Forbidden topics

[Jazzmoose]

So commenting on moderators now is forbidden? Interesting.

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?/topic/58730-moderators-police-yourselves/

[porcy62]

I didn't see the imagine Allen posted, so I can't comment it. Allen's complain is definitely legit, so the lack of answer from moderators is frankly disappointing. Locking the thread is the wrongest thing one could do in a 'democratic' place like this forum.

[David Ayers]

This isn't a place where anything goes. It is a music discussion board hosted by our friends Organissimo and the moderators act on their (and our) behalf. As far as I am concerned I am a guest here and I am not going to act in any way that will embarass the hosts. Sexually explicit imagery doesn't belong here, in my book, simple as that, and I don't consider it a test of freedom of speech.

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

Mark, You'll notice that the thread was around for a day anyway before it was locked. It's not as though any of the moderators were hyperventilating and rushing in to lock it asap. Earlier, Hans deleted a picture posted by Allen in a Misc forum thread. We're talking a picture here....Allen's comments were not altered in any way. Allen then lodged a protest on the thread where it remains for everyone to see. That's fine. He then started up a new thread basically using the exact same language that he used on the other thread, and proceeded to accuse others of slander. He was, of course, not slandered. When the picture was deleted, the moderator's brief comment (as noted in the Gould post) said 'pornographic picture removed'.....not 'pornographer's photo removed.' So, in a nutshell, he did protest the moderator's decision to remove the photo and that comment still stands on the original thread. No need for an additional thread that starts to spin out-of-control with folks starting to go for the jugular (as was the concern). Let's hope he doesn't decide to start another thread.

[AllenLowe]

that's good, Weizen - your lips moved but JAW was talking -

1) Sexual imagery is forbidden, Dave? where have you been? Ever seen the Sexy Album Cover thread?

2) glad you can make the distinction, Weizen, between JAW saying I posted a pornographic image and calling me a pornographer - so I guess if he posts that I committed a murder, he's not NECESSARILY calling me a murderer -

[AllenLowe]

(Fascist statement removed)****

please note; I am not calling the poster a Fascist.

Edited May 1, 2010 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

The ironic thing is that the worries about being linked to being a pornographer thru Google & such only increase the more the issue is discussed. If the concerns would have been discussed via PM there would be virtually no possible linkage whatsoever.

[John L]

Isn't a pornographer somebody who creates pornography? In that case, there is a difference.

Come on, Allen. Don't get so upset about this. This is a private board where people do not have constitutional rights to post whatever they want. The moderators have a mandate to use their best judgement. Since there are a number of moderators on the board, there is no guarantee of consistency. But that is that. If your picture of copulation got deleted, is that really such a big deal?

[AllenLowe]

(Racist statement removed)****

please note; I am not calling the poster a Racist.

believe me, you would be plenty upset of it happened to you - and it's not the first time, as I posted before, that a similar thing has happened to me on this site.

Fine, remove the image - but do not label me in such a way -

and yes, maybe things would have just disappeared if I hadn't made an issue of it - but I felt it was too important and potentially destructive to let pass.

Edited May 1, 2010 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

If the image was from The Joy of Sex, as was alluded to somewhere, then classifying it as "pornography" is indeed pretty absurd. No question.

But...context is everything, no? And in a satiric thread about The Glorious Whiteness Music Of Kate Smith, I don't know that such an image "works" as well as does the velveteen image of a faceless copulation (maybe it's seeing the faces of people as they fuck that upsets people that extra bit) from the inside of a Herbie Mann album does in the context of a sexy album cover thread. or any other thread dedicated to sexy/sexual images on album covers. Hell, the sexy album cover thread comes with a warning that there are sexually explicit images present. The last thing anybody would expect to find in the other thread is a picture of two people intercoursing. Removing the image was a judgment call, as was labeling it "pornographic" (and even that has been removed now, no?). The first can be reasonably defended, the second...not so much. Not at all, really.

No matter. If your reputation via Internet search engines is what you're concerned about, the issue could have been pursued privately (& aggressively) w/o leaving the cyber-equivalent of a paper trail, which is exactly what is being created through these discussions.

You can argue principle all you want, but the reality of how what you're concerned about actually works operates quite apart from those principles. If you got a beef with that, don't expect resolution here. You're gonna have to go to Mr. Internet to get that one fixed, and last I heard, ain't nobody getting in to see him. So play with the deck on the table, not the one you wished was on the table. "Cause that deck ain't gonna make it here any time soon.

[AllenLowe]

sorry, bad advice, Jim. Sorta like telling an immigrant in Arizona to stop complaining and go see Mr. President.

[JSngry]

sorry, bad advice, Jim. Sorta like telling an immigrant in Arizona to stop complaining and go see Mr. President.

Oh, so you're publicly comparing yourself to an illegal immigrant? You're implying that you're living in a state of illegality? You're admitting by implication to legally prosecutable behavior? You're positing yourself as Allen Lowe = Technically A Criminal?

Nice...

Dude - get a clue on how this shit actually works, and then plan a strategy, ok? Your cause is quite just, but your strategy is pretty much imbecilic.

Edited May 1, 2010 by JSngry

[Van Basten II]

If the image was from The Joy of Sex, as was alluded to somewhere, then classifying it as "pornography" is indeed pretty absurd. No question.

But...context is everything, no? And in a satiric thread about The Glorious Whiteness Music Of Kate Smith (...)

Maybe the idea of Kate Smith and copulating was too much to take

[Dan Gould]

Dude - get a clue on how this shit actually works, and then plan a strategy, ok? Your cause is quite just, but your strategy is pretty much imbecilic.

Whether his cause is just or not, the strategy of airing this in public is fundamentally misguided. Nothing can be accomplished by perpetual bitching and moaning except for the ego-gratification of having some members say "I think Allen is right". We are all guests, and our host has empowered certain people to act as moderators. They answer to Jim, not the rest of the community. Allen's complaints should be expressed via PM to moderators, and if he is truly inconsolable, he can contact Jim Alfredson for his FINAL adjudication of the issues.

[Van Basten II]

So commenting on moderators now is forbidden? Interesting.

http://www.organissi...ice-yourselves/

To the defense of mods, most boards have a rule of that effect, if you want to complain of a decision or a rule take it by pm or you get banned, I have to mention that those boards usually have a younger crowd than ours though.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Van Basten II

[AllenLowe]

interesting, Jim, that you say I was comparing myself to an ILLEGAL immigrant -

I simply said immigrant.

Thanks for proving my point in this thread; hope you enjoy living in Arizona.

as for going public with this - JAW made this public my publicly calling me a pornographer instead of simply deleting my post - so why should I protect his impropriety?

Edited May 1, 2010 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

interesting, Jim, that you say I was comparing myself to an ILLEGAL immigrant -

I simply said immigrant.

Thanks for proving my point in this thread; hope you enjoy living in Arizona.

Uh yeah, ok. What other kind of immigrant in Arizona would be a ready-reference vis-a-vis having a complaint? You really can do better than this, at least I hope so.

And btw - I live in Texas, and will soon heading out to play a city-sponsored Cinco de Mayo gig in the heart of downtown Dallas. I've been advised to leave the house early to allow time to navigate through the picket lines protesting the Arizona law. I'll give them the thumbs up.

Hope you enjoy living in Maine!

[Jim Alfredson]

Allen you are full of shit. Does that mean I'm now libeling you as a toilet? Or worse a politician? Are we really that stupid?

Calling an image pornographic is wildly different than calling the poster of the image a pornographer. Did you create the image? Obviously not, and no one claimed you did. So what's the real issue? The real issue is you take offense and having a moderator edit your post. Well, tough. As the rules clearly state, it is up to the moderators of the board to determine what constitutes porn and I trust their judgement.

[Christiern]

The moderator could have dropped a PM to Allen, stated his objections and asked Allen to either remove or modify.

Had that been done, we would not have this fast-growing thread and the only damage would be a slightly smaller No. of posts figure for Mr. Guinness.

P.S. I speak from experience.