Towards a more welcoming place.
- Thread starter Lancecastor
- Start date
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Risia Skye said,
I have edited this thread at multiple requests, to remove names mentioned in claims of "unmasking" a poster. As I would hope we all learned from the recent fiasco on this issue, such claims go nowhere, and only serve to make the place UNfriendly--particularly to the one "accused."
So, I would ask all of you to refrain from posting such claims--at least in the absence of evidence.
The previous posts of a similar nature were edited in favor of decorum. For this reason and this reason only, posts in this thread have been edited as well. Only screen-names have been removed, and no censure is intended--only fairness to all posters--including the unfriendly and/or unpopular ones.
I fully support this decision. Hmmm I wonder why....
Normally, of course, there's a 'free speech' issue: In the abstract, I don't see anything wrong with a post that says "MaryMary" is really (former) "JaneJane." This is especially the case if JaneJane was doing a lot of nasty things, and will continue to do so.
In the present case, though, there isn't anything that nasty or against literotica rules that OO has done. Saying a forum is going downhill, that x y and z have left is not such an earthshaking assertion. The flames back and forth, while distracting, are generally not UNusual, notwithstanding the exceptional vehemence of the one you removed a while ago.
My reason for supporting the decision to curb speech a bit *in this case* has to do with what you mentioned: the desire or tendency for there to be a witchunt as a consequence.
It's well known that in such an environment, everyone's ax is brought out, for grinding; everyone who remembers a grievance against or even an oddity associated with the said 'witch' (traitor, betrayer, spy, whatever) adds their faggot to the fire:
"S/he must be the one, for look at how my cow died after she walked by my house and gave me a funny look."
If any have read about Salem, that friendly NE town, that's an example.
Good work in trying to douse the flames.
J.
I have edited this thread at multiple requests, to remove names mentioned in claims of "unmasking" a poster. As I would hope we all learned from the recent fiasco on this issue, such claims go nowhere, and only serve to make the place UNfriendly--particularly to the one "accused."
So, I would ask all of you to refrain from posting such claims--at least in the absence of evidence.
The previous posts of a similar nature were edited in favor of decorum. For this reason and this reason only, posts in this thread have been edited as well. Only screen-names have been removed, and no censure is intended--only fairness to all posters--including the unfriendly and/or unpopular ones.
I fully support this decision. Hmmm I wonder why....
Normally, of course, there's a 'free speech' issue: In the abstract, I don't see anything wrong with a post that says "MaryMary" is really (former) "JaneJane." This is especially the case if JaneJane was doing a lot of nasty things, and will continue to do so.
In the present case, though, there isn't anything that nasty or against literotica rules that OO has done. Saying a forum is going downhill, that x y and z have left is not such an earthshaking assertion. The flames back and forth, while distracting, are generally not UNusual, notwithstanding the exceptional vehemence of the one you removed a while ago.
My reason for supporting the decision to curb speech a bit *in this case* has to do with what you mentioned: the desire or tendency for there to be a witchunt as a consequence.
It's well known that in such an environment, everyone's ax is brought out, for grinding; everyone who remembers a grievance against or even an oddity associated with the said 'witch' (traitor, betrayer, spy, whatever) adds their faggot to the fire:
"S/he must be the one, for look at how my cow died after she walked by my house and gave me a funny look."
If any have read about Salem, that friendly NE town, that's an example.
Good work in trying to douse the flames.
J.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
OO said,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this persona, yes, responsibility is not going to happen. Sorry. I hope you can live with it because everyone harping on this point is not going to make me go away, nor will it make me post about BDSM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larl Sparrow replied,
With that out in the open there really becomes no reason at all to see your posts in this forum. I do hope you will find a more personally fulfilling and self-enriching hobby eventually. Come back in another name when you're ready to be person, rather an obnoxious character.
============================================
I don't wish to 'mix it up with either party, nor to apportion blame or praise or damn. But the exchange shows that strinking feature of the internet and its forums: call it the 'same boat' or 'opposites have the same effect' paradox.
It doesn't matter if, one item is 'flame' and the other (deserved)
'counterflame', it's all the same in effect.
Ironically too, if one item is 'off topic' or 'not BDSM', equally so is the (counter) posting saying "you're off topic" or "You don't talk BDSM." It all the same. Fluff, critique of fluff; critique of the criticizer of fluff; all fluff.
These forums have their odd 'laws' and patterns, Ebs and flows of unpleasantness and drama, and the players create the pattern regardless of their intentions, and regardless of the possible moral superiority of some of the parties, compared with the others.
As the novelist said.
And so it goes...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this persona, yes, responsibility is not going to happen. Sorry. I hope you can live with it because everyone harping on this point is not going to make me go away, nor will it make me post about BDSM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larl Sparrow replied,
With that out in the open there really becomes no reason at all to see your posts in this forum. I do hope you will find a more personally fulfilling and self-enriching hobby eventually. Come back in another name when you're ready to be person, rather an obnoxious character.
============================================
I don't wish to 'mix it up with either party, nor to apportion blame or praise or damn. But the exchange shows that strinking feature of the internet and its forums: call it the 'same boat' or 'opposites have the same effect' paradox.
It doesn't matter if, one item is 'flame' and the other (deserved)
'counterflame', it's all the same in effect.
Ironically too, if one item is 'off topic' or 'not BDSM', equally so is the (counter) posting saying "you're off topic" or "You don't talk BDSM." It all the same. Fluff, critique of fluff; critique of the criticizer of fluff; all fluff.
These forums have their odd 'laws' and patterns, Ebs and flows of unpleasantness and drama, and the players create the pattern regardless of their intentions, and regardless of the possible moral superiority of some of the parties, compared with the others.
As the novelist said.
And so it goes...
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Eb,
I've never been other than admiring of your forthrighness.
As to concreteness or poetry, or which has value, we will see.
I accept that some of my postings may not be of value to you.
I hope you keep expressing your opinions; it's like the dash of cold water on fighting dogs.
Best regards,
J.
I've never been other than admiring of your forthrighness.
As to concreteness or poetry, or which has value, we will see.
I accept that some of my postings may not be of value to you.
I hope you keep expressing your opinions; it's like the dash of cold water on fighting dogs.
Best regards,
J.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
For those who like pith, here is the point I was trying to make, above.
This impact on an internet forum is often the same, whether it's a flame made by someone, or a 'counterflame' by a second guy, intended to dispose of or punish the first.
If you're commenting on a problem, except in the briefest of terms, you've likely become an unwitting part of the problem.
As in the case of one poster who says "I won't talk BDSM" and the other who says "I don't like your unwillingness to talk BDSM."
Neither is 'talking bdsm.' The moral high ground of one, doesn't matter in terms of effect.
This impact on an internet forum is often the same, whether it's a flame made by someone, or a 'counterflame' by a second guy, intended to dispose of or punish the first.
If you're commenting on a problem, except in the briefest of terms, you've likely become an unwitting part of the problem.
As in the case of one poster who says "I won't talk BDSM" and the other who says "I don't like your unwillingness to talk BDSM."
Neither is 'talking bdsm.' The moral high ground of one, doesn't matter in terms of effect.
RisiaSkye
Artistic
- Joined
- May 1, 2000
- Posts
- 4,387
You're welcome.OutsideObserver said:
I try to be fair.
And Lance, I'm not trying to censor you (or anyone). I'm just trying to be fair. Because the last time this happened (cym's odd freak-out) I edited the names out, it seemed fair to do so again.
Though, in the end, I agree with you that random speculation does nothing much, and doesn't violate any of the big Rules. I'm hoping, though, that in this instance you won't use my decision as an opportunity to complain about your "freedom" being infringed upon by the Big Meanies. Holiday spirit and all, right?
RS
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
Welcome to the boat, Pure.
Does it occur to you that your commentary on this suggests you are eating it up from the wings, and are now a part of it through your "I'm staying out of this, but...."
Pure said:
Does it occur to you that your commentary on this suggests you are eating it up from the wings, and are now a part of it through your "I'm staying out of this, but...."
Last edited:
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
RisiaSkye said:You're welcome.
I try to be fair.
And Lance, I'm not trying to censor you (or anyone). I'm just trying to be fair. Because the last time this happened (cym's odd freak-out) I edited the names out, it seemed fair to do so again.
Though, in the end, I agree with you that random speculation does nothing much, and doesn't violate any of the big Rules. I'm hoping, though, that in this instance you won't use my decision as an opportunity to complain about your "freedom" being infringed upon by the Big Meanies. Holiday spirit and all, right?
RS
Risia I think you are actually Hanns. And Miles. And ~Dream~, too.
No rules broken, just my opinion.
"Editing" opinion is censorship, Risia.
Dress it up any way you like.
What you did was contrary to the foundations and the very precepts of Lit, regardless of your motivation.
That being said, it's not otherwise worthy of note.
Ho ho ho;
Lance
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
Don't tell me it's raining when you're pissing on my leg.
I think I understand, do you?
Pure said:
I think I understand, do you?
