[luke warm]

'zactly right, carol

[glen]

Rain, on May 1 2006, 08:27 PM, said:

I have some things to say...

Your first post was : My favourite blog was xxxxxx
I deleted the whole thread because, as Dean stated, that blog was most famous for deriding another member. We don't allow that url in BBO. We won't allow it in BBF either. Since the main gist of your post would be gone when I deleted that thread, I decided to erase the whole thread, and instead write the reasons its deleted. (Instead of editing it I mean).

I'm confused - initially did you delete a whole thread, as you said you did, or one post?

Assuming it was one post, I believe the offending link should have been removed, the rest of the post kept even if the gist might be lost, and the poster informed not to use the link again. Deleting a post should not be done if an edit will fix the problem, even if the post loses some context. Likewise deleting a whole thread should not be done if removing a post will fix the problem.

To Justin, I suggest you keep a copy of lengthy posts you make, if you continue to make them on BBO. Then if/when one is deleted, you can post it on your blog (and/or rec.games.bridge), with a note that it was censored. Since censored material gets a larger audience, you will find it gets read by more than would have done so without censorship, thus defeating the delete.

I've been a victim of a clearly unreasonable mod in a sports forum, and despite the efforts of a whole bunch of senior members to have the mod see the light, it did not get resolved quickly. So I ended up at another forum, and it turned out to be much better. Having said that, I think BBO forums are well worth the investment in time, and one should not allow some temporary aggravation to stop your posting here.

[pigpenz]

Rain, on May 1 2006, 03:27 PM, said:

2) Jdonn, Sceptic, Pigpenz, whoever.

I think sceptic's post is much less offensive than being called "officious" or now, after the edit, labelled a terrorist. Babies can be cute. Terrorists, never. But both can stand unless other moderators want to remove it.

Rain?????
i think you misunderstood the terrorist part......!
its often been said that if the 911 terrorists affect your life then they have won by taking away some of your freedoms.......for Jlall then if he decides not to post on here cause he got his hand slapped then they have won. He should just stay here and keep posting and get his hand slapped some more like I continually get mine slapped

[Sigi_BC84]

My briefly stated opinion on this farce:

1. After I've found out about the blog in question, I must say that there is a lot of interesting reading on there and it took me a while to find the part of it which is apparently offensive to some. Somebody certainly gets ridiculed there, but if the quotes are authentic I must say that is for a reason (sorry dude...). The blog certainly is not about bridge in general, and if Justin likes it I think you should not disallow his link because somebody might be offended by a small part of the site.

2. IF you think you had to censor in this case, it should have been done more carefully, i.e. by providing some explanation in the edit about the reason. Also the replies by Justin should not have been edited out completely.

3. Justin, take a time out and return after a while. A lot of people would miss your contributions to this forums.

I've seen worse things happening on public forums (being partly guilty in one case even), this issue is being taken a bit too serious in my eyes.

After all the other heated Water Cooler discussions about really serious topics now this gets turned into a major issue. How ironic.

--Sigi

[Badmonster]

Justin, I totally get the concept of voting with your feet. However, I want to point out that chances are that you'll miss talking with us (the bbf community) almost as much as we'll miss reading your posts. So, you'll make your point, but you'll leave a hole, and you may not be happier for it. I'll miss you.

Come back.

[kenberg]

I have been putting 2 and 2 together here, and I guess I get what happened.

I am aware of the fact that a cadre of players have somehow come to regard the ridicule of one individual as a great group entertainment. While face to face razzing that has a beginning and an end is part of life, maybe even a useful part of life in its educational aspects, this prolonged public assault demeans us all. Apparently nothing will put a stop to it, indeed the practitioners take pride in the criticism they receive.


I can simply ignore the assault. Not my business. However BBO has a site with a forum, so they cannot entirely escape the issue. I gather the bbo staff has decided not to allow its site to support this activity, however indirectly. There is something to be said for this decision.

Sadistic behavior rarely leads to anything good. This thread seems to bear that out.

K

[Badmonster]

kenberg, on May 1 2006, 10:53 PM, said:

I have been putting 2 and 2 together here, and I guess I get what happened.

I am aware of the fact that a cadre of players have somehow come to regard the ridicule of one individual as a great group entertainment. While face to face razzing that has a beginning and an end is part of life, maybe even a useful part of life in its educational aspects, this prolonged public assault demeans us all. Apparently nothing will put a stop to it, indeed the practitioners take pride in the criticism they receive.


I can simply ignore the assault. Not my business. However BBO has a site with a forum, so they cannot entirely escape the issue. I gather the bbo staff has decided not to allow its site to support this activity, however indirectly. There is something to be said for this decision.

Sadistic behavior rarely leads to anything good. This thread seems to bear that out.

K

Ken I agree with you to an extent. I had someone point out that whole business to me on rec.games. bridge, and thought it seemed like a sign of deevolution. Like apes our baser nature seems geared towards finding someone to throw out of the pack. But I don't think that issue is THE issue here.

The issue seems to be that someone who is a huge contributer, and large part of these forums is hurt and leaving. Another issue is that the whole thing is probably very uncomfortable for Rain as well.

Is it possible to restore a post? If it is can the post be restored without the link? And if it could would that be enough to make everyone if not happy, at least not unhappy?

[pigpenz]

this whole thing reminds me of how some were posting about G@@@@d. When they were banned from here it just went to newsgroups. .Maybe what rains needs to do is put some sort of disclaimer when joining the forums .....thats the posts here dont necessarily reflect the views or opinons of BridgeBase Online.....then the posts will police themselves......in otherwords if its interesting it will keep going if not it will die it out.....I think it should up to the users of the forums to decide the relevance, good or bad of a post....and a disclaimer would take care of the liablity of BBO. If a post is bad and users feel it is not apropriate then the users will let the poster know. does this not have something to do with the freedom of speach?

[Kalvan14]

Badmonster, on May 1 2006, 10:46 PM, said:

Justin, I totally get the concept of voting with your feet. However, I want to point out that chances are that you'll miss talking with us (the bbf community) almost as much as we'll miss reading your posts. So, you'll make your point, but you'll leave a hole, and you may not be happier for it. I'll miss you.

Come back.

Badmonster has expressed my feelings too.

I'll miss you too, Justin: come back

[Flame]

I think its also important to see the actual result of the cencoring, I didnt know there is someone who doesnt like someone else and talk about him over the net, im sure alot and probelby most members didnt knew about it either, but with all this mess i got curious and found the site. The truth it i still didnt find the it because the site with tons of information but i wiill probebly find it. Suppose the post havent been delelted , most likely nothing would have happend, noone who didnt know wouldnt have discovered something new.

[Brandal]

Flame, on May 2 2006, 03:50 AM, said:

I think its also important to see the actual result of the cencoring, I didnt know there is someone who doesnt like someone else and talk about him over the net, im sure alot and probelby most members didnt knew about it either, but with all this mess i got curious and found the site. The truth it i still didnt find the it because the site with tons of information but i wiill probebly find it. Suppose the post havent been delelted , most likely nothing would have happend, noone who didnt know wouldnt have discovered something new.

Yeah....I have no idea whatsoever what this is about,
but:

If I was ridiculed on some more or less "obscure" blog,
I certainly would not like it linked in here,whatever the
ridiculing was about.

I always ask myself "what if this was me",when facing
issues not concerning me directly.

I don't want to have an opinion,since I don't know anything
about this blog/link.

Ultimatums don't work well online Justin,that I do know...

There's always two sides,no matter how thin you slice it

[Al_U_Card]

If I say privately to another person "So-and-so, is such a ....." Then that person can evaluate my statement, my motives and decide for themself whether to keep or change their opinion of me and/or the person referenced.

When a public statement is made, all the above goes out the window. People like to criticize and belittle others to make themselves feel more comfortable. We all have good and bad qualities. Public attacks are way too easy to be taken out of context and to be given credence simply because they were made in a public forum....

Rain is performing a duty conferred upon her by management. Her guidelines are clear and they are well described for all to see. Keeping the riff-raff out will only improve the situation as those miscreants will either toe-the-line or leave, and good riddance to those that do.

[Badmonster]

Al_U_Card, on May 2 2006, 08:39 AM, said:

If I say privately to another person "So-and-so, is such a ....." Then that person can evaluate my statement, my motives and decide for themself whether to keep or change their opinion of me and/or the person referenced.

When a public statement is made, all the above goes out the window. People like to criticize and belittle others to make themselves feel more comfortable. We all have good and bad qualities. Public attacks are way too easy to be taken out of context and to be given credence simply because they were made in a public forum....

Rain is performing a duty conferred upon her by management. Her guidelines are clear and they are well described for all to see. Keeping the riff-raff out will only improve the situation as those miscreants will either toe-the-line or leave, and good riddance to those that do.

Do you really think Justin is a miscreant? I do not.

[Al_U_Card]

The reference was to those individuals that publicly criticize someone. I gather that this reprehensible behavior was in the referenced blog.

What anyone has to say about anyone else during the subsequent debate, and whether it makes them a miscreant, is to be determined. I don't believe I even implied such a thing. If that was your inference, sorry.

[Codo]

As most, I will miss Justins views. He was gifted with a talent to explain his ideas and he had many great ideas.

But I dislike his complaint about Rain.
She does an awful good job as a master of a critical threat. As Fred pointed out: There are many loose-loose situations for her, so any person should accept the ruling, even if you think, that this ruling was unfair.
My god, I have to make thousands of descission any single day. Are they all good? No, surely not. And surely, Rain (or Inquiry, or whoever) had made mistakes during their hard work as a moderator. So what? Do I believe, that Justin (or me, or the pope) had made less mistakes? Never.

So please Justin, come back, calm down and tell me more of your ideas. I want to sit and learn.

About the banned site: I had not banned it, but again, this is not an easy task to handle. She had to decide and decided. Right she was and so was her descission, even if I had decided different.

[Badmonster]

Al_U_Card, on May 2 2006, 08:59 AM, said:

The reference was to those individuals that publicly criticize someone. I gather that this reprehensible behavior was in the referenced blog.

What anyone has to say about anyone else during the subsequent debate, and whether it makes them a miscreant, is to be determined. I don't believe I even implied such a thing. If that was your inference, sorry.

The silliness was referenced, but the blog is hardly dedicated to this nonsense.

[Al_U_Card]

Badmonster, on May 2 2006, 09:15 AM, said:

The silliness was referenced, but the blog is hardly dedicated to this nonsense.

But the criteria were clear as was Rain's decision and need for it. 1 part lie and 99 parts truth is still a lie.....

[fred]

It is an unfortunate fact of reality for us that we have to define "offensive" and "inappropriate" largely as a function of what our members think.

You may find it irrational that there are people out there who find the blog in question (or a link to it from forums) to be offensive or inappropriate.

But we are the ones who have to deal with the people who complain.

If a given post results in a single complaint then we might use our judgment in order to decide whether we think the post in question is offensive or not.

But if a given post results in several complaints, it is reasonable for us to conclude that there are more people out there who have been offended. We have to take some kind of action, regardless of what we think of the offensiveness-level of the post.

Believe me, life would be a lot more pleasant for us if we could simply ignore all complaints from all of our members.

Since the decisions we make sometimes involve human judgment, we are not going to get all of them "right". Since some decisions we make will upset some people regardless of what we decide, we are sometimes in a no-win situation.

So if you happen to disagree with a particular decision we make, please try to have a little sympathy for the position we are in before condemning our the actions that we decide to take.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Chamaco]

I think that what happened is a demonstration of Uday's fear: he posted that the "Water cooler" section was becomeing more like a "Water boiler" section.

Indeed, I think that the basic idea of opening a space to discuss NON-BRIDGE topics was cool, but IMO one side effect seems to have become that some people , directly or indirectly, have perceived this opening sort of like "opening the gates" for any nonsense...
(This is just in general, I am not referring to Justin's attitude- just to make it clear)

BTW, I think that, generally speaking, the moderators have done a great job so far to keep the BB Forum safe from flame wars and other nonsense we can read in other unmoderated forums.

It is true that most often flame wars just fade away on their own, but, still, the quality of the discussion here is by far more appealing.

[Al_U_Card]

One last analogy. You decide to drive faster than the speed limit (the published rules of conduct) and a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket. Is he restricting your "right" to drive as you please? No, he is enforcing the laws enacted and explained.