OK, as long as you admit that you are changing standards from the previous status quo. I suggest you lock the entire Hall of Shame if you don't want us making fun of people.
Mod hat: There have been discussions on doing that. We mods are a rather pragmatic bunch, and have always felt that for the most part the people in this community are pretty good at moderating themselves, knowing what is and isn't appropriate, what adds to the community and what doesn't. Things have changed, it could be a variety of things. The community has grown substantially larger, there is just a lack of common courtesy these days, who knows?
Things need to be examined, so the questions I would put forth to you is what do you see this community being? What is your vision for it? (which should be a separate thread) Feel free to start one if you feel like responding.
I haven't seen a huge change in the community, but maybe that's because I don't read all the posts anymore. Maybe you should just put a trigger warning on the entire Hall of Shame and go back to those better things you have to do. I'll happily volunteer to meta-moderate and reverse some of the capricious moderation I've seen.
I agree personal attacks between forum members should be discouraged, but honestly mocking real life people, personally known by a forum member, is the bread and butter of this very thread.
Your suggestion that we flag such rampant financial mockery is equivalent to saying "oh yeah, we lowered Jill's pay because she's a female but feel free to flag any male coworkers and we'll lower their pay too." Gimp isn't asking for equal heavyhandedness in moderation, but equal lighthandedness.
Or if you prefer separate but equal, we can start a separate thread "Overheard at the Dairy Queen"
edit: I think you are right that the Hall started out more broadly mocking articles and consumerist ideals in general (e.g. commercials and such) so maybe I can see where you are thinking the character has gotten more sinister/catty
Just to be clear, is it now the official moderator position that nobody on the MMM forum is allowed to refer to anybody (real or imaginary) as "fat," a "chick," or god forbid both?
Making fun of behaviour is what we're usually doing here.
You can mock people's spending habits, but mocking someone's mental illness directly would be being a jerk.
You could possibly mock people's eating habits, but mocking someone's appearance is being a jerk.
No standards change involved.
First, swick explicitly said the mods are changing the standards: "we are drawing slightly firmer lines"
Second, this is a straw man since nobody mocked anybody's appearance at all, unless as above "fat chick" is a mockery.
But then, by your standard, it would be fine to mock "the woman with poor eating habits that led to her obesity"?
And no illness can make you fat if you don't eat too much. Illness can make it harder to eat less, but it can't magically add fat to your frame. Thus, anyone who is fat has a willpower problem, even if it's an excusable one. Again, I say this as a person with an occasional willpower problem.
Topic: Overheard on Facebook (Read 6497502 times)