Teenage Wildlife

IMPORTANT: Use your registry nickname as your username when logging in to Conversation Piece!


Free for All
   >> Site Douchebag
Thread views: 5811 *Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
12/23/04 04:46 PM
External picture linking  

I got this PM from EJSunday and it raises an important question.

From: EJSunday
Received: 12/23/04 01:14 PM

Hi Monkey,

what do you think, would it be tough to link less explicit pics?


I'm assuming that Mr. Sunday is referring to my recent post in which I provided a link to a series of pictures of a horrible train crash. I'm sure it doesn't help much that I also have a habit of linking to tubgirl. All in all, guilty as charged.

As I was about to PM back, if I am asked to edit my choice in pictures simply as a favor, I will certainly consider it. If, however, this is being asked of me in an official manner, I think that it is a silly request. This is not to say that Mr. Sunday is silly, we've had our differences but I have no problem with him -- not even now. He's just doing what he thinks is his job.

This is silly because not only has a precedent been set for such a thing, but there are no clear guidelines about what can and can't be linked to. We can't embed (is that the word?) pornographic or otherwise disgusting pictures and I think that's a good thing. If, however, a person is to link to something sick like I have and they give fair warning as I did ("I think [link]this[/link] is pretty sick") it enters into an area where the reader ulimately has to be responsible for clicking on the link or not. Especially when one can read that the address contains the word "rotten" should one care to check their explorer bar. And we all know what kind of filth is on that site.

I don't want anyone to mistake this as an attack against EJ. It isn't. But we need to figure out what the guidelines are for external linking right now before asking anyone to edit themselves. I don't want to enter into an era where anything can be deemed offensive or inappropriate after the fact. Until I get clear rules, I'll be posting a lot of these pictures. Sorry, mods, I'm determinned to prove a point here. Nothing personal, but we need to get this sorted out.

This is all in light of ddgz being banned for being "annoying" and what have you. I'm sick of this pansy-ass gray area bullshit. Make some rules -- and now. I'll follow them, that isn't the problem. The problem is that the rules seem to be getting made up as you go or as is convenient to you.

Merry Christmas.

I believe in the power of doubt.

ohramonaModerator
(stardust savant)
12/23/04 05:10 PM
Re: External picture linking new [re: Monkeyboy]  

In reply to:

but there are no clear guidelines about what can and can't be linked to.



You're right about that, and we pretty much wing it.

In reply to:

If, however, a person is to link to something sick like I have and they give fair warning as I did ("I think [link]this[/link] is pretty sick") it enters into an area where the reader ulimately has to be responsible for clicking on the link or not.



I think this is a reasonable guideline; but the warnings should be less veiled than the example you give.



I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way.

Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
12/23/04 06:05 PM
Re: External picture linking new [re: ohramona]  

In reply to:

You're right about that, and we pretty much wing it.

In reply to:

If, however, a person is to link to something sick like I have and they give fair warning as I did ("I think [link]this[/link] is pretty sick") it enters into an area where the reader ulimately has to be responsible for clicking on the link or not.


I think this is a reasonable guideline; but the warnings should be less veiled than the example you give.


Great, so let's make some clear rules about it and move on.

Or else there will have to be more of THIS!


You looked!

I believe in the power of doubt.

EJSundayModerator
(acolyte)
12/23/04 06:56 PM
External PM Posting new [re: Monkeyboy]  

I tend to think that common sense is a good guideline but then again common sense is hard to define as well. Still you have to admit, Monkey, that you posted something "shocking" to make your point in that other thread. And you did. If you hadn't been sure that your pic links to something "explicit" you wouldn't have linked it. So you knew what you were doing and shouldn't be crying for advise.

Defending it as being not explicit would have been fine by me, and that's why I didn't even think about deleting the post and sent you a pm instead. I was open to hearing your answer to my pm and didn't intend to make a big deal out of it. Why you did publicise my pm I don't know, and I do not see the bigger picture at all. And neither do you create a bigger picture by claiming that I did say anything in an official manner. I did send you a pm with a simple and informal text, a question actually. And why is it so often those who hit the hardest that start complaining when they feel a little pushed?

And I want to believe
In the madness that calls 'now'


Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
12/24/04 04:54 AM
I was worried about this new [re: EJSunday]  

Ok, let me reduce my "agrument", if you can call it that.

a) I agree that what I linked to was potentially offensive. But there is a lot of things that I say and do around here that is potentially offensive. Where are the lines?
b) I know that you are just trying to keep this place orderly and sanitary.
c) If we are going to ask people to not do this or that then we need to clearly define what it is that we are asking them not to do.
d) You say that I know what I did was wrong. Well, clearly I don't. Spell it out for me.
e) Am I being stubborn? Probably. The "big picture" is an argument against what ohro admitted to; you make the rules up as you go along. That is a crock of buggety shit. If there are decency rules, they should be clearly laid out for us to follow. If, however, you were just asking me not to link to these things just as a personal favor or whatever then fine, argumant closed and apologies delivered.

I guess the big point is that I'm really tired of seeing arbitrary decisions being made -- almost all after the fact. It's one thing to ask us to follow clearly stated rules, so clear that even a retard like Claude could figure them out. It's another if you are asking us to just use common sense. Decency is a very subjective thing.

As for me publishing a PM, it's not the first time. Anything that I think the general public might be interested in, I share. Believe me when I say that I would be thrilled to delete this thread if you were not acting in any official manner. If you were, though, I think it's only fair that it be open to a public debate. Evan always has/has pride that this board is democratic in nature, I'm just seeing that it is not just a fun catch phrase. I understand that you are probably feeling like I'm making you out to be the devil or something but that is far from the truth. If anything, I have always seen you as one of the more even-handed mods -- believe it if you want to, it's true. As such, I hope you understand what I'm trying to accomplish. If not then, well, I guess I'm a little bit disappointed.

I believe in the power of doubt.

twister
(acolyte)
01/04/05 08:59 PM
In the spirit of public debate new [re: Monkeyboy]  

External links are always just peachy. You're just providing someone with directions, like telling someone the least painful way to kill themselves. If people wish to follow your directions, that's their own problem, no?

Surely. And anyone who disagrees is some kind of poophead.

I could be a genius if I just put my mind to it.

Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
01/04/05 09:24 PM
Re: In the spirit of public debate new [re: twister]  

In reply to:

Surely. And anyone who disagrees is some kind of poophead.


So long as they aren't a dick.

Wait, that's not dirty at all is it?

My avatar and signature define me as an individual.

blacktropic84
(electric tomato)
01/04/05 09:40 PM
Re: In the spirit of public debate new [re: Monkeyboy]  

Maybe not dirty, but definately disturbing.

--------------
BlackTropic84
Senators Decapitate The Presidential Whores

WildWind
(acolyte)
01/08/05 10:24 PM
Late to the party new [re: Monkeyboy]  

As much as I think that Monkeyboy can do no wrong, I'm just not OK with this:

In reply to:

you make the rules up as you go along. That is a crock of buggety shit. If there are decency rules, they should be clearly laid out for us to follow.


Fuck no! The *last* thing a forum like this needs is a list of crotchety rules that restrict the posters*. I read another board like that and while it's a good board for other reasons, it drives me nucking futs that they have this list of rules and if you violate them your post gets deleted and in some cases you get banned on the spot.

I think it's ideal here that the rules are flexible. It's not that they're making shit up as they go along, but that they're dealing with things on a case-by-case basis. In the event that something happens often enough to warrant it (e.g., posting porn) then a rule is put in place. But it would be foolish to try to come up with a list of "rules" for this self-governed board of beautiful chaos, if for no other reason then because once there are "rules," this crowd will try to push them as much as possible.

"Common sense," subjective though it may be, is the best way to govern a board like this. If someone crosses the line, deal with it and if necessary put it up for public debate.

For what it's worth, I don't think Monkeyboy has ever crossed the line. *I've* never clicked on any of Monkeyboy's icky stuff, 'cause I use my explorer bar.

WW

*'Cept the THBDB rule. I'm OK with that.

I'm not a fan of our current president, but on the other hand, I don't think he's a Demon. Perhaps a small, trident weilding Imp, but no Demon.


Dara
(acolyte)
01/09/05 11:49 AM
Re: Late to the party new [re: WildWind]  

In reply to:

"Common sense," subjective though it may be, is the best way to govern a board like this.



I think common sense works best in an environment where there are a greater degree of shared cultural assumptions than is the case at TW. To take an example, American "common sense" might indicate that Beltene's "Can vaginal muscles overpower a cock?" thread overstepped some line, yet to someone from my background it was far from obvious what that line might be. The censorship of that thread was one of the very few occasions in my TW experience that made me want to put a fist through my computer screen, and still mystifies me to this day. I accept that it is the call of the moderator in question, and that she doesn't have to justify it on any grounds other than "it was my judgement", but I also accept that in the absence of guidelines any more meaningful than "common sense", people subjected to censorship are going to feel annoyed, or picked upon. So I suggest that at the very least there should be general guidelines (along the lines of "No physical threats") and maybe a list of banned words or visual depictions, so that consistency can be ensured and when someone is subjected to censorship, the moderator can say "It violates guideline 3A in my opinion".

In reply to:

if for no other reason then because once there are "rules," this crowd will try to push them as much as possible.



That's the most fun thing about rules though.

I'd also suggest than in the absence of rules, or rather guidelines, people will still push it, and when they come up against something which does get them censored, they may not even draw the correct information from it. They may just think the moderator has it in for them, or they're getting censored because they're not part of the in crowd. This is particularly crucial if we hope to attract newbies in decent numbers again.

Slan libh,

Dara




"Hey, you know what's funny? Following up someone else's joke with the exact same joke. And by "funny" I mean 'stupid'. And by "joke" I mean 'stupid'. And by "someone" I mean 'stupid'." - Twister

EJSundayModerator
(acolyte)
01/09/05 12:24 PM
Censorshit new [re: Dara]  

In reply to:

Beltene's "Can vaginal muscles overpower a cock?" thread overstepped some line (...) The censorship of that thread was one of the very few occasions in my TW experience that made me want to put a fist through my computer screen.


Me too. Now I'll never know if they can or not.

And I want to believe
In the madness that calls 'now'


Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
01/09/05 06:11 PM
Re: Late to the party new [re: WildWind]  

In reply to:


"Common sense," subjective though it may be, is the best way to govern a board like this. If someone crosses the line, deal with it and if necessary put it up for public debate.


I think we agree more than you know. But bannings, deletions, and edits without any agreed upon standards is really my point. I understand now that EJ was just asking nicely to not post any more of that filth. But I have a feeling that if a less prominant poster were to so liberally provide links to, for example, Tubgirl there would be calls for his swift banning. I don't want special treatment.

My avatar and signature define me as an individual.

Beltene
(cracked actor)
01/09/05 09:20 PM
Cuz all i wanna do is lala new [re: Dara]  

Yeah but I used the word "cock" in the subject title, you see.

That being said(and stuff), I think the moderator's decision to delete this thread was largely influenced by the person who "appointed" them. Or something. I don't blame the moderator in question tho'. It happens to the best of us.

You still get my vote.




Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
01/10/05 11:24 PM
Re: Late to the party new [re: Dara]  

In reply to:

They may just think the moderator has it in for them, or they're getting censored because they're not part of the in crowd.


I would venture to guess that if I weren't part of the "in croud", my racial slurs, jabs at the handicapped and the elderly, and vague references to violence against women, children, and people of alternative lifestyles would have gotten me banned long ago. But "long ago" the urge to interfere with peoples' posts was minimal if even existant. If it would help, I can weave little "WWED" bracelets for the mods to wear.

My avatar and signature define me as an individual.

Dara
(acolyte)
01/11/05 06:48 AM
The Old WWWest new [re: Monkeyboy]  

In reply to:

But "long ago" the urge to interfere with peoples' posts was minimal if even existant


Indeed. As I remember it, "long ago", only actual death threats that looked like they might be serious, or genuinely illegal stuff like kiddie porn got interfered with.

My main point is that while a detailed list of rules would be annoying, onerous and possibly counter productive as WildWind suggests, if mods are going to proceed with bannings or censorship on more general grounds, we should at least be told what the general guidelines are.

Slan libh,

Dara

"Hey, you know what's funny? Following up someone else's joke with the exact same joke. And by "funny" I mean 'stupid'. And by "joke" I mean 'stupid'. And by "someone" I mean 'stupid'." - Twister

Ruskie
(stardust savant)
01/11/05 06:50 PM
Yes, but what about the Chinese? new [re: Dara]  

In reply to:

we should at least be told what the general guidelines are.


There is an alternative to constructing a formal set of rules, or 'guidelines', which some may feel are too constricting. The current system - allowing mods to act when they feel something is over the line - could be perpetuated, permitting that we, 'the posting public', are provided with a method to “vote out” a moderator if the majority of us feel that they have over-extended their moderator privileges. Personally, I think a democratic system to remove a moderator is more favorable than the other alternative since it would be more flexible to the changing culture of the board. Also, if a set of general guidelines were written up, the interpretation of those guidelines by any particular moderator would likely be as varied, and contested, as our “unwritten” standards are now.

If we were to go with some formal removal-by-voting service, it would probably be easiest if posters sent PMs of no-confidence to a fair and considerate figure-head like Kofi Annan - or even Adam would work - rather than imploring Evan to bake one up for us.

Just throwing something else out there.

)_

WildWind
(acolyte)
01/12/05 10:44 PM
Hell, I once wrote a poem for you! new [re: Monkeyboy]  

In reply to:

But I have a feeling that if a less prominant poster were to so liberally provide links to, for example, Tubgirl there would be calls for his swift banning. I don't want special treatment.


I have no doubt that a less prominent poster would be banned for that sort of thing, but I would't call it "special treatment," I'd call it giving you the benefit of the doubt because you've earned a positive reputation, as have I, as has Dara, as have many who would be treated similarly under similar circumstances.

Sure, if a newbie showed up and posted nothing but tubgirl, s/he'd be immediately banned. That's 'cause that sort of poster is called a "troll." They contribute nothing and exist just to shit-stir, so why waste space on them?

When a newbie shows up and posts a bunch of inappropriate pictures but then refuses to leave and comments irreverently every time he's abused, we call that sort of poster "Claude," and the grow to accept him and even love him precisely for his refusal to be intimidated.

But when a poster has a lengthy history of some of the best posts in the history of the board, when his absence leaves a void, when he's respected by the likes of Dara, well, there are some benefits. Monkeyboy, you've commented yourself on how you can rest on the laurels of your history, which is true to an extent, but it's not something that was bestowed upon you, it's something you earned. So when you go through a little period of inappropriateness, the assumption is not made that you're a jackass, the assumption is made that you're going through some kind of phase. Your "adolescence," if you will. So rather than an immediate ban if you cross the line, the mods come to you personally. I think this is a perfect example of the self-moderation working exactly as it should.

So back to the original point - whether there should be rules. The thing is, you don't know what rules you need until the lines are crossed. Who knew when the board started that an explicit rule prohibiting embedded porn would be necessary? So yeah, rules-as-you-go works just fine, I think.

Besides, it's not like anyone gets insta-banned for doing something. They're told to not be an ass and if they stop, everything's fine. At least that's what I remember. Since I haven't been around lately this may have changed, and I would not be in favor of that.

I think Ruskie's impeachment proceedings make a lot of sense, though I can't think of anyone I'd apply them to currently.

WW

I'm not a fan of our current president, but on the other hand, I don't think he's a Demon. Perhaps a small, trident weilding Imp, but no Demon.


Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
01/12/05 11:33 PM
Re: Hell, I once wrote a poem for you! new [re: WildWind]  

In reply to:

I think Ruskie's impeachment proceedings make a lot of sense, though I can't think of anyone I'd apply them to currently.


I think it's a fine idea as well. Certainly the easiest and most democratic way to go. In light of a set standard, we should be able to remove the people whose interpretation of unwritten law we disagree with.

Ultimately, I think I just need to be running the place.

My avatar and signature define me as an individual.

WildWind
(acolyte)
01/12/05 11:48 PM
And I change my subject lines 'cause of you new [re: Monkeyboy]  

In reply to:

In light of a set standard, we should be able to remove the people whose interpretation of unwritten law we disagree with.


Since the "we" is the community in question, if the moderator's interpretation of the unwritten law is in conflict with the community at large, then they're not a very good moderator, right? Shouldn't the moderator be representative of the community?

Apologies if you really agreed with what I said. I interpreted it as sarcastic.

In reply to:

Ultimately, I think I just need to be running the place.


I'd be OK with that.

WW


I'm not a fan of our current president, but on the other hand, I don't think he's a Demon. Perhaps a small, trident weilding Imp, but no Demon.


Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
01/12/05 11:50 PM
I would if I weren't so lazy in my old age new [re: WildWind]  

In reply to:

Apologies if you really agreed with what I said. I interpreted it as sarcastic.


I did. It wasn't. Aint no thing.

My avatar and signature define me as an individual.

EJSundayModerator
(acolyte)
01/13/05 09:08 AM
From Mouse To Elephant new [re: WildWind]  

In reply to:

I think Ruskie's impeachment proceedings make a lot of sense


But thinking about it in full consequence you would thereby allow the TW community to vote for or against anybodies membership here. Would you want that? I wouldn't.

Anyway, as indicated before I find it irritating that those who deliberately use "shock tactics" are pretending they didn't know what they were doing. Furthermore the discussion about banning has come up though nobody has said or thought anything in that direction, not even a deletion of Monkey's post was done or intended. The only banning I know about was the famous dd74 case in all its controversy, and that was obviously a completely different ball game.

So all the things said here by in-crowd posters may be true, but they somehow lack the current example.

And I want to believe
In the madness that calls 'now'


Monkeyboy
(acolyte)
01/13/05 11:54 AM
Re: From Mouse To Elephant new [re: EJSunday]  

In reply to:

Furthermore the discussion about banning has come up though nobody has said or thought anything in that direction, not even a deletion of Monkey's post was done or intended.


I think you are missing the point that we aren't discussing me or the original post in question. I understand now what your intentions were and appreciate that you contacted me personally. I also have a fair amount of regret that you, perhaps understandably, seem to be taking it so personally.

The debate as I see it -- and I'll admit to giving people the benefit of the doubt a bit too much in expecting them to make a thesis statement for me -- is simply this:

If there are going to be any standard of what is and is not acceptable, it needs to be clearly stated before the supposed offense is made.

The end. That's it. I don't care what the rules are, I will either follow them or go away. That isn't the issue at all. I just think that it is common decency to tell someone what rules you are going to hold them to.

In reply to:

Anyway, as indicated before I find it irritating that those who deliberately use "shock tactics" are pretending they didn't know what they were doing.


But clearly we don't know it's wrong, otherwise we wouldn't do it.

My avatar and signature define me as an individual.

Hannibal_Lecter
(wild eyed peoploid)
01/14/05 04:31 PM
Can Dara remember her first post? new [re: Monkeyboy]  

In reply to:

As I remember it, "long ago", only actual death threats that looked like they might be serious, or genuinely illegal stuff like kiddie porn got interfered with.


And, naturally, I’m pleased that death threats are now looked upon as commonplace and seen as an integral part of discourse.

First off, my support for Monkeyboy and external picture linking. You have no idea how much it delights me to click on his links and find beautiful photos of minced children laid-out on railway track.

Secondly, my support for Beltene and her use of explicit language. I was long under the impression the ‘vaginal muscles’ thread was deleted because it blew and she had started topics on similar ground 800 times previously. Direct me to the moderator in charge and I’ll duly make mincemeat out of them.

As for whether the mods are becoming increasingly restrictive or not, it depends on Dara’s fuzzy recollections and her use of the term ‘long ago’. As *I* remember it, both Altoid and Thomaswood were dispatched relatively easily, did not post threats or porn, and approached nowhere near Mr Dogz’s levels of lunacy. Of course, at the time I was naïve and I probably missed some things, and it is perfectly possible Dara is referring to a time before this, only I do not accept as mentioned somewhere that Dogz significantly lowered the stupidity barrier that sentences trolls to the loony bin. On the subject of minor tinkering – that is, moderating that is not ‘banning’ – there does seem to be a slight increase, due possibly to the number of idle mods at work.

Overall, however, I’m reasonably happy with what I’ve seen of the newer mods (except Syisyohoho, who out and out sucks), because they are, after all, relatively inexperienced. When they were initially appointed I (and perhaps others) feared far greater interference (‘Let’s Make Evil!’ eraserhead cried), and it must seem strange using the same account for posting ‘normally’ and performing a plethora of non-duties. Yes, I believe that the mods should be entirely congruous with TW hoi polloi, just as Adam was for so long. If anything I would like to see, if possible, a slight extension of their powers so that they have the capability of moving threads to the correct fora without flagging the thread, debating which among them has powers to move the thread, deciding which among them *should* move the thread, and congratulating themselves for moving it successfully without sending TW up the shitter. If I understood the purpose of installing new mods correctly, it was to allow more than one mod to carry out mundane duties like this should Adam prove absent … but it appears Adam alone still has full rights to some fora.

Still, a minor point and I find it difficult to work myself into a Dara-cum-Dogz trembling-fingers apoplexy (‘made me want to put a fist through my computer screen …’ ???). What else was this thread about? Oh yes, I’d much prefer guidelines to remain vaguely lost somewhere in TW’s collective subconscious. That way, at least, a really *good* argument can take off when I pull over one of our unsuspecting users and list individually all hir crimes against TW netiquette.

Thank you for your attention,
Hannibal.


I have eaten:
TJ Newton
Stu's dossier
DDz74's sister


Beltene
(cracked actor)
01/14/05 08:54 PM
I just called to say I love you new [re: Hannibal_Lecter]  

In reply to:

blah blah Beltene and her use of explicit language blah blah


Meh, could you please stop spamming my message board with long
winded crap that noone bothers to read anyway? Each character counts, Mister.

Ain't no other way to play the game the way I play
I cut so much you thought I was a DJ


ohramonaModerator
(stardust savant)
01/14/05 09:00 PM
Matters in hand new [re: Hannibal_Lecter]  

In reply to:

(‘made me want to put a fist through my computer screen …’ ???).


Rumor has it that she had her Johnson in said fist at the time. That's all that stopped her. Woulda been bloody, Hannibal, woulda been bloody.



I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
*Threaded Mode
Jump to

Teenage Wildlife Davie Bowie | Email Us! Forums powered by WWWThreads v5.1.5perl

Teenage Wildlife Home Page Bowie's music Info on Bowie Other Media Have your say! Search the Site Help me!


Toolbar (Interact)

Etete Systems