Censored Posts

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Undertoad
I'm happy enough, it's not a question of not being happy, or what I want.

I thought what you were saying was that you thought perhaps changes were needed because only 3% of folks who registered actually participated.

The rule change is not, like, a major change in direction...

Well, I really have to disagree. I always saw your policy of deleteing posts only in the most extreme circumstances as a key element in making the Cellar what it was, and maintaining it's egalitarian feel. That policy, and the values that gave rise to it, were at the core of what made The Cellar different from the pile of power-driven BBSs that it has long survived, and I think The Cellar History and your "What's The Cellar" essay make that clear.
<center>
<b><i>Disagreement and honesty are critical to a community's health.</i></b></center>
...ipse dixit.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
This thread is proof enough, a quick browse though maggies post makes the point clear.

Well, jag, you don't actually *know* what was purged, because most of it's just plain gone...right into Winston Smith's "memory hole". What you see over here in this thread is stuff I rekeyed from memory, or in one case pre-copied over to here because dham made it clear he was going to purge anything I wrote...including going back to stuff that had been up for a while.

[elSicomoro]

In some of the cities I've been to and lived in, there are certain neighborhoods where residency permits are used. If your car does not have a residency sticker, you either can't park your car there, or you can only park there for a few hours. (Chicago's north side has a ton of these. Philadelphia has them in Queen Village, off South Street.) And this is the analogy I use when it comes to Dave deleting Maggie's posts.

As I see it, The Cellar is a virtual community, where you have various "neighborhoods." And while the general laws (or in the case of the Cellar, rules) apply to all neighborhoods, some neighborhoods may be more stringent (e.g. have residency permits) in order to maintain a "high quality of life."

Based upon the relatively loose general standards, and the level of carte blanche in these parts, I think Dave can do with his forum as he wishes. In fact, I respect Mr. Ham for making that decision. He and I had a conversation a while back, in which I wished there was a way to block all future Maggie posts in the Manifestos. The main reason I have not deleted any posts in the Manifestos (other than the accidental thread deletion) as of yet is b/c I don't really want to be a censor, no matter how ridiculous I think the posts may be. That's not one of us being better than the other...though our forums are somewhat similar, the purpose of each is rather different. In the end, I think this is much ado about nothing.

Look Maggie, I don't like you, and don't have much respect for you. You make some great posts, but are notorious for baiting, flaming, and being outright insulting. Many of us (myself included) are guilty of the same things, but you take it to another level, IMO. It's cool though...you probably won't lose any sleep over it, nor will I. You can't like everybody in a community.

So, Dave can pull posts, Maggie can post them here, and we'll all be one big happy dysfunctional community.

[juju]

Look at it on the bright side. All those moronic things I said will be preserved for eternity! Whoohoo!

[jaguar]

No maggie, i meant the crap you've posted in here, not other threads. Sadly that's still here. Syc's dead on, although the existance of invisible boards should be taken into account.

[Slight]

My only constructive comment on this interestingly introspective thread is that personal blogs not governed by the same rules as the rest of the cellar should be clearly deliniated with different colors/fonts/graphics as to cue the dwellar of a different realm.

I agree that deletion is censorship. But I also agree that it should be allowed where noitice is given. Personally I would not use deletion as a tactic. But I put less effort into expressing my 'community self' than others so I find no need to blog. Stupid posts deserve getting ripped to shreds by witty intellegent posts not deletion. This is what makes /. fun to read.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Slight
My only constructive comment on this interestingly introspective thread is that personal blogs not governed by the same rules as the rest of the cellar should be clearly deliniated with different colors/fonts/graphics as to cue the dwellar of a different realm.

I dunno if it's possible, but I have no problem with that...my blog is already a different color than the standard Cellar setup.

I've seen the word "rules" mentioned at least twice now, and one of the sentiments seems to be that Dave is trying to make his own rules, or change the rules.

When anyone registers, there are 3 rules listed:

1. Don't use the system to break the law.
2. Don't try to break the system.
3. Don't be 'intolerably irritating'.

Number 3 is incredibly vague, and we could probably come up with 900,000 interpretations of what exactly that means. As I see it, Dave has decided to enforce rule 3. I can't speak for Mr. Ham, but as evidence:

Maggie is free to say whatever she likes. I encourage her to write whatever she feels like writing. But she's shown, on a number of occasions, that she has very little valuable to contribute to my weblog - but a whole lot of negative.

Free speech is a beautiful thing; however, one must realize that there may be consequences to what you say. Why was there no talk about "changing rules" when Parmenion was booted? After all, why should it be silenced, just because it slammed me, Dave, and Rho? I think that was a perfect example of rule 3 enforcement, and judging by other posts (or lack thereof), most people seem to be cool with Parm's demise. But that's only my thinking. We generally rely on UT to enforce rule 3, and I personally think he's handled that well. But...who's to say that he's necessarily right? Who's to say that Dave enforcing it is necessarily a bad thing? Who's to say that Maggie's behavior or Dave's or mine or UT's isn't "egregiously bad?"

It's a judgment call in the end. I still think that the Cellar is a champion of free speech; however, I am keenly aware that there are absolutes to free speech, whether there should be or not. And those absolutes can and will vary.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore

We generally rely on UT to enforce rule 3, and I personally think he's handled that well. But...who's to say that he's necessarily right? Who's to say that Dave enforcing it is necessarily a bad thing? Who's to say that Maggie's behavior or Dave's or mine or UT's isn't "egregiously bad?"

Well, for as long as I've been here, it's been Tony's call. And as I said earlier, I've liked how that worked. "Who's to say" is basically Tony, it being his effort that makes the Cellar happen; this is the "LIttle Red Hen" principle. T'was ever thus.

Now he's delgating that role....which, being the Little Red Hen, is indeed his call. I think it will make the Cellar less like what it was and more like everything else that's out there. Just my opinion.

I still think that the Cellar is a champion of free speech; however, I am keenly aware that there are absolutes to free speech, whether there should be or not. And those absolutes can and will vary.

Um...variable absolutes? "Limits", maybe?

"Intolerably irritating" is indeed variable...and ignore lists were created here to allow for that variability of irritability. Some more irritable folks use them a lot. For others that's not enough; beyond not listening to those they don't like, they want the people they don't like silenced so *none* will hear them, and if they had the tools would make their entire domains invisible to the unpersons.

The Cellar, which had been under a single management, will now have several zones, each with it's own governance. Rather like laws varying between states; what is forbidden in New Jersey or California may be "legal as church on Sunday" in Pennsylvania. Essentially what was one blog is now multiple co-hosted fora.

Now we'll get to see what the results will be over the coming months.

My guess is that it will be you posting less in my weblog.