ModSquad Update - July 20 to July 26, 2003

I think the problem is that, while J*sh may have said that this is the rule and it's not going to change, and that is fine and dandy and whatever, his reasoning and justification for this stance is completely deficient.

How is the main justification deficient? The main justification is that it is his site and he decided for personal reasons not to allow it here. It needs no further justification than that.

Is that any different than a private bookstore deciding that it will not carry any pronographic materials (i.e. playboy, penthouse, etc) because of the owner's personal beliefs? Or how about a private restaurant not serving alcohol because of the owner's private convictions?

In the end, the justification you have been given but refuse to accept is that this is Josh's site, and he does not want it here. If that's not good enough for you, that's too bad. Take it up with him directly.

However, complaining about it on the boards will not change anything. Josh has no need or reason to listen to you if you keep pushing on this subject. (I might also point out that he is an administrator, with full authority to ban users, and under the TOS he can do so at any time for any reason.)

If you want to get more results, don't go through messages on the board, where he might not even see them. Try a more direct approach.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The KKK have made up their own morals based on their prejudices; a Christian who believes that acting in a homosexual fashion is a sin is acting on the principles set forth by the Bible.

Just because the bible says that homosexuality is wrong, doesn't mean that it is. In fact, far, far from it. One could say that the bible has made up its own morals, in regards to homosexuality, based on its prejudices of the time in which it was written.

...Does that mean that I have to let people post homosexual content on my own website? Of course not. Should I be forced by others to do so? Of course not.

I agree. It's your call, just like it's Josh's call in this situation. I'm not forcing Josh to do anything. But that doesn't mean I can't justify my reasons as to why I disagree with the rules he's put in place.

Going back to your example, if a KKK member ran a popular SW website and said that no stories or posts could contain colored people, should you harass that person into letting you do so? Or should you go to another site that does allow it? Is it even worth fighting?

If I had posted at a particular board for a period of time and enjoyed the time there, I wouldn't leave for the sake of my convictions, because I still would have enjoyed sections of the site and board that weren't effected by the policy, but I wouldn't just sit back and say that the owners racist views were fine and dandy, either. I would raise my point, just as I've done here, in the hope that change may occur for the betterment of the boards overall. If no change occurs, well, that's out of my control, anyway, but at least I would have tried.

edit:
How is the main justification deficient?
I've already pointed that in the above post. Please re-read.

In the end, the justification you have been given but refuse to accept is that this is Josh's site, and he does not want it here. If that's not good enough for you, that's too bad. Take it up with him directly.

I understand this is Josh's site and he can do what he wants. I've said this myself. You even quoted me saying this, for crying out loud. And what's the difference in taking it up with him directly or posting it in Communications? If he doesn't have time to read matters expressly relating to him in this forum, then he won't have much time in listening to PMs.

However, complaining about it on the boards will not change anything. Josh has no need or reason to listen to you if you keep pushing on this subject. (I might also point out that he is an administrator, with full authority to ban users, and under the TOS he can do so at any time for any reason.)

For the last time, I understand that Josh has no reason to listen to me. I don't care if he doesn't. It's his loss, however, if he doesn't want to listen to those whose opinions may, shock horror, be different to his own, but it isn't my fault if what I communicate in the Communications forum is never bothered to be listened to by the one it is being addressed to. Even if he never reads this thread, there is still no wrong in communicating a view which is, as far as I'm concerned, something that is for the overall benefit of the site and the boards.

And if I was banned for providing my own personal opinion on a matter, then I would leave the site. I'm not even sure why you brought that up.

 

Just because the bible says that homosexuality is wrong, doesn't mean that it is. In fact, far, far from it. One could say that the bible has made up its own morals, in regards to homosexuality, based on its prejudices of the time in which it was written.

Unless, of course, you accept the Bible as the word of God. Since you apparently do not, you are not working from the same context as the administration as this site, and you'll never see eye-to-eye.

I view the Bible as the ultimate moral authority, and therefore must accept that homosexual acts are sinful.

I agree. It's your call, just like it's Josh's call in this situation. I'm not forcing Josh to do anything. But that doesn't mean I can't justify my reasons as to why I disagree with the rules he's put in place.

And you're right, you can do that. If you don't continually argue the point here, trying to get it changed here, then you're not even one of the people that I was originally speaking to.

If I had posted at a particular board for a period of time and enjoyed the time there, I wouldn't leave for the sake of my convictions, because I still would have enjoyed sections of the site and board that weren't effected by the policy, but I wouldn't just sit back and say that the owners racist views were fine and dandy, either. I would raise my point, just as I've done here, in the hope that change may occur for the betterment of the boards overall. If no change occurs, well, that's out of my control, anyway, but at least I would have tried.

Speaking your piece is one thing. There's nothing wrong with that. Continually harrassing the JC staff about a policy that is out of their hands is another, and was the point I was trying to make. If you really care about the issue, either take it to the appropriate people, or find a site that fits your ideology. But don't continually post on the issue in a place that can't do anything about it.

That was my main point of contention with some of those posting in this thread, not that their views were or were not valid. I originally said that if you constantly post and harass over an issue, then you will invariably invalidate your position because people will stop listening to you. If you don't do that, then there isn't a problem.

 

Unless, of course, you accept the Bible as the word of God. Since you apparently do not, you are not working from the same context as the administration as this site, and you'll never see eye-to-eye.

If the bible is one of the deciding factors for TFN policy, why does Josh, a Christian, allow for the discussion of other "deviant" activities like Wicca or even the allowed discussion of homosexuality in some forums? That's another factor I'm not sure on, but I guess will never find out.

Speaking your piece is one thing. There's nothing wrong with that. Continually harrassing the JC staff about a policy that is out of their hands is another, and was the point I was trying to make.

I understand where you're coming from. Of course, in my post above I stated:

I guess that's all I'll say on the issue now, unless something else new comes up later down the track.

... it's only the rebuttals I've been forced to make from people who wanted to pick apart my post that have escalated what I said.

 

I didn't start by picking apart your post, epic. I took issue with one thing you said that others cheered on, and I went from there.

Anyway, I think that everything that can be said has been short of veering off into a religious debate, which I am not willing to do here.

Thanks to all of you for listening to what I had to say, even if we disagree. I hope no one leaves here upset because of anything that I've said; I've merely stated my opinion.

 

I understand this is Josh's site and he can do what he wants. I've said this myself. You even quoted me saying this, for crying out loud. And what's the difference in taking it up with him directly or posting it in Communications? If he doesn't have time to read matters expressly relating to him in this forum, then he won't have much time in listening to PMs.

Josh doesn't sit and read through every thread in Communications. Communications is designed for aiding communication between the users and the administration as a whole. As such it is an inefficient means to try to raise his awareness or convince him to change his policy.

Email is a much more direct and personal means of communication. He does read every email (with the possible exception of spam). If you wish to convince him (rather than just complain about things as they are), then I suggest that you try his email address I linked to in my last post.

For the last time, I understand that Josh has no reason to listen to me. I don't care if he doesn't. It's his loss, however, if he doesn't want to listen to those whose opinions may, shock horror, be different to his own, but it isn't my fault if what I communicate in the Communications forum is never bothered to be listened to by the one it is being addressed to. Even if he never reads this thread, there is still no wrong in communicating a view which is, as far as I'm concerned, something that is for the overall benefit of the site and the boards.

However, by continuing to loudly complain about an issue that you have been told specifically is not up for debate, you are borderline trolling and spamming. Communications is not a forum designed for you to just complain all you want. It is here to aid the communication between the administration and the users. This issue has been covered ad nauseum, and the answer has not changed. Even with a clear statement from Josh (in the Homosexuality and TF.N thread, quoted earlier by me), you don't want to accept it. This is not the place for you to harp on this issue.

Kimball Kinnison

 

If this thread doesn't get off its current path, I'll lock it down for good.

All of this has repeatedly been covered at length in previous threads.

 

So, what's everyone think of that Choose-Your-Own-Adventure forum idea?

 

So, what's everyone think of that Choose-Your-Own-Adventure forum idea?

It sounds like fun. I would definitely be interested in seeing how it would be implemented. You know, more ideas I can rip off for my own site.

 

Nice subtle topic change.

Anyway, if you guys could perhaps give us more information on it, I could make an informed decision.

Unless you want me to make an uninformed one for once, in which case I think it's a dumb idea.




Kaze wa mirai ni fuku

 

Edit: Misunderstood.

 

Um, in that case then, it seems like a waste of time, not to mention that it'll either a) take up more valuable mod time, or b) create the need for another mod.

Neither of those appeal to me.




Kaze wa mirai ni fuku

 

Well, even though I was referring to something else, I don't know that there's actually any more information forthcoming on this either (although I think it's pretty much been decided that it's not going to happen).

 

"I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexual acts are a sin."

So is lying, so is lust, so is adultery, along with many other things. Yet there's no rule against having a character in fanfic lie, or lust after someone(so long as that someone is of the opposite sex) or cheat on their spouse.

The Bible may call homosexuality a sin, but it also says that no sin is greater than another, and that we are all sinners.


Don't sweep this under the rug KW, you're better than that.

 

I'm not sweeping anything under the rug. This discussion has gone on through several threads and has brought forth as much answers from the administration as you're going to get.

Any further discussion on it will get this thread locked. Homosexuality itself can be discussed in the Senate, as you know.

 

Alright. I've made my points anyway, I'll just let them marinate until the next time this comes up.

 

If you lock the thread, it'll just start the conversation somewhere else(see the previous locked threads).

I don't think it's fair to keep locking the threads because you don't like where the discussions going. Also, Kimball, I don't think Epic needs instructions on how to best communicate with Josh.

This subject is never going away, locked threads or not. I will not violate the TOS, but I will continue to voice my displeasure until this injustice is corrected.

I'd also like to point out that I am just back from a banning, my first in a couple of years. While I was baiting(reason for the ban), even the mod who erased it and reported it didn't think it would amount to a banning. I find it more than a little strange that as soon as I ask some tough questions about policies here at TFN, I find myself on the wrong end of the ban button.Especially when the sock I was giving a hard time was being intentionally obtuse and difficult, and had spent a good deal of time just trying to derail the conversation.

I've been considering taking some action outside the Boards, also. My wife and I may make a trip into South End of Boston, and hit a few gay bars. There , we will pass out flyers, describing the situation here and giving the web address as well.I may also take out a huge ad in the Boston Phoenix, describing the situation here. Maybe others will do the same in their cities.Soon, the site should be flooded with more homo's than you can shake a stick of mascara at, all of them bitching and moaning until their fellow gay SW fans get some equality around here.

Or, we could all just enter the year 2003, stop protecting the under 13 crowd that isn't even supposed to be here, and treat everyone as equals, instead of some morally unmentionable pariahs. Just a thought.

 

And that does it for this thread.