board77

Ax,

Exactly.

I find it very odd that those of us who are promoting free expression are accused of suppressing it and those promoting censorship are promoting it in the name of free expression.

*takes the day off to figure out Idylle's post*

IdylleSeethes wrote:

Ax,

Exactly.

I find it very odd that those of us who are promoting free expression are accused of suppressing it and those promoting censorship are promoting it in the name of free expression.

Well put, Idylle.

I have, admittedly, briefly scanned this thread and may have gone through the woods, so to speak, only to pick up the crooked stick. If so, forgive me.

Someone mentioned Ethel's site, and that there were unkind remarks made about the site, and about Ethel. I vaguely recall that. It may have been rude, it may have been unkind, but so what? It didn't kill Ethel, as far as I know. And while I may be wrong, I don't think Ethel would have wished those comments to be censored or deleted. I will always speak up in Ethel's favour, but I wouldn't put tape over the mouths of those who think she is less than perfect. She IS well-nigh perfect in my eyes, but not everyone knows her as well as she deserves.

When I think back to The Great Banning, and the comments, the rages, the diatribes, the vitriolic essays on the subject, I am amazed that B77 didn't go up in real flames. It didn't. We survived. I don't even see the Torc-venting thread any more and I assume that means we have "moved on". So will we move on from other issues of the same nature.

We are not always going to agree. To expect that we will always be kind and thoughtful and mature and well-mannered and diplomatic is to expect .... what? The awaited Millennium? ( I mean the figurative one, not the literal one.)

When I chance upon a post I think is stupid, rude, insulting, ignorant, etc., I generally ignore it. No one I know makes posts like that, and if I don't know the poster, why would I reply? I think, in all honesty, that's the best way to proceed. If everyone did so, the offenders might creep away and read a book on manners, or have an attitude adjustment. I run an Attitude Adjustment Seminar every Wednesay at 5:00 p. m. precisely. All are welcome to attend.

Let us also be precise with language. There is no monolithic "majority" nor any perpetually downtrodden "minority." There is no "us" and "them." There are no TPTB apart from us and those WE SELECT.

What there is: a clear consensus arrived at by due diligence on the part of everyone who was interested in hammering out the framework for this place. No one was turned away from the committee. The discussions got very lively, and many minds were changed on any number of issues. I know mine was, more than once, and I don't back down lightly when I have something in my teeth.

What there also is: a clear opportunity to discuss each aspect of the charter, and to approve it or not, requiring a supermajority of posters within a fairly conservatively constructed quorum. In other words, a electoral process DESIGNED to protect minority rights. Nothing is being ramrodded through.

I hope this explains why I have become just the tiniest bit impatient when people complain about their voices not being heard. We had to balance the need to take input and make broadly supported decisions with the desire to actually get this place OPEN and FUNCTIONAL before people start dropping from OLD AGE. And we have ALREADY seen a poster-initiated amendment to the charter (regarding ToE), before the convention was even done.

I am afraid that under the circumstances, after EVERYTHING I've described above, when someone says their voice STILL hasn't been heard, it sounds a lot like "I didn't get my way."

Well, life is tough. People are imperfect. One can choose to make the best of it, or to give up. No one is making anyone do anything here.

Ax,

[In my best Gregorian chant style]

Amen.

Ax is right, which I rarely admit but is often true .

This place is quite different, but that is the way it was set up. The best anaology is to a Lava Lamp; we are all blobs of gold wax floating in a sea of red oils, gently heated by the lightbulb that is B77. On occassion, one blob of wax has asendence, on another, more wax of different consistancy floats to the fore. In turn, all blobs will have thier say, and all people will be ground under the mass of heated wax that is the majority then.

Like Ax says, life sucks at times, but not all the time, and nothing is forever (except Lidless using the same joke ).

This place will not be like it was at the start, I am still not convinced I like all of it now and not every poster is to my taste. But at least we have free speach here, and if we think something is wrong we can say so.

So, until my blob rises to pronminence again, I will keep on pointing out what is crap, or agreeing with what I like (and who), and the world will spin on.

Has a weird feeling that Din is channelling Neil from The Young Ones but approves of his general sentiment. I'm not sure I want to visualise his blob rising to prominence.

I don't often agree with IS, but I agree with him on agreeing with Ax's post!

Oooh! Oooh! Lava lamps!

A metaphor no one has used yet!

Din, that's a great analogy. And I would personally be very upset if you stopped pointing out what is crap, or agreeing with what you like (and who).

This thread is really a perfect example of what is right about board77. Here we have someone coming in and saying, essentially, this place sucks, and the two people who are most responsible for making it suck are scary and smug. And instead of threats and warnings of bannings or what have you, the person expressing the opinion is not only allowed to express her opinion, but encouraged to do so, and continues to be embraced with open arms by the community (even though she herself does not want to be associated with the community in any way).

Farawen, I understand that you don't want to engage with me in the bike racks thread that I started. That is your perogative. And I understand that you don't want to be considered a b77er (whatever the hell that is ). That too is your perogative. But I will continue to encourage you to elaborate on the problems that you perceive with this community because, frankly, I still don't really understand what they are, and I suspect that I am not the only one. You are a smart and perceptive young woman, and if you can help improve this community, I hope that you decide to do what you can to do so. I am just one person that cares about this community; there are many. I am banking on the fact that--despite your protestations to the contrary--you are another one.

The choice is yours. There is only person that can prevent your voice from being heard. There is only person that can silence you.

That person is You.

Putting aside whatever reservations I may have had over the substance or process of charter building, I believe the charter effectively ensures that everyone has abundant opportunities to fully participate in the life of B77 at whatever level they choose. Certainly, as with any collection of people, there will be "opinion leaders," and various opinion leaders will have their "followers." Opinion leaders with enough followers will tend to have a significant impact on the character of the messageboard, even if such opinion leaders do not seek to formalize that character in the charter or even if the opinion leaders do not intentionally seek to have such impact -- it is just the nature of things. If several opinion leaders tend to have the same "world view," then that world view will naturally come to achieve some level of domination -- not necessarily because these opinion leaders seek to flex their power, but simply as an outgrowth of the nature of things. That shared world view can be reflected in the actual governing documents (i.e., what the charter says, as well as the fact that a charter exists in the first place) as well as in the culture that exists regardless of what the charter says.

I believe that, simply as a result of the historical antecedents to the creation and evolution of B77, there is a tendency for there to be a general commonality in the world view of many of our opinion leaders resulting in a very strong cultural bent to B77. This is not to say that it is bad thing -- it is only to say that it is there. Culture is a very powerful thing -- we tend to think largely confined within our own cultures, and it often takes great effort to pierce through the membrane of our culture, and when we do pierce it we often leave behind the comfort zone that our own culture envelops us in. Reasoning that is confined within a particular culture can lead to perfectly logical conclusions within that culture while still making less perfect sense when perceived from a different culture. Culture can often have a much more profound impact on people than their legal rights, which is to say that the fact that someone who is not among the followers of one of the consensus opinion leaders has the full right to have exactly the same legal powers as anyone else will not necessarily dispel the feeling that one is in the minority or that one's opinion ultimately will not really be heard. That having been said, I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about that, other than to understand that these perceptions are not entirely irrational. Also, to evoke a probably poor analogy, it is not irrational for someone who is not signed-on to the common world view to feel a bit "smothered" by the care that those having that common world view feel toward everyone on the board, much like a parent can smother his or her children by over-protectiveness and excessive involvement in every aspect of their lives (well, at least no more irrational than the child's reaction to such smothering, at least).

[EDITED TO ADD THE LAST SENTENCE]

Wow.

Well, there's nothing unusual about me agreeing with TORN once I decipher the legaleze Once again he hit on exactly what I've been trying to put into words.

And I'm very glad to hear that Din will keep floating around this lamp. A nice metaphor, that. The place may be blobby, but it does give off light.

Quote:

I believe the charter effectively ensures that everyone has abundant opportunities to fully participate in the life of B77 at whatever level they choose.

And I am very glad of that.

I can remember the Aha! moment for me at TORC. I had watched the TORCquakes and afterquakes with something of a jaundiced eye, at least at first; I wasn't sure what had happened with the petition thingy, and it did occur to me, at least briefly, that much ado was being made about very little. I'm still not sure what that original injury was exactly about; someday I need to investigate that, I guess.

What I saw, though, that gave me an ever-increasing sense of shock and despair is that NO ONE was allowed the freedom to really and fully work out the kinks of whatever that was that had happened. Yes, I know that TPTB probably gave many people far more latitude than they normally did, and their memories of what went on would be far different from what I've characterized here... I'm sure they saw themselves as very patient with people who would, apparently, not be appeased.

But, at the end of the day, the power to lock a thread after one comment was theirs. The power was ALL theirs, and their "rules" were pretty flexible, I think. I remember IE explaining how many steps were taken before someone is banned, and there were many... she implied that it is not a move taken lightly, and that those doing the banning tried to make it quite fair, and I believe all of that is generally true.

But then Ted comes in and loses it completely... and I'm sure he was very much provoked, I'm certainly not implying that I wouldn't have lost my own mind, were I in his shoes... and just started banning people left and right because, apparently, he was tired of it all and wanted to clean house. So all of IE's rules about bannings, however carefully they had been followed in the past, were null and void at that instant, because the toads had licked Ted's toes or whatever. He had that right. He was the boss.

One of the things that is the most RIGHT about b77 is that there is no "out" clause for the process due to toadly toe-licking that I have been able to find. There will be no capricious actions taken, no matter what the mood of TPTB, and however justified their temporary insanity might be.

'Cause we have rules that would send those b77 PTB packing, right along with their salivary-obsessed toads, if they even try to flex their puny little muscles here.


And you just gotta dig that, really.

You leave my toads out of this.

And who you callin’ puny?

From what I hear, you're a big, strong, blond Germanic guy.



But you know how toads gossip.

Behold...............teh real Ranger Bob!!!!

The only reason I post here again is because now there's this "Farawen promotes censorship" thing hanging out there. Makes me uncomfortable and I feel the need to clarify. I'll come to that in a minute.

tolkienpurist wrote:

Although, if I may say so - certain European nations do have more circumscribed freedom of speech than America, in part because of the Nazi regime. (You actually make this point yourself.)

Of course you may say so, and yes, I actually made that point myself. But I would very much like to add that in part because of the Nazi regime, certain European nations also have something called human dignity in prominent places in their constitutions, which to respect and protect is the duty of all state authority. I believe that's why we don't have capital punishment, an extensive welfare state, and a Chancellor called Gerhard Schröder right now - he pretty much won his second election by refusing to join the war in Irap.

And let me say this also. To me, free speech is neither an absolute nor a near-absolute value. Because the only thing that comes close to being an absolute value for me is human dignity. Free speech is essential for a healthy democracy, and citizens who don't speak up don't do their country a favor, IMO. But free speech needs to have its limits. I realize that's not the American way to look at it (I've lived in the U.S. for a while), and you're right, tp, thank God the world is big enough for both types. (Although we may be slowly running out of space.) The way I see it, one can look at censoring Hitler's writings as the state censoring Neonazis because the state simply can censor them, and does so; or one can look at it as protecting the dignity of the Jews and their families who suffered and died across Europe 60 years ago, their memory, and their legacy. I promote the latter. I still think Neonazis should be allowed to form parties, go on demonstrations, speak up against taxes, whatever, as long as they don't violate the rights of others and their right to human dignity. And they are allowed to do so where I live. I draw the line at someone reading from Mein Kampf to me on a public bus though. If that makes me an advocate of censorship in your eyes, I can, and will, live with that just fine.

But before this discussion turns political let me stress I wasn't making any comparisons to messageboards or whatever just then, I was just adding my thoughts to the issue of Europeans and their past-Nazi way of doing things.

Anyway. To sum up my thoughts while reading the last few posts and to return to the issue of b77, please allow me to put it like this:

"I'm hungry."

"Yeah, me too."

"Let's cook something?"

"Sure. What do we have?"

"Well, lessee... toast... and grapes... and eggs.. and... That's about it I believe."

"Let's make an omelette and then have the grapes for dessert."

*silence*

"What?"

"Oh my god, you just promoted violence against eggs."

"Huh?"

"You said... You said to break eggs."

"I said, 'Let's make an omelette.' What's the matter with you?"

"You said to break eggs!"

"Okay. I'm... going out for Chinese now."

tolkienpurist wrote:

essentially, you are suggesting that you want a truly "moderated" community where certain views are not tolerated - are, if you will pardon the word, censored.

No, I do not want a truly moderated community where certain views are not tolerated. I want everybody to be able to say their piece, because as I said elsewhere some time ago, that's the only way I can be sure that I will always be allowed to say my piece. And dammit, I need to say my piece. I am not talking about censorship, I am talking about the protection of minorities - or rather, to borrow a phrase from TORN's magnificent post, of those who are not part of the "culture", who don't share the popular "world view" around here.

Using an over the top example to illustrate, (using my name for convenience but this has in fact never happened to me here), I am not promoting that everybody who says "Farawen sucks" should get their asses banned within seconds of posting. Absolutely not. What I am saying is that I wouldn't want to see on here is "You know what? I probably shouldn't tell you this, but I have seen Farawen kick puppies. Repeatedly. And she told me that she likes kicking them." Again, I'm not promoting that you as the community should react by banning people left and right. What I'm saying is that deep down, I just wish this community had an atmosphere that would discourage people from posting that kind of thing.

Vison, you're right in saying that probably the best way to react to an insulting post is to ignore it.What I have a problem with though is that many on here seem to have less a problem with insulting posts than I do. Sure, b77 is not perfect, and I'm not expecting it to be. What throws me though is that for a community that promotes respect, equality, openness, and all the other good things that come with people treating each other the way they want to be treated, this community is pretty exclusive.

Take for example the fact that Alys isn't posting here. Many of you have expressed you'd embrace her with open arms if she showed up here, and I believe that you would. But that probably won't make her post here, and that's one example of what I mean by b77's exclusiveness. If you're not in the "culture", then you're not in the "culture", and I'm sorry to say but there are not enough hugging smilies in the world to change that.

Before you ask, I have absolutely no suggestion as to how to change this. Or rather, I have no idea how this community could change this. After this thread, it's become pretty clear to me that that's the way you (as in, the majority) want things around here. And I can live with that, of course, but not as a member of this community. B77 will certainly not crumble to dust when I leave, and many good things probably lie in the future of this board. Me, I'll probably be doing other things in some other corner of the internet by then.

What I'm not entirely comfortable with, and I apologize if this sounds harsh, is that when I say I don't feel like a member of this community anymore, people reply with a variant of "Oh, but you are, and there's really nothing you can do about it." That I get emails and messages telling me basically that I suck for abandoning you guys. Or that I get subtle (or not so subtle) hints concerning the fact that the only person that can silence me on here is myself. Of course I silence myself in a community when I decide to leave said community because I don't want to be part of it anymore, and of course my voice then won't be heard in future debates concerning it. I'm perfectly aware of that. But isn't this kind of the point? Isn't it my choice to lend my voice to whatever I feel it worth lending to?

At this point of the discussion, I hope you all can accept my decision without taking it personal or whatever. Let's just agree to disagree after this thread, those of you who disagree with me, and part ways in peace.

I was wondering about you today. Especially when I came across a comment from you where you told wilko he was a b77er whether he liked it or not.

I guess this means you're leaving again? I haven't read your post yet. Wanted to possibly catch you before you got offline.