Two sides of freedom. A proposal.

[Senna Jawa]

I wish I had this idea in the early days of Literotica, I would write so many more poems! And in English . Actually, I am sad.

A general idea of "no censorship" is too simplistic. No wonder that it fails, unfortunately. First of all the notion of information is too simplistic. Indeed, it has two components, not one. One is providing the information; the other--receiving the information.

It turns out that now we need THREE freedoms:

1. the freedom of providing the information;
2. the freedom of receiving the information;
3. the freedom of ignoring the information;

Thus I'd like to propose that by default all threads would be moderated by the originator of the thread. (That would be just a default; other threads can exist too).​

It would be such a relief, so many completely trivial things would be indeed trivial. Ideally, this proposal would be introduced in a blink of an eye. As it is, people should be ready to discuss this proposal, and--sure--I may be a part of this discussion.

 

[bogusagain]

But doesn't freedom of speech mean the freedom to ignore it too?

I thought this was the convention in the west. The people say what they feel and want and politicians ignore them.

My former East German neighbour often says with a note of irony when he is discussing politics, 'at least the East German politicians listened to the people.'

STOP PRESS! Of course, now we know western governments are more efficient than the East German Stasi at collecting information on their citizens.

So we are free to say what we want, until the government says we aren't.

 

[butters]

i see flaws in your proposal, SJ:

1) an admin's headache needing to first allow that permission to all members and then dealing with the shitstorm of complaints that will inevitably hit them when a thread-starter edits out another poster's reply. (the starter might have the best of intentions, or simply not like the other poster - it'll get messy, fast.)

2) what happens when the thread starter no-longer man's their thread? what if they decide not to post at the site again, or die, or simply cannot be bothered and are busy posting new material? what about the starter who is responsible for starting LOTS of new threads they cannot possibly maintain?

all in all, it would seem to me this free site gives us plenty of benefits and those few things we perceive as drawbacks are part and parcel of the package. Laurel has provided us with an ignore feature - i would suggest that we allow a little more leniency in allowing human nature to do what it does and then use the ignore button if we really don't want to bother reading posts from someone we choose not to interact with.

edited to say: i understand it can be a frustrating experience if the purpose of the thread is about the purity of discussion and specific topics, then others post in a manner you wish they wouldn't. it is, however, Life on Lit.

 

[bogusagain]

Aaah. The proposal is to control and nothing to do with freedom. This is where western politicians get angry and frustrated. They want one way free speech and one way control because it is impossible to ignore a pertinent point and an idea that nullifies theirs.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Thank you butters for making good points. I hope to answer them. Let's observe that the moderation by an individual (of just their thread) is much preferable to moderation by administration. Any moderation by admins should be only an extremal necessity. In the case of owning threads by initiators it's virtually a civilized necessity. BTW, they do individual moderation more or less at many chess sites. They call it opening a table. The owner of the table can always kick out any misbehaving (or otherwise, anybody) entry. It works very well.

i see flaws in your proposal, SJ:

1) an admin's headache needing to first allow that permission to all members and then dealing with the shitstorm of complaints that will inevitably hit them when a thread-starter edits out another poster's reply. (the starter might have the best of intentions, or simply not like the other poster - it'll get messy, fast.)

I see no problem. When you start a thread you click on the respective button/selector, and you decide that your thread is F (free) or M (moderated). Once you do it it stays like this forever, you cannot change it later. You will not edit anything. You just remove a post completely, and/or you may block another user for the thread at any time from the moment of blocading. The initiators have to behave reasonably anyway because else nobody would follow their threads otherwise. The way it is any thread can be damaged/spoiled too easily.

2) what happens when the thread starter no-longer man's their thread? what if they decide not to post at the site again, or die, or simply cannot be bothered and are busy posting new material? what about the starter who is responsible for starting LOTS of new threads they cannot possibly maintain?

I conservatively promise to die not too often, actually only one time. In general such cases are not frequent. Administrators can do something about such cases. Also, the initiator should have also an option to close a thread. (We may write our Literotica wills; in the cases of gurus this should be a requirement ).

all in all, it would seem to me this free site gives us plenty of benefits and those few things we perceive as drawbacks are part and parcel of the package.

I find these drawback important enough to just forget about Literotica once and again. I come back and soon I leave again. Thus Literotica is a filter. I feel that moderated threads would be great, and basically, they don't take anything away from anybody--you don't have to moderate your threads.

Laurel has provided us with an ignore feature

Oh, let me know about the automatic ignore feature. A poetic group has the option to ignore participants. The participants there are mostly nasty. But once I learned about the ignore feature the majority of them are ignored by me, I don't see any input from them, and it's certainly preferable then it would be otherwise. I still that moderating your own threads is still superior. Actually, one should have both.

edited to say: i understand it can be a frustrating experience if the purpose of the thread is about the purity of discussion and specific topics, then others post in a manner you wish they wouldn't. it is, however, Life on Lit.

Let's make it nicer. The privately moderated rooms are like your own living room.

Thank you for a nice, to a point duscussion, free from silly rhetorics. I used to call my Art of Agreement by name Freedom Approach. But such a name--Freedom Approach--was too exposed to non-constructive discussion (to say it mmildly), so I have changed that name to the present one.

 

[butters]

Thank you butters for making good points. I hope to answer them. Let's observe that the moderation by an individual (of just their thread) is much preferable to moderation by administration. Any moderation by admins should be only an extremal necessity. In the case of owning threads by initiators it's virtually a civilized necessity. BTW, they do individual moderation more or less at many chess sites. They call it opening a table. The owner of the table can always kick out any misbehaving (or otherwise, anybody) entry. It works very well.
whilst i can see the appeal, the sheer size of a site like Lit - its huge membership volume and turnover - i just can't see it working. have you ever visited the General Board of the Playground? if the thread-starter mod power was granted to those areas we might think of as more civilised, how would admin justify not awarding the same to the others? experience tells me the ability to remove other posters' comments would be abused. absolutely.



I see no problem. When you start a thread you click on the respective button/selector, and you decide that your thread is F (free) or M (moderated). Once you do it it stays like this forever, you cannot change it later. You will not edit anything. You just remove a post completely, and/or you may block another user for the thread at any time from the moment of blocading. The initiators have to behave reasonably anyway because else nobody would follow their threads otherwise. The way it is any thread can be damaged/spoiled too easily.
as a concept, i'd say it's workable over certain sectors of Lit but not others. i'd also moot the point that sometimes those we'd rather not listen to have something worth saying.


I conservatively promise to die not too often, actually only one time. In general such cases are not frequent. Administrators can do something about such cases. Also, the initiator should have also an option to close a thread. (We may write our Literotica wills; in the cases of gurus this should be a requirement ).*smiles* how very civilised of you, SJ.

in all probability, though, Laurel and Manu are really quite happy with how they run their site and would see all this personalised moderation (as that is, in effect, what it would be) as intruding on their own control of content and display.

all in all, it would seem to me this free site gives us plenty of benefits and those few things we perceive as drawbacks are part and parcel of the package.[\QUOTE]
I find these drawback important enough to just forget about Literotica once and again. I come back and soon I leave again. Thus Literotica is a filter. I feel that moderated threads would be great, and basically, they don't take anything away from anybody--you don't have to moderate your threads.
it's unfortunate Lit doesn't offer you all you'd like to see on a site and feel the need to escape now and again. i find that with just about any site i've spent time at, to be honest. Lit, though - i always return to Lit. SJ, have you considered mailing Laurel directly with your thoughts? i'm not able to speak for her and manu, i was only speaking my thoughts. she may well have a clearer reason for not implementing your idea.

Oh, let me know about the automatic ignore feature. A poetic group has the option to ignore participants. The participants there are mostly nasty. But once I learned about the ignore feature the majority of them are ignored by me, I don't see any input from them, and it's certainly preferable then it would be otherwise. I still that moderating your own threads is still superior. Actually, one should have both.
ah, there's the rub...




Let's make it nicer. The privately moderated rooms are like your own living room.
i'd come visit! you could serve me cake and haiku

Thank you for a nice, to a point duscussion, free from silly rhetorics. I used to call my Art of Agreement by name Freedom Approach. But such a name--Freedom Approach--was too exposed to non-constructive discussion (to say it mmildly), so I have changed that name to the present one.

you're welcome

 

[Angeline]

Senna I understand your points and your arguments are well thought out, but the administrators here will never go for it. That's my personal opinion but anyone who wants to contact them with such proposals can certainly do so. I just don't see it going anywhere.

The ignore feature here is easy to use. If you want to ignore a user you just click on their name to access their profile. The ignore option is there on the profile and you just select it and you won't see any of their posts, just a line that says you can't see their post because you have them on ignore. It's not the most elegant solution but it does work.

Even moderators here don't have the option of just removing a post because they don't like what someone says. We have the ability to do it, but if we did it for reasons unjustified by the forum rules, we would not be moderators for long. Using the ignore feature is really the best way to deal with users whose posts you don't want to see.

I don't have anyone here on ignore because I moderate the forum, but on the general board, where I don't have moderating abilities, I have a pretty long ignore list and it works well for me there.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Thank you butters and Angeline,

I guess this is a lost case for me. I guess I may use the Lit's ignore option.

There is a dramatic differens by moderation by adms (even if it's necessary) and by individuals. An adm moderates for the whole population. Everybody is forced to miss items due to an adm's itervention. And the other side of the issue, without individual moderation, when you open a thread, you likely get unwanted material which to you--the initiator--is garbage.

An individual moderator makes a decision just for themselves, without imposing it on others.

Enough of it. I give up.

 

[Angeline]

Sorry Senna. I don't disagree with you. I just don't see Laurel and Manu going for it.

 

[twelveoone]

I wish I had this idea in the early days of Literotica, I would write so many more poems! And in English . Actually, I am sad.

A general idea of "no censorship" is too simplistic. No wonder that it fails, unfortunately. First of all the notion of information is too simplistic. Indeed, it has two components, not one. One is providing the information; the other--receiving the information.

It turns out that now we need THREE freedoms:

1. the freedom of providing the information;
2. the freedom of receiving the information;
3. the freedom of ignoring the information;

Thus I'd like to propose that by default all threads would be moderated by the originator of the thread. (That would be just a default; other threads can exist too).​

It would be such a relief, so many completely trivial things would be indeed trivial. Ideally, this proposal would be introduced in a blink of an eye. As it is, people should be ready to discuss this proposal, and--sure--I may be a part of this discussion.

you want a soapbox and to control the audience?
Senna, someone once posted a link to a thread that suggested I was sleeping with my daughter...