Do you think the exchange Percy cited above with Taq warrants restriction or suspension?
If an admin told me not to use a certain word - "idiot" for example - I'd stop using it. I wouldn't need to be physically censored and I wouldn't need to be suspended. I think that applies to most of us - but not Faith. She would play the martyr card and continue to thumb her nose at the rules.
"If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
Silly, irrelevant, tendentious and insinuation were used as cited then became *********. I didn't see where any prior admonition was given.
I know more than adequate warning was given in the past without any effect but this specific instance had none and in my opinion these words are trivial compared to idiot or troll or stupid. Her history caught up with her and, again my opinion, admin's sensitivity caught up with him.
She would play the martyr card and continue to thumb her nose at the rules.
That is when suspension may be warranted. Not asterisks.
I finally see the genesis of this whole asterisk thing. As has been pointed out correctly, this is ultimately Percy's house and along with that guests need to respect the house rules or face trespassing charges. Noted; no disagreement.
But I think there are better ways of promoting certain rules. For the most part, temporary suspensions with an ever-increasing schedule based on the amount of offenses or level offense seems to have mostly worked over the years. For those that it does not work on, permanent suspensions fixes the problem completely. Sometimes they come in under pseudonyms but an IP address usually weeds that out, they lose interest in trying to circumvent the failsafes, and go on about their miserable lives elsewhere.
The issue is three-fold for me. One is of efficacy, the arbitrary nature of the selected words and the other is censorship.
Efficacy: If you can just use the peak function then doesn't it defeat the intended purpose of shielding our sensitive eyes and impressionable minds of whatever arbitrary word that the Admin decides he doesn't like? If it doesn't really maintain its intended effect then it seems like we're just trying to create an inconvenience for that poster -- in which case its design is to be punitive and not necessarily designed to be corrective.
Arbitrary: Some of the selected words seem really innocuous to me and just about everyone else. Banning the word "silly" for certain people seems silly to me. I don't get it, what am I missing here?
Censorship: I personally believe that almost everything on the internet should be modeled after Western ideology when it comes to speech. Even in the most free societies there are limitations to free speech and rightly so. You can't create a panic by yelling fire in a crowded movie theater and you can't threaten to kill someone you disagree with. But in our free society we can openly mock the heads of state without fear of reprisal and that's a beautiful thing.
The internet should be no exception. You shouldn't be allowed to threaten others with physical harm, there reasonably should be a rule about doxing people, and the Forum Rules (think civil law as opposed to criminal law) are reasonable expectations. But what grave consequence exists for disallowing Faith to openly use the word "silly?" If someone needs a suspension then just do that. Admin might argue, we've tried everything with Faith. Its not lost on me how many times she's been suspended, at least twice permanently that I can recall, but ultimately allowing her back on.
It seems to me that the very nature of debate is confrontational. I mean, we signed up with the expectation that our opinions would ruffle some feathers. Just like anywhere else there are some people who, just by their very nature, are prone to fits of rage, have less tact than others, or just come across as abrasive. Faith, as we know, is very impassioned about her beliefs. That's her personality. I definitely don't always like it but none of it comes as a shock. But no one is harmed by her tirades.
If she breaks some rules, suspend her for 24 hours. If she does it again, suspend her for 3 days. If she does it again, suspend her for a week. If she does it again, suspend her for a month. Then 3 months. Then a year. She still doesn't learn, indefinite suspension. I will tell you from experience, she loves this place and the thought of losing this opportunity to have a voice is very dear to her. She does respond to the suspensions. I think you all forget how really outrageous her behavior used to be. Ever notice how many times she edits a post??? Yeah, that's because she self-censors in fear of the consequence if she doesn't.
Anyhow, this is just my two cents. Take it, leave it, but its just a suggestion.
EvC is NOT a democracy... nor should it be. It is a Kingdom. But even the King welcomes opinions of his advisors to see things that maybe he missed. My, Lord, I beseech you... the commoners have had enough with the Ass Tricks.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
f it doesn't really maintain its intended effect then it seems like we're just trying to create an inconvenience for that poster -- in which case its design is to be punitive and not necessarily designed to be corrective.
Although the inconvenience falls primarily on everyone else, since they're the ones who have to click on the peek button every time they want to make sense of one of Faith's posts. And it is most of them now, since regular expressions have denied her access to huge swathes of the dictionary unconnected with her supposed offences.
Yes, caffeine, we all were being inconvenienced by these asterisks.
I have noticed, however, that the cascade of asterisks has ceased and I thank the powers that be.
Powers that be, I thank you.
I think we can consider this issue resolved and we can all go about our happy argumentative lives doing battle with all the forces of wrong that dare expose their evil faces upon this forum and this internet enlightening all our fellow travellers to the rightness, or leftness, of our most cherished opinions.