The Logic of Free Speech

[curved]

Free Speech? This is a porn site, somehow I don't think the lack of free speech is an issue.

The problem with a liberal and tolerant posting policy is that as the site grows the number of morons increases - and unfortunately it doesn't take too many morons to reduce a forum to complete farce.

I say state a policy in accordance with your wishes and enforce it - provide the ability to report posts and let mods ban in accordance with the policy. Nuisance reporting can also be a banning offence. I'm guessing you have similar ability to have short and permanent bans like other forums.

There will be inconsistencies as there are in real life but we are not talking about wrongful imprisonment are we??!! It is true that trolls rejoin and repost but if they post offensive personal stuff again then simply ban them again. Most will get bored. I know that means more work for the mods but that is the negative side of a successful site. Hell, if you need mods I might even apply myself :)

It is pointless asking people not to react. You can guarantee that for every sad moron who trolls there will be at least one other that can't help themselves and replies - which of course is all they want.

I admire your sentiments seraph0x, not for the first time, but on this occasion I think they are over the top.

[les]

Perhaps a instead of censoring by outright removal of a post.
Send it back in a PM saying/asking;


"Are you sure you want to post this?"


Thus giving a chance to think and cool off.

If they insist on repost then move it to a

"Speakers Corner"

We have that in England in Hyde park where anybody can say anything about anything without fear of repercussions but expect plenty heckling.

Just a thought.

[Nezhul]

The main reason is bias, even the best moderators will play favors all the time, whether they realize it or not.

Why in the world do you think this? Mods aren't politicians, they're more like charity workers. Are people who volunteer in soup kitchens unable to be unbiased as well?

The main problem with moderators is that they always have friends and foes and people they just don't like. So when their friend makes a mistake or attack, they either close their eyes or just ask nicely to stop. While when some "stupid newbie" breaks some rule it may end in ban right away. Mods are always unfair.

I'd disagree with that. To me freedom of speech very much is both, because if you put restrictions on the how then people who want to censor the what can just pretend they take offense to the how.

This is where moderator judgment comes in. Oh wait, you don't trust your moderators to do their jobs, and you reverse half their decisions.
Seraph0x, to be quite honest, you're not a very good admin. You don't inspire confidence in your users at all.

Well if you don't like, I'd say everyone here has the right to leave, right? Only that I know it's the damn only website with this ammount of free webteases of such a quality. And thanks to whom? Thanks to a "not very good admin", who not only runs and upgrades things, but also pays for the hosting (did you think how much all those pictures weight? And that without any donations and commercials.
If he has a unique view on forum rules, that's his right.

Hitler, no doubt, supported his actions by claiming them to be in the best interests of the german people.

You know, and they actually were. Every country benefit from new territory. USA's still bombarding libiya killing hundreds innocent commoners dayly, and claims it's in their best interests too.

Now, on a site that claims free speech to be paramount, isn't it odd that the minute I spoke publicly about any of this, I was immediately removed from not only admin status, but Team status, and chat admin status as well?

Now if I remember correct, you didn't spoke publicly. You actually deleted all your content in a childish protest, instead of calmly discussing the problem for some time, and that was the reason of lifting the status (and of course it's lifted everywhere, when you loose the trust of admin. His right.
Also AngelAnna poured lots of shit on the whole forum a day ago, claiming that you are saint and that you never wanted this drama. Now you state that YOU started this debate (this drama) by speaking openly. Now tell me, who the heck is right? It's either one of those statements wrond, so are you bending the facts now or then?

Seraph0x has outright stated that his issue with me, and the reason he doesn't want me back is because I spoke out against his policy - and was silenced for it.

Poor martyr of admin tyranny....

Let's do a test run. For the next couple of months I'll put out a rule that personal attacks should be deleted.

So now will mods stay silent about spam and flood, and you even can't bring the person doing it down yourself? That's why I said that there cant be ONE rule like that. If it's standalone, it only gives you green light to kick people from the other side and be OK, because adminictration will not, and users can not do a single thing.

anybody who doesn't mind personal attacks should be able to opt out, so if I'd opt out for example, so people could still attack/criticize me without fear of repercussions.

I kind of mind it when it's one-sided, but OK, you all can attack me too for this period.

Note to self: If I want to insult someone on the forum, make sure I also insult all the admins at the same time so they can't do anything about it.

I just see it... "*******, you are a jerk! ALL MODS ARE SUCKEEERS!"

My first question is to Nezhul.
1. Why do you come to Milovana?

boredom, mostly.

And most certainly how is this now a safe haven, when your sexuality is verbally abused?

Are you pointing on a dispute about submissive men or gays, where not everyone are smiling and praising them? I don't know how this can be an abuse, it's a discussion.

Did he do right or wrong...who cares! He was tired of seeing the same nonsense spouted, insults being slung this way and that. Did he go to far? WHO CARES!!! At least he did something!!!!!!!!!

OMG, you know, under that justification our world would turn into hell or worse. How can you even say it with a straight face? Let me justify myself the same way now. Indigo was deliberately killing two topics he doesn't liked the development of. I called him a jerk for that. Did I go too far? WHO CARES!!! At least I tried to DO SOMETHING!
Isnt that just laughable?

All he cares about is hurting people, just so he can give his all important opinion.

I don't give a damn about hurting people. I indeed care about giving my all-important opinion, whis is not one bit less important then yours or anyone else's.

God, he attacked a newbie over the lack of punctuation!!!!!!

I never attacked him! I poined it out as a way to self improvement. Anyone who can write THAT may as well without any effort split the thoughts into different sentences and start each sentence with a capital. That was a quite friendly ADVICE to make his posts more readable and himself - more appealing.
You just view everything I say negatively because I did deliberately hurt you in the past (and that time I intended to, very rare talent to piss me off that much).

Why, just once, won't you stand up for all the other members and tell him to take it down a notch...hush....take a breath.....anything that tells your members that we are just as important to you, as he is???????????????????

The fact is that we are actually secret lovers and are going to engage.
Seriously, the fact that no other member is ever attacked in the prospect of his opinion being wrong and "let's ban that asshole who says unpleasent things. Who cares what he thinks of!"
If I ever actually demand someone to be banned, I'd recieve the same responce as you do now. I actually DID once, I asked to do at least something to Indigo, when he started to "fuck you" me in every thread, no matter what it was about. My any post - "fuck you asshole" from Indigo. I asked seraphox to at least give him a warning, and he said that he won't interfere and so we can resolve the matter ourselves as we are both obviously adults. That's quite enough of a responce for me, I kind of didnt appreciate it then and I'm kind of don't think this approach is good even NOW, but I think thats his site and you, nor I have any rights to demand any rules or actions from him.

I disagree here - these are blatant insults, and don't move discussions forward at all. Things like "You don't know what you're talking about..." however should be acceptable.

Because it's YOU who use them
No, that actually was just to laugh. I agree here.



On the matter of the rules. I think any phrase that states the PERSONAL opinion of the speaker and doesnt target any single person should be OK. Like "I think black people are ugly" - is not an insult to anyone but opinion on the matter of taste.
Also as has been said a warning is often enough.

[inferiorwhiteboi]

Recently our policy on free speech has been a big issue. So grab a chair and let's talk about it. To start things off I want to address the question: What should we do when somebody calls someone else a "motherfucker" on these forums?

It has been a while since I've posted on the forums (long story), but I wanted to put my $0.02 in on this.

In a word, the answer to seraphox's question is: context.

1. The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
2. The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

For instance...
In the not too distant past, I willingly participated in a Domme's thead in which she was giving heterosexual guys tasks in which they were to watch gay porn videos and reported their experience.

The minute I decided to ask for a task in a thread with a homosexual theme, I knew the possibility of a certain outcome. In the end, I was indeed informed that I was "queer", "a fag" & so forth, as were other willing participants. Fine by me. The very second I listened to my 'other brain' & joined in a thread with a topic of 'forced gay porn viewing', I pretty much expected an outcome along those lines, as should have any other willing participants, in my opinion.

But that is just one example.


Regarding "motherfucker", in & of itself:

Frankly, it is pretty cool that we can say that word on a forum. Can't say that about a lot websites on the net that I freqent.

But, just like my above example, context comes into play. If somebody calls me "a silly motherfucker" in a joking manner in a thread with other humor, so be it. If a member of this site is dating a MILF in real life, then technically they are a "motherf...er"

And naturally...
If a thread is getting heated and somebody refers to somebody else using that word and/or other words, OR if physical violence comes up (i.e. "Real World Threats"), et cetera ... then action should be taken.


So, short of a policy along the lines of "Free Speech except for George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words", then it has to be about the context. If word X, Y, or Z causes a "red flag", so be it. But those instances should cause a review of the instance and not an unchecked, immediate appearance of a proverbial ban-hammer.

-----
My apologies if anybody else chimed in along this line of thought. I skimmed the thread, but didn't read everything. Didn't see the word context in any of the prior posts, and just wanted to make a few points along that particular line of reasoning.

[SexualChoc]

finally fuckers freely fragment forums
say stupid simple sentences
hurt honorary humans.

administration absorbs abuse
so sick slickers sass superiors.

Why when we weed wicked words
does drama dominate
nothing, nothing
but blathering bellicosity becomes bold
and all answers and altruism
destroyed decisively.

Translation:
what are the rules for a moderator/ team memeber to know
when to sanction a person besides child porn,
and when will a decision to ban based on message be honored?

[Handcuffed]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin

If you get offended by something someone says, too fucking bad.

[Handcuffed]

Hitler, no doubt, supported his actions by claiming them to be in the best interests of the german people.

You know, and they actually were. Every country benefit from new territory. USA's still bombarding libiya killing hundreds innocent commoners dayly, and claims it's in their best interests too.

This is not true. Countries do not always benefit from new territory; in fact, many times it threatens their security. Countries do not act in their own interests, they act in the interests of corporate welfare. The American wars in the Middle East, for example, have cost the United States billions and put them at a higher risk of terrorist attacks. As well, they threaten stability in the region; e.g. a collapse of Pakistan, a nuclear state.

And don't tell me the Israeli Occupied Territories are in the best interests of Israel.

[Nezhul]

Israel is a different thing all by itself. To start with NONE of their territories belong to them, they were taken from Palestine by force and are given to Israel. Then after Palestine (suddenly!) didn't like it, there was 8-day war, where, with support of certain someone's resources and technologies Israel won and taken even MORE land. And that's NOW when US uses veto right to keep Palestine from being acknowledged it's sovereignty. Serious all Israel thing is a topic by itself and I ask you, if you want to continue this debate - create another topic with quotes.

As for germany - if they succeeded, it would be actually for the best of not only german people, but a lot of other people too. A LOT of others would die, and I don't justify it.

[Handcuffed]

My point is that expanding territory is not always in a country's best interest, and in fact is often detrimental.

[Alliteration]

The main problem with moderators is that they always have friends and foes and people they just don't like. So when their friend makes a mistake or attack, they either close their eyes or just ask nicely to stop. While when some "stupid newbie" breaks some rule it may end in ban right away. Mods are always unfair.

Mods are always unfair? That's not true at all. To say that a person is completely uncapable of unbiased behavior merely by virtue of their position...come on. If this is true, then 1) Indy acted unfairly when locking those topics, and 2) seraph0x acted unfairly when reversing the decision. They might as well just be flipping coins when making mod decisions, isn't it obvious that they're not?

Well if you don't like, I'd say everyone here has the right to leave, right? Only that I know it's the damn only website with this ammount of free webteases of such a quality. And thanks to whom? Thanks to a "not very good admin", who not only runs and upgrades things, but also pays for the hosting (did you think how much all those pictures weight? And that without any donations and commercials.

Yes, I realize that. I'm not throwing a fit about the website or the way things are run, I'm trying to improve them. I'm offering constructive criticism.

On the matter of the rules. I think any phrase that states the PERSONAL opinion of the speaker and doesnt target any single person should be OK. Like "I think black people are ugly" - is not an insult to anyone but opinion on the matter of taste.

It's not about who is being attacked, really, but more about what's being said and how it might be interpreted. General statements about groups are just as hurtful as specific statements about individuals, as they target every member of that group.

Things like "I'm not attracted to black people" are fine, as that's a true "matter of taste". However, the word "ugly" implies something a bit stronger - that they are not attractive to anyone.

[Human]

On the matter of the rules. I think any phrase that states the PERSONAL opinion of the speaker and doesnt target any single person should be OK. Like "I think black people are ugly" - is not an insult to anyone but opinion on the matter of taste.

It's not about who is being attacked, really, but more about what's being said and how it might be interpreted. General statements about groups are just as hurtful as specific statements about individuals, as they target every member of that group.

Things like "I'm not attracted to black people" are fine, as that's a true "matter of taste". However, the word "ugly" implies something a bit stronger - that they are not attractive to anyone.

I dont agree on the ugly thing.
I find X aesthetically unappealing
=
I find X to be ugly.
=
I thing X is ugly.

[Alliteration]

On the matter of the rules. I think any phrase that states the PERSONAL opinion of the speaker and doesnt target any single person should be OK. Like "I think black people are ugly" - is not an insult to anyone but opinion on the matter of taste.

It's not about who is being attacked, really, but more about what's being said and how it might be interpreted. General statements about groups are just as hurtful as specific statements about individuals, as they target every member of that group.

Things like "I'm not attracted to black people" are fine, as that's a true "matter of taste". However, the word "ugly" implies something a bit stronger - that they are not attractive to anyone.

I dont agree on the ugly thing.
I find X aesthetically unappealing
=
I find X to be ugly.
=
I thing X is ugly.

What word would you use to describe someone who is aesthetically unappealing to everyone (or mostly everyone), then?

[Human]

What word would you use to describe someone who is aesthetically unappealing to everyone (or mostly everyone), then?

There is none. IMHO, it becomes offensive when it is made without the "I", eg
I find X to be ugly --- you are saying something about *your* preferences.
X is ugly --- this is a blanket statement about X, and the implication is that X is ugly to EVERYONE.

[Alliteration]

There is none.

Then our language should be updated to fill the communication gap, shouldn't it?

How about...let's use "unattractive" for subjective personal tastes, and "ugly" for objective unattractiveness. :P

X is ugly --- this is a blanket statement about X, and the implication is that X is ugly to EVERYONE.

I wouldn't say so. Simply leaving off the "I find X to be..." doesn't automatically make the statement apply to everyone. Example: "Pickled pigs feet are gross!" The person saying this is not implying that no one likes pickled pigs feet, just that he does not.

The words used in a sentence determine to which person/people the sentence refers just as much as the syntax of the sentence does.

[Qwert]

I promise that I will flood every topic that I find offensive. And I don't want hear drama that I destroy discussion as we have free speech here. Somebody don't care that he can offend others then I don't care about his discussion. Period.