Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

@CalamityJane,

Yeppers!

0 Replies

I think that A2K should have a transparent banning policy. I think it should address spammers, but I'm not worried about offensive opinions. A2K leadership might want to determine if they view personal harassment to be a separate entity from unpopular or offensive opinions and where that line was.

In other words, we don't need to kick people with offensive opinions, but there might be a legitimate reason to ban someone who is personally threatening or harassing an individual. If RG was to agree with the later, I'd suggest that the policy be very well understood in terms of what behaviors define/distinguish harassment from unpopular opinions.

Somebody saying that the holocaust never happened is fine enough to ignore or address. They don't need to be banned.

However, the effect of harassment could have a much different effect such as a threat of personal violence or unwanted sexual advance.

A
R
T

2 Replies

So what if you had some other flags besides thumbs up and down? What about an "off-topic" flag so that if a post received a certain number of OT marks, it would disappear? Maybe a no meaningful input flag? I think people use the thumbs down both to show disagreement and to show no meaningful input. If you separated that out, the no input entries could disapear if they got to many down votes. Of course, that is open to abuse and the system would require periodic auditing to ensure that some group wasn't trolling about killing opinions they disagreed with. I would like a way to search users by their average thumb rating to see people I might want to follow more closely.

1 Reply

@failures art,

I do believe that would be consistent with the TOS -

Quote:

A. Postings are those portions of the able2know service (including but not limited to question-and-answer exchanges, forums, topics, featured topics, articles, announcements and commentary) where members post content to the service. You shall not upload to, or distribute or otherwise publish in any Posting any libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, gratuitously sexual, abusive, harassing or otherwise illegal material. To do so may result in a deletion or editing of said material from the site and may result in your removal from the service.

I would say that threats of personal harm are over the line, as would be calls for violence. But there's no reason why those posts couldn't simply be deleted.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Always interested in fbaezer's opinions. I wonder, fbaezer, if you could share any ideas about rules that should be changed to improve the site.

I remember when bannings and Time Outs were being doled out - and it seemed so subjective to me. Putting myself in the place of one who would have to make that judgment call... it's NOT a responsibility I'd want. You may say for instance that profanity is an easy thing to see...and ban for that, while some crafty wordsmith can get away with delivering a much more witheringly personal insult with "approved" language... Then, who judges that? Does your personal agreement with the insulting sentiment blur your fairness? Does the political opinion of an offender move them a bit forward on the conveyor belt to limbo? Do you PM your friend to edit a remark?

Laughing... I remember once upon a time when I was staying on the right side of the laws as they were... Moderator Blatham threatened (strong word, but accurate - that silly mountie) to ban me for my "tone." Needless to say, he didn't agree with my views...

I think the law should be the guide. No direct threats, no whipping up the crowd in support of hate crimes...and whatever else is black and white and written down somewhere.

Anything beyond that is stepping into slippery territory.

2 Replies

@Lash,

May I interject here, until one comprehends the foundation of logic itself, judgment, what you ask is not really possible. One must undertand standards in order to effect them, however, we live in a culture that is quite incapable of supporting them to any great degree.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

You must have misread my post. I agree that judgment is a wavy thing and not to be relied on. So, I advocate following the black and white laws of internet use to the letter.

I'd feel ok banning for these:

"Bob, I'm coming to Fresno to punch you in the face."
"Hey, let's set fire to the Federal Building Thursday."
"I wish the Samoans were extinct. Every ******* Samoan I've ever known is a waste of flesh." (wait, I'm not sure this is illegal...)
"These are my sexiest pics of child porn. Feel free to download them."

4 Replies

@fbaezer,

fbaezer wrote:

Only the guys with the thickest skin remain. This is what happened to Abuzz, and helped kill it.

I agree completely with this. The place started to go downhill after the NYT bought it, and with no moderation at all, it was just a matter of time before it was overrun with the hysterics . . .

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

You must have misread my post. I agree that judgment is a wavy thing and not to be relied on.
So, I advocate following the black and white laws of internet use to the letter.

I'd feel ok banning for these:

"Bob, I'm coming to Fresno to punch you in the face."
"Hey, let's set fire to the Federal Building Thursday."
"I wish the Samoans were extinct. Every ******* Samoan I've ever known is a waste of flesh." (wait, I'm not sure this is illegal...)
"These are my sexiest pics of child porn. Feel free to download them."

I join in your doubt qua the 3rd one; he only identifies his wish and his experiences.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Yeah, I thought it was incitement to a hate crime...but, not sure. Dammit!!!

1 Reply

@Lash,

I've never met a Samoan who was worth his salt, actually, I've never met a Samoan. It's a well-known fact that Samoans are all misogynists and/or feminists.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

i like Samosas, they're great with Raita

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Samosachutney.jpg/800px-Samosachutney.jpg

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

You must have misread my post. I agree that judgment is a wavy thing and not to be relied on. So, I advocate following the black and white laws of internet use to the letter.

I'd feel ok banning for these:

"Bob, I'm coming to Fresno to punch you in the face."
"Hey, let's set fire to the Federal Building Thursday."
"I wish the Samoans were extinct. Every ******* Samoan I've ever known is a waste of flesh." (wait, I'm not sure this is illegal...)
"These are my sexiest pics of child porn. Feel free to download them."

So you do not believe that allowing freedom of these acts can be used by those who study abberant psychology? I for one read what others consider normal texts, or inspired texts as examples of psychological failure.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Were they to start a thread of their own, and present their grotesque proposals with some class and in a straight forward manner to forewarn the passersby, I don't think I'd have any room to object whatsoever. If, on the other hand, they spam seemingly every remotely related thread with that opinion, I think that's entirely out of line. I do not think a free flow of ideas requires the freedom to put any particular opinion in everyone's face at every opportunity.

I think it does. So we still disagree. (Not a problem--I was just checking.)

Can we check just a little further into that opinion for clarity? Let's use what is probably my own biggest departure from decency: My not too infrequent calls for rape-advocates to kill themselves for the good of society, usually submitted in a heated exchange. As understandably repugnant as that is to many a member; would it not be more so if I directed such a hateful statement at a teenager pouring his heart out on a depression thread? Is there no difference?

Likewise, is there no difference between Shorteyes spewing his demented misogyny on the thread he established to display it, than there is when he shows up on an abuse thread and does the same?

Is it cool to tell a recently abused woman that there’s no such thing as marital rape?

2 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

You must have misread my post. I agree that judgment is a wavy thing and not to be relied on. So, I advocate following the black and white laws of internet use to the letter.

I'd feel ok banning for these:

"Bob, I'm coming to Fresno to punch you in the face."
"Hey, let's set fire to the Federal Building Thursday."
"I wish the Samoans were extinct. Every ******* Samoan I've ever known is a waste of flesh." (wait, I'm not sure this is illegal...)
"These are my sexiest pics of child porn. Feel free to download them."

How about this one?

Quote:

I have both raped and been raped, and so far as I recall I have tended to enjoy the experience immensely. I recommend the experience, no matter what the law says.

Is this cool?

2 Replies

@djjd62,

Damn . . . i was tryting to work up some kind of reply in which i could obtusely refer to samosas rather than Samoans. Good thing Pueo ain't here . . .

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

cool or not (and it's not) he has every right to say it, and they have every right to either respond or ignore, if they respond and get more of the same (what did they expect), and keep on with the person, they can only really blame themselves

1 Reply

Yes, but O'Bill is going to save them from themselves ! ! !

0 Replies

@djjd62,

Damn it, djjd, I'm ignoring you! How am I supposed to confront your wrong-headed opinions while ignoring you? If I ignore you then I won't be able to tell everyone how wrong you are! Why do you keep responding to my attempts at ignoring you? You keep making me respond to what I'm trying to ignore! I've had enough, now I'm really ignoring you so don't you attempt to respond to me or I'll have to tell you again that I'm ignoring you.

5 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Quote:
"I have both raped and been raped, and so far as I recall I have tended to enjoy the experience immensely. I recommend the experience, no matter what the law says." Is this cool?

of course you dont have the decency to either give the full statement or to give a link so people could see for themselves. What I said was IF we are going to define rape as having sex with someone who is over .08BAC THEN .....my argument is that outlawing drunken sex is an outrageous assault on our individual rights, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to outlaw it, as I have done it often and had a great time....as well so far as I know my partner did too.

Edit: I said earlier that I am willing to follow the laws until we get them changed, but this is not completely true. I will not follow the laws prohibiting drunk sex should they be enacted, should such a law ever be prosecuted in my jurisdiction. Currently my personal position is that I will not have sex with someone who is passed out, or is so drunk that they can not walk. Other than that I believe my partner has the ability and right to consent.

1 Reply

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know