New Rules

[Pringles]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Free speech doesn't protect popular speech, because popular speech needs no defense.

So an admission that the basis of these rules is based upon the thought that we are protecting the "underdog," "snowflake," whatever you want to call it. To hell with everybody else. 

Claiming "free speech" for all, yet doing the opposite in principle. 

I'm leaving it at here. But this just sealed the deal. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Free speech was our intent.  It was rejected by our users.

So, we try to achieve a balance.

We don’t punish individual comments attacking this user or that, because eventually everyone will be banned.  Including, yeah, probably the Mods too.

 

But “don’t tag people who aren’t even in a thread just to insult them” is an attempt to achieve balance.

 

So is “don’t create entire threads just to mock a specific user.”

 

Is it a perfect balance?  Maybe not.  Probably not.  But it’s the closest that four people could find and achieve a majority vote on.

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, Hestia said:

I've been busy the last few days with some family things and have only just gotten around to looking at this thread. 

First off, I'm fine with the changes. What I specifically question is why was this the inciting incident? I simply don't get it. One poster can say vile things about another, and we're told that there's nothing that anyone can do about it. Sure, fine. I backed off when we were told that it's going to be a pretty laissez-faire way to handle things. I was cool with that. I ended up blocking said user and, if you will have noticed, I have not interacted with his content since that happened a little over three weeks ago. 

The thing we ban is...posting about Mambo No.5? The first reaction I had to this was: "you're kidding me". You'll notice that I've also never once made a post in reference to the song or anything, so it's not like I'm wanting to partake in it myself. 

A few days ago when the first thread was locked, I was incredulous. But it was said to be a one-off, so I didn't say anything. Now that it's permanent, and no action or restrictions have been placed on the other party, is frankly ridiculous. I'll show what I'm meaning here. 

This was given in response to one of my posts last month - which started my blocking of said poster. It accused my thinking, or words that I posted in that thread, of quote being "anti-intellectual, unethical, unthinking, and monstrous". Nothing happened because of that charge. The excuses that it related only to thinking that I may have held is preposterous. It's one step away from calling me an unethical monster. 

This would be fairly offensive to anyone who it was posted about. Yet, I didn't report it or say anything besides a response in the thread that I was blocking that poster, of which I am still resolved to do. No apology was given, nor any ounce of regret shown. The policy at the time was to give a relative free reign over the forum - so I didn't say anything. I'm lodging my protest now because it seems to have changed. Since, I have said nothing on this forum about that poster, but he remains resolved to take pot shots at me whenever able to. 

The fact that it was thought to be more appropriate to ban posting about a stupid song than to actually do anything about what I posted above is mind-boggling. 

I know we're all trying our best. But if we're instituting rules, I expect them to be fair and protect everyone in the server, not just one person. 

 

2 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Fair questions, and the short answer is that eventually there's a straw that breaks the camel's back.  

If nobody was complaining...or if only one person/one side was complaining, I think we'd all be content to just ignore it.  But we tend to receive a lot complaints from both sides, and eventually we have to actually do something about it.

We agree that the rules need to be fair and protect everyone.  This is why we didn't just stick with rule one, which is pretty clearly targeted at Patine.  We also created rule two, which is clearly targeted at the people who go out of their way to antagonize him for no reason -- only further triggering his poor behavior.

Also, for the sake of transparency, two individuals received a week long ban today for derailing a thread with endless off-topic personal attacks.  Let's have less of that around here, please.

Thank you!

I think another thing to consider is that moderators aren't going to read every comments to look for reasons to ban someone. We will see reported things 100% of the time, but we will only see as many non-reported things as we casually look at the forum. 

[Hestia]

Just now, vcczar said:

 

I think another thing to consider is that moderators aren't going to read every comments to look for reasons to ban someone. We will see reported things 100% of the time, but we will only see as many non-reported things as we casually look at the forum. 

Of course, I agree. I simply pointed out that I was led to believe that reporting things simply wasn't worth it and to just block, which I did. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, that's not what happened here. 

[DakotaHale]

5 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Free speech doesn't protect popular speech, because popular speech needs no defense.

I am confused as to what this means

[MrPotatoTed]

11 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

I am confused as to what this means

Perhaps ACLU's Legal Director put it better: 

"The First Amendment really was designed to protect a debate at the fringes.  You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated.  You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable or outrageous or offensive -- because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress, and we have a First Amendment to protect the government from doing that."
 
Or, if you prefer your explanations from the other side of the house, there is conservative talk radio host Neal Boortz: 

"Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech.  Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."


 

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Perhaps ACLU's Legal Director put it better: 

"The First Amendment really was designed to protect a debate at the fringes.  You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated.  You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable or outrageous or offensive -- because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress, and we have a First Amendment to protect the government from doing that."
 
Or, if you prefer your explanations from the other side of the house, there is conservative talk radio host Neal Boortz: 

"Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech.  Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."


 

What happens when popular speech is censored by a powerful minority then?

This seems like an awfully twisted view of free speech.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

What happens when popular speech is censored by a powerful minority then?

This seems like an awfully twisted view of free speech.

That depends on how you define a powerful minority.  In a sense, any government is a powerful minority.

But if you mean a non-government group -- well, the freedom of speech as defined in the 1st amendment is only a restriction against government action.  It has nothing to do forcing non-government groups to accept undesired speech.

[Pringles]

8 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

That depends on how you define a powerful minority.  In a sense, any government is a powerful minority.

But if you mean a non-government group -- well, the freedom of speech as defined in the 1st amendment is only a restriction against government action.  It has nothing to do forcing non-government groups to accept undesired speech.

I never once mentioned the First Amendment, nor did I mention government. Not sure where that's coming from. 

This is about the principle of free speech.

Censorship of a majority can be just as much an issue as a minority. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

I never once mentioned the First Amendment, nor did I mention government. Not sure where that's coming from. 

This is about the principle of free speech.

Censorship of a majority can be just as much an issue as a minority. 

Speaking of majorities and minorities, I'm only 1/4 of the vote.  You're fighting a losing fight with me...I'm not going to support the creation of threads with the express intent of bullying individual other members.  But you don't need to convince me,  you only need to convince two of the other mods to support the bullying.

[SilentLiberty]

Personally I think this is getting bogged down into a very small fringe debated based on something that doesn't matter in regards to the rules. Hestia had brought up a good concern and some earlier comments did too, now I feel it's gotten too nit picky.