a discussion thread about moderating this forum

[cantdog]

Stella's point is more general. You can ignore and ignore, but after a bit, even though you now are spared reading it all, you realize that the conversation you are having with these fine people is actually taking place in a room in some hell. We all sit here before the fire conversing with wit and passion, but we sit in a room a half meter deep in turds and small imps squalling and throwing it at evrything, especially one another.

Ignore function makes that possible, but it is sad to realize that the imps and the shitfield are there, and the sadness accumulates.

 

[cantdog]

I don't think there's a technical solution. Liar points out that banning a person is impracticable. One can, as a mod, kick their posts to some oblivion. Maybe that's enough. But now you have someone who has to dispense justice, and no one can do that very well. All human authority is illegitimate in some way, and all human justice is flawed. It's a matter of which sort of hell you want to sit in.

 

[xssve]

I understand about spamming and posting of personal information, etc. In this case and right now, I am not interested in that. In the past, I have reported spam and it has been removed.

I am interested in the line where verbal abuse becomes an attack that is not physical. Is that covered under forum rules? What is 'intent to harm'? Is that also only physical?

You mean "psychic" damage? It's a slippery slope - if it's one on one, the rule of thumb is, "deal with it" - psychic damage cannot be empirically demonstrated - the recent case where the mother of one girl harassed another girl to the point of suicide is an example - technically, this is not against the law, and is to the disgust of no-one more than the religious right whose objections to porn or anything else that bothers them, is essentially that it bothers them - Robert Bork was the champion of this theory, but it's constitutionally unacceptable because it elevates the opinions of some over others - who decides whose opinion is definitive? It makes legal distinctions of free speech arbitrary.

One must demonstrate empirical harm: physical, financial, etc., psychic harm doesn't count.

Racism and sexism are considered actionable under certain circumstances, when it crosses the line from opinion into conspiracy to deprive someone of their civil rights - but again, to avoid the slippery slope, one must establish demonstrable harm other than psychic.

The girl in the case cited above, was not deprived of her rights - the emails, I believe, were private and created a false impression that she had been ostracized, socially Blackballed, and the resulting stress and depression drove her to suicide - she wasn't technically deprived of any rights, she could have talked to someone, etc. - it's sad and disturbing - the woman was a vicious, unprincipled bitch, and probably a sociopath - but it isn't, strictly speaking, actionable.

Had that mother orchestrated an actual social banishment rather than the perception of one, she might have been liable to a civil suit for slander, since actual harm to the girls reputation (as a private citizen) could have conceivably been demonstrated.

 

[wmrs2]

I'm not sure what your point is, but those quotes really prove my point.

For the sake of fairness, would you admit the quotes you have made proves my point? The fact is that you do not care about fairness.

 

[Recidiva]

I don't think there's a technical solution. Liar points out that banning a person is impracticable. One can, as a mod, kick their posts to some oblivion. Maybe that's enough. But now you have someone who has to dispense justice, and no one can do that very well. All human authority is illegitimate in some way, and all human justice is flawed. It's a matter of which sort of hell you want to sit in.

I think I gravitated here because I feel better about "no call" than "the wrong call."

Lots of "no calls" and I can make my own flawed judgment calls and pay the price myself.

One "wrong call" and I feel ethically bound to not participate any further in a flawed system.

I'm okay BEING the flawed system, I'm not okay having a flawed system implemented upon me. The difference is that if I ignore someone and they have a mind-blowing earth-shattering insight that I missed because of it, that's my choice. Everyone else can speak and be heard and it's not on me, so to speak.

If someone gets banned and I know what they were trying to get across was mind blowing and earth shattering, I feel differently.

 

[xssve]

Such things might fall under stalking if it goes on long enough, but I'm not sure you can get a restraining order for the internet, the presumption is that you can easily delete or ignore someone, so unless they are actually threatening you with physical harm, it isn't a crime to verbally harass someone.

 

[scouries]

QUOTE darkboy .. Somebody is always going to PM someone else because they "thought they should know"

Nobody replied to scouries or posted in his thread for a couple of months, not so long ago. There was an active effort to bump threads and move his off the first page, keeping even his posts from putting it in the eyes of anyone who didn't have him on ignore. Nobody would even type his name in the forum anywhere else. You can see where we are today that it was a fruitless effort.

In fact it wasn’t a “fruitless effort”. Because d.b. you failed to mention what happened to the Scouries thread during the period in question. It simply became a normal, unassuming thread that returned to its original purpose – “Scouries World” news, SALES numbers, suggestions to LAUREL, etc.,etc. Without you (and misshick and tex and serena and the pilot and his ALTS among others) continually trying to poke at me, there was nothing to complain about. While many may not have like my self promoting style the content of the thread was innocuous.

The thread had been neutralized as far as you were concerned and I was quite happy with the non attention. But you just couldn’t leave it at that could you? Just my presence was too much for you. So, spearheaded by the pilot, serena, tex and miss hick the attacks recommenced. A concentrated attempt to irritate me. A cabal set up to silence free speech!

You were a party to it and now you’re the first in line to pillar me.

You should be ashamed.

james r scouries

author of the best seller:

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/sarahhh_023/1ANUNFALLSCOVER.jpg

 

[xssve]

There's no such thing as bad press.

 

[Liar]

If someone gets banned and I know what they were trying to get across was mind blowing and earth shattering, I feel differently.

Or even just valid.

 

[damppanties]

You mean "psychic" damage?

Yes I do.

It's a slippery slope - if it's one on one, the rule of thumb is, "deal with it" - psychic damage cannot be empirically demonstrated - the recent case where the mother of one girl harassed another girl to the point of suicide is an example - technically, this is not against the law,

This is what saddens me.

and is to the disgust of no-one more than the religious right whose objections to porn or anything else that bothers them, is essentially that it bothers them - Robert Bork was the champion of this theory, but it's constitutionally unacceptable because it elevates the opinions of some over others - who decides whose opinion is definitive? It makes legal distinctions of free speech arbitrary.

This is what I believe the site owners' position is.

One must demonstrate empirical harm: physical, financial, etc., psychic harm doesn't count.

I'm sorry, I'm just going to rant. It isn't against you.

This is like having a pile of shit in a room and saying, I will not remove it until you prove to me empirically that it smells bad. What is 'bad'? Who is it that makes the decision that shit smells bad and is offensive? If the person who's shitting in the room says it's his right to do it, you will allow it and let it remain?

At some point you have to see that too much leeway is to the detriment of the community and it is not, as you see, infringing upon the people who are here just to shit in the room. Really.

Racism and sexism are considered actionable under certain circumstances, when it crosses the line from opinion into conspiracy to deprive someone of their civil rights - but again, to avoid the slippery slope, one must establish demonstrable harm other than psychic.

The girl in the case cited above, was not deprived of her rights - the emails, I believe, were private and created a false impression that she had been ostracized, socially Blackballed, and the resulting stress and depression drove her to suicide - she wasn't technically deprived of any rights, she could have talked to someone, etc. - it's sad and disturbing, but it isn't, strictly speaking, actionable.

Had that mother orchestrated an actual social banishment rather than the perception of one, she might have been liable to a civil suit for slander, since actual harm to the girls reputation (as a private citizen) could have conceivably been demonstrated.

I see what you're saying. I understand it. That doesn't mean I still don't feel soiled by the shit that's living in these threads of this place I think of as mine.

 

[Recidiva]

There's no such thing as bad press.

Actually, that's a myth.

For someone who just wants fame, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

But there are plenty of cases of bad press when reputation and confidence are involved.

See wall street for details.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Stella's point is more general. You can ignore and ignore, but after a bit, even though you now are spared reading it all, you realize that the conversation you are having with these fine people is actually taking place in a room in some hell. We all sit here before the fire conversing with wit and passion, but we sit in a room a half meter deep in turds and small imps squalling and throwing it at evrything, especially one another.

Ignore function makes that possible, but it is sad to realize that the imps and the shitfield are there, and the sadness accumulates.

I don't know that the "ignore" function has truly been tested with the excrement in question. Perhaps it's time to truly police it, if that's what we want to do.

There are people here who, when a newbie comes in and says, "Hey, why can't I post a story about two fifteen year olds having sex?", jump immediately and reply, "Because the site owners say so, and they own the site, so deal" etc.

Perhaps we can have some such response every time someone forgets to use the ignore function and responds to the foul matter we're discussing? And of course, this wouldn't include their threads, since they'd already be on ignore... it would just include someone quoting/responding to the ignored, so others on the forum, who are using that blessed ignore feature, don't have to keep wading through?

Eventually... in theory... we wouldn't have to do it anymore, or we would be doing it much less often...

Of course, as I said, the theory hasn't ever really been tested. Too many people have (present company - nor myself - not excepted) been incited or tempted to respond, instead of taking the higher road.

Can we take the higher road? Can we, as a community, commit to doing so?

 

[damppanties]

I think I gravitated here because I feel better about "no call" than "the wrong call."

Lots of "no calls" and I can make my own flawed judgment calls and pay the price myself.

One "wrong call" and I feel ethically bound to not participate any further in a flawed system.

I'm okay BEING the flawed system, I'm not okay having a flawed system implemented upon me. The difference is that if I ignore someone and they have a mind-blowing earth-shattering insight that I missed because of it, that's my choice. Everyone else can speak and be heard and it's not on me, so to speak.

If someone gets banned and I know what they were trying to get across was mind blowing and earth shattering, I feel differently.

Individual posts can be deleted. And after enough problems caused by the same person, they lose their right to say anything brilliant.

The law still gives the death penalty to a person who has killed, say, 20 times, without thinking of whether he would have discovered the cure for cancer if he had lived.

 

[wmrs2]

I have the mrs on ignore, too. I can sail through these threads without stress. I use it, ignore I mean, once I'm certain whoever it is has nothing to say. Why listen to a person say nothing, particularly if they say it offensively?

Yet for the first three years here I refused to use ignore as a point of pride, silly man that I was.

My problem with leaving the AH is, I love people here. About a dozen I love deeply. If they left, I would wish to follow where they went. If they remained, my lazy soul would bless them for making it easy for me to keep hearing their precious voices.

I live to express love. I live to serve. I live to help. Please, whatever happens here about this crime, if you go, and if i love you, tell me where to find you.

First of all, Stella is going nowhere. Secondly, your type of love is better termed "unfairness" of trolling. I specifically pointed out the thread where Stella was caught in the act of trolling. There she admitted she ganged up on me but said that she could do that because I had nothing to say.

You give her a free pass at trolling and referred to me, the victim, as being insulting. That would be the problem with monitors. The Stellas of this forum would run to the monitors for each time anybody said anything that they classified as nothing. Why do you refuse to see both sides?

 

[Pure]

hate speech

the Canadian 'hate speech' law is given below. i approve of it, but in practice some areas are very tricky. E.g. passages of the Bible, except for the exemption, might qualify, prima facie, as 'hate speech'. a number of other countries, esp. those touched by the holocaust, have similar laws who central, original intent was to seriously impede efforts by neo nazis.

clearly, 'i hate Mr X' or even 'Mr X is a lying scumbag' is not covered. even 'sodomy is an abomination and those who engage in it should be hung from the nearest lamppost' is not covered, IMHO. Canada has quite robust freedom of speech. [[Added: Canada like Britain and the US, has laws against libel, slander, defamation. So writing to a newspaper and saying 'Mr X. fucks his daughter' is IMHO illegal. It is legal, however, IMHO to write, 'mr x is a steaming pile of shit.' {i am not a lawyer, a lay person only.} ]]

==
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

 

[Recidiva]

Or even just valid.

Yes, even just that.

I may suffer from reading too far into people's posts and giving them far too much credit at times, but I watch people get flogged over the most trivial of reasons and that's why I'm opposed to censorship.

I'm permitted to see the world through my rose-colored insight glasses as well and not be offended, but moved.

My contact with even the most horrific of human beings does more to move me toward compassion and pity for their self-inflicted isolation than I ever would have expected. I see them as lacking choice and options and being confined inside their own heads in ways I wouldn't inflict on anyone. I do understand that some have social rabies and must be put down. But I don't hate them. And I'd rather say a prayer over them than kick the dead corpse.

 

[xssve]

Actually, that's a myth.

For someone who just wants fame, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

But there are plenty of cases of bad press when reputation and confidence are involved.

See wall street for details.

Scouries writes incest stories - I don't think notoriety bothers him a whole lot.

 

[Recidiva]

I don't know that the "ignore" function has truly been tested with the excrement in question. Perhaps it's time to truly police it, if that's what we want to do.

There are people here who, when a newbie comes in and says, "Hey, why can't I post a story about two fifteen year olds having sex?", jump immediately and reply, "Because the site owners say so, and they own the site, so deal" etc.

Perhaps we can have some such response every time someone forgets to use the ignore function and responds to the foul matter we're discussing? And of course, this wouldn't include their threads, since they'd already be on ignore... it would just include someone quoting/responding to the ignored, so others on the forum, who are using that blessed ignore feature, don't have to keep wading through?

Eventually... in theory... we wouldn't have to do it anymore, or we would be doing it much less often...

Of course, as I said, the theory hasn't ever really been tested. Too many people have (present company - nor myself - not excepted) been incited or tempted to respond, instead of taking the higher road.

Can we take the higher road? Can we, as a community, commit to doing so?

This incident has inspired me to do so, if not for my own sake, then for the sake of those who feel more vulnerable to its influence.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

This incident has inspired me to do so, if not for my own sake, then for the sake of those who feel more vulnerable to its influence.

Thank you for that commitment.

It would be a blessing to see the theory work, and the excrement a) talking/responding to themselves (they already are I hear... ) until they finally run out of steam; and b) eventually their threads dropping off the AH without ever being seen or responded to at all.

Policing ourselves, as far as I can see, is the only way to do so. Community pressure can be a powerful motivator.

 

[Recidiva]

Scouries writes incest stories - I don't think notoriety bothers him a whole lot.

Yes, and he's seeking fame only. That was my point. Not integrity, not artistic achievement, not anything else that would matter to someone like...say...me.

The difference is that bad publicity matters to me and I respond to it.

 

[xssve]

If there is one thing I can brag about in here, it's that the above post #133 is the first, and probably the last time I'll ever be moved to respond to anything Scouries has ever posted, I have too many other, more entertaining ways, to waste my time.

 

[damppanties]

I don't know that the "ignore" function has truly been tested with the excrement in question. Perhaps it's time to truly police it, if that's what we want to do.

There are people here who, when a newbie comes in and says, "Hey, why can't I post a story about two fifteen year olds having sex?", jump immediately and reply, "Because the site owners say so, and they own the site, so deal" etc.

Perhaps we can have some such response every time someone forgets to use the ignore function and responds to the foul matter we're discussing? And of course, this wouldn't include their threads, since they'd already be on ignore... it would just include someone quoting/responding to the ignored, so others on the forum, who are using that blessed ignore feature, don't have to keep wading through?

Eventually... in theory... we wouldn't have to do it anymore, or we would be doing it much less often...

Of course, as I said, the theory hasn't ever really been tested. Too many people have (present company - nor myself - not excepted) been incited or tempted to respond, instead of taking the higher road.

Can we take the higher road? Can we, as a community, commit to doing so?

You mean anyone will be able to quote a post and say, that person is not worth replying to / should be ignored? I am sorry, but that will make this place insufferable. There are too many 'look at me' self-important egos in this place.

 

[wmrs2]

I didn't have that person on Ignore, Stella. Had never bothered reading him, is all.
.

Again, ditto the statement made to Cantgog. Why do you give your friends a free pass? I would favor monitors providing they would give me always a free pass and damn those who refuse to accept my point of view. Would that be the utopia of which you dream?

 

[Recidiva]

Individual posts can be deleted. And after enough problems caused by the same person, they lose their right to say anything brilliant.

The law still gives the death penalty to a person who has killed, say, 20 times, without thinking of whether he would have discovered the cure for cancer if he had lived.

Yes. I actually have a...very long ignore list. And I've just committed to certain people not ever coming off and not allowing my temptations to snipe allow my contributions to this community devolve into a fracas that disrupts the communal expectations of those people I care for here.

I've been advocating ignore. I'm actually veering away from any form of public execution and advising shunning.

To pass up the ignore button in favor of something more drastic before attempting ignore...really confuses me.

If the community insists on execution, I don't think it's enforceable, but I'm sure which side of that line I'm on. I don't break the forum rules and I won't show up for the ceremony to throw rotten fruit.

I'm not big on vengeance, it makes me tired.

 

[Recidiva]

Thank you for that commitment.

It would be a blessing to see the theory work, and the excrement a) talking/responding to themselves (they already are I hear... ) until they finally run out of steam; and b) eventually their threads dropping off the AH without ever being seen or responded to at all.

Policing ourselves, as far as I can see, is the only way to do so. Community pressure can be a powerful motivator.

In the past I've taken offense at being told who to ignore and who I can and can't talk to. But I've been permitted to express myself fully and only...well...sorta shunned, but also not.

However, if it costs me the company of those I really value, I can dispense with that bit of my ego and just stick with the good stuff.