Freedom of speech question>

[KellY]

So, does anybody here think WHSP-BMR-LHH is abusing the freedom of this board? Would kicking him off be a violation of his rights or has he/she already forfeited them? At what point does someone forfeit their right to express themselves, or is that a right that can't be taken away in any circumstances? Curious to everyone's opinion on this.

He reminds me of the Capitalist Pig Camp of 1999, whose goal was to kicked out of the event, thus somehow gaining some kind of moral victory by being able to claim the Burning Man isn't such a free place after all. I believe they finally got kicked out by yelling obscenities (of the nature of "Come here and suck my dick", not just "fuck you") to a man and his pre-adolescent daughter as they were walking by their camp. Personally, I think kicking them out was perfectly justified, but there were a lot of people who thought they shouldn't have been evicted (mostly people who just heard about the situation and never had to deal with them first hand, I'm guessing).

What boils down to for me, is that anarchy is dependant on people voluntarily acting responsibly. When people start acting thoughtlessly, selfishly, and/or spitefully -and I think WHSP is all of the above- rules start getting made to govern their behaviour. Although I must say, I hope that Spanky & Co. don't invent a new rule to justify getting rid of of WHSP, just kick the troll off.

[playasnake]

personally, i think everyone has a right to be a twat if they want... the beauty of this techology though, is that it would be pretty easy to code up a little feature that would remove his/her/its posts from YOUR view... sorta like a 'spam' list... or a 'hide this thread' feature...

they are happy because they get to keep posting nonsense

you are happy because you dont have to wade through it all

and yes, ill volunteer to write it if whoever looks after this thing wants...

the downside however is you'd miss some of Bob's posts, which are really the only reason i check out WHSP-BMR-LHH's posts to begin with

my .016 euros

[dirtytuba]

[quote="KellY"]When people start acting thoughtlessly, selfishly, and/or spitefullyquote]

but who decides that these people are acting thoughtlessly...?

[Bob]

"Freedom of speech"? Doesn't apply.

Doubt it would have applied in the Capitalist Pigs experience. Does buttfucking apply in the buttfucking Jiffylube buttfucking-art incident, because of the buttfucking direct involvement of buttfucking government buttfucking employees.

The LLC owns the bbs and would maintain if they ever saw fit.

They could require all text strings be of the form adjective-noun-verb-verb-verb, if they wanted. Would make a filter easier to program.

[Raheer]

So, does anybody here think WHSP-BMR-LHH is abusing the freedom of this board? Would kicking him off be a violation of his rights or has he/she already forfeited them? ....

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it wouldn't be against his rights to kick him off the edge of the Grand Canyon, but that's just me. I mean, if there's ever been a case with 'justifiable homicide' written all over it, this would be it. But, hell, who am I kidding? He/she/it has every right to write this shit, even if he's managed to offend every single individual on the board -- and most of the married individuals, too.

Raheer

[III]

>if there's ever been a case with 'justifiable homicide' written all over it

probably not. even though the whole "sticks & stones" thing is not codified in any law i'm aware of, it does describe the current legal state rather well...

[playasnake]

unless we can classify him as a terrorist... then we dont have to worry about those pesky civil rights or due process...

[actiongrl]

Spanky and I talked about this article over dinner last night. Thoughts?

http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html

[Booker]

Virtually all of the people who post here *care* about what they say, the event and projects they discuss, the general social expectation of good will, and ultimately one another. People invest their own intentions and emotions in the text they record in this database. If not, why they hell would they bother?

Some people defy that shared intention, for whatever reason. I care not at all whether it's supposed to be about some social experiment (which reduces others to objects under the control of the experimenter) or some cynical, childish attempt just to get a reaction or a way to masturbate their own egos by feeling superior to others. If you use the board to attack the selves that people choose to reveal here, then you've assaulted them. In an extreme case, I'd definitely say "toad the fukr" and without all the histrionics and hand-wringing reported at LambdaMOO. I can think of only one user on this or the previous board to whom I'd apply that sentence, but I'd do it without hesitation, even knowing that only a new email addy would be needed for the offender to resume the B.S.

Nothing here should be interpreted to suggest that everyone must be all nicey nice and express themselves pleasantly at all times. An honest opinion or argument forcefully expressed is a delight to me. Use all the tools language gives you to say your say, right up to the point that it becomes an attack on a person rather than on a position. Beyond that point, expect warnings. Ignore the warnings, and expect your login to go away for misuse of the tool.

In any practical terms, though, all that's needed to solve the vast marjority of such problems is the simple ability for each user to eliminate someone's posts or certain threads from one's own display. The troll can still pile crap upon crap for a while, but when no one reacts (because they never saw that person's stuff) the creature will starve to death. Seems much the easiest way--technically, socially, and personally--to me.

[Kinetic II]

So when is the eplaya's Tom Traceback equivalent going to take a deep breath and act? How many users have to suffer through this? Get these idiots out of here so the rest of us can keep building the community we want, not one that's currently being shaped by the random posts of a madman...a group, or maybe one madman with multiple personality disorders.

It's time for them to go...who's going to sign the death warrant and then do it?

[III]

>Get these idiots out of here so the rest of us can keep building the community we want

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

[sugarlarry]

Throw the bums out. They aren't Communists, Jews, or Catholics. Just plain old-fashioned assholes who are doing everything they can to piss on really good party. The thing is, they are using our ethos against us. We just need to decide how far we let them go. Sometimes they might bring up a valid point, but only to stave off the belief that they mostly shovel shit.

Unlike the Communist, Jews, and Catholics who faced concentration camps, these dudes simply face being left out in the lonely, lonely cold. Nobody is going to hurt them, imprison them, or silence them. They can start their own websites and spew forth as much venom as they wish... much like the infamous Dr. Nick. They are simply being told that they can't do it here.

That is why there is basically no harm in telling Trolls like this to simply get lost. To be honest... I don't fear the moderators of this board throwing people off cuz they question Bmorg policy, or occasionally toss insults about, but if they ditch the occasional jerk who deliberately and malevolently attempts to destroy a community with hostility... who cares?

How is this different from tossing people out of the actual event who deliberately behave in anti-social ways? We wouldn't let people roam around starting fights on the playa... why let em' do it here?

I will sleep quite soundly as will they. They'll be happy thinking that we have proven ourselves hypocrits, and we won't have to listen to their retarded tirades.

[Kinetic II]

So...we should so nothing then?

I wish now that when I had the first K account killed off due to the stalker problem that I had never came back.

While I see where your coming from Trey, I stand by my call to have the trolls removed. It's a private board, they should not be slamming the admins and the backers of said board, and if anyone doesn't like my stance on that, well that's just to bad.

I could write long responses and counterresponses to you all day but it's not going to change a thing for the end user experience of the people that call the eplaya home. Someone with power simply needs to step up and do what is good for the common majority. The minority needs to be represented, and some balance maintained. But in America we are run by the majority. Votes are decided by the majority, not what the minority wants...excuse me for oversimplification and leaving out the funding arguments that equalize it. When applied to this board, it appears that the majority wants the trolls pulled. If there's any doubt put up a poll and get feedback. But then once it's decided the majority wants something, the admins should act. The story of Lambda MOO shows what happens when the wizards took their hands off. It also tells what happened at the end...they realized there are some things that they just had to do.

So...when is our group of admins going to act?

[III]

>we should so nothing then?

not at all - only that *what* we do be defined up front, and not just a reaction based on gut instinct. both you and i would have been on the wrong end of that, at some point.

i'm sure that the members of the etf who are supposed to be working on the community standards are well aware of what's going on here, and are hurriedly working to come up with an acceptable set of standards that will not only clearly describe what behavior is considered acceptable, and what not, but also delineate a set of procedures that will fairly allow people to navigate the edges of those standards (since, supposedly, one of the tenets of burning man is to provide a space where you can push your boundaries) without having to worry about being booted at the first misstep.

i keep hearing that they'd be done any day now, and that people are working on them. if they'd been submitted a month, it's possible that by now they'd have passed the concensus process and be able to be enforced.

i'm with booker in that a decent set of technological tools would reduce the need for people to have to face this sort of behavior, btw. it's a capitalist pigs wet dream: *everyone* is their captive audience.

>To be honest... I don't fear the moderators of this board throwing people off cuz they question Bmorg policy, or occasionally toss insults about

there has already been one instance this year of an admin acting on his own volition to curtail a discussion that he perceived as contradictory to *his* perception of how the board was run. few of the regular posters were happy with his action. (unfortunately, the discussion regarding those actions has been accidentally deleted.)

>How is this different from tossing people out of the actual event

are you even aware of how much effort goes into *not* throwing people out of the event? there are very few circumstances under which it happens, and when it does there is a *lot* of discussion by people very qualified in conflict mediation to find other acceptable means of dealing with the problem. it is very much an action of last resort, and most certainly not engaged in merely on the request of neighboring campmates.

to give you an idea of how serious it is, my camp has been twice (in different years) threatened with eviction by rangers who did not have the authority to do so. in both cases, nothing happened to our camp, but the rangers making the threats were both removed from duty. it is so serious that it not even allowed to be used as a threat.

it is indeed an option. i just hope that the same sort of care is taken here as is on the playa.

[Guest]

Thanks actiongrl for posting that article. It confirms something i came up with a long time ago - it never fails to astonish me that a group of people (in this case, the ones at NYU) will act in ways that any one of them, upon reflection, might consider abhorrent.

We wouldn't let people roam around starting fights on the playa... why let em' do it here?

I think that's what it boils down to.

If a person has been engaged, and told that their actions seem destructive to a number of members of the community, and they keep trolling, then at some point they have to be ejected.

The dude who sang his "fuck off and die, die" song to me at 03 did not seem to be bothering others and it didn't bother me, so it didn't seem to me to be destructive to the community. But when member after member of the community says this person's acts are destroying our community, that's a different story. I gather that's what happenned with the capitalist pig camp, and it sounds like the community acted to eject them.

Free speech does have its limitations.

It always will, and we'll always have to work hard at defining those limits. If we give up on that challenge, then we'll just stand by as people intentionally hurt others with words and defend it by saying, "it's just my art, silly."

[sugarlarry]

"it's just my art, silly."

Which is what I think should be said to a person who has just received a well deserved face punching. Yeah... call me a fascist, but I'm happy to see people like this tossed... and I don't actually advocate "face punching" - I just like to talk big.

The funny thing is, people like these trolls come to places like this because they know that nobody can actually give them the thrashing they so richly deserve. They can simply toss horrible insults about without fear of having to deal with the person they wound.

I realize that there is some risk in handing somebody the responsibility for "governing" community standards, but then it's up to the community to keep an eye or two on those persons. III - your example of a moderator deleting posts they didn't feel appropriate is a risk to be sure, but there have to be some clear cases. I mean what business is it of anyones as to what senior staff are sleeping with each other?

Incidently... why were you threatened with eviction III? If you don't mind my asking?

Abeerinthemorning... tell me more about the "fuck off and die" song.

[Guest]

>Abeerinthemorning... tell me more about the "fuck off and die" song.

Uh, doesn't seem like there's much to tell. A guy named Buzz came up to the camp i was sitting in and said he wanted to sing a song, then stood in front of me and sang some stuff about 'you came to my town', 'you say you don't have no pesos', some other verses i can't remember, and the repeated chorus was a loud rousing "fuck off and die".

I have wondered since though, what the hell was it he rhymed with pesos?

[III]

>it's up to the community to keep an eye or two on those persons

but it's not much god if those persons (a) aren't a part of the ocmmmunity themselves, and (b) don't have any accountability to that community. it's not an intractable problem, but it's something that needs to be paid attention to.

>why were you threatened with eviction III?

2001 - beer cans lying on the ground. my camp is composed of a lot of desert rats, and they go through a *lot* of beer. ( i think we had somewhere around 1.5-2 tons of pbr that year) the standard mo on our camping trips is to, when you're done with the beer, crush the can so it won't blow away in the wind, and throw it on the ground, and pick them all up on the last day. by tuesdsy we were walking on pure beer cans.
a ranger comes in, and starts screaming at us right off the bat that we can't do this, that we're violating leave no trace, and that if we don't pick up the stuff *right now* we'll be evicted. the eventual resolution (once other, more "rangerly"(*) rangers came in) was for hiim to be removed from active duty, and for us to put up a sign that said "jet fuel's beer garden" thus turning it into a piece of art. since half of our camp was worked the clean up crew, it ended up being spotless when we left.

2003 - one of our campmates starts stringing up barbed wire along the roadway next to our camp. ranger comes in screaming that we can't do this, someone will get hurt, that we're assholes for even considering it, and that we'll be evicted. eventually, more "rangerly" rangers show up, figure out the performance art aspect of it, play along and eventually help us remove the barbed wire. the ranger that initiated the contact was, as stated above, removed from duty.

(*) "rangerly" is an adjective used among the rangers to describe non-conflict escalating and non authoritarian interactions in problem situations. it is not always achievable (and the usual m.o. in that case is to allow another ranger who is emotionally capable of dealing with the situation to take over), but it is the desired state of interaction. having to evict someone is authoritarian, and therefore considered a failure of rangerly interaction.

[playasnake]

its not like they dont throw people/things out

http://www.extra-action.com/index.php?page=BM

[Last Real Burner]

"Freedom of Speech does have it 's limitations"

No it does not. We do not need to aministrativly correct anyone here, especially for what i would consider small infractions. It was very easy to push his threads down to nothing, and it was done just by me, had it been an overall group effort his threads would be relegated to the very bottom of the pile and would stay that way indeffinatly. And, yes it is a good idea to post rebuttles to this obvious tripe before sending it to the depths, with a last warning not to further post to the thread. Anyone reviving these will be immediately PM to be aware of posting in the troll's thread. Voila! problem solved (kinda, and happily by the communtiy and not the org) However to initiate or excercise a law, or rule, that our standing offical org must insitute to absolve the problem, only opens a loop hole for future harassement our own rights and freedoms, or even worse a that subsequentially will turn around and bite you in the ass, if you, at some point, be the one, and only one out of the group, to be for/against a specific thing or other, and also be labled as a troll/upsurgent/terrorist person and subsequentially be ejected by the same rule. Remember rule number one "We all live in a yellow submarine!"


.............Why do I always seem different from everyone else?.................


"Ironic isn't it?" Bugs
"More like Moronic" Daffy

too long windedly,
mr smith

[Guest]

"Freedom of Speech does have it 's limitations"

No it does not.

...with a last warning not to further post to the thread....Anyone reviving these will be immediately PM to be aware of posting in the troll's thread.

Then what's the warning "not to further post to the thread" and the PM's, if not a limitation imposed by you on others free speech? I don't understand how you can't see that as your own limitation on others free speech.

[Last Real Burner]

Tru Dat


Well at least we can abuse them when we catch them on the playa!

remarkably,
mr smith

[sugarlarry]

I have to say I'm changing my opinion on what to do about the trolls. I hate the idea of banning anyone unless they are actually a danger. These little farts are little more then a nuisance. Still... I kinda hope they choke on something.

To bad about the Contessa being banned, but yeah... I saw that thing careening around the Playa at high speed a few times - frequently in crowded areas.

[precipitate]

KellY:
> What boils down to for me, is that anarchy is dependant on people
> voluntarily acting responsibly.

Absolutely. Anarchy is. However, this isn't anarchy. As an ideal, maybe
(though I doubt the LLC has anarchy on the LLC charter). As a reality,
anarchy has never worked. But - and it's a big but - any medium like this
depends on the majority of its members acting in concert. We may
disagree, but we disagree civilly. We may say fuck off, but that's not our
only response. Technical solutions to this problem help. That's why I
advocate subscriptions and (reluctantly, but forcefully) plonking specific
users. I'd love to see a totally anarchic system working but I expect to die
before that happens. I think that the majority of face-to-face interchanges
on the playa work according to the anarchic ideal (but perhaps only
because people tend to suspend their normal social mode; that's ok), but
electronic communications do not have the same consequences. You're
distanced from your adversary, and he is protected by that distance. You
are not, unless you choose to be. It's a losing battle.

Booker:
> Nothing here should be interpreted to suggest that everyone must be all
> nicey nice and express themselves pleasantly at all times.

Amen, brother. I fervently hope the community guidelines don't ever say
you have to be nice. I'd add that anything unpleasant be stated with a
specific purpose in mind, and not simply to vent bile. That anything
unpleasant not simply be a personal attack because you're pissed, but a
personally-directed comment intended to nudge the offender towards
behavior more likely to elicit a productive response, or to explain why the
thing in question is inflammatory. And that recalcitrant offenders
ultimately be ignored.

abitm:
> Free speech does have its limitations.

No, it doesn't. At least, not in the way I think you mean. I believe people
should be free to say what they believe. And hopefully what they mean.
WSPR is launching ad hominem attacks, which may be deemed to be
outside community guidelines. What he's doing, however, is eliciting a
response for completely different reasons than De Facto is. De Facto is
trying to "fix" the eplaya, and in the process being an incomprehensible
idiot. The end result, to me, is unclear. The process, however, has proved
to everyone with some semblance of common sense that he's a complete
fucktard. And that's just fine. I wish I could easily ignore his stuff, but I
can't. When I can, it'll cease to be an issue. WSPR offends me, but I can't
easily say that I think he shouldn't say what he has. I think it should be
easier for me to ignore it. I want community standards that truly
represent what we're trying to do here. And I want technical controls that
allow me to manage my own experience, as I do on the playa.

[SED]

I want community standards that truly
represent what we're trying to do here. And I want technical controls that
allow me to manage my own experience, as I do on the playa.

Would you settle for a bowie knife and a bag of peanuts?

[precipitate]

> Would you settle for a bowie knife and a bag of peanuts?

I have a perfectly serviceable knife. Would you care to suspend the
societal norms prohibiting murder or grievous bodily damage?

[SED]

> Would you settle for a bowie knife and a bag of peanuts?

I have a perfectly serviceable knife. Would you care to suspend the
societal norms prohibiting murder or grievous bodily damage?

Uh, sure.

Can I do that?

[Last Real Burner]

Sure you can and I'll second the motion.


Who's our first tartget of Justice? Trey? We can find something on him (he is after all a clown) He'd put up a good fight.

justifiably,
mr smith

[Guest]

abitm:
> Free speech does have its limitations.

Precipitate:
No, it doesn't. At least, not in the way I think you mean. I believe people
should be free to say what they believe. And hopefully what they mean.
WSPR is launching ad hominem attacks, which may be deemed to be
outside community guidelines...... I want community standards that truly represent what we're trying to do here. And I want technical controls that allow me to manage my own experience, as I do on the playa.

You've given me a lot to think about Precipitate. Thank you for that.

I guess the issue for me is ad hominem (i just learned that word) attacks in my opinion can hurt people. And i guess the best response i can come up with to that feeling is to try and work on weeding out that tendency in my own life.

Denouncing when others do it seems to me to come up against the freedom to speak your mind. I hope that in the future such denunciations of behavior will not be done behind the scenes with pm's to others, as LRB advocates, but directly.

[Bob]

"Freedom of speech" and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America traditionally refers to limits the government in the United States of America might put on your right to read the LA phone book over a megaphone outside your United States of America bedroom window at three in the morning -- not the ability on your part and the tacit consent on the LLC's part to collude in crapping on the eplaya.