A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

perverseangelic -> A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 10:02:31 AM)

PLEASE could the mod just remove the hatespeach part?

I know exactly what is being refered to and as of my last reading of the thread it was in -one- post.

I was finding the thread informative and interesting, and pulling the WHOLE thing for one post seems overkill. Aside from some drops into flameland people had been remakably civil.

Thank you.
S



FirmFare -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 11:03:47 AM)

Thanks to everybody for you participation. I regret that I won't be able to answer the challenges presented to my positions. I have thoroughly enjoyed the exchange and look forward to seeing you in other discussions.

Bob



FirmFare -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 11:06:25 AM)

p.s. e-mails welcomed, I would love to answer the challenges in a civil discussion, public or private.



UtopianRanger -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 11:16:25 AM)

What happened? Did someone threaten to throw Myself and Thorns in Gauntanomo? And feed us a strict diet of ham and water everyday?



- The Ranger



Guest -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 11:44:28 AM)

Freedom of speach is something that CM upholds.It may be unfair to edit specific posts of particular people and not of everyone elses.CM must also be certain to remain within legal boundries.Therefore the post is currently under review.



perverseangelic -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 12:41:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ModeratorTen

Freedom of speach is something that CM upholds.It may be unfair to edit specific posts of particular people and not of everyone elses.CM must also be certain to remain within legal boundries.Therefore the post is currently under review.


Hatespeach isn't protected by our right to free speech. It would be legal to remove the illegal parts of the thread and leave the rest.



Lordandmaster -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 12:43:42 PM)

I didn't even read the thread in question, so I don't exactly know what's going on, but perverse is absolutely right. There is nothing wrong, either morally or legally, with censoring hate speech--especially on a members-only website.

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic

Hatespeach isn't protected by our right to free speach. It would be legal to remove the illegal parts of the thread and leave the rest.




perverseangelic -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 3:03:12 PM)

Actually, from what I've been reading, this is a private website. It would be legal to censor anything on this site the mods felt like censoring.

While I wouldn't enjoy a site that did that, it wouldn't be illegal for the mods to go through and change -every- post on the site.



QuietMaster4u -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 11:06:46 PM)

Well, I hate to see the post gone... But given time another will rise up.

To the mod... I would ask, why are some of your peers willing to take down post. What seems like immediately after they have been posted for simple violations of the rules to a specific section. While others, are willing to let some things past?

It would appear to me that, censorship is up to the individual's that are acting as moderators. Not, that the moderators are enforcing a site specific censorship...

As always, just my view



sub4hire -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/22/2005 11:15:31 PM)

quote:

It would appear to me that, censorship is up to the individual's that are acting as moderators. Not, that the moderators are enforcing a site specific censorship...


I think I've been here longer than most. People have come and gone. Some have been here the duration.
Many have gone to greener pastures.

My take on the mods are. They know us. They read every single post here from what I understand so you get a feel for the people here. Those who will lash out. As opposed to those whom are mature.

The person who started this thread was brand new. They didn't know how they would react so they did what they did the best that they could under the circumstances.

There are people here just to cause issues. There are people here who truly want to learn. There are people here who just want to chat.
Just depends on the individual.

Of course I'm not in their minds, although I generally stand behind the mods. Being a mod at a couple of other BDSM sites I know how rough their job is. For free at that.



DemonAngel -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/23/2005 5:58:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietMaster4u

Well, I hate to see the post gone... But given time another will rise up.

To the mod... I would ask, why are some of your peers willing to take down post. What seems like immediately after they have been posted for simple violations of the rules to a specific section. While others, are willing to let some things past?

It would appear to me that, censorship is up to the individual's that are acting as moderators. Not, that the moderators are enforcing a site specific censorship...

As always, just my view


If you don't agree with the way the sites run,then don't visit it.It's a free site.If you see something you don't think should be there, leave a message under the thread so a Mod will see it and review it.If you think the mods aren't 'dong their job' then offer your services.Be the change.Censorship would have been picking and choosing the text of a specific thread and not others.At least this way, favouritism can't be claimed,at least with the thread mentioned.It's really easy to moan about a service, but it's a much harder thing to actually offer to help.
For what its worth,with respect to FirmFare for posting a reasoned post, people could have kept it a debate instead of people giving someone the ability to voice hate and lies.It would have been better just to discuss stuff with each other than feed a troll.

Demon



UtopianRanger -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/23/2005 1:07:35 PM)

Personally, I didn't want to see the thread removed either, but I support Mod Ten's position in light of her twice warning the errant poster.



- The Ranger



MrThorns -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/24/2005 9:03:07 AM)

I was sorry to see it go and didn't really see the "Hatespeech" (Although I know personal insults were being tossed back and forth on both sides of the debate and I admit to tossing more than a few of my own.)

I apologized to the OP via email for my part in the unintentional hijacking of the thread as I thought that the original post was a very kind message regarding the members of our armed forces.

I have also learned not to bitch about the decisions made by the mods. It's a private site, so they can censor whatever they deem appropriate to censor.

~Thorns



perverseangelic -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/24/2005 11:24:15 AM)

*nod* I mostly don't complain, but when a thread has a -lot- of interesting points made in it, and the offensive bits of the thread (to my knowlege) are rather small, I think it's ok to request a thread returned to us, even if it's locked, with the offensive stuff removed.



Gauge -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/24/2005 12:48:04 PM)

quote:

Hatespeach isn't protected by our right to free speech. It would be legal to remove the illegal parts of the thread and leave the rest.


Actually, I believe hate speech is protected under freedom of speech. If it weren't then the KKK wouldn't be able to march down public streets and espouse their tripe. While I find hate speech morally and socially repugnant, I defend a persons right to say those things because it is a free country.

I was a moderator for a large Internet provider. The stock answer when we addressed freedom of speech issues was that when the member signed up with the provider the person agreed to follow the rules and regulations of the company's Terms Of Service. When you do that, you essentially waive your right to free speech in favor of the guidelines set forth in the TOS. Therefore any violation of the terms of service guidelines would be legal to address (remove the post or thread) and would not be protected by freedom of speech.



Lordandmaster -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/24/2005 1:08:27 PM)

Well, it depends on what kind of hate speech it is. If it's speech that can be judged as an incentive to violence, it can be curtailed. If it's just an affirmation of someone's ideology, however odious, it can't be curtailed.

In any case, I think we all agree that on a private, members-only website, users cannot expect the same rights to free speech that they enjoy in public.



perverseangelic -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/24/2005 2:34:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Well, it depends on what kind of hate speech it is. If it's speech that can be judged as an incentive to violence, it can be curtailed. If it's just an affirmation of someone's ideology, however odious, it can't be curtailed.

In any case, I think we all agree that on a private, members-only website, users cannot expect the same rights to free speech that they enjoy in public.



Yeah. The thing that I remember on the thread could definatly be called an incentive to violence.

That's what I was refering to.

THe difference is "I hate blonde people" verus "Die blondy" IMHO



Lordandmaster -> RE: A Warrior's Request ThreadPull (7/24/2005 5:28:10 PM)

I just realized that I meant "incitation," not "incentive," but I'm glad you knew what I meant anyway.

I guess I missed a thread for the ages.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125