Decorum VS Full Disclosure in BOI?

[Seamus Haley]

and as for the harshness of a rapist and murderer my point was . things such as allowing someone as low as Chris , with his mouth and behaver will not change unless the severity of it all is shown .and rape Donna ? and my self yes he did . anyway it was violation and will stay with me at least for the rest of my life , early in this link someone said to me don't through fauna out because of one bad person . well if this kind of behaver is not punished after showing the severity who can be trusted ? he is only going to do it again . looking at his feedback all you see is good ,why can't some post? if we had negative dealings with him we should be able to post it . also this poor excuse for a human being just went to another sight and blasted Donna as a layer . so he has no repercussions for his actions . so in other words he just moves on to their things and makes up stories and blasts something else .i think efforts should be posted on how to leave feedback and what would be the next step .

Yet more evidence that none of the rules or existing threads were read before pitching a fit and demanding compliance with your ideas.

Do yourself a favor, before you make more idiotic and redundant demands for things that have already been denied and explained... go read the archives and the rules. They address the topics you have raised.

 

[rosebud945]

Pretty simple really. Read the rules. Follow the rules. Don't follow the rules, accept the consequences. It's not like these things were made up on the spot and retroactively enforced.

Gee, did you even read the arguments in the thread, the example, and the questions that were raised? This thread is not just about Toni getting an infraction. It is about questioning the rule. Are we not allowed to do that? If not, then what is this forum for?? This is not a whine fest. It is an interesting and engaging debate in censorship that even Rich is willing to entertain. I don't know why the infraction bothers Toni so much, but that infraction is not why I started this thread.

 

[rosebud945]

And yes, I started it, not Toni, because a situation came up that prompted several members to question the rules. You are steering this thread away from an intellectual debate and into a bash Toni thread. Don't you have anything more intelligent to say?

 

[rosebud945]

Toni,
let me reiterate: I do not feel raped or threatened by those emails. I am sorry if Chris has made you feel that way. I do not give Chris's words that much power. Also, the BOI cannot punish Chris, but IMO, it has hurt him. Regardless, I did not start this thread to continue to debate Chris's character, but to try to have a meaningful discussion about a situation that seemed to lots of us to challege the BOI rules against profanity in any shape or form.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Toni, I think we all understand what your stating. We have been down this road(mainly on the flip side) many times.

Some would complain if it was allowed. Others complain that it isn't. People get upset and threaten this site constantly about what is allowed to be posted. By the way, that's a lot more than what you will find most sites are willing to tolerate. There's noway that Fauna can satisfy each person.

I think we all get the point and understand the reasoning of why those that believe it should be allowed. In respect of the site's stance try to understand it from the other point of view. After all, it is this site that gives you the ability to bring all of the problems in that thread to light in the first place.

 

[gillian25]

no after speaking with the moderator the infraction does not bother me at all . he was very nice in speaking with me , what bothers me is those that do not read the whole thing . Chris just went to another spot and started slandering a good lady . and after i went to the sight and said yes this did happen the grips were threatened on me , well i want to leave negative feedback for the horrible experience i had and i do suggest others that had bad ones do also . but as far as an infraction gos . no i did not read all the rules before i started the sight but out of total respect i do understand them even if i don't agree with them , and like i said the infuriation isn't bothering me i don't see why you would think it is , i just don't agree with the way wording has to be said , but again that link is closed Scott finally got paid the over two hundred that was taken from him and its over .

 

[Dennis Hultman]

May I ask who made that suggestion? I thought I remembered seeing it, but was unable to find (the post number would be great, if you can find it...but I'd settle for the member's screen name)

What I stated was

I would suggest you both join the Hell forum on this site. You can let the words fly there.

 

[rosebud945]

I think we all get the point and understand the reasoning of why those that believe it should be allowed. In respect of the site's stance try to understand it from the other point of view. After all, it is this site that gives you the ability to bring all of the problems in that thread to light in the first place.

Very good points, Dennis.

Seamus, are you denying that we should ever question rules just because they have been debated before, or even worse, are you making a circular argument that rules are rules because they are rules?? Censorship should ALWAYS be questioned and challenged, no matter who it is meant to protect or why it is in place. I think you are smart enough to understand why. But we should always be mindful of how we question and on what grounds.

Even the mods agreed, in the thread that I don't think you read, that this particular case was a bit of an exception.

 

[gillian25]

Dennis you type faster then me ......... as far as feeling raped i mean that my experience will stay with me for ever just like any VERY HORRIBLE experience would . this was my very hard urned money .and took months to get it back thank god . i don't feel threatened . not by anyone as insignificant as Chris , not even close . this just made me instead of purchasing from fauna i decided to go with someone out of fauna . just to say someone is great and great people on fauna . naaaaaa Chris has good feedback ?all this just made me a lot more caushoius

 

[Seamus Haley]

Seamus, are you denying that we should ever question rules just because they have been debated before

Given that the explanations in this thread are identical to the explanations in past threads and the arguments are no different... yeah, you shouldn't have raised the issue.

You should have read the rules, read the explanation for the rules, read the feedback forum for past threads on the subject and realized that, since you weren't bringing anything new to the topic and were just rehashing the same positions that have been countered in the past, you were not contributing anything of value.

Frankly given that all these questions and all these arguments have been addressed in the past- and you and Toni were just too lazy or ignorant to use the search function in learning about the subject- this thread amounts to little more than a whining waste of time. The particular situation that caused this subject to be a concern for you is NOT a new one, it is NOT a unique one and it is NOT some super special set of circumstances that justify an answer other than the one which was already in place.

Censorship should ALWAYS be questioned and challenged, no matter who it is meant to protect or why it is in place.

No, it shouldn't.

For instance, when you're voluntarily participating on a [/i]privately owned[/i] website where the owner has made his position on the subject explicitly clear with a detailed explanation of the reasons behind the decision and policies, you shouldn't raise redundant challenges. At least not without bothering to find out what you're arguing about and bringing something new to the discussion.

I think you are smart enough to understand why.

I'm so very glad that my intellect meets with your approval. I'd hate to be thought of as a dullard by a concerned champion of free speech (at least when it comes to their own desire to quote a person who they feel should not be allowed to speak the way they have).

But we should always be mindful of how we question and on what grounds.

I'm going to give you a little tip. Just in case this comes up again in the future, as I'm pretty sure it will for you- no matter how little justification there is for your position.

It's easier to be mindful of how you question something and the validity of the grounds you're questioning it on if you take the time to learn about the subject before opening your word-hole. For instance, the history of the subject and the details and results of previous discussions on an identical subject.

Even the mods agreed, in the thread that I don't think you read, that this particular case was a bit of an exception.

Oh, I read it. I didn't get the impression that there was anything all that exceptional about it. I wouldn't presume to speak for the mods on the subject though, I've always found them to be more than capable of expressing themselves without my help. The excellent clarity of their expression doesn't always translate into comprehension on the part of the person reading it though.

 

[WebSlave]

I would suggest that everyone taking part in this thread calm down before someone trips over the line to where penalties will be necessary. Both parties will likely get a three day vacation if that comes to pass.

 

[rosebud945]

You should have read the rules, read the explanation for the rules, read the feedback forum for past threads on the subject and realized that, since you weren't bringing anything new to the topic and were just rehashing the same positions that have been countered in the past, you were not contributing anything of value.

Nothing, perhaps, but my opinion, which has not been heard before now. You might not have one iota of respect for it, but apparently others do, or they would not have responded to my posts with respect.

The particular situation that caused this subject to be a concern for you is NOT a new one, it is NOT a unique one and it is NOT some super special set of circumstances that justify an answer other than the one which was already in place.

The mods all agree that the language used in this case is particularly bad and does reflect character much more deeply than your average cursing rant. Has this particular type of language and the ensuing debate been discussed? If so, perhaps you can find it and post it for me, since you think me so lazy.

No, it shouldn't.

For instance, when you're voluntarily participating on a [/i]privately owned[/i] website where the owner has made his position on the subject explicitly clear with a detailed explanation of the reasons behind the decision and policies, you shouldn't raise redundant challenges. At least not without bothering to find out what you're arguing about and bringing something new to the discussion.

And yet Rich himself admitted to having a few things to mull over because of this present discussion. I know perfectly well what I am arguing about. It isn't rocket science. This is a privately owned site, yes, but if it weren't for the community that inhabits it, it would not exist. The profanity rule exists because of a concern for the community and membership, NOT because Rich just said so. That's the sense I got from Rich's post and the fact that the rule has not always been in place.

I'm so very glad that my intellect meets with your approval. I'd hate to be thought of as a dullard by a concerned champion of free speech (at least when it comes to their own desire to quote a person who they feel should not be allowed to speak the way they have).

It doesn't at this point.

Had you read the thread more closely(gee, who is the lazy one now?) you would have understood that I was not the first or only person to raise this issue, and even though the emails were leveled at me, I seem to have had the least dramatic reaction to them. Also, where in any of my posts do get the idea that I am a champion of free speech. I don't think it follows that questioning specific instances of censorship amounts to zealousness. I respect rules, as you must have seen if you visited the thread in question. I was asked by a facilitator to contact the mods about this particular case, he jumped in, I obeyed the rules, censored the emails, and posted them. I concluded in my last meaningful post in this thread that I agree with the rules, or did you not read that post? Had you already written me off as the lazy, stupid, self righteous person that you have judged me to be? The reason that I even started this thread is so that the Bad guy thread would not get anymore derailed than it already had, that and because I love a good philosophical debate. Apparently others do to, including a few mods, or they wouldn't have joined me. You obviously love to bash.

 

[hhmoore]

The mods all agree that the language used in this case is particularly bad and does reflect character much more deeply than your average cursing rant.

I don't believe that I weighed in on the matter, so how do you know I agree with that statement?

Now, back to your other statement, about being advised to post the uncensored email/PM in HELL. I saw Dennis' comment during my search, but did not interpret it as what you posted (which was why I asked who gave that advice).

I just deleted the rest of my post - part of it was poorly worded, and would likely have caused more problems than intended...I'll try to repost later (and hope that nobody quoted it before I got back, lol)

 

[rosebud945]

I saw Dennis' comment during my search, but did not interpret it as what you posted (which was why I asked who gave that advice). From my perspective, taking a BOI thread to the HELL forum, simply so people can use profanity, would probably not be acceptable.

I did not suggest that Dennis said ANYTHING about taking the whole thread to HELL. I interpreted the statement as suggesting that we post the emails uncensored there. Given the context, that he quoted me and Toni as suggesting that the impact of the censored words was lessened, I think you could interpret it that way, and Toni did. How do you interpret his statement, given the two quotes that precede it? I was describing his statement and her statement together, and commenting on the idea generated by the two. Dennis, can you explain the statement?

I think it would be unfortunate if BOI threads were carried out in HELL as well. I did not get anything like that from his statement, and I don't think that I suggested it in my post here, but if anyone interprets it as such, quit it!

 

[rosebud945]

Sorry, Darlin'. I was deep in thought and missed your statement about the edit! :laugh:

 

[LauraB]

Donna, with all due respect.
Seamus is correct. The original Chris Sulwar thread which has now become the basis of this discussion is nothing new to the BOI. The vile language used in the emails Sulwer sent to you is nothing new to the BOI.
The circumstance is hardly unique or special and IMO does not warrant changing the rules in order to print a particularly vulgar and demeaning word that probably has been edited numerous times already over the years here.

Has this particular type of language and the ensuing debate been discussed? If so, perhaps you can find it and post it for me, since you think me so lazy.

Yes, it's been discussed. And frankly, I'm not even sure why it is STILL being discussed. Here is a link to a thread Rich started just a couple months ago regarding the profanity issue. I'm surprised you didn't read it before posting this, your new thread, on the same subject already addressed in January.
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124625

This is a privately owned site, yes, but if it weren't for the community that inhabits it, it would not exist. The profanity rule exists because of a concern for the community and membership, NOT because Rich just said so.

The profanity rule exists because of Rich's concern for community, the users of this site (young and old alike) and the continued good name & service that Fauna has built over the years. And yes, because Rich said so. His site, his rules. Love it or leave it. I don't know how you could glean anything different from his previous post in this thread (#8). His position is clear.

I realize you are looking for a lively, philosophical debate on the subject; it begs the question, why? Exactly what is it you are looking to debate?
A rule change? Sorry, I don't get it.

 

[rosebud945]

I started this thread because several people in the Sulwer thread seemed to want to continue to debate the issue, prompting Lucille to suggest more than once that we move this particular discussion to this forum. I agreed with her. I did not want to dilute the other thread either.

I also think that debate about something as potentially suppressive as censorship is healthy. That does not make me a zealot. Yes, I do like lively debate, and some of the people who posted in this thread, yourself included, seemed to have something interesting to say about the subject. Why does the discussion have to deteriorate into personal slams and nit picking??

Given the fact that I have more on my plate than you might imagine, I did not take the time to research this particular topic on this forum, but given the interest and tone in the thread, and the fact that the matter wouldn't die, I thought this was a good way to preserve the gist of that thread and let people finish talking about this here. If that causes people to get their necks bent out of shape, then I ask, why did you come to this thread??? Just to tell me off or reprimand me and Toni?

Laura, if you read the end of my earlier post, you will see that I understand Rich's position and support it. I don't think I ever advocated relaxing the rules, here or elsewhere. I simply raised the question of whether certain kinds of profanity could be handled in a way that did not reduce its impact. The answer is no, but I did not come to that conclusion because Rich said so, or because you and Seamus think me an idiot for bringing up the subject. Rich was good enough to explain his reasoning, one more time as it happens for an overextended and sometimes less than efficient but well meaning person, and it makes perfect sense.

I have said all that I have to say. I support the rules about profanity and will abide by them, as I said previously.

 

[hhmoore]

I don't have time to reattempt my other post at the moment, BUT I wanted to comment on this

I started this thread because several people in the Sulwer thread seemed to want to continue to debate the issue, prompting Lucille to suggest more than once that we move this particular discussion to this forum. I agreed with her. I did not want to dilute the other thread either.

Bringing the profanity discussion here was the right choice. From what I recall, Donna, your stance/attitude on the subject was pretty reasonable...but the discussion was ongoing and largely offtopic to the BOI. This, the Fauna Feedback Forum, is the appropriate place for the continuation of that discussion...and I'm glad you took the initiative to bring it here.

 

[LauraB]

I did not come to that conclusion because Rich said so, or because you and Seamus think me an idiot for bringing up the subject.

Neither Seamus nor I called you an idiot. It's obvious that you are not.

No, I did not come here to tell you off or reprimand you or Toni. I did not attack you personally, nor do I feel I nit picked. I came here and presented my own opinions and rebuttals, just as you have done. I provided a link to a previous post relative to profanity that you requested be provided.

The answer to your original question ("how can we maintain the full force of language and still maintain the level of decorum that is set forth by the BOI?") was fairly clear cut and without much ambiguity to me, so I simply did not understand why such a debate was started all over again.

And now, I'm shuttin' up