Censorship is here folks - watch your words.

[Mem]

YouTube - R.E.M. - Shiny Happy People

 

[jeff black]

I don't - generally speaking. Please review my post history (if you have a few weeks ) - they are some insults in there, some cutting remarks I'm sure, but they are not the mainstay of my posting here.

Sometimes, however - people need putting in their boxes - see these examples:
http://www.lpsg.org/81661-your-cock-not-womens-issue.html
http://www.lpsg.org/74251-back-the-fuck-off.html

These were well receive by the majority of the membership who responded and yet they are caustic and insulting, to a degree, in their nature.

This can be true in cases with individual 'targets' too - sometimes a person is behaving badly and a well put 'sitDOWN' from a member or two is far more effective and appropriately timed than reporting and having a mod deal with it later. You see we are not in school here - we do not want to raise our hands to have teacher come deal with it. We WANT to be able to tell each other to STFU. Now - as I posted earlier, Rob_E is completely within his rights to tell us to take it outside - but you all need to be clear with us about that, then we can all make our own decisions about whether this is the kind of site we want to hang out at or not, that being the case.

I'm sorry you feel this thread is you explaining and not a discussion.

You are right, and I like that we had the same thoughts about the school reference. I think you may have said it better, whereas I rambled slightly. Though, my post was much bigger than yours.

 

[kalipygian]

As I have twice contributed financially to this site since Rob_E's purchase of it from Mister Mark*, my posting a link to any other site does not constitute the owner of this site subsidizing that site. I have paid for my usage.
The moderators have exceeded their brief when they have deleted such links.

(*The second time on Rob_E's promise of reforms that have not been carried out.)

 

[vince]

As an adult, posting on an adult website, I find being told to curb my opinions and language, is far more insulting than being called a stupid fucking cunt.

Mindseye, in what way does the linked post from Rob_E have the slightest bearing on the matter at hand? Please explain your remarks above.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Its plain and simple. The words can be used. If they are used to insult and harass they cannot and may be edited. Rob E's opinion and wishes have been well known and documented for a long while now. It's his site. He is the boss. I have no problem with it at all.

 

[Mem]

Appears to me to be a new unwritten TOS rule to accompany the one about linking to the other place.

Mindseye, in what way does the linked post from Rob_E have the slightest bearing on the matter at hand? Please explain your remarks above.

Because of Jason's question earlier in this thread.

 

[Guy-jin]

Hey morons, how about you just stop calling each other fucking cunts and stop bitching about the posts getting edited because you were too friggin idiotic to come up with a way of conveying your feelings without degrading each other and calling each other names like fourth graders. Assholes.

(This thread was asking for it. Yes, I'm bad.)

 

[ManlyBanisters]

You are right, and I like that we had the same thoughts about the school reference. I think you may have said it better, whereas I rambled slightly. Though, my post was much bigger than yours.

Your post cunt, you mean... count, count - sorry count!

Its plain and simple. The words can be used. If they are used to insult and harass they cannot and may be edited. Rob E's opinion and wishes have been well known and documented for a long while now. It's his site. He is the boss. I have no problem with it at all.

On using swear words as insults? Have they? Could you link please, I've never read that.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Its plain and simple. The words can be used. If they are used to insult and harass they cannot and may be edited. Rob E's opinion and wishes have been well known and documented for a long while now. It's his site. He is the boss. I have no problem with it at all.

not so plain and simple ...

Americans will use invectives in everyday speech and in impassioned high-level dialogue, both because it comes naturally, and to emphasize the points they are trying to make

it is part of the texture of our lives, and this free, unbridled expression is what distinguishes us from the third and fourth-rate dog, horse, and whale-eating, soccer-boy nations

it is what made us rise from out of nowhere just barely 200 plus years ago, to become the greatest people history has ever seen

was my point expressed?

was anyone insulted?

could anyone be deemed to have been insulted?

 

[Guy-jin]

When people resort to being derogatory, their perceived intelligence drops like a rock, and generally they appear unworthy of engagement.

Thanks for providing us with a case in point, by the way, Nick4444. :biggrin1:

 

[mindseye]

Mindseye, I have a lot of respect for you but, I have to say, I'm having trouble following your logic here. I clicked on the link above and didn't find anything that, to me, remotely looks like Rob_E stating that he want's peoples posts edited.

Go back and read jason_els's post, to which I was replying, and I think that will clear up your trouble. The policy that jason_els called a "new unwritten TOS rule" was the policy of not giving free advertising to protest sites. I haven't commented publicly on any other matter in this thread.

 

[B_Nick4444]

When people resort to being derogatory, their perceived intelligence drops like a rock, and generally they appear unworthy of engagement.

Thanks for providing us with a case in point, by the way, Nick4444. :biggrin1:

sure ... you know you can count on me:tongue:

 

[Mem]

not so plain and simple ...

Americans will use invectives in everyday speech and in impassioned high-level dialogue, both because it comes naturally, and to emphasize the points they are trying to make

I agree and I think that Denmark is a kinder, gentler nation and they should not impose their beliefs on the free speech of everyone else.

 

[B_Nick4444]

how much time do I have before I'm banned? :scratchchin:

 

[Northland]

Ive just come from the Celeb Endow forum where I noticed a couple of posts have been edited by a moderator - without the posters permission. Reason given is "inappropriate language". Is anyone else alarmed by this? Is this an Adult website or not? Have the mods now become Nannymods who go round cleaning up our nasty words? I just find it absolutely wrong & bordering on offensive that someone else can edit my posts. Who needs protecting from such language exactly? WRONG WRONG WRONG for so many reasons...

So apparently this little 'game' from Freddie53 wasn't so much a game as a preliminary warning that things were about to change: Those Damn Grey Areas

I am aware that now, the entire moderating team will scurry about and claim that, no, Freddie was not doing a water test. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't; but, it's darned suspicious, the timing of it all.

As to censoring-won't that make certain posts confusing? If Joe posts what a moderator/administrator considers to be offensive and shortly thereafter, both Roz and Roy respond that they found Joe's comments offensive, and moderator-x has already edited, how will the readership know what was offensive? This idea of censorship violates the idea of free speech and in the end will create chaos.

 

[Mem]

Is there anything that can be said here that is as offensive as censorship?

 

[2322]

Go back and read jason_els's post, to which I was replying, and I think that will clear up your trouble. The policy that jason_els called a "new unwritten TOS rule" was the policy of not giving free advertising to protest sites. I haven't commented publicly on any other matter in this thread.

Yet it is still not in the TOS. When someone gets reprimanded (an increasingly frequent occurrence it seems), the first thing he or she will do is cite the TOS. If the policy is not in the TOS then you only have the evidence you presented before, "Rob's request," which you are not treating as a request, but as a demand.

I don't mind not linking to the other place nor following rules, but this saccharine business of demanding something, saying it's a request, then doing what you see fit when someone protests the request, is condescending and patronizing. Either call a demand a demand or truly honor the fact that a request is something which can be denied.

It is never polite to wrap one's meaning in words which do not convey the intended message, so why bother saying it's a request? Say what you mean.

If I post links to the other place all over this board and continue to do so, I daresay you'll eventually ban me for it and you won't have anything in the TOS, and nothing but mentions of, "a request," to back you. It's that kind of unspoken miasma that causes so many issues.

Imagine I'm a paying member who sues for breach of contract because I was banned for linking to the other place:

"Did you ban my client, Jason_Els?"
"Yes."
"Did my client agree to the TOS when he joined?"
"Yes"
"Are the TOS the standards by which behavior and membership are determined?"
"Yes."
"Could you please point to the section of the TOS that refers to the rule my client broke?"
"Well, it's not in there."
"Did you not just say that the TOS are the standards? The entrance contract requiring explicit agreement? The terms and conditions of the membership of your site after agreeing to which you then accepted his payment? Did you not hold out the TOS as the sole contractual obligation on the part of my client, and now, after depriving him of access to the service for which he paid, you say that the reason for the deprivation WAS NOT because of a breach of this contract??"
"No. The owner requested that members not link to someplace."
"Request or demand? If it's a request then the member is free to decide whether to link or not. If you say it's a request, and my client declines that, then he would still not be violating any rules, even those outside of the TOS. Is that right?"
​

Don't expose this site to that kind of stupidity by being coy and refusing to state the actuality of the situation. It's not only morally reprehensible but also legally stupid if you're dealing with a paying member who files a nuisance suit.

 

[rawbone8]

Yet it is still not in the TOS. When someone gets reprimanded (an increasingly frequent occurrence it seems), the first thing he or she will do is cite the TOS. If the policy is not in the TOS then you only have the evidence you presented before, "Rob's request," which you are not treating as a request, but as a demand.

I don't mind not linking to the other place nor following rules, but this saccharine business of demanding something, saying it's a request, then doing what you see fit when someone protests the request, is condescending and patronizing. Either call a demand a demand or truly honor the fact that a request is something which can be denied.

It is never polite to wrap one's meaning in words which do not convey the intended message, so why bother saying it's a request? Say what you mean.

If I post links to the other place all over this board and continue to do so, I daresay you'll eventually ban me for it and you won't have anything in the TOS, and nothing but mentions of, "a request," to back you. It's that kind of unspoken miasma that causes so many issues.

Imagine I'm a paying member who sues for breach of contract because I was banned for linking to the other place:

"Did you ban my client, Jason_Els?"
"Yes."
"Did my client agree to the TOS when he joined?"
"Yes"
"Are the TOS the standards by which behavior and membership are determined?"
"Yes."
"Could you please point to the section of the TOS that refers to the rule my client broke?"
"Well, it's not in there."
"Did you not just say that the TOS are the standards? The entrance contract requiring explicit agreement? The terms and conditions of the membership of your site after agreeing to which you then accepted his payment? Did you not hold out the TOS as the sole contractual obligation on the part of my client, and now, after depriving him of access to the service for which he paid, you say that the reason for the deprivation WAS NOT because of a breach of this contract??"
"No. The owner requested that members not link to someplace."
"Request or demand? If it's a request then the member is free to decide whether to link or not. If you say it's a request, and my client declines that, then he would still not be violating any rules, even those outside of the TOS. Is that right?"
​

Don't expose this site to that kind of stupidity by being coy and refusing to state the actuality of the situation. It's not only morally reprehensible but also legally stupid if you're dealing with a paying member who files a nuisance suit.

Jason, don't you think point 4 of the ToS was written for exactly such a situation? There need not be any rational explanation needed or required to eliminate people who irk the management.

4. Notwithstanding the above conditions, LPSG reserves the right to deny access to any member, at its sole discretion

Rest in Peace.

 

[2322]

Jason, don't you think point 4 of the ToS was written for exactly such a situation? There need not be any rational explanation needed or required to eliminate people who irk the management.

Rest in Peace.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. Capricious bannings have the effect of lettres de cachet and we all know how well that went. Even the most absolute rulerships maintain a court and legal system with guidelines. Without them communities cannot function at all. Being king is lonely when you have no subjects.

 

[simcha]

I find all of this interesting since two mods on two separate occasions chose to use the "f" word in addressing me in the public forum. That was OK, but when the membership does it, it's not?

Read my signature...