General Discussion
 Topics of or related to poetry. 

eMule -> The Poetry Archive -> Forums -> General Discussion


Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
On Censorship
Posted by: joseph r. torelli (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 24, 2005 05:56PM

I'm not sure exactly what has been going on over in the USP, but I'm becoming increasingly concerned by the vitriolic exchanges between Les and several contributors over what the contributors deem to be Les' heavy handed censorship.

As one who has been active here for nearly three years, I can tell you one of the things that has kept me coming back is the free exchange of ideas between all contributors. I'm disappointed that such free exchange may now be undergoing scrutiny and censorship beyond that which was established by the site's founders.

I am opposed to censorship in most any form, but I do understand that rules have been established . As long as those rules are not violated, nothing that is submitted should be deleted...period. If Les has taken it upon himself to delete that which does not violate the rules, he is wrong.

JoeT


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Pam Adams (---.bus.csupomona.edu)
Date: May 24, 2005 06:23PM

JoeT,

I've seen the messages today also. I don't know what threads have been closed or deleted, but like you, the sniping concerns me.

Aaron, Rudy, Stephen, Desi, Les, or whoever's 'in charge,' can you please help us on this?

pam


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 24, 2005 08:42PM

Thank you Joe


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (---.dial.proxad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 08:40AM

We have no way of telling which moderator deletes what. I cannot see what Les does, but I have confidence in him. If he says he didn't delete something he didn't. I quote:

">1. Why was the word "beautiful deleted, it is not an obscene word.

Les:
I have no idea about this one, Coin, since I didn't delete it."

A user can modify his or her own post as well. There is also an automatic moderation which replaces obscene words with stars. We don't have anything to do with that. I don't know what happened here. It sounds strange that a word like beautiful disappears.

I'm going to read up on what's going on now.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (---.dial.proxad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 08:57AM

Also keep in mind that if we do delete a "obscene" message, that all the replies to it disappear also. I think if there are replies we should edit the post instead of deleting it.

However, so far I've only been deleting loads and loads of poker spam. I have sent an email to Les to see what we can do to improve the situation. Suggestions are welcome of course.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Tulach (193.120.148.---)
Date: May 25, 2005 10:08AM

I agree with JoeT.

Admittedly I am not completely au fait with the goings on but I have certainly found myself unwilling to partake on the USP until some order is restored....

Tulach


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (---.dial.proxad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 10:23AM


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Tulach (193.120.148.---)
Date: May 25, 2005 10:35AM

Desi,

My tuppence worth is that these kind of juvenile remarks are best ignored. By creating an issue it encourages the writer and gives a significance beyond it's due.

In my experience (even dealing with a child in tantrum) is that the best course of action is to ignore........it soon dissipates....

I know this is probably not what you want to hear but starved of notice the writer will become bored and move on.

Tulach.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 10:57AM

As I said over in the frivs I am trying to support the rights of people to be able to post freely, but with such rights also come responsibilities not to act like some jerky child.

However, I think that something strange is going on with Coin's posts, although the IP address seems the same, there are odd double posts and copying verbatim of other peoples responses.

and then complaining about it by Coin ! I do not think just one person is posting under this name, though maybe the same computer.

As far as the specific comments themselves, they should be ignored, but remain. Foul language should be removed (because it's an established rule).

My concern has always been the arbitrary removal of comments based on someones opinion that they are not relevant to the thread.

Most of my comments appear on the surface to be non sequitars, yet the meaning sometims goes deeper than the obvious or obscure


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (---.dial.proxad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 11:03AM

non sequiturs, i hope. Unless latin grammar rules changed when I wasn't looking?

Anyway, I think you're right. One of the things I love is a change of subject. Most interesting conversations came about like that.

Am going to send email to coin to get to the bottom of the dopplerganger.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: lg (---.dhcp.trlk.ca.charter.com)
Date: May 25, 2005 11:42AM

Desi, thanks for the support. As I see it, and Johnny's point is well taken. Most people understand my stance on obscenity. It simply can't be tolerated.

What has happened, and I am the one who is personally responsible for this.
I have deleted entire threads where I probably should have just closed them.

I will try to use a lighter touch in the future.

But bear in mind that some individuals will not be happy with anything I do, that's just human nature. I accept that and think it's something you just have to learn to live with.


Les


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 11:58AM

With all the typos abounding here, I should be allowed one in Latin !

Thanks Les for responding in this way. No, you are NEVER going to please everyone. I've always said that the one thing that CAN be done sucessfully is to piss everyone off smiling smiley

My apologies if I misunderstood your intent, I was reacting to what appeared to be an attitude of "I'll do WHAT i want WHEN i want, and if you don't like it, LEAVE !"

I appreciate the time you took to consider this matter


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Pam Adams (---.bus.csupomona.edu)
Date: May 25, 2005 02:52PM

Les and Desi,

Thanks for working to clear this up. I notice also that there seems to be more of a demand for instant response on the USP- and the assumption that if someone doesn't respond within a few minutes that one is being ignored or badly treated.

pam


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 02:56PM

Pam:

I know of only one person who does that !

always assumed it was their particular style to comment on their own work to keep it afloat, especially nowadays in the sea of texasholdem
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE ! ! ! ! !

If you do not answer in the next 3 minutes, I will consider it a great affront, and will sulk and pout and go "WAHHHHHHHH"

after I tire of this, I will start plotting my revenge on you because of your rude behavior....considering such tactics as ill-metered limericks of which you are the subject.

Then I'll probably eat a sandwich or something



Post Edited (05-25-05 14:00)


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Pam Adams (---.bus.csupomona.edu)
Date: May 25, 2005 03:03PM

Feel free! But at least make them well-metered limericks- I can write my own bad ones.

pam


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 03:07PM

A rude little person named Pam
she stole all my strawberry jam
her last name of Adams
she rhymed it with Madams
when everyone knows it's "Madame"


SO THERE ! PFFFFFT !



Post Edited (05-25-05 14:07)


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Hugh Clary (---.denver-05rh15-16rt.co.dial-access.att.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 03:12PM

Here is the owner of this site:

[tinyurl.com] />
The owner sets the policies, not the moderator(s). If the owner has made any guidelines or standards for moderators, I have not seen them.

Most people understand my stance on obscenity. It simply can't be tolerated.

So, what is obscenity anyhoo?

[tinyurl.com] />
Reality check: these are characters flickering on a computer screen. Relief is only a click away, folks.

Personally, I would hose away the spam, but anything else should be deleted only in the most egregious of cases. Yes, I would prefer any and all posts by Critic to remain as well. Why is that? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 04:20PM

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.?

Isn't that a Star Trek episode?


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 04:28PM

Hugh, he means cursing.

He's not always good with words smiling smiley


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (---.dial.proxad.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 04:44PM

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

In the hierarchy of a forum, administrator custodiet custodes.

The owner of the site is responsible for any illegal stuff posted on the forum. That's why there have to be moderators.

I sent an email to Aaron asking for guidelines. You make a good point there. But I still think Les is doing a good job. There is only a couple of individuals complaining, and I feel it's blown out of proportion.

Besides, you don't want to know the time we spend on deleting all that bloody spam. Not in a mood for moderation after that! ;-)


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Pam Adams (---.bus.csupomona.edu)
Date: May 25, 2005 06:14PM

You're doing what to the custard?

pam


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: joseph r. torelli (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 25, 2005 08:54PM

I don't think any discussion of censorship can be "blown out of proportion" today. We need look no further than the recent Orwell thread on this forum to see how serious an issue it is and how vigilant we ought to be in guarding against it.

Admittedly, censorship (real or perceived) on a poetry forum may not seem as grave as a totalitarian state taking control of language so as to stifle independent thought. However, brushing aside those who are concerned about censorship should be cause for alarm.

We must have open discussions on censorship to prevent that kind of attitude from becoming pervasive, not only here, but in society. Censorship is a very serious business. It should be debated openly and honestly and judged on the merits of the action taken without conjecturing about the personal motives of those holding editorial power. An honest appraisal of those actions will lead to a proper determination of how to proceed. Denigrating others has no place in the debate.

JoeT


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Pam Adams (---.bus.csupomona.edu)
Date: May 25, 2005 09:27PM

Perhaps one solution would be to post- on each forum if needed, the rules of conduct, once they have been decided upon.

pam


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 12:34AM

Joe:

Although I was not directly affected by any of the actions taken, I felt it was my place to speak up. recalling the famous quote by Pastor Martin Niemoller.

That's why I was one of the few complaining. I am a "hard-liner" when it comes to this issue.

It concerns me when the attitude is "You don't need Rights when you've done nothing Wrong"

and any derogatory remarks I made were an attempt to elicit a response, since I felt that my reasonable questions were being brushed aside.

I apologize for my methods, but not my motivation


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (---.dial.proxad.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 03:55AM

I think joe referred to my remark "blown out of proportion". Hmm, it came not really out the way I intended it. Sorry.

I absolutely agree this is something we must be able to discuss openly, and of course, the moderators should be open to the advise and concerns of the users of the forum.

I did not mean you. Honestly, what is bothering me a bit, is that whenever (eh, well, twice) this discussion comes up, someone will say hey, what happened to what I wrote, panic. While nothing happened to what x wrote, but readers will not be reading the answer to the question with a link to what x wrote, if you know what I mean. They only read the part where we apparently delete things. (see for examples:

ttp://tinyurl.com/9pgrb (where peter apparently edited his own remarks.) and just now: [www.emule.com] />
What I wanted to say, is that the majority of users here never have anything edited and/or deleted. And some people are really out of line, and they know it. Just as the moderators have to abide by the rule that we can't delete everything we don't like, the users should abide by the rule that they can't post everything they like.

But to move forward in this discussion, let's see if we can set some guidlines together. I really feel that insulting remarks without any depth should be deleted. Hugh seems in favour of letting them stand. (but not everyone has the same attitude towards letters as you hugh. I can be really hurt by what people say on a forum, and I guess I'm not the only one). What do you think Joe? Others?


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (---.dial.proxad.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 04:04AM

By the way Johnny, as promised, I moved the latest post by cherry to the user submitted forum. Go have fun!


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 09:36AM

Thanks Desi ! I already have. It's all in the formatting

I'm probably the only maniac who enjoys them, but I REALLY REALLY do.

Then, again, I find poetry in cereal ingredient lists


Thanks for mentioning the paranoia, bringing to mind:

"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life,
it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid"

Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth


If we have the rules, and with certainty know that nothing gets deleted unless it violates stated rules, it should cut down on these feelings.



Post Edited (05-26-05 08:43)


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: stem (210.18.156.---)
Date: May 26, 2005 09:42AM

HI ig,

are u and less the same person. May i ask u what is ur hand this site. r u running this site ,hoping an answer
stem


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: lg (---.dhcp.trlk.ca.charter.com)
Date: May 26, 2005 12:33PM

Desi,

Cherytreeinspring's posts are SPAM, pure and simple. I generally treat them the same way I do solicitations for poker. They are NOT poetry.


Stem, my name is Les. I am one of the many moderators here. My initials are L as in Les and G as in gorilla.


Les


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (---.dial.proxad.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 12:46PM

Les,

I agree with you, but if someone here is enjoying the posts and wants to turn it into poetry I don't see why we should delete it. It is not harming the website as the poker spam does. Nor does she use offensive language. Only when it is racist (like the ramblings about the russians the other day) do I think we should delete it.

Desi


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: lg (---.dhcp.trlk.ca.charter.com)
Date: May 26, 2005 12:49PM

Desi, if you allow one post which is about nothing in particular then you are allowing ALL posts by that individual. Do you want 50 posts a day by Cherrytree?


Les


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 01:02PM

or when that party of eight shows up at the table I wanted to sit at?


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: lg (---.dhcp.trlk.ca.charter.com)
Date: May 26, 2005 01:06PM

Actually, we would probably all like each other more if we could play some 7 card "No Peak".


Les


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 01:18PM

Can I look at these?


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (---.dial.proxad.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 01:36PM

"Desi, if you allow one post which is about nothing in particular then you are allowing ALL posts by that individual. Do you want 50 posts a day by Cherrytree?"

look, if she has so much time and energy to jot down 50 of those posts, I will have no problem copy pasting them all in one special cherry thread.

So far, it's not that often though. If it is we can talk with Johnny again. I can promise to send him emails with the texts before deleting them ;-)


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: lg (---.dhcp.trlk.ca.charter.com)
Date: May 26, 2005 02:46PM

if she has so much time and energy to jot down 50 of those posts

You have no idea how much time, she has.


I guess I used the wrong tactic then, I should have e-mailed you all of the poker spams also, so you could post them all in one thread. winking smiley



Les


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 02:55PM

A battle won is a battle which we will not acknowledge to be lost.
-- Marshall Foch


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: lg (---.dhcp.trlk.ca.charter.com)
Date: May 26, 2005 03:10PM

Joe, a thought crossed my mind while pondering the "concept" of censorship.
None of us probably has the same idea of what is acceptable for a general audience. But what I use as a criteria is the fact that we ALL came here to e-mule to enjoy poetry within the aegis of norms set by someone way back when. My role as I see it, is merely to keep the standards of language and usage here equivalent to what they were when I came.

Les


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: joseph r. torelli (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 04:27PM

Johnny, Les, and Desi:

I wasn't singling you three out when I said that denigrating others has no place in a debate about censorship. It applies to anyone who launches a personal attack, even a mild one, on another; and it applies to all debates and disagreements, as well. Look at the mess we're in political debating these days; it is nearly impossible to acquire a real understanding of issues when all the candidates can focus on is how to make the other guy look bad.

I appreciate the yeoman-like work that Les and Desi both do as moderators; the task can't be an easy one. And in answer to Desi's question, I'm more of a hard-liner like Hugh. Most visitors here are pretty smart and will recognize inane insults for what they are. I think that admonishing the culprits for their remarks is quite acceptable and can be very effective, as long as the admonishment contains no insult, itself.

JoeT


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 05:24PM

"The decent moderation of today will be the least of human things tomorrow. At the time of the Spanish Inquisition, the opinion of good sense and of the good medium was certainly that people ought not to burn too large a number of heretics; extreme and unreasonable opinion obviously demanded that they should burn none at all."
~ Count Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Belgian poet, dramatist, essayist, Nobel prize for literature


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Pam Adams (---.bus.csupomona.edu)
Date: May 26, 2005 06:29PM

Let me be upfront here with a disclaimer- I am not personally willing to act as moderator, and am glad that others have stepped up.

My attitude regarding cherrytree was that she was annoying, but livable with. I see deleting comments other than obvious (free poker, etc) spam as slippery slope time. Many of us make nonsensical comments- how do we decide who is to be censored?

As an example, when Johnny first appeared on eMule, I thought that he was another nonsense poster that would spam for a week or so and be gone. He's turned out to be a member of our community.



pam


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: joseph r. torelli (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 26, 2005 06:50PM

*sticks tongue in cheek

You mean Johnny's been serious all this time? (lol)

JoeT


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: ns (---.133.96.bgl.dialup.vsnl.net.in)
Date: May 27, 2005 12:26AM

I'm probably the only maniac who enjoys them, but I REALLY REALLY do.

Make that two maniacs.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: drpeternsz (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: May 27, 2005 12:45AM

Desi,

JUst for the information, what does this refer to? >ttp://tinyurl.com/9pgrb (where peter apparently edited his own remarks.)<


Peter


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 27, 2005 09:14AM

"I see deleting comments other than obvious (free poker, etc) spam as slippery slope time"

This is why I was acting Triple Ob

Obstreperous
Obstinate
Obnoxious


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 27, 2005 09:15AM

Joe, yes........I think only Peter truly realized just how serious i am.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Desi (Moderator)
Date: May 27, 2005 09:37AM

ah, the link doesn't seem to be working properly. It's the discussion where you thought I had deleted something that I hadn't deleted, and your posts saying so have been edited and are quite empty now. I know I didn't do that, so I supposed it was you. Meant no harm. Honestly!


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 27, 2005 10:46AM

I blame Society


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 27, 2005 10:48AM

Desi, I just wanted to point out one quirk with the new format.

You have to look at ALL the pages in order for the"new" to disappear.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: Brucefur (---.ca.shawcable.net)
Date: May 31, 2005 12:53AM

Not so long ago poets on the USP were climbing over one another, like rats, to escape a sinking ship. I was one of them. I left and swore that I would never come back, but then Lady of the Night weedled me into commenting on some of her stuff and I have always had a soft spot for my Nutmeg. Indeed my very first post on Emule was criticizing Desi for critiquing something that LON had written (I remember because I was completely out of line and didn't understand their background with one another). Should that post have been deleted, or was Desi's kind response explaining things to me all that was needed? I will go with the latter, especially as I ended up in the same situation between Sargirl and Percival sometime later. Again, I don't feel that Percy's posts needed to be deleted, but ONLY because I understood where he was coming from and despite many nasty comments, I didn't have a problem with it.

What I do have a problem with is people making personal attacks on what I have written, or sly comments about my friends here. It is pretty darn easy for someone who has never been under attack here to say you should just ignore malicious posts, but believe me, it really isn't that easy to do, month after month, when the attacks start to number in the dozens, and more than one individual is involved. Most of which started when I invoked my God given right to say that I didn't have the time to post on a person's threads (which wasn't the first time I had come under attack for that. It seems that if you comment on many threads, it becomes an obligation to post on any who desire it; whether you wish to, or not! This is another reason why I don't comment much here anymore either, and only a very few threads).

I have made my own fair share of mistakes here, on Emule, and would have been thankful if some of my knee jerk reactions had been deleted for me; preferably before anyone had seen them! So I am not really pointing fingers here.

What I can say, is that I support Les' moderating 100%, and if the odd mistake is made in the process, so be it.

By the way, with one exception, I no longer even post poetry here. I figure if I want to put up with snide, underhanded comments, I will go to Ablemuse where at least the people being nasty, SOMETIMES know what they are talking about.

One last thing. In my opinion, Emule almost rolled over and died during Critics reign of terror and Stephen becoming a mod was the only thing that saved the USP from a total flame war. I find it hard to think how Hugh can say that someone that makes a habit of tearing down other people and making irrelevant comments on their poetry threads, or even under other people's names, could be considered acceptable behaviour. Why should one person's rights be placed above those of many? Then again, I am not an anarchist. I believe that the purpose of power is to exercise it; hopefully in a benign fashion.

Again, I think that Emule WITH the mods, is a MUCH better place than it was without them. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have returned to do other than read what is posted.

Brucefur
PS: Perhaps total transparency would go a long way to resolving this contention. i.e. This thread has been deleted for offensive content to minors... etc... I myself have found that the greatest number of problems occur when people are left to guess WHY their poem was deleted.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2005 01:00AM by Brucefur.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 31, 2005 08:23AM


If things seem under control, you are just not going fast enough.

Mario Andretti


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: drpeternsz (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: May 31, 2005 10:31AM

Desi:

re:

But to move forward in this discussion, let's see if we can set some guidlines together. I really feel that insulting remarks without any depth should be deleted. Hugh seems in favour of letting them stand. (but not everyone has the same attitude towards letters as you hugh. I can be really hurt by what people say on a forum, and I guess I'm not the only one). What do you think Joe? Others?

If anyone object to the language in a thread, all that need be done is to ignore that thread. I feel that the worst language that could be used in a poetry forum is the language that makes a poem bad. I do not think poets need any other guidelines on how to speak [non-poets as well].

Dr. Peter N. Sherburn-Zimmer

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2005 10:33AM by drpeternsz.


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: drpeternsz (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: May 31, 2005 10:42AM

Johnny:

re:

Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 27, 2005 08:15AM


Joe, yes........I think only Peter truly realized just how serious i am.

I was just putting you on.

Peter


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: joet (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: May 31, 2005 05:35PM

Peter:

When I see a thread turning into an insult exchange, I usually stop reading further. Otherwise, I simply skip over the comments by the offenders when I'm interested in what else is being said on the thread. It doesn't take long to spot those who make a habit of casting inane insuslts, and ignore their puerile rants, completely. Really, it's not that difficult.

Guidelines prohibiting the use of vulgar language are appropriate in a public forum. But as I've stated before, I don't like the idea of censorship beyond that.

JoeT


Re: On Censorship
Posted by: JohnnySansCulo (---.nycmny83.covad.net)
Date: May 31, 2005 05:57PM

Exactly Joe....thanks.

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill





Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This poetry forum at emule.com powered by Phorum.