TAKE BACK THE SITE!!

[NASAguy]

I haven't posted here for many months just because of all the negativiity. But if your idea succeeds, I will only too gladly return (much to the dismay of some I am sure).;-) :*

[CT Dick]

If I might add a #5: on many posts, especially the long ones, I use:

 

http://www.spellcheck.net/

 

 

Dick

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Mr. Munroe

 

I hope you are happy now. Everyone talks about those plump, juicy spreadable buns and how much they want to to just open them up and probe the tips ever so carefully, with a few nibbles here and there, some tongue slides and, least it need be said, plenty of spit, but no one will be stalking me anymore. The one thing I had going for me, to make me feel special, and you had to wake up all Polly Anna on us.

 

Gosh darn you to heck, Rick Munroe.

 

:) :) :)

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Thank you

 

I have learned to ignore the personal attacks but as someone who has in the past responded to attacks with negativity, I agree, that is not the past to go down.

 

I do firmly believe in communication. The free exchange of ideas must be respected. I think Will's suggestions are excellent and I had incorporated many of them, except you will all have to deal with my occassionally mistyped words.

 

Consider this a yes vote to the campaign, which even though I have only been here a few months, I consider long over due, including on my own part.

[Will]

If you're serious, send me a private message and let's find out! (Grin)

[Guest soccerstud]

First Amendment Reminder

 

This past week's court decisions should remind all of us that the Bill of Rights are a part of our everyday life--and not just some abstraction. The right-wing of the Supreme Court virtually renders the religion "establishment clause" meaningless when it validates the use of public funds for school vouchers, when 96% of the funds go to pay for clearly religious education. And when politicians from left to right fall all over themselves to condemn a decision holding that the words "under God" in a Congressionally approved Pledge of Allegiance infringe the establishment clause.

 

We--as a distinct minority--should never take the Bill of Rights for granted. The toughest applications of the First Amendment are those that are almost impossible to swallow (seems like an approriate analogy for this forum). Defending the nazis' right to demonstrate against Jews; defending that asshole's right to demonstrate outside of Matthew Sheppard's funeral. If anyone gets shut out of free speech, the first to go will be the minorities' rights.

 

I don't mean to preach. But there is a fine line between censorship and tolerating obnoxious/hateful speech. That being said, Rick's and others' idea of ignoring/responding with icons/ or just plain dumping on hate speech (whatever that is) seems like the right response. As long as it doesn't involve Hooboy, deej or whomever in editing content.

 

That being said, Rick, you can exercise your rights on my ass any time you feel like it.

[Rick Munroe]

>There is also something you wont see from the spoilers any

>personal information on themselves. Not the things we

>shouldn't share with strangers on an internet board but

>rather details of what makes them tick what makes them horny

>and what has happened in their lives to get them to this

>place. ...And they won't mention guys they have reviewed. I

>am amazing no one to say that the reviews of escorts (the

>point of the site) tell almost as much about the reviewer.

>And they will rarely offer any insight into their lives or

>what makes them tick.

 

>Sometimes we will have sharp funny people who stray over the

>line. Truth Teller is a commonly cited example. However he

>actively reviewed escorts and told you things about himself.

>I can think of few people who revealed what turned him on as

>honestly (or as provocatively) as TruthTeller. Did he cross

>the line occasionally? Sure but see the difference between

>him and say Miguel?

 

Two excellent & insightful points. Will better watch his ass, Jeff; soon you'll be taking over as our wise (junior) elder statesman. :*

[Guest seraph250]

>As I have posted elsewhere there are certain common

>charecteristics to the authors of some of the most

>inflammatory posts. As a rule they lurk in the background

>and just pop out to throw a grenade to get something

>started. They rarely if at all particiapte in non-hostile

>threads. Some may create new ids here just to spread the

>"love". Others use a amazing amount of energy to research

>details of posters on this board and attempt to use the

>information that we posted as a way to honestly communicate

>as a weapon to bludgeon others for their own (I assume)

>amusement.

 

Then there are the ones who appoint themselves as the 'leaders' of the board and take it upon themselves to tell everyone else what to do or not to do. Those are the ones I find annoying.

[CT Dick]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

Is it censorship is the owner of a private website, which this is, sets limits and enforces them?

 

Dick

[Guest soccerstud]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

Good point, CT. Is it strictly contrary to the 1st Amendment? No, since that governs only the government abridging free speech. Is it censorship? In my opinion, yes. As one of the other posters put it, the site is run by Hooboy (and I have frequently complimented him on it), but it is we hoo give it life. Would you contribute to this site if you knew yours and all others' remarks were being edited/censored? My overall point: The rights of the minorities are the first to go; if this minority community--publicly or privately--promotes censorship in any fashion, the majority will simply use it as an excuse/example to shove more meaningful restrictions down our throat (another appropriate analogy).

[chrismac]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

All online forums that I've seen have some form of moderation (the term itself implies the intent of the moderators - to keep things moderate). That doesn't mean that there aren't forums without moderation out there, but I've seen quite a few, and all have been moderated to at least some degree that I've come across.

 

I think this is necessary, given the boldness most people (myself included) are inclined to feel when they can post a message in anonymity. While that anonymity is most often an aid to expressing one's true feelings on a subject, especially if they are not inclined to do so in a true public opinion forum in person (which are difficult to find and join in any case).

 

While I don't actively seek out opportunities to disparage my fellow man, I'm not immune from sticking my foot in my mouth, and have done so enough times as to have acquired a taste for it by now.

 

Moderation, if done in moderation, keeps a certain balance. I'm not concerned here with censorship. This is a private club of sorts - and the fact that there are rules to observe come with the privelege of membership. It's something I not only accept, but welcome.

 

I have walked away from several sites due to loose moderation leading to excessive personal maliciousness, but none yet due to excessive censorship. But that, of course, is just my take.

[chrismac]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

I left out the second part of this sentence:

 

>While that anonymity is most often an

>aid to expressing one's true feelings on a subject,

>especially if they are not inclined to do so in a true

>public opinion forum in person (which are difficult to find

>and join in any case),

 

it may also embolden some people to forget common civility and respect for others. It often starts out small (and seemingly harmless) enough, but quickly grows into a conflagration and test of wills and vocabulary. Sort of a contest of who can return with the sharpest retort. Debate is fine, so is conflict, but when we venture into scenarios of "Jane, you ignorant slut..." and we're serious about the insult, we may have gone too far.

[+ deej]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

For an example of an unmoderated forum, visit radvideo.com's pornstar board. It's a cesspool. It requires no signup, anyone can use any name (and does), and there is no active moderation.

 

The owner *does* routinely sweep through and delete clearly false posts, but even what's left is about 75% questionable. I've seen accounts of events that I'VE ATTENDED and know they're wrong.

 

When it comes to First Ammendment rights, remember a couple of things:

 

* This is the Internet, not the USA

* The FA protects the rights of those who disagree with you as well

 

The "if you don't like it don't read it" crowd always thinks that 2nd point doesn't apply to them.

 

That said, this IS a private club. If you don't like the rules, join another. Muscle Service is often touted as an alternative to this site. Guess what kids, he deletes posts also.

 

Remember that the rules came about in the first place because the board was being seriously abused. ATKOL used to have a forum called "Sex with Pornstars" and it was seriously abused. They went the other direction and closed it. That's certainly a form of censorship as well, but as the owners they have the right.

 

If HooBoy suddenly starts enforcing the rules AS PUBLISHED TODAY, some of you will be seriously pissed off. Fine. That is your right, just as it is his right to have rules on his own website.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Mr. Munroe

 

>Everyone talks about those plump,

>juicy spreadable buns and how much they want to to just open

>them up and probe the tips ever so carefully, with a few

>nibbles here and there, some tongue slides and, least it

>need be said, plenty of spit

 

Franco, you really know how to get me going. I'm sitting here stroking my dick while reading about my own ass. Jesus, what an ego I have. }>

[Will]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

Well said, deej. There is a big difference between speech protected under the First Amendment and any-old-thing. In fact, we have laws regarding slander and libel that point precisely to such distinctions. There is also a difference between censorship and editing. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I have done a whole lot of editing. Usually it's a matter of helping the writer say what s/he means in clear and unambiguous terms. If writers here actually wish to spit at each other, maybe we could simply have a sort of Garbage Forum on the Message Board. That way, the Moderators could merely move a particular post to the Garbage without altering it otherwise. Posts get moved around all the time on ATKOL, and nobody seems to mind. Of course, the level of civility, though certainly not of discourse, is much higher over there. Whether that's because of good editing on the part of the webmaster or good manners on the part of the contributors, I don't care. But I don't like thugs, most particularly when they're gay and hanging out in my neighborhood.

[Guest regulation]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

>If HooBoy suddenly starts enforcing the rules AS PUBLISHED

>TODAY, some of you will be seriously pissed off.

 

Really, deej? If he starts enforcing the rules AS PUBLISHED TODAY, what will happen to people who call other posters names like "you pompous prick" and "jackal"? Who is going to moderate the moderators?

 

When the board was reopened under the "new rules" earlier this year there was yet another thread created about posting manners. In that thread I mentioned that if management started lecturing people on civility again, I would remind them that there have been plenty of occasions on which they have not practiced what they preach. In just the past few days there have been fresh examples of that indisputable fact. How did I know months ago that this would happen again? Easy -- I'm a pessimist. :-)

 

 

 

 

Fine. That

>is your right, just as it is his right to have rules on his

>own website.

[Guest soccerstud]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

Deej and Wil--Unfortunately, you're not tackling the tough issues. I am reminded of the thread a month or so ago on hiring young (adult) street hustlers. Good discussion. Seems to me very appropriate for this forum. On the other hand, in expressing sometimnes well-thought out viewpoints (and sometimes not-so-well thought out), things got very nasty. Would the moderators redact the "bad words"; would the moderators excise the entire post if part of it slid into "nasty" even though it contained legitimate points of view; would the moderators edit it (and tell us that the post had been edited and where)? (At that point, are we reading the views of the posters or of the moderators?) Can Rick use "fuck" as a verb or "asshole" as a noun in one of his humorous posts; but then the same word gets censored used in a different or personal context? ("Where the fuck do you get off taking advantage of guys on the street that don't have the means to say no to a $20 fuck, you asshole?" If the words "you asshole" are moderated out, does the post carry the same passion as the poster intended?) If I call Dubya and his positions on morality "stupid," will I get "moderated"? Or, as Rick and others advocated, does the nastiness just get printed but then it is up to us to simply ignore it or make fun of it? This, I suggest, is the far better course. Whether consorship is called "moderating" or some other euphamism is used, it is still censorship.

[Rod Hagen]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

Woa, nicely said Soccer.

[+ deej]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

soccer, there are two (EXACTLY TWO) things we can do to messages: delete or approve.

 

We cannot edit. It is not a feature of the board software and I pray to God it never becomes a feature.

 

If we start clamping down, your entire post will go through or none at all. It's as simple as that. We do not, can not, and will not edit.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

>when we venture into scenarios

>of "Jane, you ignorant slut..." and we're serious about the

>insult, we may have gone too far.

 

I agree with everything you've said but personally, I always take "you ignorant slut" as a compliment.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

>...as Rick and others advocated, does the

>nastiness just get printed but then it is up to us to simply

>ignore it or make fun of it? This, I suggest, is the far

>better course. Whether censorship is called "moderating" or

>some other euphemism is used, it is still censorship.

 

Exactly. We can't have censorship or else people won't want to post, and then we'll be back where we were a week ago. I think the "ignore it or laugh it off" method will ultimately take the wind out of the sail of the constantly cantankerous (it's happening already) and ultimately we will have taken back the site for those who want to use it in a more entertaining or educational or civil way without the need to censor (sorry for that long-winded sentence).

 

My brother and I had 2 babysitters when we were kids: one who used to yell at us to be quiet & stop fighting, and one who would fold her arms, close her eyes and ignore us. Guess which one scared us more & kept us in line (well, OK, she also claimed to have a boyfriend in the Mafia). }>

[+ deej]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

>she also claimed to have a boyfriend in the Mafia). }>

 

And you never got his number? tsk tsk tsk! :+

[swallows22]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

And we only have to look at Sean-World escort's response under "Ask an Escort" and wonder why. Obviously, there has been an upheaval on this site, as in the old days, Sean would have been villified to the end. As it is, he has done the Lazarus trick. Good or bad? Cheers!

[Guest seraph250]

RE: First Amendment Question

 

>>If HooBoy suddenly starts enforcing the rules AS PUBLISHED

>>TODAY, some of you will be seriously pissed off.

>

>Really, deej? If he starts enforcing the rules AS PUBLISHED

>TODAY, what will happen to people who call other posters

>names like "you pompous prick" and "jackal"? Who is going

>to moderate the moderators?

 

Good question.

[SmallTownJohn]

I couldn't agree with Rick more. When I first became involved in this site, I thought it would be mostly reviews, info & discussion. Seems like for awhile it was all about attacking escorts & digs of innuendo. My purpose here is to gather info, give info, maybe find some pals along the way BUT for sure, "make clients happy."<EG>

 

I hope we can get back to a positive board. Opinions are cool but when it turns into " obviously, from your post, I can deduce that your Mom was inbred" or anything similar...I just choose to cash it in. Character attacks aren't my thing.

 

I Love Sex,

 

John

http://www.SmallTownJohn1.com