Lock of Andrew K thread

Blackwood · Post by **Blackwood** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:14 pm

Dale,

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?

Sven

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:40 pm

I think it went like this:

eilam wrote:It really bothers me all the ganging up on Andrew now that he is not here to defend him self. Andrew had a lot to say about flutes, with all the sarcasm and other remarks he make, I still feel that it was very beneficial to have him on board.
Silencing someone up is not anything to be proud of [...]

Then

dale wrote:Well put [...] it's time to put this thread to bed.

and locked the thread.

I miss Andrew too.

fyffer · Post by **fyffer** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:41 pm

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.

Now, can we talk about flutes again?

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:48 pm

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).

Stuart

Cynth · Post by **Cynth** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:54 pm

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.

rama · Post by **rama** » Fri May 13, 2005 12:59 pm

i have reread the posting policies.

we must be reasonable and no one is special.

my take:

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?

Blackwood · Post by **Blackwood** » Fri May 13, 2005 1:06 pm

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.

Cheers,

Sven

rama · Post by **rama** » Fri May 13, 2005 1:34 pm

Blackwood wrote: 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.

well said, i agree wholeheartedly.

Blackwood wrote: 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...
Sven

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.

NicoMoreno · Post by **NicoMoreno** » Fri May 13, 2005 1:40 pm

Blackwood wrote: 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.

I don't see it that way at all... I think we have the priviledge of posting.

Public or not, it's still Dale's place.

WistleEnvy · Post by **WistleEnvy** » Fri May 13, 2005 1:44 pm

Just because this board is on the Net doen't make it public property.

This is similar to having people over to your house and someone being inconsiderate and being asked to leave.

I absolutly don't see a problem with this

Thanks
Colin

Cynth · Post by **Cynth** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:11 pm

On this thread http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=27688, Dale discusses the "civility rules":

DaleWisely wrote:... they don't understand why they can't say negative or critical things on the board. I say again: This is not the case. At the risk of being patronizing, which is not my intention, let me demonstrate (again).

"I do not like Pepsi. It think the bubbles are disagreeable and their is a slightly sharp sensation at the back of one's palate. I prefer the taste of Diet Coke, and this is what I encourage my friends to buy."

vs.

"Pepsi is complete crap, clearly made by drunkards and con men. Anyone who would pay 75 cents for a can of it would have to be a fool. And anyone who would try to sell the crap on ebay is either a thief or is trying to unload a vile elixer that no one in their right mind would want."

First example: Ok
Second: Not Ok.

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.

Blackwood · Post by **Blackwood** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Cynth,

Can you then point to the specific post by andrew in the thread that applies to the standard you quoted that caused Dale to ban andrew?

Sven

Blackwood · Post by **Blackwood** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:32 pm

lyxnaw said:

what a moaning here's andrewK back, and i hope you're all happy again...

oohh i'm being called a "moaner" I feel personally offended and insulted. lyxnaw needs to be banned from this board!

....see where this is heading?

The only thing i am (be)moaning is the larger point that is apparently being missed here...

lixnaw · Post by **lixnaw** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:37 pm

what a moaning :roll: here's andrewK back, and i hope you're all happy again...

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:42 pm

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.