now that we have become everything we stand against!

hello everyone,

depending on the politicals powers that be... this may be my last post on this forum!

this for all to read but intended for skip... indirectly maggiesugar....

skip, it took me a awhile and alot of post some good some bad to become a member, becuase i wanted to be a member, used to run home and check my post for responses and just the overall community! however when we as a people allow our pride to justify acts we consider implorable, we then become no better than that in which we rally against!

my former name on here was willpower a name id like to have back! i posted a response to a thread, and i used a metaphor that the moderator didnt agree with...maggiesugar... she then privatley demandly i apologize for the words i used... i will not and did not... for when one uses a metaphor the clarity is in interpretation.... i said nothing direct or accusational... not to menetion other forum members expressed the same sentiment they used different words.... sir i humbly ask you... is this not a free speech forum? so then at what point does it become a free speech forum only if you say what you want to say the way we want you to say it? cuz it hurt some feelings? man there would be noone on this forums if everyone was banned for hurting a feeling or bruising someones ego or pride... those are life lessons and you either commit suicide or you swallow it and go on.... if it the consensus of the administrative forum to ban me then i will stay out... but im asking you for a formal investigation to see if my ban was warranted or the bullseye on someones power target... i idnt say or do anything wrong and just the fact that maggie sugar felt as if she was superior enough to me to demand an apology... the offended didnt expect one how could she...no one comes here for lesson in ethics and morals... bottom line is we come here cuz we are under the impression that here you can say all that you want without limitations unless its clearly a threat to one existence or life but the use of harsh words, figures of speeches and metaphoric assimilies is the root in which hipforums was built on... futher i have one final request that if it is the intentions of this forums to allow our equals to weild there forum based powers over us for not obeying their commands... then atleast be adult enough to post it in public so that all who know me here can see the irony of it all... questioning my character ask old wolf! 7 rivers! and then pass you judgement on me cuz then and only then can it be a fair judgement... even if the subliminal message is yall dont judge!

 

I don't know the whole story to this...or anything about it..but I definetly understand where you're coming from. I've had this done to me before. A friend of mine put baby pictures on her online journal. Pictures of her friends baby in the bathtub filled with toys, immediatly her privilages of posting pictures was taken away from her. The administrators told her it was CHILD PORNOGRAPHY... *shakes head* whatever...

 

I'd say that there's no real free speech website and this one is not an exception. Because there is an administrator there is no real freedom unless the administrator is able to bring down all his prejudices. But since I'm here, I think it's not the case. I think Skip does a great job and the best he can, but he has preferences....

Don't know all the story here, but I could say that the world Freedom have been raped a lot of time since the beginning of this forum....

love and respect

 

I saw what he did and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Perhaps Maggie Sugar should no longer be a mod so that whe will have to go to user support to let someone that doesn't overreact so much can handle the problems.

 

why was he banned again? i don't get it. i don't necessarily agree with everything will says, or his method of saying it, but doesn't he have a right to speak his mind just as much as everyone else? he said something in a thread that the moderator did not agree with, but that's not a just cause for banning. the word wasn't added to the guidelines in the FAQ until after he was banned, so he shouldn't have been banned in the first place. i feel concerned because it seems everyone that questions the free speech issue gets banned. am i going to banned for posting these questions? i think it will say a lot if i am. this is quite troubling.


i do think that the guidelines for what constitutes "freedom of speech" and what consitutes a "personal attack" and a bannable offense need to be clearer and a lot more specific, rather than leaving it up to the whim of the moderator. maggie sugar added the word will used to the guidelines FAQ after she banned him. how can someone be banned for breaking a rule that is changed after the banning? there is little or no consistency as to what is a bannable offense. maggie sugar objects to the word "slut" and adds it to the FAQ after banning will, yet in the politics forum people call each other worse on a regular basis, and that's just fine. if "freedom of speech" is based merely on the whims of the mods, then what is the difference between the personal forums and the public ones? maggie sugar has the same right as anyone else to object to certain words, but making their usage a bannable offense should be a power limited to her own personal forum, not the public ones, unless their use is truly aggressive and harmful. will's post was strongly worded and confrontational, but not harmful.

and i also think there needs to be some system of checks and balances to prevent mods from abusing their power.

 

I won't comment on this situation...I'm new here, it did not involve me, I don't know the circumstances. But I will say this...

If I said something that hurt someone and they asked for an apology, I would almost always apologize. If that's all it takes for some peace, I'd awallow my pride and humble myself because someone took offense. Whether or not I felt it was offensive, it is not me to decide what offends someone else.

Sometimes to achieve peace, we must voluntarily sacrifice some freedom. The key is whether or not that freedom is voluntarily given up. I may have to freedom to say whatever I want to someone, but that does not mean I would use it all the time.

Peace, V-

 

Banned for using a word that was added after the fact? hmmmmm....

Sounds like something I'd expect from Karl Rove. Or Tom Delay. Or Dennis Hastert. Dick Cheney.


Mebbe I should have checked out the FAQ to see if any of these words are on the list. Oh, but wait. It doesn't matter, because they could be there after the fact.

~wanders off to polish his jack boots and iron his brown shirt and down another cup of Bushit~

 

Utter BULLSHIT. The Women's Forum FAQ, INCLUDING the words which would be considered "personal attack" were included in the ORIGNIAL posting of the FAQ. This was December 6th !, and the FAQ and all it contained was OKed by the Administration.

If you have a beef, that is one thing, lying is something else.

Please view the DATE the FAQ was posted. It was NOT added later.


12-05-2004, 12:51 PM #1 Maggie Sugar vbmenu_register("postmenu_684989", true);
Moderator



Join Date: May 2004
Location: Midwest suburbs (Female)
Age: 43
female Posts: 1,585


Guidlines and FAQs for the Women's Issues Forum Please Read

Women’s Forum Guidelines and FAQs​

Welcome to the Women’s Forum. I have compiled a Guideline and FAQ sticky to help the forum run smoothly and to help guide new posters and old alike.

In a Forum like this one, as in Politics, Vegetarianism, America Attacks and several others, people will have very strong and often very different opinions. We have had an influx of trollers and even stalkers on this forum, having the forum moderated and sticking closely to the guidelines will, hopefully, allow us it have open, safe debate and discussion.



Forum Guidelines:

· Personal attacks will not be tolerated; this includes rabid insinuation as to an other poster’s character, (calling an other poster a “whore” “Slut” “bitch” a “Nazi” ect.) as well as threats of any kind, physical or otherwise.

 

So as I see he should have been ban only in the Woman forum but not in the Hipforums........Nothing againts you Maggie_Sugar, but that's want I think and I respect it..

with love and respect

 

Whether he used the word "bitch" or "Whore" or not, the child he attacked was attacked. The banning was OKed by more than one Mod. Rules in one forum still translate into others.

This is the end of the issue. He's be back in 10 days.

 

maggie sugar,
with respect i believe you really need to calm down on this issue. i have already pm'd you about it, in response to the message you sent me. i will appologize hear for misunderstanding, however i will not appologize for the opinions i hold nonetheless that this banning was unjust. furthermore, no one is personally attacking you, although i have expressed my distaste for your decisions as a moderator, and i stand by those opinions. i resent the accusation of an intentional lie, as well as the accusation included in the pm you sent me that i am personally and single-handedly starting a "witch hunt" against you.

were i a more petty person i could point out the irony of banning someone for what amounts to nothing more than lack of tact for the use of a word you find offensive, followed by making such an accusation through pm's, that could be taken as a religious slur ("Witch" hunt, complete with capitialization) considering i am openly pagan on these boards. but i will be satisfied in stating that no one is personally starting a "witch hunt", "holocaust", or "ethnic cleansing" against you, we are simply stating that we strongly disagree with your moderating practices and decisons, and more importantly, those of the boards in general, and are trying to address those problems.

my concern, about this, and similar conflicts that have occurred, is that there is little or no consistency. furthermore, claims that this is a free speech site are repeatedly made, but certain modes of speech are seemingly arbitrarily prohibitted on various boards. johnny2mad can make wild, inflamatory, sweeping accusations against an entire religion on numerous boards and not be reprimanded at all, yet willpower gets banned for the use of a common slang term, taken out of context.

"drama slut" is a slang term for one who craves attention and is willing to demean themselves to get it, and does not have the same connotations regarding judgement of sexual promiscuity or moral character as calling a woman a "slut", which is the specific word you objected to. if you are going to ban a slang phrase based on origins, perhaps you'd better consider taking out "rule of thumb" too. or "witch hunt", for that matter. nonetheless, if this behavior is still deemed as inappropriate specifically to the women's forums, then the banning should apply only specifically to the women's forums; otherwise it is unjust.

furthermore i would like to remind everyone reading this thread of the basis for my objections. admittedly i know little about the speech freedoms of other countries, but here in the states it is a constitutionally protected right. freedom of speech was not added to the constitution to protect "popular" speech that the majority agrees upon. the speech of the popular majority does not need specific protection; it is protected by sheer numbers. the free speech amendment was included to protect unpopular views, speech that might be considered by the popular majority to be abnormal, uncomfortable, radical, or even offensive. we are granted, by constitutional right, the ability to express ourselves any way we choose that is not actually harmful. we may speak our minds, rant, protest, belch, swear, question, babble, froth and foam, blaspheme, fart, sing, shriek, sign, offend, whisper, proseletyze, create art, post on the internet, and many other means of communicating. like many freedoms, there is both a blessing and a curse in this, but i think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks and risks by a longshot. maggie sugar's objections to will's response and the use of the slang term "drama slut" boil down to nothing more than rudeness, and rudeness, while unpleasant, is not harmful. to forbid certain words may be forum guidelines, but that doesn't make it right.

once again, i appologize for the misunderstanding regarding the word in question on the FAQ, but i stand by the rest of what i said in my original post: will's banning was an over-reaction, and unjust. there is little consistency as to what is considered a bannable offense, and the "protection" of speech freedoms on the boards seems arbitrary, and there needs to be a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. furthermore, "open, safe, debate and discussion" is not protected and encouraged, but, IMHO actually hindered, by infringing upon expressions of opinion that do not cause harm. will response was tactless and confrontational, and perhaps even offensive, but it was not harmful.

(that being said: i really don't envy skip for having to deal with all this. it's a complex issue, there are no easy answers, and i'm sure it drives him bonkers, too.)

 

i would like to extend my compliments to who ever gave me the unsigned, negative rep regarding this thread for their wittiness and maturity for the incomprehensible and utterly unrelated wisecrack about vibrators. i am truly humbled, and as a result, i withdraw my entire postition on free speech, and will sit here quietly with my hands folded in my lap. not.

respectfully i would like to express the opinion that such was a childish way to respond, and if whoever it was is hoping i will respond in a similar, retaliatory or accusatory fashion so that i may then be banned, then i am afraid whoever it is going to be disappointed.

i sincerely hope that whoever it was was not a moderator. such behavior is unbecoming to a moderator.

 

We live in a world full of "insults" and "bad" launguage. Must we all be so sensitive? But, then again, if you don't enjoy what is being done on a website, no one is forcing you to come here.

 

Kitty, I stand with you one hundred percent, you have made quite commendable, RESPECTFUL and adult-like posts. Well done, friend.

 

so many of these rules and guidelines only apply to certain people in the forums... as others have repeatedly threatened and attacked other posters and they are still members to this day... i dont really understand.

 

i think part of that is due to the fact that these forums are very large, and it is impossible for all the moderators to keep track of all the posts. which is why we have so many moderators. unfortunately there is no consistency among moderators and from forum to forum, as to what is considered a bannable offense. the result is that some people are repeatedly banned for rather petty reasons, and others are allowed to froth and flame uncontrolled. i don't know what the solution is, but it does show a need for more consistency, as well as moderator accountability. that is the kind of thing i was referring to when i said if the difference between free speech and bannable offenses is left up to the moderator's whims, there is little difference between the public and personal forums.

maggie sugar stated that the rules of one forum translate for another. does this mean that someone calling another poster a "drama slut" in the politics forum should likewise be banned? maggie sugar referred to will's rather confrontational response to a 15 year old as "attacking a child". yet far, far worse things are said to and by posters that young, and younger in other forums. furthermore, not everyone's chooses to display their age in their profile. how are members supposed to know who is a "child" and who isn't? and is an insult to a teenager really tantamount to an "attack"? perhaps the girl was embarrassed or insulted, but in what way was she harmed? who determines what is an attack, and what is just rude?

and what of situations of miscommunications? quite some time ago i asked some questions of a friend in his personal forum that he misinterpreted as a personal attack; as a result, hurtful words were exchanged. he could have banned me or deleted my posts; in fact i even asked him to at one point, and volunteered to leave the forums if he didn't. fortunately my friend values free speech even when it makes him mad as hell, and that these forums are special enough, in spite of their faults, that i (obviously) chose not to leave. i am grateful that my friend, although angered and perhaps even justly so, showed more wisdom and restraint than i feel maggie sugar did regarding will's tactless retort. were a reply to be misinterpreted on the woman's forum, would the poster be banned, even if "attack" was not the intent? it is my opinion that this is probably what happened to will. does someone banned as the result of a misinterpretation have a recourse? what kind of accountability do the moderators have for their actions?

maggie sugar has declared this issue to an end, but apparently it isn't. nothing can be done about will's situation; his ban will be over soon anyway and i'm sure he'll be back both shooting off his mouth in the religion & philosophy and women's forums and contributing valuable dialogue to the communal living forum where i'm sure he is missed. but i think that will's case is indicative of a wider problem throughout the forums, that is certainly not unique to either the woman's forum, maggie sugar or willpower. clearly the solution isn't a simple one, otherwise it would have been found already. i think that if one is to be found there needs to be more respectful communication to identify the real problems and find creative solutions that everyone can be happy with. and i do think that there needs to be some system to prevent the inconsistant or arbitrary abuse of power, by any moderator.

when a moderator (any moderator) attempts to intimidate concerned forum members from discussion and dissent by declaring an issue closed when clearly the members see a need for more discussion on the wider issues and implications, to my way of thinking that smacks of abusive power, and is contrary to the forums' goals of supporting free speech. if disagreement is discouraged by moderators through intimidation in this manner, then in many ways, it is not much different than being required to sign "loyalty oaths" at political rallies & events. dark times indeed. we need a more consistent policy, more precise definitions of "free speech" and "attacks" and other bannable offenses, and some means of peacefully and respectfully voicing opposition to unjust decisions by moderators, without risking banishment ourselves.

after all, "dissent is patriotic".

 

Would you expect otherwise.

Concept:

The statement...."all views will be respected" is an edict of control and authority with implied 'boundary' conditions.

If you really want a forum with absolute acceptance of every view and every situation, then such a forum must come from 'nowhere' and 'no-one'....and still there will be at least an abstract purpose and some set of boundary conditions.

 

"when a moderator (any moderator) attempts to intimidate concerned forum members from discussion and dissent by declaring an issue closed when clearly the members see a need for more discussion on the wider issues and implications, to my way of thinking that smacks of abusive power, and is contrary to the forums' goals of supporting free speech. if disagreement is discouraged by moderators through intimidation in this manner, then in many ways, it is not much different than being required to sign "loyalty oaths" at political rallies & events. dark times indeed. we need a more consistent policy, more precise definitions of "free speech" and "attacks" and other bannable offenses, and some means of peacefully and respectfully voicing opposition to unjust decisions by moderators, without risking banishment ourselves."



How true

 

Just skimmed through this thread and knowing the whole mod-issues far too well.. I'd like to join this underground revolution thingie *grin*

My latest eye-openers regarding the moderation here are:

1. Banning of Brocktoon (fundy Christian with not-so-nice ideas... but was suddenly banned although he didn't say or do anything different then what he always does.. plus 'free speech' should mean that fundies can express themselves as well, as long as they don't attack individuals.. imho. For the record: I don't agree with his views.)
2. This thread in the random thoughts forum. Read and be amazed (Chiefcowpie is the mod there): http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59614

Besides that: I had a major issue with HappyHaHaGirl about the Real Kinky forum (she even posted a pic of Hitler with 'you have been moderated' when I openly asked why a certain thread was closed. This was the last straw after numerous problems.) I contacted Skip as well as Xaosflux about it. Skip is in Spain and did reply but I have the feeling that hipforums isn't his main priority lately. Xaosflux was direct and polite and dealt with it quite nicely I think.. although she is still a mod there which I really don't fully understand.

Anyways.. I wonder when the first of us will be banned for coming here and saying stuff like this....

 

I never understand why people get banned on a forum.. You can say everything irl why not online? If you feel offended or something like that you just simply ignore that person..

But I'm new here.. So I'm not going to respond on this particular case.. I just think that people should have the right to say whatever they want..