Can Free Thought Forums survive without rules that restrict free thought?
Remember Citizen Band Radios? A new freedom of the road. People exchanging information as they drive about without restriction. Egalitarianism at its best… at the onset. And then the base nature of human kind reared its ugly head and afterwards the good citizens of the highways couldn’t exchange information anymore without being solicited by prostitutes or by those ruffians who were the most vocal but also the most uncouth.
I would like to present the case that the same fate awaits un-monitored message boards unlike Great Debates within Straight Dope. But first I feel I must approach the Moderators of this forum as a matter of procedure. As such…
I have been warned by a moderator that I have a inordinate fixation on the banned poster December and should let it go. I, of course, respect and will certainly abide by this opinion inasmuch as I have no choice because the judgement of the forum moderator is absolutely final.
But I think, having looked very closely at the written rules and the spirit of these rules, that I feel that I can ask the banned poster, December, to answer some selected questions with regard to his banning that would be pertinent to my Opening Proposition without violating the punitive nature of his punishment. In effect I will post his observations within my post only as examples.
Mr. December though, might not agree to being interviewed and anyway I, of course, will await the ruling and the blessings of the moderators of this board before I proceed.
I am not a moderator, and I cannot find the cite right now, but I am afraid posting new messages of a banned poster by proxy is a no no here also, sorry Milum.
No. If we ban someone, that means that s/he doesn’t get to air his/her views on our board any longer, whether under his/her own name or by proxy.
All questions and comments about the administration/moderation of this message board belong in the BBQ Pit. I’ll move it over there, if the hamsters are co-operative tonight.
Start your own message board and set your own rules.
Meantime, this board is being run on computers that are owned or leased by the Chicago Reader, a for-profit corporation. As long as they’re paying the bills, surely they can delegate people to police the content. And even if this particular board was closed to someone, that hardly restricts their access to other parts of the internet.
As an incidental note, I have to point out the the use of the phrase “Free Thought” (twice!) in the title is misleading. Internet boards are for expression, not thought, and no board could possibly restrict free thought simply by banning someone. Now, if the board banned you, and sent some goons to your house to drag you to a re-education camp, that would be different, but that won’t happen unless Proposition 304 passes.
Ah, I knew somebody would pick up on that. The distinction I’d like to make between freedom of thought and freedom of expression is that an example of free thought might be attending the house or worship of your choice, while free expression covers telling other people about that choice.
In this particular case, december is free to think whatever he wants. No-one from this board is going to use torture or pressure on him to try to make him conform. But they can (and have) prevented him from posting here, which is arguably a freedom of expression issue.
HOWEVER, the Chicago Reader is under no legal obligation to let everyone post here. It’s not a governmental organization, and december has thousands of other outlets for his expression. Considering he wasn’t paying the Reader anything, or was under contract with them, I dont see any conflict.
So your question in general (do message boards restrict free thought when they ban people) is stupid and your question in specific (is december owed a chance to explain himself) is moot.
Ah but yes** Mr. Ekers**, you state the obvious with so much authority. Of course the Chicago Reader people can do with this website what ever they please. Who cares? But in fact they do have a website and inherent with having a website is a purpose for that website’s being. The letterhead reason for the Straight Dope forum is a fight against ignorance; a noble if gargantuan chore. Even so, a worthy pursuit requires careful direction and guidance to fulfill its reason for existence.
“What’s it to you, Mack!” A rude person such as those who visit the “Pit” might say. “Well”, a thoughtful guy like me might reply, “since a forum like the Great Debates Forum, in order to be a functioning entity, requires human posters like me, would it not seem less than chaotic if the people posting their messages had the benefit of all the rules governing their actions?”
“Bullshit!” said the moderators who told the administrators who told Cecil who told a minor god who told the moderators who then again said, “Bullshit!”
Take John Stuart Mill for example. He was a nice easy-going guy and he had but one fundamental rule . And that was…
**Whether democracy or dictatorship no law can be applied retroactively. Retroactive laws, he said, confuses the citizens and makes them nervous. **
And here I am. I carefully went over all the minor sayings, casual comments, and even the off hand remarks of the moderators, looking for hints on how to effect good board behavior. To hell with December, if I had found the slightest nuance of any devious intent I would have dumped him flat. But I didn’t. What I did find was a bunch of moderators who saw an old man of whom they had grown tired, so they made up a law and applied it retroactively, and in doing so made his very existence on this board a crime.
I’m a fairly new poster here but I was lurking for two months and my view is this.
December was a TROLL! he broke the rules. He misrepresented his sites and quotes and he was a jerk. Sure he was polite but he reminded me of a southern gentleman who’d never use a racial slur but would talk about ‘those people’ the type that would never sling mud at you but look at you like you were already covered in mud.
Seems when I signed up it clearly said don’t be a jerk and don’t troll. Nearly every post of his turned into a flame war how is that helping the board and turning into a place for intelligent discussion?
A few people mentioned that he used to have thought provoking arguments but all seemed to agree that hadn’t happened in awhile. So his behavior was borderline for awhile got worse. He was warned he continued he was thrown off. (how could a retroactive law have a prior warning btw? If that’s your theory) But this is all a newbie bystanders opinion so no doubt you’ll just continue on your merry ranting way…
hummm this is the pit I guess I have to throw in a direct insult. How about “Is your eyes so full of decembers baby batter you can’t fucking read the 1,000 posts that explain any of this?” Sorta clunky but I guess it will do.
Just FYI, the SDMB is not the reason or purpose behind the Chicago Reader having a website. In fact, it would seem to create for them the most hassles (server load, threats of legal action on occasion, various harassment) while giving the least amount of return. They do have personals ads and other things which actually bring in some respectable money compared to this, one can assume.
The stated reason behind the newspaper column is to fight ignorance. We hope here to be able to join in with that fight.
But when people like december intentionally twist news reports, on a frequent basis and for which he was previously warned, to rile other people up, this is called trolling. To fight your own ignorance on this topic, I refer you to the FAQs posted around the forums.
As for your suggestion, already addressed, about reposting his responses and acting as a go-between, a similar situation with a banned poster popped up a number of months ago. It might have been regarding the banned poster Satan (and his banning had nothing to do with his political leanings), and the same response was made. This is not favoritism.
The SDMB has survived since it first set up shop on AOL over 5 years ago. We’ve seen annoying people come and go, unfortunately a few had to be forcibly removed.
Well, I have to, since you’re stating the stupid with so much confidence.
The first part of that statement renders the rest of it irrelevant. The Reader can do with this website whatever they please, so… if you think their statement of battling ignorance is an outright lie, you can react as you might to any news organization you find untruthful: namely, finding another that suits you better. Besides, you’ll have to define your terms. “Careful direction and guidance” ? How much care and guidance do you think the Reader has to invest in this?
Does the Reader act with force of law nowadays? Was the corporation elected to public office at some point? Are you confused and nervous? If not, it’s rather patronizing of you to assume others are.
A crime? You’re overstating it, again. The Reader has no authority to determine what is a crime; it can only declare that someone is in violation of their rules. Also, I see no evidence that the decision to ban december involved looking through his past posts and deciding they were now unacceptable. Rather, I see it as a decision based on the cumulative effect of his posts, with that final bit of fakery involving “the President” as the last straw.
Besides, you can analyze december to death, but the decision to ban or reinstate him is not up to you. If you want that authority, set up your own board (at your own expense) and give december a membership.
um…Milum? Do you see anything wrong with this statement? In the OP of another december thread?
IANAM, but…let it go. Please? Or if the term “let it go” doesn’t quite sink in coming from the mods, how about “shut the fuck up about it already!”
That work?