).Malice implies intent. And intentions are notoriously difficult to prove.
*Disruption* is an objective standard that can be verified and agreed upon interpersonally.
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Censorship in moderation.
Started by
lightowl
, Jul 18 2005 02:53 AM
43 replies to this topic
#31
-
- Guest
- 5,798 posts
- 11 ₮
- Location:Taipei
- NO
Posted 22 August 2005 - 03:19 AM
No no no, sorry but an ethicist you are not (no offense ).
Malice implies intent. And intentions are notoriously difficult to prove.
*Disruption* is an objective standard that can be verified and agreed upon interpersonally.
).Malice implies intent. And intentions are notoriously difficult to prove.
*Disruption* is an objective standard that can be verified and agreed upon interpersonally.
#32
-
- Guest
- 5,798 posts
- 11 ₮
- Location:Taipei
- NO
Posted 22 August 2005 - 03:26 AM
How do you know what Susma's intentions are? Susma could be a biocon mole sent in to pollute our site.
Similarly, and in contrast, Chip could have really believed in his heart of hearts that he was doing what was in the best interests of ImmInst.
How is one to know?
--------------------------------------------
Versus
Did Chip disruptive the forums? Yes, guilty as charged.
Does Susma disrupt the site? Yes, guilty as charged.
What is so complicated about this?
Similarly, and in contrast, Chip could have really believed in his heart of hearts that he was doing what was in the best interests of ImmInst.
How is one to know?
--------------------------------------------
Versus
Did Chip disruptive the forums? Yes, guilty as charged.
Does Susma disrupt the site? Yes, guilty as charged.
What is so complicated about this?
#33
-
- Lurker
- 1 ₮
Posted 22 August 2005 - 03:31 AM
You're right, malice = intent to do harm, therefore I should not saying "intentional malice" ... double intent then (having taken my boot out of my brain).
Anyway, this ignoramus thinks you're far too smart not to have understood my meaning as to the distinction between Chip and Susma, but many thanks for pointing what should have been an unintended but alas intended use of intent.
Anyway, this ignoramus thinks you're far too smart not to have understood my meaning as to the distinction between Chip and Susma, but many thanks for pointing what should have been an unintended but alas intended use of intent.
#34
-
- Lurker
- 1 ₮
Posted 22 August 2005 - 03:51 AM
How is one to know?
One never does know absolutely. Which is why juries exist and evidence is weighed probabilistically. In this case life is made a whole lot easier since the poster leaves a trail of evidence by means of posts which the astute person can draw a reasonably meaningful conclusion from.
#35
-
- Guest
- 1,137 posts
- -1 ₮
Posted 24 August 2005 - 12:05 AM
Thread's author, Lightowl, is concerned with
"Censorship in moderation, Possible solution."
For example deleting posts or relocating them without notice to the reading public in the place from is certainly censorship; because intelligent and demanding readers want to know the fact of any deletions or relocations having been perpetrated in a thread.
That is why, if I may, I like to again here bring up my suggestions to Leadership here to consider accepting and implementing in order to not give the impression of censorship.
Please take notice of my intention to do a poll on myself, to go on a leave from the Forum: Poll on Susma to leave, I need help to make one on myself.
( http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=137&t=7730 )
Yours most respectfully.
Susma
"Censorship in moderation, Possible solution."
For example deleting posts or relocating them without notice to the reading public in the place from is certainly censorship; because intelligent and demanding readers want to know the fact of any deletions or relocations having been perpetrated in a thread.
That is why, if I may, I like to again here bring up my suggestions to Leadership here to consider accepting and implementing in order to not give the impression of censorship.
Susma's deleted or delete-able posts 5, in re: abuse of discretion
http://www.imminst.o...37&t=7662&st=0
Moral of the story: As I have suggested time and again to Leadership in other forums -- and I will proceed to the suggestions forum after this post, there again to remind them about my suggestons, and also to that thread on how to complain; but I will also just mention these suggestions right away here what I had conveyed then to Leadership:
1. The only reason why we are here is to write and have our messages published,
2. Please therefore abstain most strictly from editing or moving or by all means, from deleting our messages already published,
3. If you do have to edit or move, or delete, please have the goodness of a routine conduct to favor us with the notice from all codes of courtesy about:
---(a) the fact of editing and the identity of the agent editing,
---(b) the fact of relocation, place from and place to, and the agent effecting the same.
---© the fact of deletion, and the return by PM of the deleted post to the author.
Thanks for your kind and favorable consideration of these suggestions.
Susma
Please take notice of my intention to do a poll on myself, to go on a leave from the Forum: Poll on Susma to leave, I need help to make one on myself.
( http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=137&t=7730 )
Yours most respectfully.
Susma
#36
-
- Life Member, Guardian
- 8,116 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
- ✔
Posted 24 August 2005 - 01:35 AM
Susma I do not think I have ever read anyone that has quoted himself as much as you in all my life.
Everyone has done it at one time or another. I have certainly done it as well though I am usually a bit reticent at doing so but you seem to be willing to quote yourself more than any other person here.
When you talk to yourself in private do you quote yourself then too?
Everyone has done it at one time or another. I have certainly done it as well though I am usually a bit reticent at doing so but you seem to be willing to quote yourself more than any other person here.
When you talk to yourself in private do you quote yourself then too?
#37
-
- Guest
- 194 posts
- 2 ₮
Posted 24 August 2005 - 07:51 PM
Laz: His request sounds reasonable to me.
Hey, I quote myself when I talk to myself, and I engage in said behavior as often as possible when endeavoring to not draw attention. [thumb]
Of course, I only engage in said behavior when I have no one else to talk to, or when those whom I do converse with are far too unenlightened to contribute anything meaningful to said conversation.
Hey, I quote myself when I talk to myself, and I engage in said behavior as often as possible when endeavoring to not draw attention. [thumb]
Of course, I only engage in said behavior when I have no one else to talk to, or when those whom I do converse with are far too unenlightened to contribute anything meaningful to said conversation.
#39
-
- Guest
- 1,137 posts
- -1 ₮
Posted 24 August 2005 - 11:17 PM
You are right, Laz.
I am myself aware that I quote myself often and even a lot, or to your impression more than others here -- and perhaps that is the truth or a fact.
The suspicion then could be that I am in love with myself which is a great possibility.
Another reason is to remind the reader that I had said exactly something similar or identical before, and perhaps he had read it already and does not recall it in the present exchange.
A possible third reason is in order to impress upon the reader from whom some accommodation is being sought, that I am still keen on the request and hope that he will take action -- or tell me to forget it.
Laz, I want to apologize for saying that you are at times unreasonable and despotic. You are one very nice guy here in your patience with me. We had some tiff with that "You never know..." line from Matrix Reloaded; but I am sure that we can be be friendly to each other notwithstanding our differences.
About my self-quoting, yes I have to exercise moderation there. Thanks.
Wait, what about my observation that deleting or relocating a post without any notice to the reading public in the original place from of the post is tantamount to censorship?
If messages are our brain-children, then deleting or relocating them would be like rendering them into what in Latin American dictatorships are known as desaparecidos,* specially if their family are not accorded the minimal humanitarian kindness of a notice.
When you talk to yourself in private do you quote yourself then too?
As a matter of fact I do, because what else is it to be possessed of memory? And my memory to the present is still very faithful as a record of my deeds and words; I always see to it that my memory is not selective, that's why I have this habit of self-quoting.
Susma
*Desaparecidos = Spanish: those who have disappeared.
Susma I do not think I have ever read anyone that has quoted himself as much as you in all my life.
Everyone has done it at one time or another. I have certainly done it as well though I am usually a bit reticent at doing so but you seem to be willing to quote yourself more than any other person here.
When you talk to yourself in private do you quote yourself then too?
I am myself aware that I quote myself often and even a lot, or to your impression more than others here -- and perhaps that is the truth or a fact.
The suspicion then could be that I am in love with myself which is a great possibility.
Another reason is to remind the reader that I had said exactly something similar or identical before, and perhaps he had read it already and does not recall it in the present exchange.
A possible third reason is in order to impress upon the reader from whom some accommodation is being sought, that I am still keen on the request and hope that he will take action -- or tell me to forget it.
Laz, I want to apologize for saying that you are at times unreasonable and despotic. You are one very nice guy here in your patience with me. We had some tiff with that "You never know..." line from Matrix Reloaded; but I am sure that we can be be friendly to each other notwithstanding our differences.
About my self-quoting, yes I have to exercise moderation there. Thanks.
Wait, what about my observation that deleting or relocating a post without any notice to the reading public in the original place from of the post is tantamount to censorship?
If messages are our brain-children, then deleting or relocating them would be like rendering them into what in Latin American dictatorships are known as desaparecidos,* specially if their family are not accorded the minimal humanitarian kindness of a notice.
When you talk to yourself in private do you quote yourself then too?
As a matter of fact I do, because what else is it to be possessed of memory? And my memory to the present is still very faithful as a record of my deeds and words; I always see to it that my memory is not selective, that's why I have this habit of self-quoting.
Susma
*Desaparecidos = Spanish: those who have disappeared.
#40
-
- Guest
- 2,177 posts
- 2 ₮
Posted 24 August 2005 - 11:41 PM
Wait, what about my observation that deleting or relocating a post without any notice to the reading public in the original place from of the post is tantamount to censorship?
Susma,
The reading public considers this "censorship" a relief as they do not have to read your words which are unrelated to the topic.
For example I have not seen a post in the notropic or supplement section that did anything other that waste people's time and tell them not to take supplements/nootropics e.g. because they eat a balanced diet (which you say you do, but upon questioning refuse to define).
Susma I am the original free speech guy, but you are exibit A why that will not work--at least here.
#41
-
- Guest
- 1,137 posts
- -1 ₮
Posted 25 August 2005 - 12:21 AM
What is a balanced diet?
I must have explained or described a balanced diet several times already, but I guess some people still ask me to define it, even though it is a common term already known to people specially parents who do prepare meals, like me and my wife and also Lazarus (you a parent also, Laz, thought I read somewhere to that effect).
And I don't want to quote myself again by bringing up those messages which quoting of oneself can be tedious to people here as Laz just reminded me earlier.
Anyway, so that we will certainly know what we are talking about in using the term "balanced diet", let me then describe it as follows:
"A balanced diet is the adequate intake of foods and drinks that represent a variegated menu consisting of meats, seafoods, dairy products, vegetables and fruits."
But let us return to the topic of moderation in censorship.
Is it not censorship also when powers that be delete or relocate posts without notice in the place from of the original posts: that posts were present there but deleted and why or relocated and why. For without notice people are kept in the dark as regards even the existence of such posts which might be of concern to them to read in order to form their own opinion on issues.
Susma
I must have explained or described a balanced diet several times already, but I guess some people still ask me to define it, even though it is a common term already known to people specially parents who do prepare meals, like me and my wife and also Lazarus (you a parent also, Laz, thought I read somewhere to that effect).
And I don't want to quote myself again by bringing up those messages which quoting of oneself can be tedious to people here as Laz just reminded me earlier.
Anyway, so that we will certainly know what we are talking about in using the term "balanced diet", let me then describe it as follows:
"A balanced diet is the adequate intake of foods and drinks that represent a variegated menu consisting of meats, seafoods, dairy products, vegetables and fruits."
But let us return to the topic of moderation in censorship.
Is it not censorship also when powers that be delete or relocate posts without notice in the place from of the original posts: that posts were present there but deleted and why or relocated and why. For without notice people are kept in the dark as regards even the existence of such posts which might be of concern to them to read in order to form their own opinion on issues.
Susma
#42
-
- Life Member
- 1,085 posts
- 3 ₮
Posted 28 August 2005 - 07:50 AM
Is it not censorship also when powers that be delete or relocate posts without notice in the place from of the original posts: that posts were present there but deleted and why or relocated and why. For without notice people are kept in the dark as regards even the existence of such posts which might be of concern to them to read in order to form their own opinion on issues.
Susma
No....it is simply putting some people in their place where they belong....in your case everyone knows why it was moved or deleted and are happy that we do our jobs right [sfty]
#43
-
- Guest
- 1,137 posts
- -1 ₮
Posted 28 August 2005 - 09:42 PM
Put two buttons in the message box.
I believe this is a very useful and peace enhancing feature, but specially for leaders to keep track of posters who are at least annoying to others, namely: in every message box, a button for "Block this poster" and another for "Report this post".
The first button will enable a reader to censor himself from even having to be aware of the existence of a member he does not care to know and much less see and certainly not to read his messages. The blocked member then is totally non-existent in the universe of the forum insofar as such a reader is concerned.
The second button will give notice to leaders here about any messages from any posters which messages are in need of screening to remove any materials or to relocate or totally delete the messages, owing to unacceptable contents.
Susma
I believe this is a very useful and peace enhancing feature, but specially for leaders to keep track of posters who are at least annoying to others, namely: in every message box, a button for "Block this poster" and another for "Report this post".
The first button will enable a reader to censor himself from even having to be aware of the existence of a member he does not care to know and much less see and certainly not to read his messages. The blocked member then is totally non-existent in the universe of the forum insofar as such a reader is concerned.
The second button will give notice to leaders here about any messages from any posters which messages are in need of screening to remove any materials or to relocate or totally delete the messages, owing to unacceptable contents.
Susma
#44
-
- Guest
- 1,137 posts
- -1 ₮
Posted 30 August 2005 - 11:19 PM
More on the two buttons.
The incidentals surrounding the use by members here of the two buttons: one, "Block this poster", the other, "Report this post", will enable leaders here to arrive at some facts which can be very useful for leaders to form and revise policies.
For example, if a lot of members block from their forum presence a certain specific poster, then the question they should ask themselves, the leaders that is, is whether there is something peculiar in the poster or something peculiar in the people blocking the particular poster.
If the cause is in the people blocking not in the person blocked, then leaders have to find out whether they are with their kind of a board and the way they are running it attracting a kind of membership that is the kind they want -- in which case they must congratulate themselves, or the kind that they and any owners/operators of message boards would rather not encourage to sign up for membership.
If the cause is in the poster, then they have to find out whether the blocked poster is writing the things he does write about or in the way he does write in, in good faith or in bad faith.
If he is in good faith, meaning he believes that he is writing on topic (as someone tells me, Scottl was that him? on topic namely even broadly) and in a polite language; then leaders can inform him by way of their educational office as leaders, how to write on topic and in the kind of polite language acceptable in the Forum.
If the blocked poster is writing in bad faith, then again leaders have to determine if the bad faith is simply a matter of in the last analysis humor however annoying it be, or really intended to as some people want to use the term, sabotage, namely to sabotage i.e. destroy the Forum; in the latter case the blocked poster should be given a stern warning in public. No, not by PMs, but in public forums, so that at least from the discomfort of being exposed to be a saboteur he would change his ways or he would leave on his own.
With all due respect.
Susma
The incidentals surrounding the use by members here of the two buttons: one, "Block this poster", the other, "Report this post", will enable leaders here to arrive at some facts which can be very useful for leaders to form and revise policies.
For example, if a lot of members block from their forum presence a certain specific poster, then the question they should ask themselves, the leaders that is, is whether there is something peculiar in the poster or something peculiar in the people blocking the particular poster.
If the cause is in the people blocking not in the person blocked, then leaders have to find out whether they are with their kind of a board and the way they are running it attracting a kind of membership that is the kind they want -- in which case they must congratulate themselves, or the kind that they and any owners/operators of message boards would rather not encourage to sign up for membership.
If the cause is in the poster, then they have to find out whether the blocked poster is writing the things he does write about or in the way he does write in, in good faith or in bad faith.
If he is in good faith, meaning he believes that he is writing on topic (as someone tells me, Scottl was that him? on topic namely even broadly) and in a polite language; then leaders can inform him by way of their educational office as leaders, how to write on topic and in the kind of polite language acceptable in the Forum.
If the blocked poster is writing in bad faith, then again leaders have to determine if the bad faith is simply a matter of in the last analysis humor however annoying it be, or really intended to as some people want to use the term, sabotage, namely to sabotage i.e. destroy the Forum; in the latter case the blocked poster should be given a stern warning in public. No, not by PMs, but in public forums, so that at least from the discomfort of being exposed to be a saboteur he would change his ways or he would leave on his own.
With all due respect.
Susma
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
