TonyVanDam said:

[That's easy. This has been stated many times. There is no free speech on prince.org. This is a privately owned website with moderators who decide what is and isn't appropriate in the forums, based on the rules you agreed to upon signing up to be a member here.

Now I'd like to see everyone please get back on topic... the personal statements towards eachother needs to end or the thread will be locked.

Thank you - June7]

June7 said:

If that is the case, what is the point of the rules? Doesn't that negate this whole thread then, June?

Stymie said:

I don't understand your question, please clarify.

June7 said:

If all decisions are up to mods, what is the point of having rules?

To avoid any conflict in the future, why not state such in the rules, such as there is no free speech here?

Stymie said:

That's just like saying if all decisions are made by the police, what's the point of having laws?

Example: The police interpret the laws in your cities and states, and we moderators interpret the rules here on the org. The difference is, the police have a Constitution they must adhere to, we have our rules as dictated by Ben. The difference is, the police work in the real world, we volunteer our time on a privately owned website with one owner who pretty much says, "I trust these moderators (that I've hand-picked) with my site and I've given them such-and-such authority to make it run as I want it to be run"... It's that simple. His site, his rules.

Rules are rules. Do me a favor and take a moment to look at them. Notice at the bottom where it talks about moderators and what we do. Notice how over and over again it states in the rules that you can't do this, or you shouldn't do that... those are rules. Clearly, when it states that you cannot post this statement, or you can't post this type of topic, that's NOT free speech.

Perhaps a big red bold font of "THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH SITE!" needs to be inserted into the contents of the rules just to be clear, but it is insinuated with what's written there... (no joking, I'm going to talk to Ben about this just to make it less confusing).

Hope that helps.

June7 said:

I appreciate your comments June. I have read those rules over and over again and I did so again before I wrote this.

In police interpreting rules, it is pretty clear cut what can and cannot be done: you can't shoot people, you can't rape women, etc.....somethings are not left open to interpretation. One of the rules states not to troll. It happens, even a mod called a person a troll with no action taken aginst said person. One says not to post hateful material. It happens. And even when reported, it remains.

I guess I am so much not against free speech June, hell I don't even want people banned but when a mod is hard on one person and soft on another, it's just not cool.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Stymie said:

Everyone interprets everything differently. We mods may differ on views and orgers, but usually agree on actions taken. If something major is going on, we converse at our ModSite to discuss and attempt to come up with an agreeable solution. We do have flaws. The system is not perfect. We're human...

If we've been perceived as being unbiased or unfair, it is not intentional. As Matt stated above, you are not privvy to all the details on the accounts of those who choose not to follow the rules.

Actions that are taken against an orger are not always as a direct result of an offenders most recent post or violation. Warnings and strikes are there for a reason. Once we've reached "the last straw" with someone, it's time to take action. The regular orger who does not have the list of violations in front of them will not see that this has been an ongoing discipline case who has finally ran out of chances. Sometimes the action is swift and serious, depending on the offense. Sometimes it is done over a long period of time.

I will reiterate what Matt said, if you find something offensive, report it! We do not see everything at all times... we need your help, too.

Hi Ben!

I think it helps to take a break, and not be here, day in, day out.....
I'm not saying anyone IS, (before I ruffle feathers) it's just that there are other things to do when frustrated.
In view of the activity and behavior of some members, I think the mods have their hands full.

shanti0608 said:

Check your orgnotes whenever you get a chance. I'm not the bad guy here at all.

evenstar3 said:

I'm not trying to flame bait anyone. I'm only identifying the problem for what it really is. You don't respect anyone else's opinions, yet alone anything educational they made have to bring to the table of discussion.

Does that answer you question at all? Either way, I'm so really to move on from this.

Adisa said:

I agree with you 100%. But I'm not going to stand by and allow people to get away making this latest controversy personal with me or other longtime respected fellow orgers who either have cancel or thinking of cancel their accounts due to a few people here that made this foolish beyond personal first and foremost.

It's not right OR fair on anyone on any side of this debate.

June7 said:

As I help you put this thread back on topic & make it fun again without the bitter arguments.....


If "free speech" doesn't exist on this website, when how much money is it going to cost all orgers to make a speech here?!? Basically, we now have to "pay for speech".

xplnyrslf said:

I think that when I'm frustrated, i should write a tthread telling people how i feel on the issue. And if I choose to be here day in and day out and I am happy with that, what other people think of that is of no consequence to me.

TonyVanDam said:

are you implying that it's only the three of us that you named specifically that are 'the problem'? what instances are you deriving your idea that i don't respect anyone else's opinions/anything educational from? i didn't even post on your deleted thread.

and that's well and good you want to put accusations like these out there and then 'move on', but i don't think it's very mature of you to not explain your reasoning; particularly when it's so rampantly off-base, and not doing so only impedes any potential resolution. when i've named orgers i've had problems with in threads such as these i've said specifically what annoyed me. this practice of vague insults solves nothing, imo.

and adisa, i think discussing personal grievances is fine as long as everyone acts like adults and names what exactly their issues are, rather than leaving it to generalities.
[Edited 5/31/08 1:35am]

Stymie said:

It doesn't sound like you're happy with it though Stymie. Hey, I've taken a break from the org when I started taking things too personally/seriously.

Cinnie said:

Read my profile.

I guess I should have spoken in generalities: there are people here who are here all day, day in day out and there need not be criticism of that.

And you are right, Cinnie. I haven't been happy here for a long time. I do enjoy talking to my friends in Orgnotes mostly and it's mainly the reason I am hesistant to delete this account.

Stymie said:

You don't even have to delete your account, just don't keep the org as your browser's homepage ()!

I started to expect things of orgers and moderators in general and depended on them to make my experience a nice one and I realized everyone has their personalities and won't change. Some people enjoy seeing other people upset which is really unfortunate.

Cinnie said:

You ain't right. The Org is not my homepage.

And I do appreciate your input and I do realize what you say is true.

Stymie said:

Stymie said:

i'm glad you are still here!!!!! please do not let anyone get to you like that.

XxAxX said:

Stymie said:

And good morning. How was THAT for a break from the org?

Cinnie said:

I think Ben did that for me.

Seriously, it was good. The only thing I hated about it was we couldn't discus the primaries on Tuesday.

Stymie said:

I found the experience of Non orging good as well - for me, very good

a day or 5 away from things can clear perspectives - I like that

Mach said:

Agreed. I really hope everyone took some time to have fun and be constructive in other ways, and has a fresh eye on things now. I will not tolerate racism (actual racism, not just discussing issues of race!), as the moderators don't either. But I'm happy to engage in a wider discussion of this at some point in the near future, as well.

ben said:

You responded to my thread.

You can lock it up now.

ben said:

Again, I would like to take a moment to Thank Ben and fellow Mods for all you do

ben said:

I'll risk unpopularity [or worse?] to post this:

I got the point about the rules and that this is not a free speech site, but to answer more generally about the initial mention of bad vibes and negativity engendered by racist and the like comments on the Org: I wonder what exactly we are achieving by banning unpleasant, offensive or critical speech, by protecting ourselves behind what seems an increasing amount of cushioned walls...

Does it make us 'better' human beings? More tolerant of other opinions/people? More secure in our ability to cope with and respond rationally and without fear to such hurtful speech? Does it make us more mature?

I have a feeling that many people would like to 'clean' the Org. But I just wonder if in our little cocoon of purist, 'acceptable', pre-fabricated positivity, we don't end up discriminating against a whole lot of people and views.

On another note: I realize that race, religion, politics,.. are all burning hot and sensitive topics, but I also have a feeling that these days, we [people generally, not just Orgers] are becoming offended increasingly easily. This is just an impression of mine about the world generally. The news are replete with cases of people complaining and retaliating because of various real or perceived offenses to their identity, culture, religion, etc.
What does this say about us, about our maturity and self-esteem if they can be so easily shaken? ['easily' meaning for ex. a comment in an online space.]

I'm just wondering if relaxing a little, taking ourselves a little less seriously would not make this planet [and the Org] a more peaceful place...

And to go back to Insatiable's comment: I totally agree that the online world is no different than the offline one, and that both 'good' and 'bad' people can be found in both.

INSATIABLE said:

Flo6 said:

I'd be the first to say that I can be hypersensitive. I feel things way too deeply but I think my main beef is not so much that there are racists here but more that the rules are not being followed by all involved. You shouldn't be able to punish one person for something and not punish the other. But, in listening to Insatiable and Mach and Cinnie and Ben, the fight has left me.