Comments on the Updated Stickies!

[NemoAlia]

Well, thanks everyone for your compliments on the library-in-progress. I've been out of town (and offline) all weekend, but now I will get back to work.

I've noticed a certain amount of discussion of what qualifies as 'off-topic' in a BDSM forum. This reminds me of WriterDom's thread about the library where he (and others) suggest that zoophilia is a topic that doesn't belong in a library of BDSM discussions. Well, I would say that he's right. For that matter, I would say that there are also other topics on this board (the WWF, for example, or my thread on "Art, Eroticism, and Decay") that don't have a whole lot to do with BDSM. But that doesn't negate the fact that we (or at least, the people who participate in these threads) have decided to talk about them here. Why? I think it's because we've come to value this community and the opinions of its members enough to want to include them in our discussions of more aspects of our lives than simply BDSM. Should this be disallowed?

Theoretically, we could take these discussions to the General Board, where subjects like these rightfully belong. However, I think that many of us are reluctant to do that, since we aren't as familiar with the folks over there as we are here. Here in BDSM Talk, we're a closer community than the crowd over at the GB. It makes sense that we should want to air our thoughts with the people we know best. Therefore, I can't really support the idea that we should prohibit 'off-topic' discussions. I mean, we all know the point of this forum is to discuss BDSM. We should all keep this in mind whenever we're posting. However, we should not allow this to make us feel stifled in our discussions. If we start with snuff play and wind up at zoophilia, well then, all right. We've learned some more about zoophilia, in the company of people we know and trust. I don't think it should be Risia's job to enforce some sort of rule against this kind of conversational evolution.

 

[Never]

MsWorthy:
“It seems to me that one of the differences between the d/s lifestyle and a *regular* lifestyle is the strict requirement of respect, honor, and self-control.”
Quite a few of us in a ‘regular lifestyle’ rolleyes have a strict requirement of respect, honor, and self-control.

Lancecaster:
“If you delete those threads, my guess is one day Laurel will simply unmoderate the place or fold it back in under the GB.”
No, she won’t.


We’ve already seen what happens when a forum mod stops regulating the content of their forum. The Playground sprang up because the Personals forum was swamped with posts that had nothing to do with personals. The same thing will happen to the BDSM board unless we have guidelines in place.

If we keep on amending the rules, and three months from now we amend them again, and three months from then we amend them, we’re eventually going to end up with a slightly kinkier version of the GB.

 

[Lancecastor]

MsWorthy:


Lancecaster:
“If you delete those threads, my guess is one day Laurel will simply unmoderate the place or fold it back in under the GB.”


Never: No, she won’t.



If we keep on amending the rules, and three months from now we amend them again, and three months from then we amend them, we’re eventually going to end up with a slightly kinkier version of the GB.

Lance: No, we won't.

So There!


L

 

[Never]

Laurel has shown no interest in deleting this forum. In fact, she has supported it throughout its inception. As long as Literotica remains, the BDSM forum will be active.

Unregulated forums always become general boardish. Even if everyone who was posting now resisted it, the number of new people is increasing everyday. Things roll towards the center.

 

[Lancecastor]

The Amazing Kreskin?

I was just yankin your chain a bit, Never....I got a kick out of the certainty with which you say what another person will or won't do in the future....

Cheers;
Lance

 

[WriterDom]

Rules and Stickies be damned. The future success of this forum depends on the people who wish to talk about bdsm. As long as they out number those that bitch about what the forum is or isn't, it will continue. And if you are looking for good stuff here, it's easy to find.

 

[MissTaken]

In a perfect world with lots of bandwidth, I like the forum set up at bondage.com

They have a "Flame Pit." The threads mirror some of those here.
Feelings get involved and everything rocks, but as a separate forum, it can be ignored by those who are thin skinned.


A discussion forum with NO personals and it is broken down by topics. i.e. support and advice, How to, Humor and Art, Hanging out.

Well, you all can take a look if you are interested. It is just a thought I have had over and again.

And an impossible thing to copy here, but perhaps it is something Laurel may use bits and pieces of through out the bbs.

 

[Never]

Re: The Amazing Kreskin?

Lancecastor:
“I was just yankin your chain a bit, Never....I got a kick out of the certainty with which you say what another person will or won't do in the future....”

I’m sorry Lance. The yanking of chains would be off topic in this thread and is therefore, forbidden. Feel free to start a thread about the yanking of chains however, as long as it falls within forum regulations EB:21200A to EB: 40060D.

I would bet a large sum of money on Laurel not shutting down this forum.

 

[artful]

MissT

How to, Humor and Art, Hanging out.

Well, you all can take a look if you are interested. It is just a thought I have had over and again. And an impossible thing to copy here

Damn,...I never knew you were THAT interested. Just my luck,...you've already chosen another Dom. *sigh*

 

[artful]

To All

If we keep on amending the rules, and three months from now we amend them again, and three months from then we amend them, we’re eventually going to end up with a slightly kinkier version of the GB.

I see NO reason why a Moderator shouldn't review the *sticky* messages from time to time, making adjustments that are felt necessary by the regular posters HERE, or as the site owners MIGHT request.

(JMHO),...but it's mine,...and I own it.

 

[artful]

Re: Re: The Amazing Kreskin?

I would bet a large sum of money on Laurel not shutting down this forum.

So would I !

 

[Lancecastor]

Censorship.

Have a look at those three Free Speech organization logos at the top of the page.

Have a look at the WAIVER to the left of every Post & Reply.

Now go look at this, which was A Desert Rose's "BDSM & The Law" thread until she decided she'd heard enough law banter that didn't support her position:

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113787

Now, ask yourself....."How many closed threads will it take before the BDSM Forum is considered anti Free-Speech?"

Cheers;

Lance

 

[Hot4Heels]

Free Speach

Not familiar with the laws in Canada there Lance. So take a road trip south and go to any theater. During the show yell "Fire".

 

[MissTaken]

Re: Censorship.

Now go look at this, which was A Desert Rose's "BDSM & The Law" thread until she decided she'd heard enough law banter that didn't support her position:

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113787

Now, ask yourself....."How many closed threads will it take before the BDSM Forum is considered anti Free-Speech?"

Cheers;

Lance

Have you asked DesertRose about how or why that thread was moved?

Perhaps it was a request she made?

 

[MissTaken]

I asked Rose.

She requested the thread be removed.

So, who's free speech was violated?

 

[Rubyfruit]

I highly doubt that, MissT, but I've been wrong before.

 

[MissTaken]

I highly doubt that, MissT, but I've been wrong before.

She did.

However, I will let her carry on with any further discussion on this. It isn't my place to carry tales from IM to the board

 

[Rubyfruit]

Rats! Wrong again. ;-)

As long as you keep wearing that av, MissT, I'll be here.

 

[Lancecastor]

I already knew "how & why" before I posted (as I always do), MissTaken....the "why" is currently unpublished due to a "software glitch".

But with due respect, you're missing the point, MissTaken.....if we start shutting down threads because we stop liking what people are saying....where does that put us?

No Rules were broken....then again, I haven't read Today's Rules (ha)...see what I mean?

Again...my question is: "At what point is Free Speech endangered?"

I asked this question not in reference to the thread per se ( I could care less about ADR's article or Lavendar's preaching on why the guy is "wrong") but in response to the earlier comments about Laurel/Free Speech and this Forum.

My voiced opinion in reply to those posts that say "It would never happen!" is.....don't count on it.

It starts with censoring and removing threads because someone doesn't like being disagreed with.

*That's* when Free Speech is in danger.

Thanks for listening;

Lance

 

[Lancecastor]

It isn't my place to carry tales from IM to the board

Well, if it becomes your place to tell tales out of school about ADR, let me know; I'll forward you her real reasons behind this and you can be the "Equal Air Time Tattler."

It's not about ADR, godblesshercottonsox...it's about Free Speech.

Damn...am I in the Southpark Movie all of a sudden?

Do you know where The Clitoris is, Chef?

 

[lavender]

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Free Speach

Not familiar with the laws in Canada there Lance. So take a road trip south and go to any theater. During the show yell "Fire".

Your pesonal insult is noted, Hot4Heels.

As is your ignorance of Canadian law.

Let us know if you've got something to say about the Updated Stickies with a view to balancing Free Speech against proper decorum here, okay?

Thanks;

Lance

 

[Lancecastor]

Dear Boob & Friends

Your ability to speak as if you possess the facts is stunning, Boob.

As I said to MissT, I already know the how & why.....and they are red herrings to the real issue.

The real issue relates to the break point betwen saying you are running a Free Speech site ...and actually having one.

The rest of it is static from a bunch of women spouting off and furiously trading PM's via ChikNet two days after the full moon.

This is about how the Forum should continue.

I vote in favour of Zero Moderation, a well-indexed and well-stocked Library, and the elimination of all pre-packaged emoticons.

It's all yours; I've said what I wanted to say.

Spank you;

Lance

Risia did not shut down that thread because she didn't like what was being said, Lance. In fact, facts be told, the information in that thread actually supported her opinion.

That thread was only moved because of one thing: a request. It's as simple as ABC.

 

[A Desert Rose]

For the record

The thread was outdated and apparently inaccurate.

I asked Risia to remove it. She did so.

I am not violating anyone's free speech.

Post another one, if you like.

End of story.

Rose

P.S. The bucs are winning, therefore I am winning.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Well shit. I'm agreeing with Lance.

I claim that the moderators here cannot moderate flame wars or delete them. It's not so much that these things are evil, it's the entire concept of favoritism and limits. These things require human judgment--judgment that I might add will always be partial no matter what.

How do you define a flame? It seems simple. A personal insult, right? Someone attacking someone else. Easy? Of course not. Insult and offense is defined by the recipient, not the person sending the message. Take the recent words by Hot4Heels about Canadian law to Lance. That was interpreted as a flame, but was it meant that way? Would you delete it? According to the proposed "Delete flames" rules, yes, you would have to. But what if it wasn't meant to be a flame? You have just stifled a person. You cannot have rules that are based on subjectivity without causing far more problems than they will solve.

You should not delete words because they make others uncomfortable or angry. Why not? It sets a precedent and it puts Risia in the impossible position of being the board's parent. She must decide what is acceptable content and what is not based on something that, by its very nature, cannot be empirically defined. This forces Risia into a situation where people can start screaming partiality. Instead of resolving flame wars, you have just created a climate where they will breed.

My solution is simple. Flame wars are rare in an open community. The reason we just went through a load of them is because this wasn't a very open community. What has changed is that a dialogue has opened where people feel they, personally, have a say in what's going on. This is very open and Risia is to be heartily commended for it. (I heart Risia, btw). Rather than stop flame wars, let them go. Yes, feelings may be hurt and people may be uncomfortable, but, as all humans have experienced, sometimes we have to rage to see clearly or to change what needs to be changed.

Stifling a basic human need is not going to solve a problem, it's going to make it worse because we are human. We get angry and if we cannot get rid of the anger, it can hurt us even worse.

I don't see flame wars as evil. I see them as necessary things.

However, long and unchecked ones aren't good either. Risia handled the one involving Rick absolutely perfectly. She spoke to him in private instead of humiliating him in public. She gave him an ultimatum and still allowed him to make an ass out of himself. No, they weren't fun, but the whole thing is resolved rather than pushed under the rug. If he had continued she would have deleted them--I would rather see them shunted over to the General Board instead, but that's between Risia and Laurel.

To summarize, putting subjective limits on content isn't going to resolve the issue no matter what we might think. Instead, I believe it will make things worse in the long run and will continue to drive a wedge through the regulars in this forum. I believe that flame wars have their uses and instead of forcing Risia into the role of being responsible for other users' content, we keep her in the more diplomatic role of a moderator.

She's a very good one, let's not make it more difficult for her than it already is. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I'd really like to keep her and I will support her in her efforts.