Mod Squad update for the week ending June 9th

I don't think that "Prostitution", the term as used in this case, comes under The "Sexually Oriented" disclaimer.

The post/signature itself wasn't about anything sexual, just using a valid term (i.e. not sexual slang, swearing) as a reasonable analogy.

The TOS can be used to justify any form of censoring/moderating, but in this case, maybe that is a little excessive?

But since it wasn't asked to be removed for that reason, it makes this is a moot point!



UKS


EDIT: See Barns and Twin_Kees Posts. Quicker with the Post button than I...!

 

"The TOS can be used to justify any form of censoring/moderating, but in this case, maybe that is a little excessive?"

Exactly. Where do you draw the line?

Say I wanted to create thread about how AOTC might make TPM better.

And, in that thread, I make a statement that says,

"Viagra is to the impotent like AOTC is to the TPM".

Now, what if this offends fans of TPM?

 

I don't know about anyone else but all this lurid talk is turning me on.

 

Building on Barn's observation. I see removing prostitution from the sig as going after Al Capone for tax evasion. I have no idea what the exact reasons given were, but there's only one that matters - it shouldn't have been there to begin with.

Are there going to be some people who thought Capone was a fine, upstanding businessman. Sure, there are.

But, it still doesn't mean we have to toss reason out the window when dealing with it, and it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done.

Rules are in place to generally make the place better. I don't think the administration creates a load of crap just to make one's posting life a living hell or for their own entertainment.

There's nothing out-of-place or abnormal about asking for the removal of a questionable sig. which the one in question was.

 

I?m going to make one last post on the subject, and then I?m done.

What this arguement really boils down to is the fact that whoever edited the sig/asked for the comment to be removed doesn't like the EU being bashed.

Yes, it?s true I don?t like the EU being bashed. No, that was not why I asked for the signature to be edited.

Ask quietlunatic or JediBratzilla or any of the other members of Soul of the Jedi or the ExU group. They?ll tell you that yes, I?m an EU fan. But they?ll also say that I?m fair and reasonable. When a EU fan recently trolled the ExU thread, I think I was the first Mod that quietlunatic PM?d. I?m a regular in the soulofthejedi.net forums, which were originally created as anti-EU message boards. I can stand seeing the EU bashed.

What I don?t like is when I am insulted.

I don't believe the sig to be generally offensive.

I do, and that?s why I asked for it to be edited. As I said, if you're offended by the way I've handled this, talk to an Administrator.

 

Not really, Genghis.

If someone says 'The EU is crap' that could perversely be interpretted as flaming/being offensive, which is against the TOS. Obviously, the above sentence is simply an assertive expression of distaste for the EU. It's an opinion.

However, I could argue that by saying the EU is crap, you mean that people who read the EU are reading crap, literally. Therefore by saying the EU is crap, you are insinuating that people who read the EU are a bunch of wierd freaks who indulge in feces inspection.



Similarly, you could, as has happened, ludicrously twist the EU prostitution statement and say it is a breach of the TOS. However, the context and intention of the words makes the statement perfectly legitimate. Gandolfs reasoning for removing the line are not justified and are as irrational as the reasons above.

And if you want to be really petty, surely all talk of men and women should be banned. Obviously, discussion of men and women is a discussion of the sexes, which is therefore sexual content.

You cannot take action for one reason and then justify it with another.

"We find the defendent not guilty"

"Very good, I'm sentencing him to 3 years imprisonment for some other unrelated offence"

 

If saying "crap" is against the rules and someone says "(Insert whatever) is crap," I'm not going to shed many over having the words edited.

Same thing if statements of a sexual nature are against the rules and someone makes a clear statement of a sexual nature, I'm not going to shed many over editing of the statement. Similarly, you could, as has happened, ludicrously twist the EU prostitution statement and say it isn't a breach of the TOS. I could care less about such semantic-lawyering of things.

I could care less how anyone interprets it, I could care less about the message, whatever - we're all going to interpret things differently.

I'm saying I see there exists a clear unbiased, objective reason why it was edited. I could care less whether or not that was the actual reason why it was actually done.

It was done, and I'm not going to shed any over it.

 

The problem here is that both sides are probably right.

The signature contained merely an analogy referring to the relationship that the EU has with the SW films. Based on that analogy, there is a clear statement intended:

EU exists to make money off of people's love for SW movies.

Now. Whether you agree with that statement or not is irrelevent (for this debate). The point is: the signature only offered an analogy to make a statement about the EU's relation to the films. That's all. There was no mention of the people who read or enjoy the EU. The analogy did not extend beyond the bounds of the relationship between EU and the films. The signature says nothing about people who read EU. Nothing. We cannot take the analogy and begin extending it to suit our own purposes.

The message of the analogy is completely fine (if very controversial). People are perfectly entitled to think that the EU authors write only for money, not for love of the SW universe.

In that regard, the message of the sig is totally acceptable.

However...

The choice of words and themes for the analogy was obviously problematic, and somewhat antagonistic (even if you argue that it was unintentional), and probably calculated.

The point is - there are other ways of saying that you think the EU authors write for love of money, not for love of the SW universe. Deliberately (or even unintentionally) choosing to equate the EU on some analagous level to prostitution is simply poor form.

The sig was problematic, there is absolutely no disputing this fact. The message of the analogy could be restated in a different, less controversial manner, without problems, I feel.

There was nothing inherently wrong with the analogy, based on what the author was trying to say, but there was certainly something wrong with the way the author presented the message.

Thus, she was asked to change it. She was never threatened with a ban. Not once.

Vertical

 

IT WAS NOT A BREACH OF THE TOS. You have merely interpretted it to be so. I'm glad you're not a judge.

I'm not going to cry about it either. I don't really care. I just wanted to set the facts straight. I have done that and if you continue to share a different opinion, that's fine. I wont take it as a personal assualt on me or come up with some absurd justification using the TOS.

I appreciate what Vertical is saying and I'm not trying to demand that things are changed (you could ban everyone here for all I care. It wouldn't bother me but you can't say it's justified), but I disagree. I don't feel people who like the EU would take any less offence to 'EU exists to make money off of people's love for SW movies' than they would to the actual statement. 'Poor form' is no reason to take administrative action against someone.

 

Barns...
"You have merely interpretted it to be so."

Well, this is a Star Wars board, so I suppose we have to count on people trying to use the CPOV defense.

 

It was causing a problem. She was asked to change it.

And the fact of the matter is, she didn't change it to say "EU authors write for money, not for the love of SW", so you can't very well say she would have been asked to change that. The only problem that GtG has expressed so far was the indirect and perhaps unintentional 'relation' EP made between EU and prostitution.

Vertical

 

for the record, folks, I consulted with Vertical immediately upon being asked to change the sig. He thought that the sig was not a problem. He understood the point I was making. The reason I changed it was that some of the people who saw it took personal offense to it, and as I did not have that sig to offend ( I put it there, simply for the humor value ) I changed it.

not to worry, I'm currently working on a family-friendly, PC version of it..

something involving pedophile priests, perhaps....

 

Wow, Internet_Drama must be on vacation.

Anyway, nice to see that this was resolved before anything became public and that the people involved are okay with the outcome.

Mel

 

Good God, I see stuff on these boards 10x more offensive than the mere mention of prostitution. Not two weeks ago a board member threatened to personally cut the throats of middle-eastern children if he was given the chance. I reported that to a moderator and no one batted an eye.

This is BS.

 

Ahhh, do you have a link, Bob?

After watching this little squabble, I have 2 things to say:
1)EP was making a joke...perhaps it was pushing the fine line between good joke and bad taste, but that is purely subjective...perhaps she should try stepping back from the line.
2) Gandy...you need to come down to Australia...we'll teach you how to take even the most offensive of jokes, and not bat an eyelid.

 

Ahhh, I love the smell of internet drama in the morning.

 

"Good God, I see stuff on these boards 10x more offensive than the mere mention of prostitution. Not two weeks ago a board member threatened to personally cut the throats of middle-eastern children if he was given the chance. I reported that to a moderator and no one batted an eye."

Here's me agreeing with you.

 

Drama...

Drama attracts the dramatic...

The quiet...

The innocent...

The corrupt...

Drama...drama is my ally.

 

As an American student of law I can tell you that this sort of thing would be allowed in most places. It is hardly offensive to anyone. However, this is not most places. This is a private message board. The story could be different if we all paid to be on here, but the fact still remains that we are all using a service and this service is the property of the Administration. Therefore, they may choose what will and will not stay. You really don't have a say in it. I would suggest ending this conversation for it will get you no where but on to the Mods, "Watch This User; They're Trouble" -list. Believe me, I've seen it. Quite long.

 

My list includes everyone but me. And I'm damned suspicious of me.

 

I'd be suspicious of me if I were a mod...but I'm not, so there's no reason for anyone to be suspicious of me...whoops, there I go hijacking threads again.

 

Bob...
"Good God, I see stuff on these boards 10x more offensive than the mere mention of prostitution. Not two weeks ago a board member threatened to personally cut the throats of middle-eastern children if he was given the chance. I reported that to a moderator and no one batted an eye.
This is BS."

Nope, this is America. The place where Rambo can shoot up millions of people, where Jason can hack up campers, where Arnold can blow away everyone. But, you start talking sex, and **BLAM** The hammer drops.

 

God bless America, God save the Queen, God help New Zealand and thank God for Australia.


Okay, I'll say something worthwhile now. I don't think the signature was offensive. It was probably meant to be controversial, but despite the fact that I like EU I didn't find it offensive in the least. IMO, it didn't support prostitution or advocate it in any way, I actually thought it condemned it. If the mere mention of prostitution is an offence here, then the mods are going to have a fun time trying to clean up the sexual innuendo in just about every post in the JCC to keep this board clean.