case studies

juanicoheal · Post by **juanicoheal** » Fri May 28, 2004 2:54 pm

Works for me TP.

You could add in a bitch-slap, or a knock over the head, just for good measure.....

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Fri May 28, 2004 5:09 pm

I thought bitch-slapping was implied.

<snicker>

Tho more than once I've been tempting to start a list of folks to track down on the playa and whack for real.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:08 pm

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:24 am

Stuart, what makes you think I'd whack you in the head?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:59 am

nothing, but if I wear a helmet it might encourage you to spank me instead. Limiting your effective options and all.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:45 am

A recurring sock puppet, this time named Suzie Clipboard, has been warned about misrepresenting itself as someone with admin powers. It also created what I now think amounted to a vanity thread in the EPlaya Feedback section (the one correctly spelling "editing", completely missing the inadvertent humor of the original thread title).

I've deleted the thread and I again encourage everyone to not feed the trolls, please.

Lilly Flower · Post by **Lilly Flower** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:03 pm

Not to be an ass butt,

how is it that only one person that I have ever seen on eplaya is able to have an avatar that is 480x320 pixels @ 11740 bytes and get away with it? is this some kind of admin I know nothing about? perhaps a php programmer?

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... highlight=

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:21 pm

how is it that only one person that I have ever seen on eplaya is able to have an avatar that is 480x320 pixels @ 11740 bytes and get away with it? is this some kind of admin I know nothing about? perhaps a php programmer?

Why do I think this question might lead to an answer in which will result in further annoyances by some folks (and their socks) on this board?

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:22 pm

When will the edit button be fixed?

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:57 pm

Badger, did you look in this thread for your answer?

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=3836

Lilly Flower · Post by **Lilly Flower** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:09 am

Why thank you Tancorix for being so observant.

My goodness.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:25 pm

Lilly Flower wrote:Not to be an ass butt,

how is it that only one person that I have ever seen on eplaya is able to have an avatar that is 480x320 pixels @ 11740 bytes and get away with it? is this some kind of admin I know nothing about? perhaps a php programmer?

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... highlight=

Hmm...I don't see a big avatar. I see a big image in the message body, which anyone can do.

Please explain.

angrykittie25 · Post by **angrykittie25** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:22 pm

Check out this guys profile, its definatly a big avatar.

http://eplaya.burningman.org/profile.ph ... ile&u=1997

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:08 pm

hmm. I still see nothing. No avatar pic at all. What browser are you using?

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:02 pm

I'm using Netscape 7.*.*
I agree. Pretty damn big avatar he's slipped in there.

Post by **admin** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:34 am

Well it's been a mighty controversial couple of days here on the old eplaya, replete with 2 incidents I wanted to share with you guys:

A: Space Station Fuckoff peppers the boards with certainly aggressive, if not outright offensive posts within and referring to the Camp Israel thread. A complaint is made to the admins. Emily notifies him he has violated the TOS and gives him a warning. He writes back with the usual righteous rant about the loss of freedom at Burning Man etc etc. Emily cheerfully replies, specifically pointing out the Term that he violated, and he responds again with same rant.

I read up on all his posts, and find one that didn't receive a specific complaint, but that uses a very overt racial epithet. I delete the post, notify SSF, and tell him he gets no more warnings and that the discussion is over.

B: Deadly KungFu posts a particularly vicious rant about an Irish-themed camp. Isotopia calls him on it. He still responds angrily, but later asks the admin to remove his post/thread title because he realizes it is offensive. I do not remove the thread, but ask him to take the opportunity to apologize, since he does obviously feel regret.

The two situations are very similar, but not the same. In case A, there was very clear evidence of hate speech by use of the word "heeb" in response to a Burner request to have a bat mitzvah on the playa. In case B, there was a general implication that Irish people are drunken thieves, but it was quickly and reasonably dispelled by the responders to the thread, and the offender showed remorse.

I'm totally comfortable with the calls we made here (and thank you Emily for the quick initial response!), but am still interested as to what you guys think about it. There is a very fine line between banter, insult, one-off stupid comments and actual hate speech, and I want to make sure I kept each incident on the appropriate side of that line.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:44 am

In case B the response was totally genuine and heart felt.

An apology? Yes. Apologia? Nope. The guy was a class act.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:50 am

I will reiterate my initial reluctance to have this board policed, even by people of the best intent and ability, which currently, we are lucky enough to have.

It creates an atmosphere of dependance and makes it easier for people to avoid personal responsibility. I believe the antidote to the noxious, hateful speech we've seen the past few days is speech that educates and demonstrates something other then hate.

But its not my board.

Thank you for listening.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:50 pm

I think SSF needs to join the late Allanon04 in the deleted accounts file. But that's just me.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:54 pm

Your position is noted again, Blyslv. As previously stated, having a completely unmoderated bbs hosted by the Project is simply not an option due to liability issues.

On a solely personal note, I wouldn't want to be associated with a bbs where hate speech holds no consequences. But that's just me.

zzberlin · Post by **zzberlin** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:12 pm

I could probably argue both sides of whether or not 86'ing difficult
contributors is ever appropriate. Regardless, I think it's great that
the admins took the time to type up the thought process behind this
decision and post it here on the board. It shows that the decision was
thoughtful even if it might not have been the one I would have made myself.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:10 pm

OK so A II Z posted an avatar that was an animated porn gif of a naked Lisa Simpson grabbing and pulling Bart's penis, apparently to the enjoyment of both.

I removed it and gave AIIZ a warning, telling him that this kind of thing puts the whole eplaya at risk with the authorities, and if he did anything like it again, I would kick him off the eplaya. Toon porn tho it may be, it's still incestuous, kiddie toon porn, and a big ole violation of the TOS.

Questions, comments?

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:24 pm

I didn't pay much attention to it, and I'm glad you gave him a warning vs. tossing him out. The board wouldn't be the same without his presence.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:07 pm

Despite the fact that TP was right, ya gotta admit....that avatar was pretty funny.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:22 pm

Well it sure pissed him off. He broadcast his challenge to the admin all over the place. Maybe TP will just ignore the rant and move on...after all the offending avatar is gone and that's all she wanted.

Sheesh, I went over to the 3Playa for a few months then come back....and it feels like I never left. SSDD.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:26 pm

Aww, he'll get over it. I'm sure he has already. check out the Free porn thread.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:28 pm

I would but with the vpn and systems I'm on right now, I wouldn't dare.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 12:34 pm

Dear Honorable and Wise Gods of the "Case Studies" Thread;

I humbly ask for a sitting of court.

I have been wrongly misunderstood and represented by accusations put forth by Techopatra and wish to present my
defense in this great and holy court on the matter of the avatar incident.

It is a great adage that "People see what they want to see and they hear what they wish to hear".

After reading technopatra's above post I have come to the conclusion that after she viewed recent posts (not by me, but another person, Mithra defense of incest on the thread, "Sexual Violence") which I believe she derived her first impression affecting her perception of my new Simpson avatar. I did not place it on my profile to make any subtle message to mitha's or any of posts. It was just time to change my avatar and I was thinking that it was funny. I didn't think for a moment that it was incestuous, but an innocuous example of siblings feuding. I had thought that Lisa was inflicting pain and pleasured in the response and that Bart was not emoting pleasure but screaming in agony- an innocent act that maybe might occur at a naturist camp between siblings. I also concurred that view because Bart didn't form a erect penis which he should have if he was responding to pleasure and also from a male point of view that if some had done that to my dick it would hurt. Of course, Techno wouldn't know that because she and many women think that male penises are like rubber bands that get hard and you can stretch them around your neck as a playa costume (just kidding here).

I would also like to point out that I had questioned Technopatra recently on another thread that might have instilled a slight amount of animosity to me to provoke her action. Below is the email she sent me which if you read the wording you too might deem it as a response to an attack:

Exibit A:

Hello Apollonaris Zeus,

The following is an email sent to you by admin via your account on ePlaya. If this message is spam, contains abusive or other comments you find offensive please contact the webmaster of the board at the following address:

[email protected]

Include this full email (particularly the headers). Please note that the reply address to this email has been set to that of admin.

Message sent to you follows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AIIZ -

Your avatar depicts a sex act, which violates the TOS and puts the whole eplaya in jeopardy from the authorities. I am removing it and giving you a formal warning.

Do anything like this again and you will be permanently 86'd from the eplaya.l
~technopatra~
eplaya admin

End of Email message.

Its the cold hearted wording that reveals an intent of animosity in
"Do anything like this again and you will be permanently 86'd from the eplaya".

and not "Hey AZ, I think you are pushing the limits of the TOS, please remove it or I will have to temporarily suspend you from Eplaya. And if you do something like this again you will be permanently 86'd!"

But what really bothered me was when I replied to her whether my "Caution! Center Camp Group Sex Ahead" avatar was also a violation, she didn't even reply back which further proved to me that a form of animosity existed which is why I went on a half cocked tirade to exposes the many posted thread violations- including an underage poster that was posting sexual explicit text. If I was totally offended I would have started a new thread to present my tirade.

I have no animosity towards Techno for doing her job and I was willing to remove it without incident whether or not what I had thought, but to be ignored for someone that has posted on Eplaya for many years I do think that a little mutual respect was in order.

No is no one on Eplaya that I dislike though there are many I disagree with, but I believe that in 99% of the time I have shown respect to all even when Trey was trolling in his worst attacking me.

I care about everyone on Eplaya and I wouldn't change them for anyone else- except perhaps Paris Hilton on crack for a night of sex fun. hehehe!

I just wish to be exonerated as someone that was posting incestuous sexual content on the web and that it was just an innocent mistake of intent and all done in good fun!

I thank the ever wise Gods of the "Case Study" thread and await their decision.

A II Z

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:05 pm

technopatra wrote:Your position is noted again, Blyslv. As previously stated, having a completely unmoderated bbs hosted by the Project is simply not an option due to liability issues.

On a solely personal note, I wouldn't want to be associated with a bbs where hate speech holds no consequences. But that's just me.

I've made a living publishing adult images, here in the U.S. And I've been a volunteer member of a "Content Review Board" for a public access station. As a board we evaluated what speech, by the producers for the stations, was constitutionally protected and what wasn't. In other words, what the station could legally get away with allowing the producers to broadcast and what it couldn't. As such I'd like to think I have some understanding of the legal situation dealing with public speech.

You're exactly right, I think, that a completely unmoderated board would expose the LLC to unnecessary liability. However, it seems to me that obscenity is the only worry here. If the legal situation is the only worry then the "common carrier," argument would protect you from violations of commerical speech, libel, and the like. Just as newspapers can't be sued if a letter to the editor is found to be libelous, I don't think you all would have a problem with any of the legally actionable kinds of speech, other than obscenity. And it's important to note that offensive speech is not legally actionable speech. We've all got a legal right to be as bigoted as we are, and to display that ignorance as we like.

However, I do disagree with the implication that in absence of a moderator meting down punnishment the expression of hate speech would be without consequences. There are a number of somewhat vocal members around here, seems to me, that would be more than happy to call folk on their crap, especially true if they felt it was up to them to do so. The most alive space I've yet to find, on-line, is a completely unmoderated email list with over 1000 members. When trolls and the like surface, the community deals with them...

Ron

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:25 pm

Below is the email she sent me which if you read the wording you too might deem it as a response to an attack:

Exibit A:

Hello Apollonaris Zeus,

Inadmissible.

Wholly inappropriate and uncool to almost ever re-post private e-mail to a publc board.

case studies

new case study...same old crap

racial epithets and insults

case study - graphic avatar

An Appeal to the Gods!