Count down to lock down....

All things outside of Burning Man.
User avatar
E. ViLe Dustburger
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:07 am

Post by E. ViLe Dustburger » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:12 pm

fuckin` A.

Asshole !

User avatar
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: in yer pants

Post by BigCock » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:37 pm

EvilDustBooger wrote:Image
But why does a no-moderated thread have to be ugly? It seems better to cut loose and restrain/look out for each other at the same time, like a mosh pit.

Well, I say that if there is going to be a brawl thread, there should also be an unmoderated love thread. For balance.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:55 pm

BigCock wrote:
Well, I say that if there is going to be a brawl thread, there should also be an unmoderated love thread. For balance.

there's both around here somewhere on the board.

Posts: 4140
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:00 pm
Burning Since: 2004
Location: A secret, undisclosed location in TexMexistan...

Post by helitack » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:51 pm

EvilDustBooger wrote: Personally I find it really difficult to behave ALL the time...
Behaving is for pantywaists...
Actively helping President Trump build the wall

Winning hearts and minds in lovely TexMexistan...

can't sit still
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

Post by can't sit still » Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:37 am

I'll try not to ramble. There are some good, well thought out posts.
It doesn't matter what you do,,,it only matters what your liability exposure is. The ORG has to protect itself from libel. If they don't moderate, it could be argued in court that the TOS mean nothing.
I'm sure that there are groups that believe the antithesis of what Larry stands for. If they could bankrupt the ORG through legal fees and judgments, that would end Burning Man.
Modertion is a given.
The other question is self-control.
If I say that Joe Blow is an asshole,,,what does that gain me?
SED made the comment that he "could tell that I'm not a hunter because I don't go in for the kill"
If I flame someone, does it make the world a better place? Does it make me a happier person?
If I call someone an ignorant moron, have I made them worse or myself better?
If I instead reply that their conclusion is unfounded because their information is incorrect and their logic is faulty,,,does this create less antagonism in the world?
Maybe it's a character flaw but I've never felt "better" because I put some other person down.
I feel no need or desire to embrace the negative. It's not lack of a "killer instinct" It's NOT a question of survival,,,,not this board.

I see no point in getting ugly when trying to change a person's thinking.
I could have a thought in my head that Joe Blow is an idiot.
Converting that thought into a public pronouncement isn't going to better any situation.
Survival, agression, pecking order,,,,all misplaced in a community that is trying to work together.
If one is going to inject something negative into the community "stew" , then one should make sure that it's done for a positive purpose.
If one injects "negative" into the community just to create rancor, agression, division, alienation or hatred,,,one does not understand or believe in "true" community. Survival at it's best.
Dealing in or dwelling on the 'negative" is not a worthwhile addition to any persona or community.
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

User avatar
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:21 pm

Post by Ron » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:36 pm

The legal environment no more requires that the LLC moderate this board that it requires AT&T to moderate phone calls, Myspace to monitor web pages, or AOL to monitor chat rooms. It's a commonly held myth that moderation is either required, or provides liability protection. In fact, the opposite may very well be true because if the Org is saying that they're providing "Moderators," but then not supporting those moderators with things like public job descriptions, a policy book, and so on they're *negelenty* applying moderation. In turn this could lead to claims of arbitrary, discriminatory, moderation and action in the court room. Sometimes organizations are better off *not* addressing a problem, rather than addressing it very poorly.

Ron, all of the above based on years in the publishing industry and the understanding of 1st amendment case law, not a law degree nor being an attorney.

User avatar
Petal of the Playa
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:36 pm

Post by Petal of the Playa » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:53 pm

CSS - great post - thank you for sharing - I think others would agree. peace out.
It only seems kinky the first time...

User avatar
Posts: 4867
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing

Post by geekster » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:36 pm

Having a no-holds-barred area isn't such a bad idea, neither is it new. That was the reason for the creation of the alt. hierarchy on USENET. If people want to post stuff that might be offensive to some, fine, give them a place to post it so other people can choose to stay away from it or know where to go find it.

What I found interesting in the TOS cut/paste earlier in the thread was the "or otherwise objectionable" item. That is pretty much a catch all meaning that potentially anything anyone finds objectionable for whatever reason can be moderated out.

Bottom like though is it's BMorg's board so BMorg's rules play. If you want to play someplace else under different rules then you can create a space for it or use one of others that have been created for it. It isn't like this is the first time this issue has come around and it probably won't be the last.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”