The issue of censorship

Cool. Did it have a theme? And how big was it? And how long did it run? Some of the probs i'm thinking about evolve over time. (And it takes a while for a forum's rules to shape its 'community' and tone)

So long as lack of censorship is your primary aim, as opposed to encouraging wide-ranging argument and 'representation', then that's all cool .

It all depends on what you want from the forum. In a social set up i reckon there are a greater number of considerations to balance, but on a forum the pure doctrine of 'no censorship' is definitely an achievable aim.

Heh, ok, i'm just suggesting that life's full of surprises - and that it might force your hand

What would you do if a resourceful anarchist hacker 'undeleted'/reposted illegal material (that you'd removed) under the ethos of complete freedom of speech, for example? Say, the networking of a paedophile ring that'd set up on your site?

The shouting and the forcefulness are present in Yods' RT example really. I imagine it'd go further if the place was no-holds-barred as well. There are multiple ways of drowning out ideas you don't want espoused etc - just as there are multiple ways of forcing others to concur with you in the real world. In this case, it's all about whether it's worth having safe-guards against the less constructive aspects of dissent.

(NB - i'm always troubled by the homogenous and 'repressive' aspects of enforced communal consent as well - but that's the game that's gotta be played whenever more than one person is on the stage )

Heh - good t'be arguing again .

In honour of all the copyable stuff on the web... have a parrot

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Whew, until you said wit, I thought I was done for

__________________

Yoda's pretty much said anything I could have contributed, so far. RT is indeed the hellhole he describes. I left it with over 15,000 posts to my credit, because it was on a steady slide into Lord of the Flies and most reasonable people had already left.

I've also been a part of a community on AOL for about 10 years now, and have seen phases there (years long ones) where the same thing happened. One or two problems started, which attracted people who were already cruising the net for a place to rumble, which snowballed into a serious problem for the community. Many of the mature, pleasant people stopped going there.


Moderation and censorship aren't exactly the same thing. Censorship is when a person or small group of people agree on what is acceptable, and enforce it on the whole group. In message board moderation, we have ALL agreed, by virtue of signing the TOS, that the defined rules are what we will hold as acceptable and not. The moderators are merely upholding the rules that we all agreed to when we signed up here.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

I'm done for...

__________________

No, I actually haven't said anything at all why I think the ban was wrong. But I will now.

Without having been personally involved in the fight and therefore not an expert in all the details, I remember that I thought that the banning had more to do with the fact that people were upset about Cindy leaving than about Adi breaking any rules. The rules have been broken many a times, by me included, and there have been flat out racist remarks done by members who remain members to this day (even if they perhaps don't post here very often nowadays). Looking at this particular case, it seems like the fate of misbehaving, rule-breaking members depends more on his or her relationship to the moderators and "senior members" than on what in fact was being said or done. Cindy left in rage and BLAM! the naughty newbie was banned... Which isn't very strange really if he had been the only one crossing the lines of decency, a fact I felt was questionable.

That's just my opinion from where I stand.

He was banned for being an eejit in a totally unrelated thread though. If I'm not mistaken the argument had blown over by then.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

I am aware that you did not state why you thought the ban was wrong… but you did state that you never agreed with it… which, to me, implied you knew why adidasss had been banned… however, in light of your last post, I see you haven't a clue…

Adidasss being banned had nothing to do with his argument with Sammy… he was banned because he had been warned (several times) about breaking the rules and instead of heeding those warnings, he chose to continue breaking the rules… even giving detailed instructions in a post that has since been deleted as to how anyone else could bypass the censors on this forum… now, Yoda can correct me if I am wrong, but I feel sure had he wanted the censors bypassed, he would have turned that feature off himself….

And for the record, adidasss was not a newbie… he was here almost 7 months before he was banned… and, as I previously stated, this was not just a question of him using a random cuss word once in a while…

As for the member who made racist comments… if it is the one I have in mind, he made the comments a little over a month after he joined and if memory serves, he was warned and to the best of my knowledge, has abided by that warning…

Oh, and thanks for the vote of confidence Piddy…

__________________

Youch.

I know Adi was banned for repeated swearing bypasses, and his little revelation of how to do it - and i remember you'd given him a definitive warning about exactly that issue - but i couldn't help feeling at the time that Sammy's temporary withdrawl had played a part too.

I think that's part of what Pidz was getting at - and i felt uncomfortable about it too. Say if it ain't so, coz like you say, Adi had definitely stepped outside the forum's rules. It just felt like his banning wasn't an entirely isolated incident.

It was Toose wasn't it! When will that boy learn that it's the Evangelical Rapturists who are behind the Israeli funding

Been deleted to prevent its continuation more like

(Man, firegod can have a field day with that )

Personally, i'd like to protest at the loss of a collection of arch and witty 'Time Out' covers i posted inbetweenst the dispute

Just imagine then if no argument had existed. He was warned about breaking the forum's rules, did it again and got the chop. End of drama.

I think we need to be careful about stirring the whole thing up again as both parties seem more than willing to put the past behind them.

If the person thinks it is insulting then maybe it is as this is a forum for people of all ages, Yoda wants to keep it as free as possible from things that are vulgar and inappropriate, I am happy for him to make that decision as I trust his and any moderators judgement, it is not the end of the world if i can't be vulgar etc

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

In my earlier MoFo days (not too long ago) I felt I was saying some inappropriate things regarding Bush and I thought I was offending people. I was never warned to cool it or stop the conversation or anything like that; I felt that maybe I was starting to get out of hand. I really didn't want people to think of me as a jerk so I stopped posting about Bush and to this day I try and control my fingers from responding to Bush comments.

I think that there is a responsibility to the person posting to know when you are about to cross the line. I think I did a mature thing by discontinuing the debate....I think the other party discontinued before me but I could have easily carried it out longer. So knowing which threads to stay away from when you are feeling passionate about the topic and know that you can't control what comes out of your mouth (fingers)....is a good way to keep a good reputation...not meaning to stay away from what you love, but if you know that you get defensive about a particular topic that could lead to hostility, you should just avoid it all together and speak up about it in a place where it is okay to get a little nasty...like in a blog...

i agree with this...sometimes people do get a little passionate, and i think its wicked cool when someone has such passion for something, but its probably better, in the long run, to steer clear of posting there, as you are probably more likely to take something personal or more to heart, therefore getting more easily offended because its something important to you...i'd do the same thing, in fact i have.

this is a good thread. i think both sammi and adi are willing to leave the past IN the past...i know sammi does not hold grudges or she would have shoved me off a long time ago

__________________
letterboxd

If you mean the post where he explained how to write bad words without them being censored, yes, I read that post... And even if that was the "official reason", I don't think he would have been banned that quickly if it wasn't for the fight with Sammy and her department from the board. Maybe I'm wrong thinking so, but that's the impression I got.

I know. He wasn't exactly the choir boy of the board - I've personally had a few arguments with the guy - but I still think the Sammy vs. Adi fght took it to a completely different level, which really resulted in two members leaving the board; one freely, and one because of a ban. I think that Sammy perhaps felt like no one was sticking up for her and when she left maybe that made others feel that they hadn't done enough for her. So Adi was banned...

And newbie or not... That's really relative... I think a 7 months old member could be considered a newbie.

Well, that particular person basically left the board and stops by once in a very seldomly seen while. Not saying that he or others that have made stupid remarks (because there have been others) should have been banned - I actually think this board has a pretty high and good level of tolerance regarding dingbats - but I did think "Wow, that was fast..." when Adidasss was banned.

I think you're doing a fine job as a moderator, Caitlyn, but I don't have to love everything you do, do I?? And it's not like this thing turned my whole world upside down or anything, but Chris asked for input and I gave him some.

But what do I know.... I'm clueless, right?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I am confused about this statement a bit....not to sound righteous or anything, but do we not all know what vulgar means? Seriously?

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

I know, I know double post....sry....

But I agree, you are doing an outstanding job and in the light of life's trials I commend you on your standards Cait....







P.S. This is only a shout out to Cait and not a reprimand to anyone's thoughts........... Luv you all I do....

I'm not sure you are aware of the assumption behind what you've said here. Let me see if I'm getting what you're willing to assume:

1. From your use of quotations around "official reason", it appears that you feel that it was disingenuous of the moderator to state that posting profanity repeatedly and instructions on how to get around the censor. Do you feel that Caity would not ban someone else for not only blowing off the stated rules here, but telling others how to do so?

2. Adidasss, in his post above states that he realises that he was rude to me, that he made a second comment that was intentionally offensive (that he hates all Slovenians, in direct response to my saying one of my best friends is one), and that he followed that up with purposely trying to bait me into an arguement. Do you think that is in line with the rules of the forum? To assist you, here they are, verbatim:

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Movie Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Movie Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Movie Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

3. Do you feel that personal attacks on a member should be overlooked by moderators? It appears you do, in that you seem to think Adi's previous behaviour was excusable.

That's exactly how I felt. I felt I was being personally attacked, and at that point, it was by the third person in a short period of time. I make no apology for being ready to leave here, after that. One of the things I value at this forum is that it's not a Lord of the Flies atmosphere.

I don't understand what it matters whether you classify him as new or not. He'd read the rules, and he had ample opportunity to see that people generally speak with consideration to each other here. He has, in fact, stated that he now understands and values that. If you're looking for a place where people are inconsiderate, hostile and mob rules, Yoda posted a link to one. I don't mean that to sound flip, I'm just saying: the fact that people can post here unmolested is of value to a lot of people. Not just me.

How long should a person be able to create problems for the sake of it.. and break rules... and tell others how to break them.. before you feel they should be banned? Just out of curiosity.

You didn't just not love what she did. You questioned her motives and her honesty in stating her motives, and her judgement.



Despite what you may think, I'm glad you've brought this up. I think there are a couple of people who feel as you do, and it's better to discuss it than to foster an ongoing feeling that things aren't right. It's just that in this case, things were right. Caitlyn had perfectly justifiable reason to ban Adi, and she did. Starting trouble for the sake of starting trouble should not be tolerated, because when it is, the atmosphere in a forum changes quickly for the worse. One of the things this place has going for it is fair, hands-on moderation. People often state differing opinions. But the way they're stated is within certain limitations, and that is why there are so many people here who can usually converse like adults.

My quotes around "official reason" was put there because of me thinking the phrase was rather bombastic in this context, but I couldn't think of any better phrase to use. And no I didn't think it was disingenuous - he did break the rules - but I don't think that was the only reason he was banned, as I've stated a few times now.

I do not feel like discussing Caity and what she does with you or with anyone else here. As I said, I think Caity, and all the moderators, are doing a fine job.

Well, thank you!

To answer you question: No.

I think you could say that the personal attacks were overlooked by the moderators in the sense that none of them saw the thread with the fight before it escalated and turned really nasty. I think that was the case anyway. If they had seen it I'm sure they would have gone in there and stopped it before anyone had to leave or be banned.

And I don't think Adi's behaviour was excusable, and quite frankly, I don't think yours was either. I don't care who started it. The fight was juvenile and really, really low and I was surprised that there were adult people involved in it. I'm sorry if you get upset for me saying that, I have absolutely nothing against you, but that is how I felt.

And I don't blame you for feeling that way or for leaving and I can't see why anyone would be expecting an apology for you leaving. I just wish it hadn't gone so far.

You're absolutely right. The same rules go for everyone.

Luckily for me I'm not a moderator and do not have to care about things like that. "But it's ok for you to have opinions about their decisions!" you might be saying. Yeah, Yoda asked for the input of others and he got it from me as well as from others. Mine is perhaps a bit harder for you to accept but it's just how I feel, and now I have to defend it and explain it over and over.

If I really had to answer your question, which is not very productive for the discussion, just a way for you to tell me that you don't like my opinion, I would have to say that it depends on every single individual case. I'm sure there were tons of reasons for banning Adidasss in relation to the forum rules. All I am saying and have been saying is that I don't think that him breaking the rules was the only reason he was banned.

That's nice. I don't even have to type anything anymore since you allready know my deepest thoughts on everything.

Sure, I concur. And am totally out of this thread.

That seems a strange place for eyerolling; was what I said really that outrageous? I said, "what is or is not vulgar" which is quite a bit different than the terminology you used. No, we don't know what is or is not vulgar, because we can't agree on it. For example, I don't think the F word is vulgar. I would consider the usage of it vulgar in some situations, but not just any usage of it whatsoever, and I would only consider it opinion, not fact.

Let's stick with the F word for a minute. What exactly is vulgar about it? Why? How? Isn't the power within the individual hearing it or seeing it to allow it or not allow it to be vulgar or inappropriate to them, rather than that power being within the person simply typing or saying the word? If you or anyone else could explain to me why the F word is vulgar, other than the fact that it just is because we are taught that it is, I'd be very impressed.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

If it wasn't against the rules, I'd give you a list of examples about how the F-word can be used in a vulgar or inappropriate context. In fact, most of the ways the F-word is used is vulgar. It takes a deliberate decision by the speaker to use the F-word in a vulgar context, so yeah, the user is responsible.

Beyond that, it's better practice not to allow this type of language anyway. Sure, we can get into a debate about connotation, syntax, and censorship (ultimately), but let's face it. Letting people cuss all over the place is a slippery slope: before you know it, that's all you'll see. And who really needs to use vulgar language on a movie forum anyway? Have some courtesy. You know how people blare profane rap music out of their cars at stoplights? Sure, they're entitled to listening to what they want, but not everyone wants to hear it. Why does it have to be so loud in the first place?