That's good, but route rhymes with boot, not doubt
Where I come from route is pronounced like rout and rhymes with doubt.
How highly do you rate the moderators?
- Thread starter azzaman333
- Start date
- Status
Where I come from route is pronounced like rout and rhymes with doubt.
Where I come from route is pronounced like rout and rhymes with doubt.
I am in complete agreement with Birdy.
azzaman333
meh
Route rhymes with boot in the civilised world.
Abaddon
Deity
I think the point is moot. 
azzaman333
meh
Actually we say route like doubt too azzaman.
What you're thinking of is root.
I don't, which is all that matters.
Actually we say route like doubt too azzaman.
What you're thinking of is root.
I'm gonna hazard that you're alone in that one. Route only sounds like doubt if you're talking about an internet router, but when it comes to the context in which Birdjaguar was using it, I've only ever heard Australians say 'root'.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
It doesn't even sound like doubter here! It's pronounced rooter
Let's not even start on the pronunciation of scone.
Let's not even start on the pronunciation of scone.
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,601
Yared
That Guy
I say it "REEAAOOUUT".
But I'm just a silly Swede, blasted by American culture through media while drowning in British English over at school. WHAT AM I?
But I'm just a silly Swede, blasted by American culture through media while drowning in British English over at school. WHAT AM I?
Moderator Action: Enough spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,601
Which, interestingly enough, started with a poem created by....... a Mod. Did you read my comment about why I voted the way I did?
Which, interestingly enough, started with a poem created by....... a Mod. Did you read my comment about why I voted the way I did?
Interestingly enough, the poem by the mod was ON TOPIC, most of the posts that followed were not.
What's so difficult to see about that?
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,085
Moderator Action: Turner drew a line under the spam, and asked for it to stop. Please follow that request.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Senethro
Overlord
A consistent policy on threads about controversial issues would be nice. In this example, Birdjaguar looks to be correctly applying CivFan moderating policy.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9448599&postcount=68
As someone pointed out already in that thread, if it were about interracial marriage then those of opposing it wouldn't even bother to turn up as they'd likely fear disapproval. However it seems that some minorities such as homosexuals and often muslims are acceptable targets of prejudice.
Given that Americans make the largest single group of English speaking CivFans, it is perhaps not surprising that the moderation policy should look upon their particular prejudices more favourably. The site should primarily be serving them as they are the most numerous and active.
If a thread is going to create conflict between those who hold a prejudice and those who oppose prejudice, then whos speech should be protected and whos curtailed? Is it more polite to express opinions that another human being is inferior or undeserving of rights or to insult the holder of such views? And on who should the blame be placed?
Is it more in line with the goals of CivFan to protect the expression of prejudice or to create a welcoming, inclusive environment? Perhaps conflict could be reduced by not permitting anyone to respond to a prejudiced opinion. Or limit the number of replies to prevent the thread derailing. Maybe you could allow only members of the targetted minority to respond as they've an interest after all. Would it be better to not allow the thread at all?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9448599&postcount=68
As someone pointed out already in that thread, if it were about interracial marriage then those of opposing it wouldn't even bother to turn up as they'd likely fear disapproval. However it seems that some minorities such as homosexuals and often muslims are acceptable targets of prejudice.
Given that Americans make the largest single group of English speaking CivFans, it is perhaps not surprising that the moderation policy should look upon their particular prejudices more favourably. The site should primarily be serving them as they are the most numerous and active.
If a thread is going to create conflict between those who hold a prejudice and those who oppose prejudice, then whos speech should be protected and whos curtailed? Is it more polite to express opinions that another human being is inferior or undeserving of rights or to insult the holder of such views? And on who should the blame be placed?
Is it more in line with the goals of CivFan to protect the expression of prejudice or to create a welcoming, inclusive environment? Perhaps conflict could be reduced by not permitting anyone to respond to a prejudiced opinion. Or limit the number of replies to prevent the thread derailing. Maybe you could allow only members of the targetted minority to respond as they've an interest after all. Would it be better to not allow the thread at all?
Well, maybe if they weren't such massive homophobes there wouldn't be an issue 
In general, though, I find the CFC mods to be a happy medium between the other two forums I frequent. IGN is Somalia as far as moderators go and PoliticsForum is some kind of authoritarian incestuous cult.
So while the CFC mods could lay off in some respects, it could be much worse.
7.5
In general, though, I find the CFC mods to be a happy medium between the other two forums I frequent. IGN is Somalia as far as moderators go and PoliticsForum is some kind of authoritarian incestuous cult.
So while the CFC mods could lay off in some respects, it could be much worse.
7.5
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,601
Here's another example of why I voted "poor". http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=375160
You only need to see the first page.
At least six (seven if you read between the lines) posts called the OP a troll, two were infracted, three were warned, and two were not given anything. There was also instances of "labeling" which was ignored. Interesting, one of the infracted posters had an earlier warning in the thread, yet the second infracted poster got an immediate infraction.
So the moderators in that thread:
- dished out inconsistent punishments (one member was targeted for infraction immediately rather than a warning, and the moderator let his friends off scott-free)
- let the actual original offending post go scott-free (pathetic
)
- turned a blind eye to his friends calling the OP a troll, and let them off without even a warning for the same things others were being infracted for
- ignored other infractable offenses within the thread
- got another mod to write the comments in the thread (The_J was the one who originally moderated the thread, yet Bite wrote the comment hours later)
Yet another pathetic example of inconsistent moderation and member targetting by the so called authority of this forum.
And the admins here keep complaining it's unfair when I say this is a police state.
Moderator Action: Infracted for PDMA. Complaining about particular moderator actions is not the purpose of this thread or of any other.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
You only need to see the first page.
At least six (seven if you read between the lines) posts called the OP a troll, two were infracted, three were warned, and two were not given anything. There was also instances of "labeling" which was ignored. Interesting, one of the infracted posters had an earlier warning in the thread, yet the second infracted poster got an immediate infraction.
So the moderators in that thread:
- dished out inconsistent punishments (one member was targeted for infraction immediately rather than a warning, and the moderator let his friends off scott-free)
- let the actual original offending post go scott-free (pathetic
)- turned a blind eye to his friends calling the OP a troll, and let them off without even a warning for the same things others were being infracted for
- ignored other infractable offenses within the thread
- got another mod to write the comments in the thread (The_J was the one who originally moderated the thread, yet Bite wrote the comment hours later)
Yet another pathetic example of inconsistent moderation and member targetting by the so called authority of this forum.
And the admins here keep complaining it's unfair when I say this is a police state.
Moderator Action: Infracted for PDMA. Complaining about particular moderator actions is not the purpose of this thread or of any other.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
