Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Censorship now at ATBC?

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5286 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,16:13    I was the one who was censored for the following comment, expressing my utter distain for Dembski's actions with his new OE website.     Quote Dembski really is a scum sucking, worthless piece of shit.  I hope he catches some unpronounceable disease and his tiny balls painfully rot off. I was most unpleasantly surprised and angry when my thoughts were summarily censored out.  My words weren't mindless 'spitting'.  They were indeed harsh and vulgar, and they were carefully selected to express my feelings about people who deliberately manipulate children.  I meant them. ATBCs main strength is that allows unlimited freedom of expression.  If that means some reader might perceive that a comment of mine makes me 'look bad', that's my risk, and I will willingly take it. One of the worst things about sites like UD is that it censors posts that the mods perceive will make it 'look bad'. Censoring people's posts is a lot more Davetard than any heartfelt comments will ever be. - Occam's Aftershave -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,16:16    steve hasn't been a moderator for very long, and has often asked for input (he even put up a thread). perhaps you might discuss the issue in private with him? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5286 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,16:20    Censorship is a very serious issue, and it affects many more people than just me. It's a topic that deserves discussion in an open, public forum IMHO. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,16:25    ...and there was, IIRC: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=2901 nothing was decided, per se, but he did ask for open comments there (after he asked for private ones). -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5286 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,16:57    You're right Ichthyic, I'd forgotten about that thread. However, I went back and re-read the whole thing.  There were no comments at all about censorship, and the few that even mentioned moderation all said "the less the better". I have nothing against stevestory, he's been doing a great job (up until this one hiccup ) and hope he continues. I just think censorship in any form is deplorable.  I hate to see the free expression of ideas, ANY ideas, stifled in any way. If someone wants to say "OA sucks donkey balls" - more power to 'em.  Let their ideas stand or fall on their own merit, not the whim of a moderator. Freedom of speech IS ATBC's greatest strength over the ham-fisted censors at the IDiot boards.  As long as someone is not spamming the board or posting tons of off-topic junk, all ideas (even vulgar, insulting ones) should be allowed. That's just one man's opinion, your mileage my vary. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,17:00    meh, it just didn't bother me that my own response got pulled. It's not like I put a lot of thought or effort into it. rest assured your sentiment ala Dembski was well shared by myself. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,18:13    Whatever's decided, I thought this was pretty funny: Quote I hope he catches some unpronounceable disease and his tiny balls painfully rot off. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,20:57    I can see SteveStory's point of view. However, I would prefer no censorship.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,17:12    Censorship: The exclusion of certain views and materials by governmental action. Moderation: The art of removing annoying and excessively annoying elements from privately-run fora for the improvement of discussion. This is a moderated forum here. There are many existing fora for discussion, and many software packages and hosting sites that may be used to establish yet more discussion sites with their own moderation criteria. If you are uncomfortable with the broad, but not completely standards-less, moderation in effect here, I'm sure that you will be able to find, or found, one more to your liking elsewhere. As far as "censorship" goes, Inigo Montoya's words of wisdom are quite applicable. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5286 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,18:10    Quote If you are uncomfortable with the broad, but not completely standards-less, moderation in effect here, I'm sure that you will be able to find, or found, one more to your liking elsewhere. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Main Entry: censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing  /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> Where's Inigo Montoya when you need him? (said while hoping Wes has a sense of humor) My objection was to the somewhat arbitrary application of the standards, not to the standards themselves. Things much worse than I wrote have been posted and allowed to remain.  Also ignored was the fact that my words were not just a flame written in a vacuum, but were a continuation of my previous chain of thought. I enjoy ATBC, and have no problem with its policies.  I always recognize that my posting here is a privilege I am granted, not a right.   Can you tell me where I can find the official board definition of 'annoying', or 'excessively annoying'?  Or is it like SCOTUS Associate Justice Potter Stewart's call on pornography?   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,21:42    Yes, better consistency makes for happier users. That's something that should also come with experience; I'm hopeful that Steve will pick this up quickly. It's also the case that when beginning a clean-up job, one must start somewhere. Refusing to attempt the cleanup to preserve "consistency" is simply capitulation, not moderation. Annoying and excessively annoying are used in the same sense as they were used to help make management of Fidonet possible. Yes, that means that there isn't a hard and fast dividing line, but then again, there usually is no great difficulty in figuring out pretty well what falls into the two categories. Annoying is pretty obvious, I think, and excessively annoying covers a broad range of things, such as illegal messages, and things whose posting warrants immediate action to terminate access of the offender. Offering to hack the site has been consistently interpreted as excessively annoying. Refusal to pay attention to moderator warnings on behavior is excessively annoying. I've tried not to make moderation an issue of viewpoint, which means that sometimes people who would agree with me on various concepts in the evolution/creation controversy nevertheless end up being moderated. Complaints about moderation from people on both sides of the issue could be an indication of screwing up royally (which I think does apply to certain other forums under other management) or that moderation is affecting both groups roughly equally, which is just as it should be. I don't expect moderation to earn praise; that just is too rare to be counted upon as feedback. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,23:31    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 27 2006,22:12) As far as "censorship" goes, Inigo Montoya's words of wisdom are quite applicable. "You killed my father, prepare to die."

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,08:44    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 26 2006,22:13) ATBCs main strength is that allows unlimited freedom of expression.  If that means some reader might perceive that a comment of mine makes me 'look bad', that's my risk, and I will willingly take it. ... One of the worst things about sites like UD is that it censors posts that the mods perceive will make it 'look bad'. ATBC has never allowed unlimited freedom of expression, for one thing. For another thing, we do not viewpoint discriminate as UD does. I can't think of a single comment of AFDave's that I've touched, for instance. We violate the board rules all the time. "Dembski is a tard" violates the following rule: Quote Messages which insult or attack an individual are not appropriate. As those messages should be regarded as inappropriate, it is also inappropriate to follow up such a message with a reply. Yet we permit it. There are also lots of comments to be found bashing christianity, bashing islam, etc. Those violate this rule: Quote *Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse. Yet we permit it. The board has a rule against being annoying. However you define it, Robert O'Brien violates that in nearly every comment. Yet we permit it. So what's my philosophy of moderation? How do I interpret the board rules? With a very liberal interpretation which focuses on this rule: Quote :Annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion. Repeatedly being annoying will be considered excessively annoying. It's a judgement call. 90% of the things I've deleted or moved to the bathroom wall have been pointless "You suck" "No you suck" fights typically involving Lenny or O'Brien. The other 10% have been insults or threats that were not fit for civilized discussion.

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,09:52    I have absolutely no argument with moderation policy, just a thought that any snipping should be annotated. This would be a guide for future conduct, as well as a way of avoiding the charge (unjustified, probably) of censorship (in the sense of blue-pencilling bits of a comment). Alternatively, posts with unacceptable comments should be deleted with an invitation to re-post minus the unacceptable bit.. Les deux sous ą moi

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,10:15    Where's Janiebell and her green pen. (leans back to open door behind and yells) LOUIS!!!  FIRE UP THAT OLD SITE AGAIN!!!

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,12:44    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 27 2006,22:12) As far as "censorship" goes, Inigo Montoya's words of wisdom are quite applicable. "Hallo.  My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die." Hmmm.  Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it . . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Bing Posts: 144 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,13:34    Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 28 2006,14:52) I have absolutely no argument with moderation policy, just a thought that any snipping should be annotated. I agree with this.  On another board I frequent the software automatically adds a small phrase at the bottom of an edited post identifying who made the edit and when it was done. Steve edited one of my earlier posts to make it less gross and I thought I was descending further into dementia because I was sure of the words I had typed, yet what appeared on the screen was different. Is this an easy feature to turn on in Ikonboard Wes?

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,14:01    Wow, there are a lotta rules being violated here! While I lean on the side of "completely unfiltered comments", I actually see Steve's POV. A lot of boards have practically unrestricted discussion, with the results best left to the imagination. It isn't necessarily the vulgarity or vicious ad homs that disturb me as much as the sheer pointlessness of most of the comments: "lol" "+1", "STFU, noob", etc. Who wants to wade through that garbage? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,14:07    Quote Who wants to wade through that garbage? now you know why i so rarely make any substantive responses to your posts. like your post above. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Caledonian Posts: 48 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,17:38    Some of us enjoy wading through garbage, particularly if it permits us to attack the source.  No one would bother arguing with evolution deniers for any other reason. Quite frankly, if we hope to educate on the topic of evolution, there's little more than we can do but post a link to the talk-origins pages.  Interested lurkers can always go there, and I can think of few sources as accurate and complete. Sometimes a spade has to be called a spade.  I suspect that stevestory won't stop calling various creationist fools unsavory names, nor will he delete such comments, as he won't perceive them to be 'annoying'. [edit to add]  If the existing rules aren't being enforced, and extremely vague 'rules' are being used to justify the deletion of material, what exactly is the point of having the rules in the first place?  This is sloppy thinking.

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,18:55    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:01) .... It isn't necessarily the vulgarity or vicious ad homs that disturb me as much as the sheer pointlessness of most of the comments: "lol" "+1", "STFU, noob", etc. Who wants to wade through that garbage? $|-|U7 7|-|3 PhU(|< UP p4L3'/ j00Z b0r1|\|9 7\/\/47. W0o7! You're right about your posts being pointless, though. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:19    I think there have now been more comments on this board about my moderation, than comments I have moderated.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:39    Quote (Caledonian @ Sep. 28 2006,23:38) If the existing rules aren't being enforced, and extremely vague 'rules' are being used to justify the deletion of material, what exactly is the point of having the rules in the first place?  This is sloppy thinking. No, it is me enforcing the rules more liberally than they are written.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,00:29    Mike PSS, Quote Where's Janiebell and her green pen. (leans back to open door behind and yells) LOUIS!!!  FIRE UP THAT OLD SITE AGAIN!!! It must be another Louis to whom you refer. Janiebell is not/was not/will never be anything to do with me. I wish it were not the case, but I have neither time nor inclination to conduct such a hoax, if indeed hoax it was. Cheers Louis -------------- Bye.

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard