Expansion of Ed Zotti Ruling?

[not_alice]

Sorry for opening a new thread, but mods asked me a series of questions in another thread and then closed it.

So you plan to go around in threads where Cesario may post to . . . what? Police his conduct? Kinda Javert-like of you, don’t you think?

I don’t know who or what Javert is. I am not interested in policing Cesario, I want to know if the topics I am interested in, which overlap in a way with his re: Free Speech thread, put me at risk of the “provoke” rule?

Originally Posted by not_alice View Post

It is not clear, that is why I am asking.
I meant that a simple “no” should be sufficiently clear. The answer to your question is NO, N-O, spells NO. Is this clear?

This is mere nitpicking over a technical distinction. The general issue is attraction to underage individuals. We’re not going to get into a minute parsing of every discussion to see whether it’s veered from discussing slightly post pubescent individuals to pre pubescent.

Well, this is what I asked about earlier. Can the ruling be interpreted beyond its literal instructions?

This seems to be a mod-interpretation of the Ed Zotti ruling, which does not specify those afflictions at all, nor has any of the other discussions until I mentioned it AFICT.

Fine if so, but that is what I am trying to learn - where will the interpretations go before I quickly rack up a series of warnings. Especially since I was asked by a mod in the other thread to ask ahead of time if I had questions.

That is fine - the ruling is very fuzzy, subject to further interpretations not related to anything Cesario has ever done or said, and it affects us individually as much as it affects Cesario himself, who has a specific topic to avoid, but now has a secret list to avoid also. Good to know!

Can the expanded ruling/interpretation be placed somewhere near the original ruling for reference please?

Since you seem to be having a lot of trouble figuring out what is and is not permitted, I would advise you that when in doubt, don’t post.

So now I am being advised not to post in a thread regarding Free Speech issues, one in which I was already active, simply because I want to address some specific issues in Australian law and process?

I am not having trouble figuring it out - I was told to as if I have questions. I asked a series of very specific questions in advance of topics I plan to raise. Will they earn me a warning or any mod action for that matter if they lead to Cesario posting stuff he is prohibited from posting, under the “provoke” rule?

If I can’t get a direct answer, can I at least get some credit later should mod action be considered for having tried very hard to get an answer in advance, even if I failed to get it?

[TubaDiva]

From the SDMB Registration Agreement

The board is not intended to furnish you with a forum for promoting your personal agenda. We reserve the right to ask you to limit postings on a particular topic, or to refrain from posting on such topics altogether.

As Ed Zotti noted earlier, that’s what we asked of Cesario.

“Refrain from posting on such topics altogether” is a broad admonition, not a narrowly construed ruling. If it overlaps on your “Free Speech” arguments, too bad. You can’t go there.

Cesario is proscripted from posting on pedophilia. Period.

You – and the rest of the message board community – are proscripted from asking him about it or requesting his comments on the subject in any fashion or attempting to bait him into making such postings. Period.

[Happy_Poster]

Just a humble suggestion, if I may:

If on the balance of probabilities what you are going to post is going to breach the rule, then seek permission.

If on the balance of probabilities what you are going to post is not going to breach the rule, then post it and rely on the common sense and good judgement by the moderator in perhaps removing your post and noting that it was not permitted, but in no way admonishing you for it?

Just an idea, but what do staff and other posters think about this?

[TubaDiva]

Oh sure, drag common sense and reason into it, whydoncha?

[Colibri]

@not_alice

Well, this is what I asked about earlier. Can the ruling be interpreted beyond its literal instructions?

This seems to be a mod-interpretation of the Ed Zotti ruling, which does not specify those afflictions at all, nor has any of the other discussions until I mentioned it AFICT.

As TubaDiva has indicated, we are taking a broad interpretation of the statement, “such topics” including hebephilia, ephebophilia, and chronophilia.

Fine if so, but that is what I am trying to learn - where will the interpretations go before I quickly rack up a series of warnings. Especially since I was asked by a mod in the other thread to ask ahead of time if I had questions.

If you are referring to me, my suggestion was intended to mean that you should contact a moderator by PM or e-mail regarding a specific question, not keep asking a series of hypotheticals in ATMB.

Can the expanded ruling/interpretation be placed somewhere near the original ruling for reference please?

If you think you might have trouble remembering it, try bookmarking this thread.

So now I am being advised not to post in a thread regarding Free Speech issues, one in which I was already active, simply because I want to address some specific issues in Australian law and process?

If you are unable to decide whether your question is likely to provoke him into posting on pedophilia or related subjects, then either 1) consult a moderator by e-mail or PM; or 2) don’t post it.

I am not having trouble figuring it out - I was told to as if I have questions. I asked a series of very specific questions in advance of topics I plan to raise. Will they earn me a warning or any mod action for that matter if they lead to Cesario posting stuff he is prohibited from posting, under the “provoke” rule?

The future is mysterious to all of us.

If I can’t get a direct answer, can I at least get some credit later should mod action be considered for having tried very hard to get an answer in advance, even if I failed to get it?

It depends on exactly what you did.

[Gfactor]

@TubaDiva

Oh sure, drag common sense and reason into it, whydoncha?

Common sense is far too fuzzy.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

If common sense existed, there would be no Internet.

[DSYoungEsq]

My problem is I never seem to be common enough for it.

[not_alice]

@TubaDiva

Oh sure, drag common sense and reason into it, whydoncha?

Yeah, that is what I am doing. I am asking about specific things I would like to discuss, and I am not getting clear answers.

For example, it seems I can not ask Cesario to elaborate on his sensible discussion in the Free speech thread, which was quite mild actually, and expect to get an answer that is not chilled by him having to dance around what he already addressed and to which no one objected or objects.

That does not seem fair to anyone, reader or writer.

I also gave a list of other possible issues I might raise - it seems I would have to risk the provoke rule just to find out the answer, and that is not fair either. I am kind enough to ask in advance. Can’t the mods extend the same courtesy to answer in advance? I can wait a few days, it is not immedately urgent that I have your answers. But what I have so far seems off the cuff and incomplete.

[Marley23]

You can post about whatever you damn well please, not_alice. You cannot ask Cesario about subjects related to attraction to underage people because he is not allowed to answer. That means you can’t ask him about them in another thread you’re both posting in, and it means you can’t make comments intended to get a response from him. (“Gee, I wonder what Cesario thinks about this…”) I think all of that was explained in the last thread.

[not_alice]

@Colibri

If you are referring to me, my suggestion was intended to mean that you should contact a moderator by PM or e-mail regarding a specific question, not keep asking a series of hypotheticals in ATMB.

Well, OK, I have done that in the past, to be promised an answer only to never have it arrive. Most recently I asked, about month ago I think, about pro-Ana threads - would they be allowed? That had nothing whatsoever to do with Cesario as I never really even was aware of him until this week.

If you are unable to decide whether your question is likely to provoke him into posting on pedophilia or related subjects, then either 1) consult a moderator by e-mail or PM; or 2) don’t post it.

But why not here on ATMB, so everyone present and future can gain by the wisdom of the mods, and so that we can all know the rules, such as they are, are being applied evenly?

BTW, what if someone were to post on a topic such as sex with someone over the age of consent, but otherwise unable to legally consent, perhaps due to developmental issues? Does Ed’s ruling cover that wrt to Cesario also? On the face of it, it is not clear, and it is doubly unclear now that the ruling is not going to be interpreted as being restricted to pedophilia, even though that is what it says.

Am I risking the provoke rule if I start a thread? I suppose I would just get a quick suggestion from mods, since I asked first (assuming you don’t answer here), but what about Cesario? If he participates properly, as he did in the Free Speech Thread, is he breaking the wider, and vague, rule that applies to him? Is the only way for him to find out is to try and see when the penalty for being wrong is sure to be a banning?

[TubaDiva]

Ed didn’t check with you before he issued his edict and that is truly a shame, but there it is.

You’ve been counseled multiple times on what you can do and where you can go here.

And that is the end of it. You have been advised the answer is “no.” More than once.

Regardless of how you attempt to restate your situation it’s still the same and the ruling is still the same. The answer is still “no.” It’s not going to turn into “yes” no matter how much you speculate or spitball. Nothing’s going to mitigate that “no” for you here.

We will close any further threads you start on this subject.

You’re awfully close to trolling here. Don’t push it.