PDA

View Full Version : Remove names of DoJ staff from the forbidden word list


treelogger
08-12-2006, 6:44 PM
Can we please remove the first name of the deputy attorney general (you know, the lady whose first name begins with A and her last name begins with M) from the forbidden word list? And while we are at it, do the same to the name of the DoJ agent whose initials are I.C. ?

It makes discussions of regulatory and legal matters ridiculous. One would hope that the members of this board are adult enough to know what to post and not to post. In the past, some people stepped over the line the admins and moderators have set, but one would assume that people know what not to say, and if necessary the admin and moderator can always clean up.

Thanks!

Kestryll
08-12-2006, 7:45 PM
Unfortunately the indescrestions of the past came home to roost directly on the owner of this site, not the people who actually did the deed as it were.
Given the scrutiny this site has gotten and still gets I don't think things will be changing soon.
It was assumed that peole would know what not to say before, it was a mistaken assumption. I'm sure people have learned but I would not be willing to take the risk with my name on the 'pink slip'.

The word filter is with us for awhile, kinda like heavy triggers and redundant safeties.

edwardm
08-15-2006, 7:55 AM
Amazing.

People on this board gripe and moan about their "freedoms" and yet allow the owner to engage in all manner of censorship and abridgement.

I realize the difference between a public and private forum, but this has gone too far. Screw this place. I guess I'll be spending the next several days getting a forum up and running where people are actually *free* and won't have to deal with the petty stupidity that goes on under current management.

What's next? Adding the names of the president and vice president to the "forbidden" word list? Should we just engage in GroupThink and NewSpeak, while we're at it? Where does it stop? In my experience, it never stops.

You guys keep wrapping yourself in the 2nd Amendment, and pissing on the 1st. That makes insane amounts of sense.

treelogger
08-15-2006, 9:29 AM
As the OP, allow me to comment a little bit on this posting:

People on this board gripe and moan about their "freedoms" and yet allow the owner to engage in all manner of censorship and abridgement.
Disagree. The admin (and moderators) are trying really hard to run the best possible forum within the limitations of their available time, effort, and $$$. We are quibbling about what the fine details of the best possible way; but I have no fundamental disagreement with their goals and tools, including what you call censorship.

I guess I'll be spending the next several days getting a forum up and running where people are actually *free* and won't have to deal with the petty stupidity that goes on under current management.
Go ahead. Judging from this post, I'll be happy to see you go. Ifyou really try to set up a forum that is "free" (in the sense that you don't moderate, steer, select, and guide), you'll end up with an utterly useless flamefest. After a short while, all you'll get is reposts of ultra-right-wing and survivalist posts from other media.

Should we just engage in GroupThink and NewSpeak, while we're at it?
No. We should not. We were often in danger of getting there, for example when people took out their anger at Glen Avon, simply because he disagreed with them and was very very sharp. But so far, the problem has not become too bad.

You guys keep wrapping yourself in the 2nd Amendment, and pissing on the 1st.
A. I don't wrap myself in the 2nd amendment. I actually think that the 2nd amendment is the biggest problem that prevents us from getting gun rights in the US. In my opinion (with which many people disagree), it would be better (for shooters, gun owners, and hunters) if the 2nd amendment vanished.
B. The 1st amendment simply doesn't apply. It has nothing to do with the situation. It applies to the federal government passing laws that restrict the freedom of speech, and even there it is full of loopholes (you should try using the 1st amendment to justify passing secrets from Livermore to Bin Laden sometime). It might apply to state and local governments. By quoting the 1st amendment here, you are abusing it.

Kestryll
08-15-2006, 9:56 AM
Treelogger has put it very well, I would like to add a bit of information however.

Not too long ago we had several members posting not only the names but personal histories, family information, financial info and other thing far more personal hen needs be on a forum.
While I don't believe there was ever any intended malice it did go way too far. All of the info was available online and I think it became less about the individuals being researched and more about one upmanship with the other members as to who could find what. Kind of a 'My google-fu is stronger than yours!' kind of thing.
Unfortunately it was not taken as just a joke or game as some of the info and contexts could have been taken as threatening. At that point it became less a matter of allowing members to post and more a case of avoiding litigation and possible criminal charges (I'm projecting possibilities here, I'm not aware of any charges being mentioned but I'm not sure either way).

This is why this stricture is in place. If you feel it is that onerous of a rule by all means start your own forum and move on. You will find that there is a bit more to it than just posting and having fun, like all things there are responibilities as well. If you wish to no longer be member here PM me and I will accomodate you in that as well.

rkt88edmo
08-15-2006, 10:05 AM
The restrictions do not impede discussion of legislation, & the players involved. If they make it harder for people who would abuse the forum to make personal attacks and post personal information about people innappropriately, then it is for the best.

Omega13device
08-15-2006, 12:44 PM
Amazing.

People on this board gripe and moan about their "freedoms" and yet allow the owner to engage in all manner of censorship and abridgement.

I realize the difference between a public and private forum, but this has gone too far. Screw this place. I guess I'll be spending the next several days getting a forum up and running where people are actually *free* and won't have to deal with the petty stupidity that goes on under current management.

What's next? Adding the names of the president and vice president to the "forbidden" word list? Should we just engage in GroupThink and NewSpeak, while we're at it? Where does it stop? In my experience, it never stops.

You guys keep wrapping yourself in the 2nd Amendment, and pissing on the 1st. That makes insane amounts of sense.

Here is the text of the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress has nothing to do with this board, so the Admin is not "pissing on the 1st" amendment. You should try to understand what you're talking about before you spout off.

edwardm
08-15-2006, 5:39 PM
Here is the text of the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress has nothing to do with this board, so the Admin is not "pissing on the 1st" amendment. You should try to understand what you're talking about before you spout off.

I understand quite well what I am talking about. Although the 1st Amendment protects us from actions by Congress which abridge free speech (to be specific, it prevents Congress from taking action against *protected* speech, so the distinction is important here), and against actions by state and municipal actors under the Doctrine of Incorporation (see also: 14th Amendment), the idea (which you failed to see or I failed to explain clearly) was not that the 1st Amendment would somehow be a bar to what the admin is doing (it is not). Instead, by squelching speech in a publicly accessible, though privately owned, forum, the Admin is effectively engaging in voluntary censorship, making state action unnecessary to the ultimate goal - to shut people up and make them afraid to talk about certain topics.

If you actually thought my argument was that the 1st Amendment would somehow prevent the board owner from taking certain actions, you're completely missing the point. Proxy censorship by private entities with the goal of pleasing government bodies (i.e. CalDOJ and their agents, i.e. I. C. and A. M.), is just as onerous.

So yes, by engaging in voluntary, legal censorship, The Admin limits your ability to speak and does the government's job for it while incurring no legal detriment.

metalhead357
08-15-2006, 7:44 PM
So yes, by engaging in voluntary, legal censorship, The Admin limits your ability to speak and does the government's job for it while incurring no legal detriment.

In YOUR house~ your rules,
In MY house, my rules; dont like 'em then BYE! And I'd even show ya' the door:D

This is Ramon's house......... does that make it simpler for ya'?

edwardm
08-15-2006, 8:36 PM
In YOUR house~ your rules,
In MY house, my rules; dont like 'em then BYE! And I'd even show ya' the door:D

This is Ramon's house......... does that make it simpler for ya'?

Then perhaps he should lock his doors and turn off the lights.

The analogy is weak, at best.

SemiAutoSam
08-15-2006, 8:45 PM
How is this point of view weak I don't like to take sides normally but ITS not my board its not anyone elses board but Ramon's, And while I don't like to be told what to post either I can understand what his motives are for asking us to follow the rules.

IT IS HIS HOUSE you are a guest behave like a guest.

metalhead357
08-15-2006, 9:09 PM
Then perhaps he should lock his doors and turn off the lights.

The analogy is weak, at best.

LOL! Weak? I dont think so... Not unlike the 1st & 2 amend arguments given:rolleyes: His site...his rules.

Its NOT a democracy here. Its NOT a government here; his place...his rules. NOBODY made you come here, or keep coming here; abide by his rules, ask for them to be changed if you dont like them, accept them or move on if they're not and you cant deal with it..........

Kestryll
08-15-2006, 9:50 PM
Some people are just not going to be happy no matter what.
I think this question has been answered as thoroughly as necessary.
edwardm, if you find it that distasteful you are free to go elsewhere, if you stay and insist on deriding the members and the owner of this forum you will be helped on your way.