myself as much as I can, and I expect all of us to do it. There are several folks on here who have a lot of my respect by the way they keep the tone of their debate on this forum, but there are also a lot of people who drag it down, some more than others.

Ral has a hard time resisting bait; so do I, so I can sympathize with that.

I''m not sure where I''m going with this. I can understand how banning him might be justifiable; I am not privy to just how much private conversation has occurred on this matter (which, to me, is probably on what most of this hinges).

I think that the Clinton-and-Chelsea comment in that other thread was by far one of the most obscene and over-the-line ones I''ve yet run into (and yes, I''d feel the same if it was about Bush, or Cheney, or any of the other guys in the administration who I don''t approve of politically, but are still human beings), and I certainly think an apology is called for.

The ""Everything Else"" forum is pretty much a locker-room type environment on this site. In general, the P&C forum is where I go when I want a more ""adult"" conversation; not as in xxx-rated, but as in more grown-up; discussing the big issues, that sort of thing. Pointing out low-brow discussions in the Everything Else forum is a misdirection tactic, in my opinion. The political cartoon link is more relevant. A lot of this debate seems to hinge on the issue of people accusing the Bush administration of leading us down the path of Nazi Germany.

I think that Nazi comments are arrived at far too easily in debates, and in general are a last-ditch effort at trying to make a point. I think that there are some small, disturbing similarities between our current national direction/attitude and that of Germany when it first started down the road to Nazi Germany.

Calling Bush ""Hitler"" is over the top and uncalled for, and in fact, offensive. Making a case comparing historical fact with evidence of eerie similarities in the present is not offensive, and well worth debating. I''d say the same no matter who was president.

...well, I think I''m getting sidetracked here; I was replying to that quote to indicate that there''s a different level between having low-brow ""guy talk"" in an everything-goes forum versus injecting low-brow commentary (lower than low, at that) in what is allegedly more mature debating. (Despite how immature we get in this forum from time to time. )

I think there are several folks (Ral''s just the most prolific and high-profile ) posting frequently in the P&C lately who could use a little curtailing of their personal attacking and overly baited commentary. Part of why my own posting in here has been scaled back lately is because too many threads are degenerating in that manner, making it not worth my time to try to get involved. I think Ral has often shown his ability to constructively contribute to the debate, and I would be disappointed to have that go missing.

For what it''s worth, those are my thoughts.

Certis, when I agreed ""not to take the bait,"" apparently you and I have different views of what ""bait"" is. I was referring to personal attacks directed at myself. That means that I will not take the bait when called gay, homophobic (although it should perhaps be a compliment to be called both gay and homophobic), racist, or a woman-hater. I will not respond when instead of addressing the content of my comments, others instead laugh dismissively at the idea that I could have an opinion about military matters since I am not ""General Ral"" nor will I reply in kind when my posts are attacked as ""ugly sneers.""

I had no idea that elevating the tone of the debate was suddenly going to mean that attacks directed at public figures were going to incur the wrath of the moderators. Why would I? The private exchange between Certis and I had nothing to do with anger over a post about a public figure - it had to do with a post about me. And as I noted above, the most egregious and viscious attacks on public figures (or even just on non-posters, such as the charming ""Jesus Christ. You should have stabbed the ignorant bitch in the eye with a pen"" comment posted today), rarely if ever seem to elicit comment.

I don''t like it when people call Republicans Nazis, but I never would think that one shouldn''t be allowed to think or post the idea - it''s not as if the poster comes out looking very good in the end. The same goes true for comments about Bush the moron or chimp. I have no problem responding to statements like these (and repeatedly have) and the moderators let them go every time. To call me out over an attack on Bill Clinton is an absolute double-standard.

You want an apology. I''m not opposed to the idea, but I''m honestly not sure to whom it should directed and why. Certis, apparently you think my attack on Clinton was a retaliatory slap in your face. It wasn''t - in fact, it never occurred to me that it could be - at the time or since - until you posted tonight. Do you want me to apologize for a comment that you took as directed at or related you, but wasn''t? I guess I am sorry for that, in much the same way I am sorry when I accidentally bump into someone.

I am equally sorry that there was a misunderstanding as to what was expected after our exchange the other night.We definitely missed each other since the only problem I have had is personal attacks, while your issues are deeper. I am sorry this wasn''t made clearer by both of us.

As to my comment itself, it was over the top. It was even mean-spirited. But let''s be clear - if I had said the exact same thing about Michael Jackson and his kids, not one person here would have had a problem. So should I apologize for it? I''m not sure, but I certainly will - to whomever tells me specifically how I offended them. I would like to offer my apology to the person I actually wronged. Oh, and let us know if this is a one time event directed at me only, or whether we can get apologies from other posters who say mean-spirited things about public figures we might find offensive.

In other words, don''t expect life to be fair, or us either... Well, fair enough. You want personal attacks to stop. Fine, but they should stop from everybody, not just me. You want the overall tone of the debate to raise. Fine again, but I don''t expect last warnings on things that have never been problems before. My argument isn''t just that ""other people do it,"" it''s also that when moderators ignore the rules, they aren''t rules at all.

Thanks to some of you guys for the nice things you had to say. This probably isn''t a public apology in the way Certis was expecting, so I''m not sure where this will go. Believe it or not, I am as capable of refraining from calling Bill Clinton a scumbag as I am calling a fellow poster a moron. But I am unconvinced that the moderators care enough about personal attacks to address them, since they are incredibly selective recognizing them, and probably unaware that this is the case.

Maybe a board for Church-going singles - you and I must see different boards on the internet where politics is being discussed. And how would the ""Jesus Christ. You should have stabbed the ignorant bitch in the eye with a pen"" comment fly on other boards?