BDSM Personals Censorship

[Primalex]

There we go, BDSM Personals threads get deleted, violating Rule 12. Explanation from LadyG:"had other issues surrounding it".

WTF?

But maybe lana316 can tell us how she managed to get a moderator to delete her thread? And why it was necessary to delete the whole thread, instead of just having her postings modified. I can't think of a single reason. Can anyone else?


Yes, I don't like it when my postings get deleted as collateral damage.

 

[catalina_francisco]

As far as I know, a moderator cannot delete a thread. At worst, it gets sent to a place where the site owners can check and take care of it if necessary.

Catalina

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Did you lose post count, thus feeling degraded and of lower status now?

 

[Kajira Callista]

Did you lose post count, thus feeling degraded and of lower status now?

You are fresh lol

 

[teknight]

Did you lose post count, thus feeling degraded and of lower status now?

That's hilarious!!

 

[Primalex]

As far as I know, a moderator cannot delete a thread. At worst, it gets sent to a place where the site owners can check and take care of it if necessary.

Well, if a thread is no longer locatable, how would you call it? Removed, deleted, moved to walhalla, whatever..

 

[Primalex]

Did you lose post count, thus feeling degraded and of lower status now?

I'm not surprised that you don't mind at all, you are closer to the Nazis than the Constitution, as you've admitted..

 

[teknight]

I'm not surprised that you don't mind at all, you are closer to the Nazis than the Constitution, as you've admitted..

Yup. That's exactly what the nazis had to swear to back in the day.
Way to distort facts when reality smacks you in the face.

Hmm...karma's a bitch.

 

[Primalex]

Yup. That's exactly what the nazis had to swear to back in the day.
Way to distort facts when reality smacks you in the face.

Hmm...karma's a bitch.

If your brain has a power switch, you should have turned it on.

 

[teknight]

If your brain has a power switch, you should have turned it on.

Yes. Insults shall prove your point better than facts.

Well played, well played. NOT!

 

[teknight]

Oh. My bad. I'd forgotten the definition for Nazi- people whose views one disagrees with*, as opposed to, you know, Third Reich Nazis or Neo Nazis.


*i.e. Obama or Bush...as opposed to Hitler and Himmler...

 

[Primalex]

Yes. Insults shall prove your point better than facts.

Well played, well played. NOT!

Well, sometimes even semi-intelligent beings write before they think. I just gave you the opportunity to think about it again. But hey, if you want that I explain a single simple sentence for you, why not?


On the left side we have the Constitution. One amendment of the Constiution has something called "Freedom of Speech".

Then we have the Nazis. The Nazis were not very famous for their belief in the concept of free speech.

So, when I write that someone is closer to the Nazis than to the Constitution, it does not mean that Nazis would have had a Constitution, but that said person does believe more in censorship than in the right of free speech, as in the right to have an environment without censorship.

Any further questions, Smarty?

 

[Stella_Omega]

You could always repost those precious gems of yours in their very own thread.

 

[Primalex]

You could always repost those precious gems of yours in their very own thread.

Writing more books solves the problem of book burning?

 

[teknight]

Well, sometimes even semi-intelligent beings write before they think. I just gave you the opportunity to think about it again. But hey, if you want that I explain a single simple sentence for you, why not?


On the left side we have the Constitution. One amendment of the Constiution has something called "Freedom of Speech".

Then we have the Nazis. The Nazis were not very famous for their belief in the concept of free speech.

So, when I write that someone is closer to the Nazis than to the Constitution, it does not mean that Nazis would have had a Constitution, but that said person does believe more in censorship than in the right of free speech, as in the right to have an environment without censorship.

Any further questions, Smarty?

Oh, thanks for schooling me, old timer. I've seen the error...of your ways.

S_W's comment comes with a coda, an addendum, written in some garrish pastel color that recognizes his approach as being wrong. He would ban the idiots (and free speech covers his right to say so too, funnily enough) but that hasn't happened. I see that coda (well, if I select it, otherwise it's nigh impossible to read ) as the beginning of an admission that his draconic way is not acceptable (much as I happen to agree that asshats don't have much to be bring to the table by being asshats. They might well have very valid points to make, but those would be separate from their douchebag attitudes).

Let me try this another way, and link it back to the karma thing:
Your personality/genius is ultimately and unknown quantity. It is proven/supported by your actions...which boil down to posts for the purposes of a web forum. Now, if you come across as an asshat/troll (and I don't mean you necessarily) (and I do admit that there are two parties in that exchange- the alleged troll (AT) and the people interpreting the AT's actions; both parties can and may well be wrong in intrepreting interactions.), your future actions will be interpreted as being negative, to fit the image and label that the audience has crafted for you. You'll in effect be given less leeway, since some (at least) will be unwilling to give you the benefit of the doubt.

What's more, unilke real life interactions, where nothing is really set in stone, here your words stick around for awhile...and they can be dissected and analyzed, thus making flaws readily apparent. It's one thing if I have mere moment to consider what you've said, as opposed to being able to pour over it for a couple of minutes.

More to the point- saying that you'd wanna ban people with disruptive behavior doesn't make one a Nazi. Depending on how we're playing with the definitions, banning people with disruptive behaviors is an accepted societal thing. See "crimes" and "prison." No, you're not a criminal, but, since you're reaching so far to insult someone, I figured I'd return the favor, but, you know, not stretch as far back as the middle of the last century, when we have perfectly valid examples in the here and now.

Ha! I need to make "I'm being a douche to protect Free Speech" T-shirts- I'll make oodles and oodles of cash. Maybe I can get Denis Leary to endorse them.

Don't change your behavior one iota. You have no obligation to do anything, especially for a bunch of total strangers...who are nothing more than harmless text on a screen. However, you will be treated according to how you act.

Have a nice day!

 

[Primalex]

S_W's comment comes with a coda, an addendum, written in some garrish pastel color that recognizes his approach as being wrong.

No. It just highlights a possible consequence. The rest is your imagination.

More to the point- saying that you'd wanna ban people with disruptive behavior doesn't make one a Nazi. Depending on how we're playing with the definitions, banning people with disruptive behaviors is an accepted societal thing.

Nazis only imprisoned people who had a disruptive behaviour and were a harm for the society. Now you ask: How do we see the difference between a forum moderator keeping a forum clean and a Nazi performing censorship?
Well, even the Nazis had to do one thing: Bend the existing laws. They were even smart enough to make this official.

So, let's get back on topic.
Here on Literotica we don't have to care about all these fine-grained definitions of good and bad.


12. We will not remove your posts or your account. You have the ability to edit out any text and remove any attachments on your own. The administrators will not delete your posts just because you changed your mind about what you said. You can edit your own posts as you see fit. Please do not contact us about removing your posts.

Simple, isn't it?

Now, if a moderator says "The thread had other issues surrounding it, so it got removed.", the rules were obviously bent - because there are rules when threads get deleted and when not. So, when you move or delete a thread because it violates the forum rules (f.e. the no hardcore porn rule), then it's "good housekeeping". If you do it for other reasons though, then you are a censoring Nazi.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Writing more books solves the problem of book burning?

Exactly.

 

[teknight]

Yup. Lit's run by a bunch of Nazis. Furthermore, calling them Nazis, a very chic word nowadays, will ensure their compliance to your requests and complaints. But that's more karma type crap, and you obviously don't care about how you come across.

And, here's the thing- nowhere does it say in that rule that they won't remove your posts.
If that first sentence were the only one, then, yes, they couldn't remove your posts. But, you might have noticed it stretches on a bit, with minutiae and explanations. It's telling you not to bitch to the mods if you don't like a post or a thread anymore. "You have the ability to edit out any text and remove any attachments on your own. The administrators will not delete your posts just because you changed your mind about what you said." What has happened...and, I have no clue what's happened, really, doesn't actually violate that rule as it's posted. Of course, you won't see things that way, 'cause you perceive you've been slighted. There, there. You are stronger than a few deleted threads.

"In short, we believe in the First Amendment, and offensive content will not be removed unless it breaks one of the rules." Also from the rules.
Also, from the rules: "5.Do not threaten other users." I'm speculating, but it might be that rule 5 was violated. If I'm not mistaken, rule 5 comes before rule 12. :"We will not remove your posts or your account. You have the ability to edit out any text and remove any attachments on your own. The administrators will not delete your posts just because you changed your mind about what you said. You can edit your own posts as you see fit. Please do not contact us about removing your posts." I'd take that to mean that it bears precedence over your posts' importance. But that is nothing more than speculation meant to "reinforce" my point.

Dude, bitching here will not solve anything for you. If you've contacted the mods and they've not given you a satisfactory answer, contact Laurel or Manu. It's their site, their rules. They migth well side with you.

 

[Primalex]

Yup. Lit's run by a bunch of Nazis.

Really? I know only one so far.

you obviously don't care about how you come across.

Do you?

Dude, bitching here will not solve anything for you.

There is nothing to solve. Just maybe something to discuss. Some like to create Obama threads, some "cat picture" threads, some "tell your favorite <whatever>" threads... and I like to create threads about censorship.

 

[teknight]

Really? I know only one so far.



Do you?



There is nothing to solve. Just maybe something to discuss. Some like to create Obama threads, some "cat picture" threads, some "tell your favorite <whatever>" threads... and I like to create threads about censorship.

Selective reading much? Or should that count as censorship?

 

[Primalex]

Selective reading much? Or should that count as censorship?

Did I edit your post?

 

[teknight]

Did I edit your post?

No, but you ignored the relevants parts, on the rules that would lead to censorship. That is your topic, isn't it?

But, let's move beyond my prodding you, 'cause it's a bad habit on my part.
Should there be no censorship or any time, at any time, anywhere?

 

[Primalex]

No, but you ignored the relevants parts, on the rules that would lead to censorship. That is your topic, isn't it?

No, I didn't ignore it. I thought my comment wasn't worth it to write it down, but I'll please you:
"Yes, there are rules that allow the deletion. But the PM conversation with the mod indicated someone dancing around a hot topic - why would you look for excuses when a simple "It violated Rule xyz" would have been sufficient? Only when you don't want that your decision becomes revisable."

As I'm not allowed to quote PMs, this conversation again is not revisable for you, so in the end it didn't make much sense to write this down and providing an argument that you can't check is unfair anyway. The best you can do is point out that this is just my interpretation of a conversation.

Should there be no censorship or any time, at any time, anywhere?

I prefer to stay within the bounds of Literotica with my topic.

 

[where]

Oh, thanks for schooling me, old timer. I've seen the error...of your ways.

S_W's comment comes with a coda, an addendum, written in some garrish pastel color that recognizes his approach as being wrong. He would ban the idiots (and free speech covers his right to say so too, funnily enough) but that hasn't happened. I see that coda (well, if I select it, otherwise it's nigh impossible to read ) as the beginning of an admission that his draconic way is not acceptable (much as I happen to agree that asshats don't have much to be bring to the table by being asshats. They might well have very valid points to make, but those would be separate from their douchebag attitudes).

Let me try this another way, and link it back to the karma thing:
Your personality/genius is ultimately and unknown quantity. It is proven/supported by your actions...which boil down to posts for the purposes of a web forum. Now, if you come across as an asshat/troll (and I don't mean you necessarily) (and I do admit that there are two parties in that exchange- the alleged troll (AT) and the people interpreting the AT's actions; both parties can and may well be wrong in intrepreting interactions.), your future actions will be interpreted as being negative, to fit the image and label that the audience has crafted for you. You'll in effect be given less leeway, since some (at least) will be unwilling to give you the benefit of the doubt.

What's more, unilke real life interactions, where nothing is really set in stone, here your words stick around for awhile...and they can be dissected and analyzed, thus making flaws readily apparent. It's one thing if I have mere moment to consider what you've said, as opposed to being able to pour over it for a couple of minutes.

More to the point- saying that you'd wanna ban people with disruptive behavior doesn't make one a Nazi. Depending on how we're playing with the definitions, banning people with disruptive behaviors is an accepted societal thing. See "crimes" and "prison." No, you're not a criminal, but, since you're reaching so far to insult someone, I figured I'd return the favor, but, you know, not stretch as far back as the middle of the last century, when we have perfectly valid examples in the here and now.

Ha! I need to make "I'm being a douche to protect Free Speech" T-shirts- I'll make oodles and oodles of cash. Maybe I can get Denis Leary to endorse them.

Don't change your behavior one iota. You have no obligation to do anything, especially for a bunch of total strangers...who are nothing more than harmless text on a screen. However, you will be treated according to how you act.

Have a nice day!

christ, you're a verbose fucker!

So, let's get back on topic.
Here on Literotica we don't have to care about all these fine-grained definitions of good and bad.


12. We will not remove your posts or your account. You have the ability to edit out any text and remove any attachments on your own. The administrators will not delete your posts just because you changed your mind about what you said. You can edit your own posts as you see fit. Please do not contact us about removing your posts.

Simple, isn't it?

Now, if a moderator says "The thread had other issues surrounding it, so it got removed.", the rules were obviously bent - because there are rules when threads get deleted and when not. So, when you move or delete a thread because it violates the forum rules (f.e. the no hardcore porn rule), then it's "good housekeeping". If you do it for other reasons though, then you are a censoring Nazi.

you forget that some mods are lazy or time pressed and sometimes it's just easier to delete the whole thread rather than edit out the posts which break lit's rules.

 

[teknight]

@ Kybs:
Are you calling me a cunning linguist when you say I'm a verbose fucker?