# We don't need no education...



## Martin (Jun 10, 2010)

I've noticed that recently swearing, or at least certain words in the poetry section, has become censored in our posts. I tried to look for some announcement or explanation about this but didn't find any. Personally, I find it quite paradoxical, at a writer's forum to censor any kind of textual expression. I mean, ain't those expressions the very point of us being here, no matter what they may be? And won't it influence our writing, when we know that posting stuff like ****, ****, ****, ****, etc. just will turn into petty stars..?

Topping such word policies with those 24 hour bans and I almost feel like I'm back in primary school...


----------



## Baron (Jun 10, 2010)

Martin said:


> I've noticed that recently swearing, or at least certain words in the poetry section, has become censored in our posts. I tried to look for some announcement or explanation about this but didn't find any. Personally, I find it quite paradoxical, at a writer's forum to censor any kind of textual expression. I mean, ain't those expressions the very point of us being here, no matter what they may be? And won't it influence our writing, when we know that posting stuff like ****, ****, ****, ****, etc. just will turn into petty stars..?
> 
> Topping such word policies with those 24 hour bans and I almost feel like I'm back in primary school...


 
Turning on the automatic bleeper isn't a route I particularly wanted to take.  Neither do I want to inhibit the freedom of the creativity forums.  I should be possible to rely on individual integrity and disclaimers where necessary.  I'll refer you to the mission statement and you can also read through the site's posting guidelines.

Mission Statement

Although it is possible to put a disclaimer when posting a poem or short story it isn't possible to do this in individual replies.  People have ignored and thumbed their noses at requests from staff to keep language toned down and so it has been found sadly necessary to turn on the automatic bleeper.  If members can manage to keep control over their own input, bearing in mind that this forum is open to younger writers then I'll happily turn it off again.  Unless that happens I'm not prepared to waste moderators' time in editing posts and sending out messages by members who choose to ignore this request.


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 10, 2010)

Baron, 
I want to make clear first that I am not trying to be disrespectful. I get that we big people need to watch our mouths around the kiddoes. ( Although I seriously doubt they haven't heard any of these lovely expressions before. ) I am also aware you own the site, and pretty much can do what you damn well please. But I am an old Irish Catholic, and find such phrases as " Oh God ! , Jesus H Christ, etc " ten times more offensive than the word "****" So having said that, would you please define 





> language toned down


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 10, 2010)

Perhaps it would be best to publish a list of the words that shouldn't appear in the forum.

Uh, oh,  wait a minute...  never mind.

Seriously--and as a frequent offender of the Pottymouth Covenants--I don't see this as a problem.  If certain words are proscribed, then why not have the elimiated automatically?

And I suppose if there was a concensus about God and Jesus they could be lumped in.  Frankly I find the words "protagonist" and "head-hopping"  offensive.

What would seem workable to me is what I've seen elsewhere: an "adult forum" with aviso (perhaps locked to members with birthdates later than a cut-off date?) where there aren't restrictions?


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 10, 2010)

> What would seem workable to me is what I've seen elsewhere: an "adult forum" with aviso (perhaps locked to members with birthdates later than a cut-off date?) where there aren't restrictions?



If you are going to do that Lin, how about a big fat statement at the top of the page stating 

" This is an site geared towards adult writers, and *all* words are welcome here. "  ? 

I have seen this on many sites, and quite frankly suggested it to a few as well


----------



## Baron (Jun 10, 2010)

As far as I'm concerned making WF an "adult" site would be contrary to what this site has been about from the beginning.  When I first joined a large majority of the membership were teens and I've no objection to seeing it go back that way.  Tomorrow's greats are among today's youngsters and a site such as this should exist to help them to achieve that, not to lock them out.  

As it is, I already know one young lady from Seattle who had her first book published in the mainstream at age twelve.  Many of the adults here are still looking to be published.  Perhaps it's possible that they could learn something from people such as her.


----------



## Non Serviam (Jun 10, 2010)

Bowdlerisation's not usually a good thing, but I suppose I can see the logic.

Your forum still lets me write ******** and ****, by the way.


----------



## Non Serviam (Jun 10, 2010)

Well done for fixing that one.   I like this game, I get to swear a lot.

Persevest.  Joder.


----------



## Pete_C (Jun 10, 2010)

I think it's a shame. When we start to censor, we neuter the power of language. It's not saving the kiddies; they know worse words than we do. It's effectively a starting point for control. What happens next; an idea offends, or maybe an opinion. Where do you stop? Often, you can't stop, because it's part of the process.

Look at history, and in every age when censorship was rife "for all the right reasons", it always stiffled creativity.

Yes, WF "belongs" to an individual or a group of individuals. It is their right to censor as they wish. They can pull the strings and write the laws. They can do as they wish, and censorship is currently what they wish. Next, we'll have to wear clean pants to log on, or say Grace before meals, or recycle our shoes.

It's a sad day, methinks, because in censorship of any kind, people position themselves as moral guardians, based solely on their own thinking. They have also assumed that the teenyboppers are so frail of mind as to be corrupted forever whenever someone writes the word f*ck.


----------



## Baron (Jun 10, 2010)

I generally find that the teenagers take a more adult attitude to this issue than many of the adults.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 10, 2010)

What the idea is, here, is that the language of the people in discussion should be civil. The more that we have asked that people on this forum express themselves at a higher level than what four-letter words and obscene suggestions provide, the more a few members have carried on doing the opposite. Efforts have been ongoing to gently give these members the idea but so far we're spending an inordinate amount of time doing so.

Language is powerful and swear words have their place. As quoted from a favorite series, Firefly, the whole idea of swearing is that '...it AIN'T appropriate!' And so it should be used for effect where it fits...in the writing put up for critique.

What isn't appropriate is to disrespect other members of the forum by discussing things in terms more fitting for the average illiterate street thug.

The staff of this forum has been discussing this and is still working on it. The automatic option is less than popular with everyone but it is also effective for those who can't seem to police themselves.

As staff, we are handy targets for mud-throwing. However, we are volunteering our time and energy to make the forum a good one and when attempts to get the membership to join us on this fail, we have to take other actions. We would vastly prefer to be on the same team rather than rival gangs.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jun 10, 2010)

The problem is this, let's say that a younger member posts a cute little  poem about puppies, so far so good.  An older more outspoken member  reads the poem and responds:  "Who the f*** want to read a poem about  f***in' puppies?"  

Here is the problem, you can't exactly put a disclaimer on the thread  saying adult language, it's a cute poem about puppies written by a kid.   If the *comments *were kept PG, which would usually help  keep them on target, and help calm some angry exchanges anyway, then the  site monitors could easily monitor whether or not an *OP* requires  a disclaimer or not.  One comment we hear is that censuring the  original posts takes a reader out of the story, well is that true of  comments?  Can't we work our way through a few asterisks in a comment?   Asterisks added by the writer to self monitor their _comments _would  go a long way toward allowing more freedom of expression for the  authors seeking comments, which is what I think we are all looking for.


----------



## Non Serviam (Jun 10, 2010)

The freedom of speech argument doesn't really work here.  Freedom of speech means you can say what you like, but it doesn't mean you can write what you like on someone else's wall.

Baron's bought the wall, so now you don't get to write on it unless he approves. 

Mind you, Baron, you could save a lot of drama by making the filter opt-outable in the "settings" screen.  Then you could have your censorship without people getting their knickers in a knot.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 10, 2010)

It's not as if the teenyboppers are the only ones offended. I know plenty of people past forty who find cussing offensive.

It's too bad we had to turn on the automatic censor, but maybe you should direct your irritation at the people who made that necessay.


----------



## caelum (Jun 10, 2010)

Haha, Malone is such a drama queen.  Don't lie, you lurk day and night.

That being said, censoring swears on a writing forum is a pretty iffy proposition.  Gratuitous swearing isn't cool, swearing to offend isn't cool, but casual swearing is pretty cool!  I like pretending I'm a gangster.


----------



## Kamisama (Jun 10, 2010)

This forum has gone down hill a lot.
It started with it being more stringent and conservative.
Hence, one more reason I'm around here anymore.

Have fun limiting people's language usage.


----------



## Baron (Jun 10, 2010)

There are certain issues that have always been ruled out on this site.  If there was a problem with freedom of speech then this discussion wouldn't be open.  Vangoghsear has stated the position perfectly in his post.  We do not wish to limit language use in any works put up for critique.  What we have asked is that language be modified in other posts where it is not possible to post a disclaimer.  Because of the attitude of certain members when requested by moderators to tone down their language the auto censor has been turned on.  The majority of members manage to avoid strong language and this situation has come about because of only a few who feel their vocabulary would be severely limited without the use of such words.

To put the record straight, my own objection to strong language is when it's excessive or likely to flame or result in flaming.  With agreement from the members to respect requests from moderators and to stop unnecessary and excessive use of bad language the auto censor could be just as easily switched of as it was turned on.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 10, 2010)

Quite often, the way you are treated is a reflection of your own behaviour. If you can't control your mouths (or fingers at the keyboard, in this case), and struggle to behave responsibly, I can't see how you can expect, at the same time, to have the same unrestricted level of freedom as mature adults who do behave appropriately. It's not a foreign concept, to me, at least.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 10, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> I can't see how you can expect, at the same time, to have the same unrestricted level of freedom as mature adults who do behave appropriately. It's not a foreign concept, to me, at least.



Oh my ***** GAWD!   Can you die of irony overdose?


----------



## Mister URL (Jun 10, 2010)

lin said:


> Oh my ***** GAWD!   Can you die of irony overdose?


_Yow! What is that five letter disappeared word? I need that for my Literary Mary postings._


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 10, 2010)

Be my guest.  Just be sure to spell it right.


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 10, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> Quite often, the way you are treated is a reflection of your own behaviour. If you can't control your mouths (or fingers at the keyboard, in this case), and struggle to behave responsibly, I can't see how you can expect, at the same time, to have the same unrestricted level of freedom as mature adults who do behave appropriately. It's not a foreign concept, to me, at least.



Whoa ! Hold up for a minute ! I am the 45 year old mother of 2, one being mentally handicapped. BOTH of my children are/have been in college, and I busted my ass to get them there. I have NO police record, not even a traffic ticket. I have worked all my life, asking NO ONE for a damn thing !  I do not drink, do drugs , or participate in questionable behavior, and because I cuss I 





> *struggle to behave responsibly ?*



Really ? 

and this discussion has nothing to do with censorship , right ? Justify it, pretty it up any way you like . THAT is EXACTLY what this is about !


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 10, 2010)

I probably shouldn't get into this at this level, but the thing is, censorship isn't some black and white line with sweetness on one side and evil on the other.
I remember people yelling about censorship when MTV refused to air a Madonna video and WalMart refused to carry some hiphop albums.
Well, no.  They are a business.  They have a right to stock for sale whatever they want.   It's not like a government censoring newspapers.

It's more like,  "This is my house, here's what I'll have."

There are always things that are outside the canon.  Most sites would delete a screed to sterilize blacks or slaughter Jews, or a graphic story about the joys of sex with six year olds.   

So it's like you post on a site, it has stated rules and conditions.  If you're like me, you don't read them.  But they're there.   So you work within them or you don't.

I was recently banned for 24 hours for cursing.  I can't complain.  It was my bad.  That's that.  If they'd had the auto-castrate (oops, I mean auto-regulate) in operation before then, I wouldn't have offended.  

I don't see it as a drawback to the site.  If I posted creative work with words from the banned list I would probably replace them so people wouldn't see ****  but f**k  (or the much viler and esoteric  q*****x)  and get the drift.   I assume that would be OK.

The idea of struggling to be responsible is repugnant to me.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 10, 2010)

MaggieG said:


> Whoa ! Hold up for a minute ! I am the 45 year old mother of 2, one being mentally handicapped. BOTH of my children are/have been in college, and I busted my ass to get them there. I have NO police record, not even a traffic ticket. I have worked all my life, asking NO ONE for a damn thing !  I do not drink, do drugs , or participate in questionable behavior, and because I cuss I *struggle to behave responsibly ?*
> 
> Really ?
> 
> and this discussion has nothing to do with censorship , right ? Justify it, pretty it up any way you like . THAT is EXACTLY what this is about !



I don't know you and nor did my post address you, so I don't see why you'd personalise it in that way. You mentioned earlier that you're a Christian so I find it odd that you'd use gutter language frequently in conversation with others.

It is inappropriate to swear excessively in some environments. I wasn't the one who decided that should be the case, but it's something most people seem to have agreed upon. I didn't deny that it was censorship, it just depends on whether it's justified censorhip or not. 



> Oh my ***** GAWD!   Can you die of irony overdose?


I don't know what you find ironic, Lin. If I behave irresponsibly, that's an issue for the forum staff.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 10, 2010)

> I don't know what you find ironic, Lin.



That's kind of what makes it ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Patrick (Jun 10, 2010)

lin said:


> That's kind of what makes it ironic, isn't it?


 
Not really.


----------



## Katastrof (Jun 10, 2010)

Nique ta mère! Putain de merde! Scheisse!  Fick Dich ans Knie! Jodienda puta! Câlice! Tabarnak!

Well it looks like swearing in different languages is still good...Blimey!

Vote with our feet? Isn't our goal to garner more feet, not lose them (or rather those possessing hands to type)? I mean if the people who are offended by not being able to swear out number those who are offended by swearing, wouldn't it make more sense (in the utilitarian kind of sense) for them to leave? I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here.

Also that choice filter sounds...choice?

Furthermore, if this is just to improve behavior round these parts, as in to stop uncivil reactions between participants, otherwise known as 'flaming', isn't it easier to incite conflict using the words 'ignorant', 'stupid', or (the most damning in my opinion) 'cliche', rather than the word phuk  (obviously misspellings are still-a-go too...)? 

I find words have power beyond simple connotation depending on who is-a-wielding them. Which is the point right? Most of the time it's the ad-hoc attacks which start the unpleasant business, and not necessarily the words one uses. It's the who that matters rather than the what, and maybe we should just ban ad-hoc attacks, or rather those who use them.

Than again, I'm nothing more than this ship's rambling drunk, who stumbles in from time to time spouting nonsense. I don't really care what happens, just wanted to stick my head into this here talking-heads symposium. Sometimes it's just reassuring to read your own voice (in successively silly interpretations).

 I'll continue on my way now gov'ner.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jun 10, 2010)

Another problem that none of you seem to remember is that moderation of the forums should be dealt with evenly and fairly.  In fact several members were cautioned for defending this very point in a thread (which is not the place for that discussion).  Foul language is not allowed in the comments, we try and make exceptions for "the language arts" (the OP's within reason).  

So URHairy2 writes, "I don't get why the f*** you wrote all the sh*t about puppies. But here is one problem I see, the rhythm is off here..." and since we are all grown up adults and we see that URHairy2 has offered a suggestion, we allow that.   

Then Somelikeit2hot writes, "F*** the F***er that wrote the ******f***ing sh*t poem about f***ing puppies anyway."  Then we have to moderate that one and give him a warning because it has no redeeming qualities.   If it happens multiple times then we ban him.  Then we hear "You're unfair, you banned Somelikeit2hot but you didn't ban URHairy2!

If people would moderate themselves especially in their comments, this type of censorship would not be necessary.  It's the ones who constantly cross the line that have caused this problem.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 10, 2010)

Those of my faith find asterisks extremely offensive, due to their resemblance to the anus.  I think they should all be removed.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jun 10, 2010)

lin said:


> Those of my faith find asterisks extremely offensive, due to their resemblance to the anus.  I think they should all be removed.


Now that's funny.


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 10, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> I don't know you and nor did my post address you, so I don't see why you'd personalise it in that way. You mentioned earlier that you're a Christian so I find it odd that you'd use gutter language frequently in conversation with others.
> 
> It is inappropriate to swear excessively in some environments. I wasn't the one who decided that should be the case, but it's something most people seem to have agreed upon. I didn't deny that it was censorship, it just depends on whether it's justified censorhip or not.
> 
> I don't know what you find ironic, Lin. If I behave irresponsibly, that's an issue for the forum staff.



Gutter language ? , Also my being a Catholic ? ( and I specifically said Irish Catholic, and all that that implies. )  As I said before I personally find shouting out God's name in vain ( a rather more accurate description of *THAT* sin by the way *smirks* ) far more offensive than the use of a cuss word. BUT those are the rules I follow. I don't expect anyone else to follow them, and I certainly do not ( How did Silvermoon define what Reese did before Baron banned him ? ) "Insult someone's character " Yeah I think that was it . I don't deem them less than myself with *WORDS* like *GUTTER *, and *" STRUGGLE TO BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY " *

The only thing I am struggling with ( and responsibly ) is how anyone can "justify" censorship . I am struggling with nothing else, trust me .


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 10, 2010)

lin said:


> Those of my faith find asterisks extremely offensive, due to their resemblance to the anus.  I think they should all be removed.


 

*laughing*


----------



## caelum (Jun 10, 2010)

lin said:


> (or the much viler and esoteric  q*****x)


 
Don't you be talking that kind of filth in here, lin.  My virgin ears can only take so much.



Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> Quite often, the way you are  treated is a reflection of your own behaviour. If you can't control your  mouths (or fingers at the keyboard, in this case), and struggle to  behave responsibly, I can't see how you can expect, at the same time, to  have the same unrestricted level of freedom as mature adults who do  behave appropriately. It's not a foreign concept, to me, at  least.


This is absurd for several reasons.  First of all, it assumes justice, as in the way someone is treated is the way they deserve to be treated.  Some people just treat others badly because they themselves are bad people, whether or not the person receiving the treatment has ever wronged or righted them.  The wielders of authority do not always wield that authority justly.

Second of all, it doesn't apply to this situation, because this is one of those *all are made to suffer for the errs of a few* instances, and punishing everybody for the errs of a few never works.  Crimes should be dealt with on an individual basis, not blasting the whole population, which would prevent this place from becoming a draconian gulag that stifles artistry, the exact opposite of what a Writing Forum is supposed to be.  Oh but caelum, it's just swears!  _Wrong._  It's a step in the wrong direction.

Yeah, it's Baron's forum, he has the right to censor swears if he wants, but just because you have the right to do something don't make it right.  That's all I'm saying.  How are people supposed to know whether I'm saying **** or ****?  That can lead to serious communication breakdowns.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 10, 2010)

caelum said:


> This is absurd for several reasons.  First of all, it assumes justice, as in the way someone is treated is the way they deserve to be treated.  Some people just treat others badly because they themselves are bad people, whether or not the person receiving the treatment has ever wronged or righted them.  The wielders of authority do not always wield that authority justly.



What... no. This is why I qualified my comment with "quite often".



> Second of all, it doesn't apply to this situation, because this is one of those *all are made to suffer for the errs of a few* instances, and punishing everybody for the errs of a few never works.  Crimes should be dealt with on an individual basis, not blasting the whole population, which would prevent this place from becoming a draconian gulag that stifles artistry, the exact opposite of what a Writing Forum is supposed to be.  Oh but caelum, it's just swears!  _Wrong._  It's a step in the wrong direction.
> 
> Yeah, it's Baron's forum, he has the right to censor swears if he wants, but just because you have the right to do something don't make it right.  That's all I'm saying.  How are people supposed to know whether I'm saying **** or ****?  That can lead to serious communication breakdowns.



Fair enough. It's not my decision. Personally, I don't care whether I have the right to swear here or not since it's a superfluous "right" for me. 



MaggieG said:


> Gutter language ? , Also my being a Catholic ? (  and I specifically said Irish Catholic, and all that that implies. )  As  I said before I personally find shouting out God's name in vain ( a  rather more accurate description of *THAT* sin by the way *smirks* )  far more offensive than the use of a cuss word. BUT those are the rules  I follow. I don't expect anyone else to follow them, and I certainly do  not ( How did Silvermoon define what Reese did before Baron banned him ?  ) "Insult someone's character " Yeah I think that was it . I don't deem  them less than myself with *WORDS* like *GUTTER *, and *"  STRUGGLE TO BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY " *
> 
> The only thing I am  struggling with ( and responsibly ) is how anyone can "justify"  censorship . I am struggling with nothing else, trust me .



It really depends on the context. Banning members from forums is a blunt  and effective form of censorship. On what grounds somebody is banned  will come down to the ethics and guiding principles the moderating team  of any forum has decided upon. Sometimes people complain about members  being banned but they recognise the need for it in some cases.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 10, 2010)

caelum said:


> Don't you be talking that kind of filth in here, lin. My virgin ears can only take so much.
> 
> 
> This is absurd for several reasons. First of all, it assumes justice, as in the way someone is treated is the way they deserve to be treated. Some people just treat others badly because they themselves are bad people, whether or not the person receiving the treatment has ever wronged or righted them. The wielders of authority do not always wield that authority justly.
> ...



For the record, authority _is_ "just" power.  That's like the definition of the word.  It's power given by those under that power.


----------



## caelum (Jun 10, 2010)

Authority in the dictionary: the  power  to  determine,  adjudicate,  or  otherwise  settle  issues  or  disputes;  jurisdiction;  the  right  to  control,  command,  or  determine.

Now, care to actually enter the discussion, or just make snide, erroneous little potshots?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 10, 2010)

caelum said:


> Authority in the dictionary: the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
> 
> Now, care to actually enter the discussion, or just make snide, erroneous little potshots?



Authority



I entered it already, and my position hasn't changed.


----------



## caelum (Jun 10, 2010)

What's that they say about willingness to speak?  Something about removing all doubt or something?  I forget.

BRING IT, I say.  _BRING IT!_  Ain't NOBODY can touch this debating machine._ Ain't NOBAWDY!_


----------



## ppsage (Jun 10, 2010)

Katastrof said:


> Nique ta mère! Putain de merde! Scheisse! ... Most of the time it's the ad-hoc attacks which start the unpleasant ...


 
You must mean _ad hominem_ (to the man) instead of _ad hoc _(for this.) But I don't know how to cus in Latin. Yet.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 10, 2010)

> Now, care to actually enter the discussion, or just make snide, erroneous little potshots?



You guess.



> my position hasn't changed



Shocker


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 11, 2010)

> Language is powerful and swear words have their place. As quoted from a favorite series, Firefly, the whole idea of swearing is that '...it AIN'T appropriate!' And so it should be used for effect where it fits...in the writing put up for critique.



I have a poem posted in the poetry forum "originally" titled " Notes From The Homeland of Beautiful Beasts ( F**k You )( censoring myself *RESPONSIBLY* )  with a clear disclaimer saying it had adult language in it. Without my consent or even a notice sent to me that it was going to be altered, the " F**k You " part of the title was removed. If someone had bothered to read the piece they would have realized that the poem was literally a debate on the "appropriateness" of the word itself. 

Here's the kicker. I don't give a flying dog snot about your censor-machine. Leave it on. But don't justify it. Don't call it something it is not. It is your principle, not mine.  Stand on it, and pay the piper.


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 11, 2010)

http://www.writingforums.com/showth...-Homeland-of-Beautiful-Beasts-(adult-language)


----------



## Katastrof (Jun 11, 2010)

ppsage said:


> You must mean _ad hominem_ (to the man) instead of _ad hoc _(for this.) But I don't know how to cus in Latin. Yet.


 
Merde!


----------



## alanmt (Jun 11, 2010)

I appreciate that this is a hot-button topic, with lots of gray and lots of differing opinions.

But here's the deal, from my perspective. There are new owners and a lot of new moderators, and some of us are inexperienced like me and a lot of us are working very hard as volunteers. 

Our goal is to make this site the best it can be. Because we like it and want it to succeed. And part of the way we do that is by identifying problems or things that could be improved and trying out new rules and trying to apply them fairly, particularly where gentle nudges don't result in accommodation but in pushback.

As one of the new guys, I can say that this isn't easy. But we're trying. You don't like something? Tell us. We want everyone who reasonably can be to be happy here and productive, so we all benefit from each other's presence, skill, talent, and help. But you know what? Kneejerk accusations of abuse of power and claims of oppressive, tyrannical censorship aren't particularly productive. Or fair. I can take the heat, myself. But persuasion and reason work better.


----------



## ash somers (Jun 11, 2010)

i'm hoping this is all a bad dream

that i will awaken from soon


----------



## caelum (Jun 11, 2010)

alanmt said:


> Kneejerk accusations of abuse of power and claims of oppressive, tyrannical censorship aren't particularly productive. Or fair. I can take the heat, myself. But persuasion and reason work better.


 
I agree, people.  Let's not exaggerate the situation by calling the censored WF thinks like "a draconian gulag that stifles artistry", to quote one of the reactionaries from a few pages back.  Seriously, let's just mellow out, y'all.  Just take a chill pill.

I'm actually pretty cool with it.  Yeah, I'm a little irked, but not lot like, very irked or anything.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 11, 2010)

As has been pointed out, the irking isn't irreversible, either.


----------



## Pete_C (Jun 11, 2010)

It must be remembered that the new owners/staff come from a Christian arts collective thingy. If they want to steer WF down that route, fine. However, maybe the intention should be made clear so others can decide if they want to ride along or not. Banning people and censoring because of use of an established part of language (used in the arts for millenia) is very odd on a writing forum, but what's next?

Not one single voice in favour of the censorship move on the staff has stated that this will 100 per cent be limited to swearwords, and will not be expanded to cover ideas or ideology unacceptable to the staff or owners.

When the ownership was first announced, I did suspect that such moves would occur. I also think they'll go further. A statement of intent, concrete and 100 per cent transparent, would help.

If you take over an old curry house and leave the sign up, even though you change it to a pizzeria, don't be surprised when people come in asking for curry. Tell us what WF is, rather than trying to change it totally by stealth.

I still wish the new owners good luck with this place; I just can't see it as an environment that some will value while creative freedom has to fit into an undeclared strategy.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 11, 2010)

This will most certainly _not_ go any further, and if possible, we'd like to cut back on it.  It's up to the membership if they really want that to happen.


----------



## Martin (Jun 11, 2010)

I say we _should_ exaggerate the problem here. I mean, what else can we do than make jokes and be sarcastic about moderators trying to be clever about something that is not clever at all. Even this turning on and off word police is just ridiculous. So you want _us_ to turn our irritation at those responsible for this? Very pedagogical indeed (notice irony). You guys seriously need to rethink this or you'll end up moderating a kindergarten here.

Indeed I appreciate the voluntary energy put into this by all of you, though this is simply just poor leadership. The boat is sinking Rob, and I'm sure Sparrow already jumped the deck...


----------



## Baron (Jun 11, 2010)

MaggieG said:


> I have a poem posted in the poetry forum "originally" titled " Notes From The Homeland of Beautiful Beasts ( F**k You )( censoring myself *RESPONSIBLY* ) with a clear disclaimer saying it had adult language in it. Without my consent or even a notice sent to me that it was going to be altered, the " F**k You " part of the title was removed. If someone had bothered to read the piece they would have realized that the poem was literally a debate on the "appropriateness" of the word itself.
> 
> Here's the kicker. I don't give a flying dog snot about your censor-machine. Leave it on. But don't justify it. Don't call it something it is not. It is your principle, not mine. Stand on it, and pay the piper.


 
From the rules and guidelines that you agreed to when you registered:



> *Post Titles:* Titles of post must be PG rated, meaning profanity isn’t allowed. Asking for reviews or comments in the title of posts isn’t allowed. You are already asking for both simply by posting.
> 
> *Flaming:* Flaming will not be tolerated. When critiquing, keep observations about the work, do not make personal judgements of or attacks on the writer. When debating, keep it about the topic and not the poster. Any such violations will be deleted.
> 
> *Profanity:* Profanity in creative posts is allowed within reason. "Reason" is at the staff's discretion. There should be a disclaimer or language warning in the title.


 
The fact that people have not only been ignoring guidelines but that they've been disrespectful to staff who act on them is the reason for this situation. These are not new policies created by the new ownership, this is the way it's always been. Had the site not fallen into a state of anarchy because of Yusef's neglect then it wouldn't be necessary to offend people who had become happy with that. The answer is in the hands of the members.

Pete:  Ambiance is not a Christian group and nor are most of the members Christian.  I appreciate that you have an agenda but at least try to get your facts straight.


----------



## Pete_C (Jun 11, 2010)

I have no agenda with Ambiance; I am merely quoting from a statement on the Ambiance site.

I do have a personal agenda against censorship. I struggle to see a single positive in a creative writing site where what participants write is controlled and manipulated by an "owner". Whilst I accept that as owner you can pull the strings of those you wish to influence with your personal morals, it's not something everyone will allow. I, for one, will not permit someone - whose only qualification is ownership of a URL - to censor my words.


----------



## Baron (Jun 11, 2010)

There is no statement on the Ambiance site to suggest that it is a Christian group or site.  Neither do I suggest that your agenda is with Ambiance.  I refer you to my original post and the rules and guidelines that you agreed to when you joined.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

> Not one single voice in favour of the censorship move on the staff hasstated that this will 100 per cent be limited to swearwords, and willnot be expanded to cover ideas or ideology unacceptable to the staff orowners.




I think it's far-fetched to project that enforcing their existing rules here would lead into religious repression or whatever is being suggested there.


If it goes that way, many would leave.  Of course.  I'd invite them to my new site, SatanF***ingRules.com





> we'd like to cut back on it.  It's up to the membership if they really want that to happen.


 
Extremely disengenuous.   What,  "If people would just stop wearing beards, we could cut back on our repression of beards"?  Silly.

It would be interesting to know how real that "we" is, by the way.


----------



## Baron (Jun 11, 2010)

lin said:


> I think it's far-fetched to project that enforcing their existing rules here would lead into religious repression of whatever is being suggested there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's simple, Lin.  If people observe guidelines and stop making life hard for the moderators when they're enforced then there's no need for the auto censor.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

Well, yes. That's pretty simple.  But it doesn't address the meaning of what I said, which is that it doesn't matter if the censorship they object to is automatic or hand-picked, the result is the same.  
I mean, I don't really care.  But the situation is that a word is either censored or it's not, and saying it wouldn't be censored if people stop using it is just a mind game.   I realize the source, but still...


----------



## Baron (Jun 11, 2010)

You're playing sematics, Lin.  The fact is that people acknowledge that they accept the site rules and guidelines when they register.  Read through them and it's clear that this site has always aimed at a PG rating.  I'll repost the segment that I posted earlier.



> *Post Titles*: Titles of post must be PG rated, meaning profanity isn’t allowed. Asking for reviews or comments in the title of posts isn’t allowed. You are already asking for both simply by posting.
> 
> *Flaming*: Flaming will not be tolerated. When critiquing, keep observations about the work, do not make personal judgements of or attacks on the writer. When debating, keep it about the topic and not the poster. Any such violations will be deleted.
> 
> *Profanity*: Profanity in creative posts is allowed within reason. "Reason" is at the staff's discretion. There should be a disclaimer or language warning in the title.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

It's not I who plays semantics on this. And it's just a side observation on the silly way that was expressed.  
What you're saying about the rules of the site, etc. is exactly what I've been saying throughout this entire thread.  I've been supporting you all the way.
I have no problem with the auto censor thing.  Saves having to worry about it.

But I still say saying "if you'd just avoid using these words, we wouldn't have to auto-censor them" begs the question.  As I say, I consider the source, but still....


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 11, 2010)

Baron said:


> From the rules and guidelines that you agreed to when you registered:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll eat that one. That is what I get for not reading what I should of. Having said that, you are aware your mod's words are completely contradictory to your rules. ( Hence why I posted the incident to begin with, and Yes a title is part of *MY* writing ) I would politely suggest you bone your Mods up a little more on your rules as well. I will lurk around from this point on and read people I have grown fond of. Other than that ? No I don't think so  


Have a nice a day, and Good Luck... 

with all this


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

> I would politely suggest you bone your Mods


 
Careful with your wording there


----------



## Non Serviam (Jun 11, 2010)

If you're a proper writer you don't need swear words in order to be coarse.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

Wait... did you just hear something?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

Well, I'd always wondered about that, of course.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 11, 2010)

*Secret Agenda Revealed! *
Shocking Discovery to Shake Forums​


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

Pithy


----------



## Patrick (Jun 11, 2010)

MaggieG said:


> I'll eat that one.



Please don't. There are only so many guidelines to go around.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 11, 2010)

lin said:


> It's not I who plays semantics on this. And it's just a side observation on the silly way that was expressed.
> What you're saying about the rules of the site, etc. is exactly what I've been saying throughout this entire thread. I've been supporting you all the way.
> I have no problem with the auto censor thing. Saves having to worry about it.
> 
> But I still say saying *"if you'd just avoid using these words, we wouldn't have to auto-censor them"* begs the question. As I say, I consider the source, but still....



Lin, that's not at all what we said.  Keep in mind that there are two issues here: profanity in the creativity sections and profanity outside of them.  We would prefer not to censor anything but the most innappropriate use of prfanity in the creative sections. Even iDrew's poem that's half f-words was left alone.  But if we have to spend several hours enforcing the rules of the non-creative sections, then the auto-censor is just a much more efficient use of our time.  That's what having a volunteer staff means.  It's unfortunate that the forum software does not allow us to apply it to individual forums.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

So now is that the editorial "we"?  Royal?  Where did "you" say this?

And as usual, you have things all turned around.   If you'd stop posturing and hit&nitpicking you might have time to actually read things.
I just said the auto-bot thing is more efficient and I have no trouble with it.  I just don't understand why you keep contradicting me on things.  It must be very frustrating for you.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 11, 2010)

Dr. Malone said:


> "We are the borg."


 
Only, nobody would want to assimilate you.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

That's gotta sting, coming from somebody who has announced the inability and unwillingness to have a relationship.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 11, 2010)

lin said:


> So now is that the editorial "we"? Royal? Where did "you" say this?
> 
> And as usual, you have things all turned around. If you'd stop posturing and hit&nitpicking you might have time to actually read things.
> I just said the auto-bot thing is more efficient and I have no trouble with it. I just don't understand why you keep contradicting me on things. It must be very frustrating for you.



Other people do seem to have trouble with it.  I don't see the problem with addressing their concerns.  Keep in mind that your comments are part of a larger dialogue.  Just because you were speaking to Baron doesn't mean other people can't hear you.


----------



## Baron (Jun 11, 2010)

Please try to keep this on topic.  This thread is about having a whinge about the staff, not attacking each other.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 11, 2010)

Baron said:


> Please try to keep this on topic. This thread is about having a whinge about the staff, not attacking each other.



The problem is those darn staff people came in and started talking back to people.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

> The problem is those darn staff people came in and started talking back to people.


Worse is the ones who come in think they're talking to people when they're actually sort of mumbling to their other personality or something.
Or respond to a post suggesting less personal antagonism by getting in another dig.  By a "moderator".





> Just because you were speaking to Baron doesn't mean other people can't hear you.


 
Your assumptions about what other people understand or say is truly bizarre in its loopiness.   You quote my posts, put your nutso little squibbles under them, then try to pretend you're not involved.
Again... Why?

Other people have troutle with WHAT?  Addressing whose concerns?   You continue you to be like jello on the wall, but just won't stop getting into it, then weirding out.    Makes NO sense.   If you don't want to interact with me, don't.  Like I say, it must be frustrating.  But I guess that would only be if you have some semblance of an idea of what is going on.   Weird.   If "we" don't want personal...don't make it personal.  You are the worst person on this forum for jumping into things and warping them out of shape for no reason.  You COULD stop doing that.   Or not.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 11, 2010)

lin said:


> That's gotta sting, coming from somebody who has announced the inability and unwillingness to have a relationship.


 
Oh, sizzle and burn, baby. Ouch, ouch, ouch. Handle with caution.


----------



## Baron (Jun 11, 2010)

Keep it civil please.  No exceptions.


----------



## vangoghsear (Jun 11, 2010)

This is good, we are getting to show first hand why moderation is required on a public forum.

Stay on topic, refrain from personal attacks on each other or the individual moderators. 



Sorry, Baron, you got here first with the same point.


----------



## Baron (Jun 11, 2010)

Dr. Malone said:


> Unless it's about you, in which case it's quickly deleted.


 
That really depends on the content.  Read the guidelines for yourself.  Also check back through the thread and see just how many comments about me are there.  I have no security issues but I don't make exceptions.  Pity you couldn't just take the olive branch that was offered when the forum changed hands.  It really isn't too late unless you prefer to simply continue as a troll.  You know where that will lead, ultimately.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 11, 2010)

Baron said:


> Read the guidelines for yourself.


 
That's asking too much of the average forumite. Nobody comes to a writing forum to read anything about anything no nothing.


----------



## Baron (Jun 11, 2010)

Dr. Malone said:


> Did you call me a troll?  Flaming!
> 
> I have a pretty good idea of the rules.  Like issuing warnings and giving reasons for banning.  The thing about rules is, you have to actually follow them all the time, not just when they suit your purpose.


 
That's really what this is all about so we're at least on the same wavelength over that one.


----------



## Mister URL (Jun 11, 2010)

It's Fun watching from the sidelines the multi-thousand posters chewing away on this. 

*Powder River, let 'er buck!*


----------



## spider8 (Jun 12, 2010)

I find it astonishing that writers are advocating censorhip. I posted a piece recently that had a swear-word in it. I hardly ever use swear-words (as a reader, I don't like over-usage). When I looked it up and saw the asterixes it made me wish I'd submitted something else.

How many people advocating censorhip in the form of asterixes would buy a novel with this?

Okay, novels are targetted. But unless there's a lot of Smeagal fans out there, this targetting is _very_ misplaced.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 12, 2010)

And as Lin, and Malone have suggested, (or perhaps I'm reading between the lines): I'm tolerant as a reader, I don't know what I'm gonna find on the next page, but I'm mentally prepared (I am a book reader after all, not a moron, though some may disagree). 

But the important thing is that I understand that this is how the writer chooses to express himself. This is how he shows you reality (if that's his thing!). 

If a writer speaks to you personally, and says of a character in the ghetto saying 'That F*****g cat.', but WF's want you to put 'That darn cat.' This forum takes something away from you in front of the readers eyes.

A further thought is that if you can mentally fill in the asterixes, there's no need to censor anyway.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 12, 2010)

spider8 said:


> How many people advocating censorhip in the form of asterixes would buy a novel with this?



...or agree with their own novel being asterixeded?


----------



## k3ng (Jun 12, 2010)

[ot] asterix is a cartoon character. You mean 'asterisk'. 

Sorry. I couldn't let that one go. Too many people I know get that wrong. [/ot]


----------



## Baron (Jun 12, 2010)

spider8 said:


> And as Lin, and Malone have suggested...


 
You must be reading a different thread.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 12, 2010)

Those coming late to the party need to read this:


vangoghsear said:


> Another problem that none of you seem to remember is that moderation of the forums should be dealt with evenly and fairly.  In fact several members were cautioned for defending this very point in a thread (which is not the place for that discussion).  Foul language is not allowed in the comments, we try and make exceptions for "the language arts" (the OP's within reason).
> 
> So URHairy2 writes, "I don't get why the f*** you wrote all the sh*t about puppies. But here is one problem I see, the rhythm is off here..." and since we are all grown up adults and we see that URHairy2 has offered a suggestion, we allow that.
> 
> ...


----------



## vangoghsear (Jun 12, 2010)

spider8 said:


> I find it astonishing that writers are advocating censorhip. I posted a piece recently that had a swear-word in it. I hardly ever use swear-words (as a reader, I don't like over-usage). When I looked it up and saw the asterixes it made me wish I'd submitted something else.



Here is another point that has not been brought up yet.  We are not fond of censorship, but sometimes it is necessary.

If we have no rules or guidelines in place to moderate posts, people   with no other intention than to flame, inflame, profane, call  names,  cuss, fuss, and generally muss...(okay I think you get the  point) can  come in here and run rampant, adding nothing positive in  their wake and  leave us with no means to remove their posts and ban  them from the  site.  

The rules are not meant solely to create a child friendly environment,   they are also a means of keeping a pretty much public arena focused on   what it was created for.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 12, 2010)

> How many people advocating censorhip in the form of asterixes would buy a novel with this?



There are lots who wouldn't buy a novel with swearwords in it.

You miss the point that has been valiantly and energetically missed by those who go before you.

This isn't something you buy.
It's not something you pay for.
It's a free place you can get feedback and goof off, provided by somebody else who would like that feedbacking and goofing off not to be offensive to them.

If you are saying you wouldn't buy a novel with asterisks in it (and I can think of a few like that, including some really great ones)  are you censoring the writer of the book with asterisks?

Hell, here's a best seller right here.


----------



## Baron (Jun 12, 2010)

Again I'm inserting an extract from the rules and guidelines that everyone agreed to when they registered.  



> *Post Title*s: Titles of post must be PG rated, meaning profanity isn’t allowed. Asking for reviews or comments in the title of posts isn’t allowed. You are already asking for both simply by posting.
> 
> *Flaming*: Flaming will not be tolerated. When critiquing, keep observations about the work, do not make personal judgements of or attacks on the writer. When debating, keep it about the topic and not the poster. Any such violations will be deleted.
> 
> *Profanity*: Profanity in creative posts is allowed within reason. "Reason" is at the staff's discretion. There should be a disclaimer or language warning in the title.


----------



## Martin (Jun 12, 2010)

iDrew said:


> This message was brought to you by Art and Sole Books, sponsers of Writing Forums.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Just my sentiment here.

You moderators are twisting and bending the discussion instead of just relating to the fact that censorship is an extremely poor method without any stable result and at the same time is paradoxically influencing both readers and writers using this site for their textual expressions. Why do you keep quoting yourselves again and again, as if it is us who don't get the point? The longer you wait admitting the more embarrassing I think it is.


----------



## Baron (Jun 12, 2010)

Martin said:


> Just my sentiment here.
> 
> You moderators are twisting and bending the discussion instead of just relating to the fact that censorship is an extremely poor method without any stable result and at the same time is paradoxically influencing both readers and writers using this site for their textual expressions. Why do you keep quoting yourselves again and again, as if it is us who don't get the point? The longer you wait admitting the more embarrassing I think it is.


 

The staff are twisting nothing.  The situation is simple: moderators have been getting flamed or snubbed when they've tried to enforce guidelines in a reasonable way.  Usually they will contact people by personal message to avoid embarrassing them on the public boards.  

In addition to this, you are simply arguing against the rules and guidelines which you agreed to when you became a member.  The moderators have repeatedly stated a position which has always existed and which members have chosen to ignore.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 12, 2010)

k3ng said:


> [ot] asterix is a cartoon character. You mean 'asterisk'.
> 
> Sorry. I couldn't let that one go. Too many people I know get that wrong. [/ot]


Thx so much. I wouldn't want that one let go of. Ta.


----------



## spider8 (Jun 12, 2010)

Baron said:


> You must be reading a different thread.


That's why I said '...perhaps I'm reading between the lines.'


----------



## Martin (Jun 12, 2010)

Baron said:


> The staff are twisting nothing.  The situation is simple: moderators have been getting flamed or snubbed when they've tried to enforce guidelines in a reasonable way.  Usually they will contact people by personal message to avoid embarrassing them on the public boards.
> 
> In addition to this, you are simply arguing against the rules and guidelines which you agreed to when you became a member.  The moderators have repeatedly stated a position which has always existed and which members have chosen to ignore.


 
I'm not arguing against anything. I started this thread because of what I thought to be a poor solution no matter what the situation. Your precious guidelines have really nothing to do with it. It's like you are using them to remove the voice of your very own forum users.

If not anyone has a proper ethical thing to say about the censorship, for or against, please keep your irrelevant perspectives for yourself or start a new thread. In other words, stay on topic...


----------



## Baron (Jun 12, 2010)

Martin, you keep waving the word "censorship" around like a flag.  Reasonable use of strong language in creative posts would not be subject to any form of censorship as long as there is a disclaimer.  This situation has arisen because of bad language being used in an inflammatory way in posts other than creative posts and because of people's disrespect for moderators, in particular the female moderators, when they are picked up on this.

This position has been stated several times in this debate and there seem to be only one or two members, or those with some kind of axe to grind, who fail to grasp this.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 12, 2010)

> That's why I said '...perhaps I'm reading between the lines.'


 
I'd say you're reading completely and totall out of the lines (or after doing a few lines) if you gathered that Malone and I are saying anything even close to similar in this thread.

Not a big deal, but come on...


I agree that "censorship" is being waved like a bloody flag.  What's wrong with the classics like "fascist repression"?


----------



## alanmt (Jun 12, 2010)

WTH, Martin?  Stay on topic or don't post in this thread?????!!!!  Are you trying to censor me?  Censorship, censorship, I cry foul!!

Wait, what?  Oh.  You're only trying to enforce reasonable forum guidlelines about staying on topic in order to facilitate a properly running, efficient and enjoyable forum?  Oh . . . 

My bad.  Guess I wasn't seeing the difference.  

I guess some other people aren't seeing the difference either.  Shame.  It's not that difficult of a distinction to make.  And certainly not an unreasonable one.


----------



## Martin (Jun 12, 2010)

Rob, am I supposed to understand this, so as if I am to post a poem now, any word will go, as long as I have a disclaimer but still unless some moderator deems it unreasonably strong? If that is not censorship, then what is? But again, that is not the issue here, to make it about semantics. You just twist the discussion one more time and it comes off as cheap rhetoric. Further it ruins the intellectual debate about censuring swear words, that I've tried to start here.

Alan, sorry for my provocative tone, but the only thing I fail to see, is why those trolls flaming around these parts, aren't just banned to hell, instead of having the whole place rely on something as ineffective and pointless as collective punishment. I'm sorry some moderators have been hurt or excessively insulted, and I actually think it all comes down to just that: Whether moderators should do (and keep doing) the sometimes ugly work they have agreed upon doing, or if they should just all agree upon a word policy they think will help the users and their workload to change. Which leads us on to the next point, that have already been stated by several, that asterisks replacing certain constellations of letters (or censuring, but call it what you will) have nothing to do with flaming in its nature and neither will it keep trolls from entering WF now or in the future, when those still here after a period of good behaviour again are allowed to express themselves as they want.

Weighing all this with the fact, that this particular site actually is about the textual expression in all its many forms, and you have what to me seems a completely unreasonable and absurd method of moderating.

Now let's hear some arguments against that instead of repetitive references to guide lines which we have agreed upon. Otherwise, I think people should just can it...


----------



## Baron (Jun 12, 2010)

Martin said:


> Alan, sorry for my provocative tone, but the only thing I fail to see, is why those trolls flaming around these parts, aren't just banned to hell, instead of having the whole place rely on something as ineffective and pointless as collective punishment.



Martin, you were among the first to complain when someone did get banned for flaming after ignoring warnings from staff.  

An intellectual discussion implies each side giving intelligent consideration to the points of the other parties.  Your ad hominem attacks on the staff and the repeated demonstrations that you've failed to grasp what they've said call this to question here.

You know, there are some really important issues going on in the world.  Like England beating the US in the World Cup.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 12, 2010)

I probably should just stay out of this, but I'm just astounded it's going on as long as it has.

What part of "when you're in somebody else's house you play by their rules"  isn't commonly understood.


----------



## Martin (Jun 12, 2010)

Is that the 24 hour ban on Reese you're referring to? May I then suggest you, to use more permanent bans against those who apparently have offended especially your female staff. I certainly understand you want to defend the people that works voluntarily with you, but I'm still allowed the point of view, that the action taken here is not reasonable. I think you, or maybe some of the moderators subject for this unpleasant flaming, really have to be more concrete and precise in what have actually happened, for me to have the slightest chance in understanding why censorship is the right solution...

I considered the point, that it's hard work for the staff, to lay ear to flaming trolls. And I certainly didn't find that reason enough to enforce such word policies on a writing forum. My explanations I've already stated in my former post so why you say I'm not giving intelligent consideration to the other party, beats me. And when have I attacked any staff?

I've had disputes with you before Rob, and I remember similar poor lines of communication between us. As you bring my intelligence in question I will have to say, that I perceive this more of a question of your stubbornness.


----------



## Martin (Jun 12, 2010)

Lin, it's just not agreed upon. And THAT is what this thread is about.


----------



## Baron (Jun 12, 2010)

Martin, the bottom line is that staff are not accountable to you for their decisions.  This site is provided free for those who register, signing that they agree to the rules and guidelines.  Neither you nor anyone else can then come onto the site saying that it has to be run according to your rules.  

You did not pay the large amount that was necessary to purchase and upgrade this site and you don't contribute to the monthly bills.  As Lin has stated, you are a guest here and as such are expected, along with everyone else, to respect the rules and guidelines here.  They really aren't that different from most other writing sites and if they were respected then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Further, if your intention was simply to open a debate on censorship then you are aware that there is a board on this site for the purpose of debates.  The fact that you chose to post here and your criticism of the staff show that this really isn't the case.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 12, 2010)

> Lin, it's just not agreed upon. And THAT is what this thread is about.



Not agrred upon by WHOM?

What are you saying, it's a democracy?    If I come to your dinner at your house and start raving racism or something and you tell me not to,  is my disagreement with you valid?   Do I have the right to tell you what you will put up with?  To ignore your rules because they aren't my rules?

What happens to people when they go on the internet,  do they think they're in fairyland or something?


----------



## Martin (Jun 12, 2010)

Rob, your last point I agree upon. I did post it here, as I thought maybe there was a chance to change things for what I think is the better.

Lin, it is indeed a democracy, why me and some others are enforcing our right to express our opinions against the moderation taking place here. We don't agree with your house rules. We explain why. There has still in my eyes been only little response to our opinions with any substance to the ethical issue concerning censorship. You summed the response up nicely yourself: "obey the house rules" - That's almost all I'm hearing and I find it quite below what I've come to expect from this site. I mean, Rob just said what the bottom line is in a thread that I've started. How's that for democracy...

But let's not keep repeating ourselves anymore shall we. I have a suggestion: how about pm'ing or emailing all members whenever censuring goes on or off? Then some of us will know when the site is interesting to visit and when we should spend our time on other sites that manage to deal with the same problems in reasonable ways...


----------



## Patrick (Jun 12, 2010)

Martin said:


> That's almost all I'm hearing and I find it quite below what I've come to expect from this site.


 
This site was a wreck and a playground for trolls before it was newly purchased and the new moderating team put in place. This is nothing more than teething problems following the change in direction and attitude. It's to be expected that people will take a while to adapt.


----------



## Martin (Jun 12, 2010)

Indeed it is, and I'm not sure I even want to.


----------



## Baron (Jun 12, 2010)

Martin said:


> Lin, it is indeed a democracy...


 
No it isn't.

WF is a privately owned site where people are asked to agree with certain rules and guidelines when they register.  How many times does this need to be stated?


----------



## Martin (Jun 12, 2010)

Sorry, I agree, democracy is the wrong word by far. A place of debating and trying to reach consensus, I should have said...


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 12, 2010)

Martin, if you want to discuss the _ethics_ of censorship, Baron has already pointed out that this is not the place for it.  Your points have been made, and now I think it's time we gave everyone a little time to work through what's been said.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 12, 2010)

And football fields and boxing rings are places where it's argued by force.  But the players don't rebel against the referees and rule books.

This is one of the damnedest parades of wrong-headedness I've ever seen.    And it doesn't even Israel or Ireland or Popes or squatters in it.


----------



## Baron (Jun 12, 2010)

Normal service is resumed and this thread is now closed.  It is my hope that it's served to draw attention to this site's policies and to the fact that a little consideration for the moderators can go a long way.


----------

