IranPlanet.net?

Post Reply New Topic

by the way, thank you Vigilans and PM!! ! i appreciate that very deeply.

The real limit to me would be how far you are going to stray from attacking the thought a person has from the person themselves.



That is insane. If it seriously worked like it would lead to majority-rule censorship. Each case needs to be taken separately no matter how many people complain.

What you really need to do is DRASTICALLY increase the number of moderators.



That is your definition of obscenity.

I think some things are clouding your judgment. There was nothing censored in the Porn Star thread since it is still accessible to everyone with no additional action (it is still the same number of mouseclicks to see the video even); it was never taken down. I cannot really talk more about the above post, but if it was repeatedly quoted, I don't see how I could not delete the thread if it was that offensive if I was a moderator. But again, I don't know what you posted, and this is a subjective thing.

Even though I think it would be good to tell people who got banned and why so there is consistency. There is a precedent set for some sock puppets on the Activism thread, and I think if we kept the rules loose and the moderators just explained their actions transparently, I do not think we need to change much since everyone knows what is up. That way if there is a problem it could be discussed and possible changes could be made.

You have to understand, I don't like having rules set in stone when people communicate. To me it seems weird to say, "we cut down on censorship, but we did some things so you REALLY cannot talk about such and such." That is all I have to say.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 30 Nov 2011, 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just so we are clear that comment by one person shocked quite a few members(showing that it wasnt only a mod that had thought it had gone too far) and that thread was deleted because you and someone else were attacking each other.

You are more than free to open a new thread about it as long as you arent starting a flame war with those that disagree with you and you remind people to keep the posts as light as possible so that there isnt an issue about it.

I agree, they should pay us mods like they pay lawyers.

actually, i completely agree.

we tend not to discuss why people are banned for a few reasons. i am not aware of all the reasoning, but here are some that i can think of off the top of my head... members are prohibited from speaking of banned members so it would be hard to explain the reasons why a banishment occurred if members can't ask questions or have a dialogue. also it encourages the banned members to come back as sockpuppets if they notice they are being discussed. one of my personal reasons is that the banned person gets talked about when they are not present to defend their actions so it somehow seems unfair to them. i'm sure there are better reasons besides those.

but there are forums where they do speak publicly of why members are banned and i think it is an idea that can work under the right circumstances. it can warn members, it makes moderators accountable for bannings, etc.

also, thanks for your support.

That was the original thought I had when I started posting. It just does not come out until later, and I think it would be better than changing any rules IMO. Sorry for not saying it then.

Ah well, you see our dilemma.
That's fine; I have to be out and about on Thursday anyway.

Generally though, if anyone has serious and constructive suggestions for rule changes, PM me.
I warn you though that I will be playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of WP. And why not? It's what I (don't) get paid for!
Also, anything considered by the moderating team is still subject to Alex's final decision.
It's his site.


And likewise - thanks, PM.
Vigilans, you have it in a nutshell. Thanks.

The only time I thought that any mod was being "bad" was when one mod of a certain website would warn members that their posts might be offensive to some, and then the same mod would start threads that expressed similar concepts. Members had to appeal to other mods to get the first mod "off their backs". So far, they have had no further problems of this nature, but they do feel restricted and less connected to that particular website as a result.

< Change of Subject >

Here is one set of suggested working definitions for bannable offenses:

OBSCENE:
(1) Graphic descriptions or depictions of any activity that could reasonably be expected to be a direct cause of sexual gratification;
(2) Graphic descriptions or depictions of one or more persons in a state of sexual gratification;
(3) Graphic descriptions or depictions of violence, or of any act that could reasonably be expected to be a direct cause of death, dismemberment, maiming, injury, or other physical trauma;
(4) Graphic descriptions or depictions of one or more persons in a state of death, dismemberment, maiming, injury, or other physical trauma.

PROPOSITION:
When one WP member demands, suggests, solicits, or otherwise communicates the desire to engage in sexual activity with another WP member.

THREAT:
When one WP member implies, states, suggests, or otherwise communicates the desire to inflict physical, emotional, or economic trauma upon another WP member.

< Change of Subject >

In my opinion, WP should have the official policy of recommending that anyone who suspects that they may have an adverse emotional, medical, or mental condition should seek out the advice of a trained and licensed medical practitioner (clinical psychiatrist or physician) or psychological counselor (clinical psychologist) for a diagnosis, and not rely on the opinions of untrained and unlicensed amateurs on what amounts to a social website.

< Change of Subject >

Other websites prohibit any discussion of politics or religion in any way, shape, or form. This has a tendency to inhibit discussions of history, philosophy, or spirituality. It may also inhibit discussions of disaster response, charitable projects, and even requests for personal advice (Example: Enya's "Unity" Fansite). While this should not be the norm for a website based on open discussions of members' concerns and interests, the WP mods might (for example) consider using the threat of locking out the entire PP&R forum if certain members seem to dominate and abuse threads in that forum.

If I correctly understand what you mean; I don't care who they are or what they think - it's what they post here that matters (and to an extent, their general forum behaviour).
The thought or sentiment as it appears expressed in text, in isolation, and how much it impinges on the rules.
That's all I can go on.

(Fnord - noted and skimmed - I'll catch up later on as I have to sleep now)

Thank you. PM me if you would like clarification.

I think it would definitely be a good idea to have more explicit rules. My opinion is that the moderators do a good job. Having somewhat strict rules (but reasonable) keeps WP civilized which is important because it keeps the quality high and doesn't discourage sensitive people from posting. The people that I have seen banned were clearly not contributing. I also agree that banned members should not be talked about because it draws attention to their behavior. It's the same reason trolls should be ignored.

I don't get it.

Yet, those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Indeed, Tequila should explain it. I tracked down what the picture is.

You shouldn't call for open discussion if you resort to these (EDIT: alleged) shadow tactics when someone gives an honest opinion.

Sorry I didn't explain myself. The photo was a reference to the Soviet rewriting of history. By having a forced "non-talking" of members who have been banned - even if they had a lot of useful stuff to contribute - it is akin to whitewashing a person's history here.