I’m confused. The sense I was getting from your post was that Andrew was banned not specifically for the posts in question, but a cumulation of issues you had with him some were non public.
So now that you are blocking posts on the most interest generating thread as of late does this not imply that you are not only banning Andrew but banning everyone on the thread from posting on this issue?
As was evident from the posts there were quite a few supporters of andrew, so obviously people disagreeing with your decision.
By locking the thread isn’t this censorship in its purest form?
I have declined to add to any thread on this topic in the past, but this is (for now) my only 2 cents.
This is Dale’s space. He pays for it (I assume) and lets us use it for free. You can’t deny, if you’re here, that you put some value in it (be it for information or entertainment). As such, you are using a service for free, and you must be bound by the rules and whims of the person providing that service. That is your payment. An executive decision has been made, and we should shut up and live with it.
I don’t know if we can. Part of the argument is that he (AndrewK) was one of the most knowledgeable.
It’s started to seem crazy to me. The tone of the posts has changed to one largely in support of AndrewK at least having a voice, but then . . . the thread is locked.
Yes, I agree that Dale can run the board as he sees fit. But, he’s not necessarily above reproach.
Certainly AndrewK’s martyrdom has been achieved faster than John Paul II’s sainthood (albeit fast-tracked).
Oh, well then let me change the tone back. I stopped posting my feelings because I felt I had said enough and that it was time to move on. I wouldn’t want that to be mistaken as support for AndrewK’s behavior. Just wanted to clarify that.
feelings of rudeness or insult are not fact. the policy is really promoting intellect over emotion. reason should rule over personal feelings, no matter how smooth we think we are. or in my case, no matter how much in love i am with myself. it’s killing me.
if we read something written by so-and-so and we feel it was rude - and conclude therefore it is rude, to my understanding, that conclusion is suppsosed to be avioded and not tolerated. largely because opinion, backed by strong sentiment, does not make for the truth.
however, if we read something that so-and-so has written and we feel it was rude, we are suppose to apply the reasonable person rule to ourselves only, not the other person. why? because we are not special. no one is special. i am not special, even though i think i am. andrew is not special, and dale is not special. (although cat is!).
that is the intent of the policy as i currently understand based on my ability to understand policies.
andrew was good at abiding by these rules.
i also think people seem to have it all ass backwards here.
am i being unreasonable or special here? i try not to take offense of honest criticism. could we discuss, if you feel insulted by what you read, tell me and explain why. or don’t participate, go to a thread where you feel safe to participate. reasonable or not?
the problem i am seeing is that the moderating does not appear to be abidng by this policy. but i also think it has become a difficult situation. moderators are only human and have feelings and biases like everyone else. let’s work it out together. after all, no one is special or are they?
fyffer,
I don’t want to appear to be overly sensitive, but I grew up in a country that has had some bad history with censorship. My general point is that we, as a society, have to be very weary of the beginnings. Let me be very clear: Dale is doing a great service to host this board as it gives us all a way to share a common interest and have interesting discussions.
On the other hand it is not set up as a private club(invitational only), but in essence a public forum. As a public forum you have the right to express yourself and barring any obscenities you should have the right to express your opinions and that also means disagreeing with someone.
The danger I see (again in general) is that if, we as a society, become so quickly accepting of blocking the views/voices of people we disagree with we shouldn’t be surprised if the horrid mistakes of our past get repeated again.
the notion that dale’s rules are the only ones that matter, is a notion that is unhealthy.
dale’s rules do not apply - if they violate the posting policy. otherwise it is a contradiction in terms, conflict of interest and foster’s an unhealthy environment. creates a state of unreasonableness.
We may express ourselves in a civil way. That is the posting policy.
Notice that no obscenities are used in the un-civil example. The presence of obscenities is not the determining factor and never has been, which you will notice if you look over many threads. There is a very liberal policy toward language here because it is recognized that words function differently in different contexts. What matters is how the words are used.
Civility is the determining factor. Sure, it is Dale’s forum. But he does follow his own rules and to make it out as though he is some sort of dictator is ridiculous. If the second example seems okay to you, then the “civility rules” are not ones you are happy with and you should go to another forum where civility is not required.
What i tried to say up there was that it didn’t seem to me that Dale locked that other thread in order to suppress dissent, but it seemed to me that he did it in order to truncate a discussion that was being overly critical of someone who didn’t have the means to defend himself.
But, i’m no mind reader. I learned to like Andrew and i miss him, but i also trust Dale.
Yes, this is private property, Dale owns it. If I understand how these
things work, he could charge money for our posting here,
if he chose, or require passwords. He also could, if he wanted to,
bounce people in an arbitrary and capricious way–I don’t believe
any recourse is available, except mailing him and appealing
to him to reconsider, etc.
People who feel that Dale made a mistake in bouncing andrew
have expressed this view quite straightfowardly
several times. If that was going to change anything,
it would have by now. Also a good number of people here
disagree strongly with this view–they just aren’t
going on about it. That people
aren’t responding doesn’t mean they agree.
Andrew isn’t coming back–bottom line. The ‘Bring back Andrew’
advocates have said thier piece.
There’s nothing
more you’all can do about it–I know that some of you
have tried to persuade Dale to change his mind (you’ve
told me so in PMs). Good for you.
To go on, under the circumstances,
begins to appear self-indulgent–it makes the fluteboard an unpleasant
place and to no purpose.
Blackwood—I don’t know what specific post caused Dale to ban AndrewK. However, I was following this thread as it was developing and was quite shocked at the lack of civility shown by AndrewK: http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=28500&start=0
On the first page, go down to this post:
You then need to read from AndrewK’s answer to Dale’s question on to the end of the thread. I find some very uncivil behavior toward two different people. I’m not going to copy it all out here. I find a use of words that comes much closer to example #2 than to example #1. This is my opinion. You may disagree. That is fine. I have gone this far to show that I have given this issue thought. I am not going to debate whether this is civil behavior or not. We will simply have to agree to disagree.
My apologies to others for continuing this. I just couldn’t stop myself.
Give it a freakin’ REST. He was banned, he got a second chance, he kept doing the same thing he was told not to do, and now he is banned again.
I’m not the American government, so the American Constitution doesn’t give you freedom of speech on this forum that I host and Dale maintains. Andrew and everyone else have no guaranteed freedoms here whatsoever, so you can lay off on the rhetoric.
This forum is not a public place. This is a private place that I host and Dale watches over. You and everyone else are welcome to participate here, but that does not mean you have the right to do so. There are lots of people who can contribute useful things about flutes, but being able to contribute useful things about flutes is not in the criteria for posting here, and regularly disrupting other users’ enjoyment of the forums is a great way to wear out your welcome.
Of course it’s censorship. It’s exactly the same censorship that’s been applied with an even hand since the forum started up in 1999 or so, and I’d say it’s worked pretty well thus far. If you want a no-holds-barred forum where anyone is free to write whatever they please no matter how disruptive, then you’re in the wrong place, and this one is not going to change to suit you.
Incidentally, posting a new thread after one is locked is not going to change anyone’s mind about Andrew – it’s going to make you look like someone incapable of taking a hint.
deep in the heart of every person there’s something good, and so there is in andrewK.
we’re all humans and non is better than the other, we just try to give our best.
but this board has its rules, and we can’t go without them.
