You've used your eraser far too often without any legitimate reason!

Uncensored Spinoff

-- (W@nda the .Good witch), April 30, 2000

Answers

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, Wanda. Criticism is easier than responsibility. Way easier.

So, I am curious. Can you think of any "legitimate" reason to delete a post? And how would you decide if a post was on this side of the line or on that side?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 30, 2000.

OTFR is doing an excellent job. We can exercise free speech without turning this forum into a hate site. Be happy that I'm not running this place: I would've deleted the thread about racists at EzBoard because of the many quotations that were posted out of context.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 30, 2000.

Brian:

Yes, I can. If multiple new identical threads start to appear, it's legitimate to remove all but one of them. If someone submits destructive HTML rendering a thread unreadable (or making it impossible to reply), that HTML should be repaired if possible, and otherwise removed. If someone starts appending the same long post to the end of every active thread (we've seen this), it's legitimate to remove every copy of this post but one, and start a new thread with that one.

The key point is that this sort of management is *procedural*, and NOT based on content or opinion expressed. In exchange for being permitted to express ANY opinion I want, I agree to be exposed to what I might find excessively offensive. This is the *necessary* tacit agreement we all make when we come here. Not being allowed to see and react to what *someone else* considers to be in "bad taste" is frightening. "Bad taste" is the worst possible reason for censoring a forum, because it's undefinably arbitrary. And OTFR is *defending* this policy. Incredible.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 30, 2000.

Brian, I don't fall on either side of an issue because I don't care about the issues. I've never taken part in any of the debates and I won't in the future either. I just want to ensure your right to uncensored information (legal posts, of course).

If it's important to you, you should know that I wouldn't delete racist, sexist, *.*ist posts because I think those views SHOULD be examined if we're ever going to conquer stinkin' thinkin' :-)

k8, you are welcome to come over or not. I'm not going to be mad at anyone either way because I honestly don't care. I was just upset last night because my links yesterday were deleted, and I've seen one other deleted that wouldn't have offended anyone.

I'll leave the place up for a week and if no one wants to post, I'll take it down. No big deal.

-- (W@nda the .good aka ~S~), April 30, 2000.

I guess I should just mention I will NOT allow people to use someone else's handle.

-- (~S~ @ the new .forum), April 30, 2000.

Hmmmm, sounds familiar....

You going to make the rules up now as YOU go along, then have the nerve to jump all over OTFR?

I am anticipating your great board...then you also can see how OTFR feels, no?

Better make the rules real quick wanda, wouldnt want youself to be accused of the 'same' now would you?

ROFLAO

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

BTW, before I forget the term 'stinkin thinkin' rings a bell.

AA?

Ok, I wont 'go there'.

---snickering my a$$ off.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

I see consumer's been drinking again...

Yesterday's deletions have me really pissed off. I didn't join EZBoard out of protest for the banning of Flint and the censorship of opposing opinion. Some of the free thinkers on this "uncensored" forum have termed those posting at EZBoard as hypocrites, supporting censorship by their participation. Flint, does that mean you will now leave this forum? It would be consistent.

BTW, Flint, I like your rules. Would you consider starting a forum? Also, what say you about deleting posts from name-stealing imposters?

-- (I'd like@to.know), April 30, 2000.

Flint, at what point does HTML become "destructive"?

How much destruction is required to render a thread "unreadable"?

If the same content is reposted in each thread, how long must it be to be considered "long"?

What if, like Lady Logic or Y2KPro, someone objected to the censorship you exercised when you removed their content because it was simply "long", and they responded angrily by reposting this content 400 or 500 times in 400 or 500 new threads? And they came three times every day to repeat this activity? As sysop, how would you respond?

You see, until there are absolutely bright lines drawn on every side of this issue, you are still caught in the trap of pronouncing vague rules and then applying them as your judgment see fit.

By the same token, if you quantify "long" as exactly so many words or characters, there will be those who will deliberately move right up to that line and make you count their words over and over again. Just to goad you. To them it would be a fun game. For you an utter waste of effort.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 30, 2000.

Hey there,

NO, consumer has NOT been drinking again, whats the matter, did I strike a 'nerve'?

----guess so, eh? ROFLMAO

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

consumer,
So you admit to drinking in the past? 8^)

Brian,
I agree that for almost any standard, one could construct a situation that falls neither clearly within that standard nor clearly outside it. Judgment must be applied in these cases. But that doesn't mean there would be no value in trying to define a standard more carefully, up to the point where the standard's inflexibility or complexity would undermine its own purpose.

It may not be easy to rigorously define "pornographic," "destructive" (for HTML), or "long" (for a post), but I think these concepts provide much less opportunity for arbitrary application, than the concept of "distasteful."

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 30, 2000.

Flint's definition of a long post is probably a lot longer than most people's :-o heh. As someone who has cyberknown Flint for a long time, I'd really like to see him start a forum on Lusenet. While I've often disagreed with him, and sometimes felt like pulling my hair out while reading his posts, he is incredibly fair-minded, even-handed, and consistent. Nobody would have to worry about Flint's emotionalism overriding his logic in administrative decision-making. There is a lot to be said for knowing who a forum administrator is...anonymity in a sysop is a slippery slope.

Oh, and apropos of nothing, consumer is a moron.

-- (Draft Flint@new.forum), April 30, 2000.

Ya know what they say: A little totty is good for the body ; )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 30, 2000.

Capn, LOL.......just a lil eh babe?

David, since when is my personal life any of yer beez wax?

BTW, since you did ask, how bout yerself? I'll answer you if you respond to me.

----consumer who could care less about an annonymous troll who cant go fact to face....

STILL....ROFLMAO

touchy today arent we?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

Brian:

You make a clever reply, but the situation is not so intricate as you pretend. I tried to make it clear that forum management is procedural and nature, and content is NEVER proper cause for censorship.

You're quite right that any useful definition of procedure requires that room be allowed for reasonable judgment. I suggested some guidelines -- that procedures be intended to make it as easy and transparent as possible for everyone here to post and read everyone else's material. This is exactly the opposite of deleting posts for "distasteful" content.

Your implication that OTFR's censorship of CONTENT is OK because universal agreement on the fine details of PROCEDURE cannot be achieved, is simply mendacious. Can't you realize that agreeing with another's prejudice doesn't make it right? I had thought better of you than that.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 30, 2000.

BTW, business must be a lil slow at your new board huh?

Oh, wait I get it, It is pick on consumer day....cooollll....lets make it a holiday.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

I don't think we should tolerate DOS attacks, altho I don't believe there have been any. I guess we must tolerate Manny but I do hope his car breaks down on a dark night in East L.A.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), April 30, 2000.

Flint,

What or how would you in definite terms describe "easy and transparent" what are their parameters, if any? Would your model be that of the Constitution or Bill of Rights? Do you have a theoretical model that you might apply?

Consumer,

I didn't know you had your own damn holiday!!! Heres to ya,cheers!!!

Nemises,

Allthough it's still kinda early I think you will get the chuckle of the day award,but by barely beating Unc.(still LOL about the manny crack)

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 30, 2000.

OTFR -

Don't worry about it. You do a GREAT job. The work you put into this is very much appreciated and your decisions are respected.

consumer -

I agree. Everyone is a tad touchy today.

I learned how to hot link and I feel like playing but nobody is in the mood. Oh well, at least these guys are! Make sure your sound is on!

-- Debra (everymanhasa@name.com), April 30, 2000.

Capnfun:

That's a very good question, and I don't have a definite answer to it. I do have a set of goals, however:

1) Opinions should be easy to find. Subject matter should be organized and clearly labeled. Greenspun's software does let us categories our threads, which is a good start. But if I wanted to find everything you ever wrote (much less on a given topic), I'm SOL. This could be improved a great deal. Search engine needed.

2) Conversations should be easy to follow. One of the procedural criticisms of EZboard is that it's "clunky", and the flow of conversation is difficult for the reader to recreate.

3) Posts should be simple to create and submit. Greenspun's software is good about that, while (for example) the Biffy software was nonintuitive. You pressed the submit button, but your post didn't get submitted, it took you to a "review" screen, and you had to press *another* submit button from there. I lost quite a few posts that way. And there was no way to go back and recover them.

4) Loading should be as quick as possible. Forums that take forever to load in multiple graphical advertisements are a pain.

You notice that I'm talking about the quality and feature set of forum software here, NOT about censorship. I admit I'm not impressed by OTFR's censorship excuses. It doesn't become "noncensorsip" simply because the grounds are clearly laid out (which they really weren't in this case -- we're still subject to deletion based on someone else's sensibilities, and you could have memorized the "about" part of this forum and STILL not been able to predict that retard's posts would get vanished.)

What makes the Constitution lasting and workable is the *procedures*, much more than the specific guarantees. Hell, Red China's Constitution makes much the same guarantees, but those who decide what the guarantees mean can be as arbitrary as they like because they're not subject to popular recall and replacement.

This is one of the dangers of Greenspun's software (or any similar current software, to my knowledge). By nature, the decision as to who is allowed to say what is not subject to any external feedback short of starting a new forum (where the same problem applies).

Anyway, deletions based on content undermine our faith in this forum, since we really can NOT predict what OTFR will find suitably offensive. And of course I'd find a little pornography quite welcome, we need more of it!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 30, 2000.

>> Your implication that OTFR's censorship of CONTENT is OK because universal agreement on the fine details of PROCEDURE cannot be achieved, is simply mendacious. <<

Flint: Obviously, I did not make my point clearly enough. My point was that it is quite simple to stand on the outside and criticize OTFR's judgement in detail. It is altogether different to take on a responsibility and discharge it.

OTFR has not promised to run this forum according to your standards. Instead, OTFR laid out guidelines that included the possibility of removing content based on CONTENT and not PROCEDURE. Universal agreement on details in not required. OTFR is not required to seek universal agreement. Nor would you be required to, if you were the forum moderator.

My point was that, were you to start another forum using the standards for moderation you think best, you would be open to just as much second-guessing, just as much carping, and liable to be a lightening rod for charges of censorship as OTFR. You would be laid open to the charge of ambiguity in your regulations and of making arbitrary restrictions that have no clear reasons for the particular placement of limits on conduct. You would become the target of those who will always seek to challenge authority. And you'd be stuck justifying your actions whenever you did anything at all.

Somehow, I don't think you'd last long as a forum moderator yourself. You don't suffer fools. Given enough goading by fools I wager you'd either turn tyrant yourself or walk away from the job as impossible. OTFR has not done this.

Again, your attitude that there is a simple, clean answer and a right way to proceed in such a job is an outsider's viewpoint. I was simply giving you a foretaste of what you'd experience as a moderator. Your response didn't exactly inspire confidence in me that you'd sail along in that job.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 30, 2000.

Some of you seem to be missing the compromise that OTBR tried to effect. While I may not agree with deleting any posts, I must say that the sysop did try to appease-He/ahe has not deleted any post by retard on any other thread. He/she felt that the one thread should be left alone.

If the sysop proceeded to elimate all of retards comments and posts on other threads then I would have a MAJOR problem. Retard could have started another thread calling the capn a troll.

I am with Brian in that it is very difficult for the sysop to be entirely consistent, as it is for any other human being. I am satisfied with this forum and the decisions made up until now.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 30, 2000.

The only thread that was deleted that I think should have been left was the one with the nekkid ladies. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 30, 2000.

Brian:

We seem to be talking past one another, which we don't do very often. I concede I don't have any control over this forum, so I can only plead what *I* consider best rules as well as I can. If my suggestions are rejected for reasons I consider inadequate, so be it. I did my best.

But apparently my best wasn't very good, or I'd have communicated with you a bit better. So here are my proposed policies (i.e., what I'd do of *I* were in charge here):

I would at least try (and lay it out clearly) to let everyone say any particular thing at least once. I'd never delete on the basis of opinion or poor taste. I'd accept pornography, blatant sales pitches, stolen handles, and all possible language (includling "hate speech") as all part of the package. If this free-for-all policy led to an unusable forum, again, so be it. It's up to us to police ourselves, and ignore what's not worth recognizing.

I would also try, as I said, to prevent actions that would tend to *inhibit* this free-for-all. If malicious HTML renders the words of others unloadable or unreplyable, I'd fix it. I'd delete what I considered denial of service attacks, leaving ONE copy at minimum, and never prohibit the perpetrator from continued participation -- even if this meant a lot of cleanup work.

Hey, if I didn't suffer fools I wouldn't have stuck with the treatment I spent so much time dealing with. Like anyone else, I'm free to fight back if I choose. Even if I don't always do so tastefully.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 30, 2000.

consumer,
Have you not heard the old joke where the attorney asks the loaded question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" (where even answering "yes" is to incriminate oneself). I was goofing on the loaded nature of the allegation made by "I'd like@to.know" that you've been drinking again. I was not making fun of you.

I make no claim that my attempt at good-natured humor was in any way subtle or innovative, but it was humor.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 30, 2000.

Retard's posts were not the only deletions yesterday. Unfortunately, you can't go to the deleted posts thread and evaluate the deletions yourself. OTFR determined that yesterday's deleted posts were so heinous they could not even be reproduced there. Take a side trip to the deleted posts thread, read it, and try to imagine what could possibly be so much more nasty/hateful than those. Retard's questioning of another poster's motives? LOL! LOL!

What is the purpose of the deleted posts archive if only those deleted posts OTFR deems not too offensive are put there?

P.S. to consumer: David was kidding with you...as anyone who is not inebriated could plainly see. Get thee to your AA meeting.

-- (Do Not@Question.Authority), April 30, 2000.

Deb:

Thanks for the link, this one was cute. Good site too for anyone interested in 'funnies'.

Whatever you do do not get caught up in the Ra closet, Deb, I like to never of got out...still lmbo.

You picked up those how to do the link thing real quick, congrats.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

>> I'd accept pornography, blatant sales pitches, stolen handles, and all possible language (includling "hate speech") as all part of the package. If this free-for-all policy led to an unusable forum, again, so be it. <<

At least you are clear and consistant here. From my experience on Usenet unmoderated forums, I would say this policy would lead to the forum becoming unusable from any of a number of directions. One real kook with an obsession could turn the place into a smoking crater in no time flat.

But... at least you could say you never succumbed to censorship. Sort of the "destroy the village to save it paradox". To be fair, censorship can lead to the same paradox from the opposite direction.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 30, 2000.

David,

I apologize, been doing that alot lately...

To the other one,

"get thee to the aa meeting"

After you my dear, I'm sober.....

ps, too many 'handles' gives you away.

Still ROFLMAO, 'stinking thinking'

You STILL mad about that? tee hee *snicker*

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

Flint,

No one person in the world can predict what another person will find "suitably offensive",each case and situation has to be taken on its own merits,to act otherwise would be unjudicious.That is why we have courts to settle disagreement concerning the parameters of free speech,on a case by case basis, as it affects the people involved at that particular moment.Motive and intent would also become part of the equation,as is with any judge or jury.

"I would also try, as I said, to prevent actions that would tend to * inhibit* this free-for-all. If malicious HTML renders the words of others unloadable or unreplyable, I'd fix it. I'd delete what I considered denial of service attacks, leaving ONE copy at minimum, and never prohibit the perpetrator from continued participation -- even if this meant a lot of cleanup work."

I believe that this is exactly what OTFR is/has done.You can make most of the people happy most of the time but you can't make all the people happy at all times.

I can't speak for OTFR but I believe,that,if to do over those particular posts would not be axed,that the questioned posts would suffer a lack of attention and allowed to wither with time.

Yes,the questioning of me and my intent was offensive to a degree, but I consider the source and go on.If someone questions my intent/actions that is something I cannot control,therefore it is a moot point.WGAF!, this IS cyberland and many things can happen,but only if you give them creedance.

If we are going to be so chickenshit as to arbitrate every thread that is black/white/gray the board would become as bogged down(IMO) as the court system in America today.

Consumer,Hawk,Flint and Everyone;would you like have a cyber drink on the virtual deck next to the electronic whirlpool(;),drinks are on me,cause it's a fine lookin' day.

Slonjee Va (sp?) Norweigan for: To Your Good Health!!!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 30, 2000.

LOL Capn

<<?

Oh, gotts to git rid of me stinkin thinkin......?

----still not had a drink and the filet was great, off to the whirlpool instead......*wink* dont drink....ROFLMAO....

****snickerin like the dog*******

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

My name is consumer,

***tee hee***

***snicker***

***snort***

***tinkle***

***FFFRRRRAAAAAAAAAPP***

***oops***

***hee hee***

-- Breaking Wind (in your@general.direction), April 30, 2000.

Hey, my computer's been in the shop for four days. I always miss everything exciting. What on earth did retard say that got him deleted. I thought I'd been deleted once, but I didn't say anything, for I might have been in a big hurry and just forgot to hit the submit button.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 30, 2000.

gilda:

Near as I can make out, retard was "insensitive"!!!

Can you believe that? Why, the very idea.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 30, 2000.

Flint:

You can be insensitive. Retard was more. Deletion; maybe not. But he should learn some Flint River manners.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

Hey Gilda:

Basically Retard accused CapnFun of trolling-but in reality Capn knows a little child with a very serious injury, and Retard claimed this child was not real.

OTBR deleted retard from the post in which the capn asked for prayers, but left the retard alone to question on other threads.

I, too, am not sure about the deletions, as I have stated above, but I am not going to take a Flinstonian stance and condemn the sysop.

There is a moderator on this forum,, and he/she is ALLOWED TO MAKE MISTAKES, even if he/she does not believe they made one.

Decide for yourself.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 30, 2000.

Flint, please see my reply to your post on This place is mucked up thread.

Gilda, this other thread above will give you more info on what went on.

See also Urgent Request!!! Your Help Please For A Little Girl for the original thread that started this controversy.

OTFR

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), April 30, 2000.

Basically, people are accusing OTFR of being TOO COMPASSIONATE. What is wrong with this? Other than this one instance has OTFR been using the eraser far too often without any legitimate reason?

IMHO, from the information OTFR had from capnun, this was an actual cry for help that ANYONE would have done in their situation. This in no way looked like the generic email messages you see so often on the internet. I don't remember anyone questioning Sysman's accident on the original Timebomb site.

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), April 30, 2000.

ahem,

The sysops at TB thought they were being compassionate too.

You have also forgotten she deleted my posts in the thread "Psssst! Look quick!" last night.

Also, you haven't been on line when a post to nemesis was deleted (that would not have offended ANYONE).

But, go ahead and delude yourselves anyway you want. I wish OTFR the best of luck, and hope she does better in the future.

~S~

-- (I Told @ on .you), April 30, 2000.

~S~:

Thanks for your kind wishes to OTBR. How are things over at the really, not kidding, i will never in a million years for any reason even if the post appeared to be a direct threat to the welfare of myself or my children delete it, uncensored spinoff?

Just curious.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 30, 2000.

'i told on you'...remember, you thought I was Helen. Shows how much YOU know. HAHAHAHAHA

-- x (x@x.x), April 30, 2000.

Hmmm...I told on you was on several threads the other day accusing everyone of being manny/cavscout/patricia. Now, I wonder who I told on you could be? LOL!!

-- (heehee@xxx.xxx), May 01, 2000.

eye'm sorry if eye stole someone's handle. That's one of the very thing i wishh to avoid in the uncensored forum

-- (Not the original @I told on .you?), May 01, 2000.

It is often a transparent ruse to appeal to ambiguous cases when whatever case at issue is actually unambiguous. But as to the perfectly reasonable question, in it's own right, where to draw the line, the only good answer is to do so, always, with great caution. Freedom of expression is precious and must always be guarded zealously!

More at: http://www.foolquest.com/fooltrek_faq/fooltrek_faq_II_moderation.htm

-- Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com), November 19, 2002.