Offensive Behavior

[sirkickyass]

not a crime at all. i just have little patience for answering endless reams of them.

I don't think you get it moe. This isn't a conversation: it's a socratic dialogue.

 

[Hopper]

I don't think you get it moe. This isn't a conversation: it's a socratic dialogue.

The Sock, he ROCKS, eh!?

 

[Archie Moses]

I don't think you get it moe. This isn't a conversation: it's a socratic dialogue.

Think as wise men do, but speak as the common people do.

Aristotle

 

[Hopper]

Think as wise men do, but speak as the common people do. Aristotle

Thanks, anyway, Stotle, but I think I'll stick with hi-falutin highbrow lingo so as to prove that I'm educated and all, ya know?

 

[Hopper]

Well, Kicky, ya wanna try out our newfound tolerance, eh? What would your answer be to the "real" question which I posed to Mo but which she continues to duck. Would you just tell the bitch to chill out, or what? I'm kinda tryin to get the lay of the moderator land here, so I don't get *********** "warnings" without consultation or discussion, see?

 

[Gameface]

Well, Mo, if ya don't mind, lemme see if I can pin down where you're coming from. I don't think you ever directly responded to my scenario, so let me resurrect it.

Assume it's late at night, you're leaving a bar, and you happen to notice someone pissing in the alley. Let's assume that they were not deliberately trying to "expose" themself to you. So, then, in that case:

1. Do you feel compelled to call the police?
2. Are you going to wait at the alley entrance until they emerge and then give them a stern warning and lecture about their impropriety, while assuring them that the next time you see them doing it, you're gunna call the cops?
3. Are you gunna immediately attempt to effectuate a "citizen's arrest."
4. Are you gunna avoid confrontation but bitch and moan about the whole incident to your companion all the way home, fretting about the "offensivemess" of it all for hours?
5. Are ya just gunna go on to your car and not really give it a second thought, or what?

Pissing in the street is an offensive-mess.

Hell, if ginormous can be a word why not offensivemess?

 

[moevillini]

Well, Kicky, ya wanna try out our newfound tolerance, eh? What would your answer be to the "real" question which I posed to Mo but which she continues to duck. Would you just tell the bitch to chill out, or what? I'm kinda tryin to get the lay of the moderator land here, so I don't get *********** "warnings" without consultation or discussion, see?

An important concept is to learn from your mistakes. If you get a warning (by the way, they're now called "infractions") for your behavior, try not to repeat the same behavior that led to the warning. If you continue to repeat the behavior, you will continue to get infractions, which may eventually lead to a permanent ban.
Read the rules - they are posted here:
https://jazzfanz.com/faq.php

You basically agreed to follow the rules when you signed up for your account. You are here because you want to be here, not because you're forced to be here. You are choosing to be here. If the rules of this community offend you, maybe you should think about why you agreed to them in the first place.

There is another message with much more liberal standards that I've read and posted at on occasion - primarily to keep in touch with a couple banned jazzfanz posters who post there. But I found it unreadable because of images in sigs and avatars I felt were too crude for my tastes, or sig images that were way too large and made the threads difficult to read, or posters I found annoying due to their frequent repetitive rambling nonsensical (and occasionally crude or insulting) posting style. It made visiting that message board an unpleasant experience for me, even though there were frequently very good discussions taking place. It was just too difficult to wade through all the crap to get to the good stuff.

 

[Hopper]

You basically agreed to follow the rules when you signed up for your account.

Mo, I don't question your sincerity in making this statement, but I know you are too intelligent to believe, upon reflection, that it's really that simple and clear-cut.

"you have agreed to “not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.”


What is "vulgar?" What is "hateful?" What is "obscene?" These are the kinds of "standards" that would be too vague to be enforceable if passed as "laws." They would be stricken as unconstitutional because they are too vague.

The ultimate result of vague "laws" is to enable extremely selective enforcement, often improperly motivated, by those empowered to make arrests, etc. There is wide discretion in enforcing laws to begin with, but in cases where vague laws are passed, the degree of discretion afforded is deemed to be so extreme as to invite arbitrary and capricious punishment according to the personal whims of the police.

 

[sirkickyass]

Well, Kicky, ya wanna try out our newfound tolerance, eh? What would your answer be to the "real" question which I posed to Mo but which she continues to duck.

I haven't been following the scenario or the thread to any real extent. The entire thread reeked of onanism so I haven't felt the need to get involved.

What is "vulgar?" What is "hateful?" What is "obscene?" These are the kinds of "standards" that would be too vague to be enforceable if passed as "laws." They would be stricken as unconstitutional because they are too vague.

This is the kind of statement that sounds better rhetorically than it actually is. The reality is that different rules apply to a governmental entity that can fine, imprison, or put you to death than to a message board where the worst punishment is disallowing you from posting on the message board any more. The stakes simply aren't as high, so the same "void for vagueness" standard doesn't apply either.

In practice, members who have been on the message board for some time become aware of where "the line" is simply by seeing what gets hit with an infraction and what doesn't. The standard isn't so arbitrary that it's impossible to guess at. It's not that hard to figure out and the punishment system is almost absurdly lenient (in practice you have to get five warnings in a period of 23 weeks). There's a reason that, in reality, so few regular posters have ever actually gotten the perma ban.

The ultimate result of vague "laws" is to enable extremely selective enforcement, often improperly motivated, by those empowered to make arrests, etc. There is wide discretion in enforcing laws to begin with, but in cases where vague laws are passed, the degree of discretion afforded is deemed to be so extreme as to invite arbitrary and capricious punishment according to the personal whims of the police.

The jazzfanz system is structurally designed to check this tendency by requiring multiple moderators to agree to a single course of action when dealing with reported posts. No single moderator can mete out justice on their own and remain a moderator for long.

 

[moevillini]

An important concept is to learn from your mistakes. If you get a warning (by the way, they're now called "infractions") for your behavior, try not to repeat the same behavior that led to the warning. If you continue to repeat the behavior, you will continue to get infractions, which may eventually lead to a permanent ban.
Read the rules - they are posted here:
https://jazzfanz.com/faq.php

You basically agreed to follow the rules when you signed up for your account.....

Mo, I don't question your sincerity in making this statement, but I know you are too intelligent to believe, upon reflection, that it's really that simple and clear-cut.

You presume too much. For the most part I do believe it's that simple and clear cut. And I am NOT going to define the "most" part.

"you have agreed to “not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.”

What is "vulgar?" What is "hateful?" What is "obscene?" These are the kinds of "standards" that would be too vague to be enforceable if passed as "laws." They would be stricken as unconstitutional because they are too vague.

As a reader of the message board, you should be able to formulate a fairly clear picture of the community standards. When you make a post that challenges those standards, and the moderating staff votes to issue some sort of "official" notification, that notification will explain to the best of our ability why the post was determined to be objectionable. As kicky states, and I believe it to be true, most folks get the idea, learn the rules and stick to them. There are some, for whatever reasons, who continue to try to push the envelope and challenge the boundaries. I'm not sure why, I'm not a professional psychotherapist so I won't presume to understand the motivation of those posters who have these types of issues.

This is the kind of statement that sounds better rhetorically than it actually is. The reality is that different rules apply to a governmental entity that can fine, imprison, or put you to death than to a message board where the worst punishment is disallowing you from posting on the message board any more. The stakes simply aren't as high, so the same "void for vagueness" standard doesn't apply either.

In practice, members who have been on the message board for some time become aware of where "the line" is simply by seeing what gets hit with an infraction and what doesn't. The standard isn't so arbitrary that it's impossible to guess at. It's not that hard to figure out and the punishment system is almost absurdly lenient (in practice you have to get five warnings in a period of 23 weeks). There's a reason that, in reality, so few regular posters have ever actually gotten the perma ban.

The jazzfanz system is structurally designed to check this tendency by requiring multiple moderators to agree to a single course of action when dealing with reported posts. No single moderator can mete out justice on their own and remain a moderator for long.

 

[Hopper]

This is the kind of statement that sounds better rhetorically than it actually is. The reality is that different rules apply to a governmental entity that can fine, imprison, or put you to death than to a message board where the worst punishment is disallowing you from posting on the message board any more. The stakes simply aren't as high, so the same "void for vagueness" standard doesn't apply either.

I never claimed otherwise, and that had nothing to do with my point. Jason could, if he wanted, simply say "I will immediately ban any one who makes any statement I don't like," such as: "I agree with the Democratic platform and support it," and be within his rights.

 

[Hopper]

In practice, members who have been on the message board for some time become aware of where "the line" is simply by seeing what gets hit with an infraction and what doesn't.

How does that work "in practice?" I have never known who got warnings or for what reason(s), other than myself.

 

[Hopper]

I do believe it's that simple and clear cut.

Well, this is what's kinda scary, Mo. "Scary" aint really the right term, but.....

 

[Hopper]

I feel it's only fair to report that some of my concerns have been reduced already. I hopped a freight down to Memphis and was on Beale Street last night, and I just got back.

I now see that, in the meantime, a couple of things happened:

1. I got a warning due to a misuderstanding. Even so, under the new procedures, it was not an "infraction," which was encouraging. I like this system much better where you are at least notified of kinda thing might get you a demerit, rather than just having it assessed without a hearing or an appeal.

2. The warning was rescinded, apparently because one of the moderators read the allegedly objectionable post more carefully.

 

[Hopper]

The entire thread reeked of onanism so I haven't felt the need to get involved.

Well, Kicky, I have no choice but to concede the validity of this assessment. If anyone on this board would be in a position to make this assessment, it would be you. You're the expert in that department.

 

[Hopper]

How does that work "in practice?" I have never known who got warnings or for what reason(s), other than myself.

Maybe I should amend my statement here, because I haven't always even known what my own purported transgressions were. I was banned for something which was never explained to me, notwithstanding an email asking for the courtesy of an explanation.

As I recall, Jason did make a general comment to the board to the effect that I was banned for being a racist. I found this especially puzzling, seein as how I aint no racist, but....

 

[PearlWatson]

Ya know what? Something finally dawned on me that I hadn't thought of before. I'd kinda always placed the responsibility on the person reading the message board - - that if they really objected to what a poster is saying or the way it's said, they should put that poster on their ignore list since that would make the offending posts invisible. I was more of the opinion that the folks who couldn't or wouldn't take that simple action were almost as guilty as the person making the offensive posts. I am generally not in favor of the idea of a "permanent" ban for anyone for any reason.

But, don't ask why it took me five or so years to figure this out, I finally realized that there are plenty of folks who may read the message board who are not actually members, or members who read when they are not logged in, and so there is no recourse for them to avoid something that is patently offensive or that destroys the readability of the board. So now I can somewhat understand why a poster might have to be banned.

It's kinda like I had an epiphany or something.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, aint, but it's the best I can do.

another thing that took me a while to figure out, and I've been keeping this to myself for several years now, but I figure it's time to unload the burden, is that for the first year or two that I was reading jazzfanz (I read for at least a year before I actually joined up) I thought sirkickyass' user name was "stickyass" and I thought somehow all the threads that were labeled "sticky" had something to do with him. It would really puzzle me when there'd be a "sticky" topic that he hadn't even posted in.

yes, I can be slow about some things.

but it feels good to finally get that off my chest.

So in effect you ban people in order to avoid offending people who don't post on the board?

I like how Hopper's mind works. It is like it is running circles around the mind's of everyone else.

 

[LogGrad98]

So in effect you ban people in order to avoid offending people who don't post on the board?

I like how Hopper's mind works. It is like it is running circles around the mind's of everyone else.

 

[PearlWatson]

I love guys in tights!

 

[Gameface]

I love guys in tights!

That's obvious.