Welcome back Message Center

[Doug69]

>Guys, Something wierd just happened. Three posts, two by

>ChgoBoy and One by me just got deleted and they showed up as

>"Deleted". Now they are just gone.

 

Maybe the forum software read BG's newly written rules and decided to enforce those rules on its own by deleting posts it deemed to be in violation, and your post and ChgoBoy's 2 posts were its first victims.

 

How fucking aweswome and hilarious would that be? Come to think of it, I think that having non-humans enforce censorship codes is the only way they can ever be enforced fairly and objectively. Human beings, even those with the best intentions, will always be influenced by who is doing the talking (and about whom), rather than assessing the content of what is said without regard to anything else.

[Doug69]

>Finally, I'd suggest kindly that hatred is an awfully strong

>emotion to attach to someone who moderates a message board.

>I'd be surprised if you said you were in love with Deej or

>Barry or Cooper. Similarly, it seems an unlikely target for

>something so strong as hatred. It's just a message board.

>Life goes on no matter what happens here.

 

I think this is really the heart of the issue, and let's use BoN - since he's being discussed (and criticized rather aggressively) here without the opportunity to respond - as an example of how this issue manifests.

 

Let's be clear first about one thing: BoN had his membership here deleted BEFORE, not AFTER (and NOT as a result of), his posting of the link to Deej's personal website. He posted that link as an undestandably angry response to having his membership here - after 4 years of active participation - deleted without warning. I'm not defending the posting of that stuff about deej nor am I justifying it - but it's important to understand it in its context.

 

You can say - and you are right, as far as it goes - that this is just a message board, so what's anyone getting so upset about? But those rules you just wrote are based on the principle that this is more than just some Internet Message Board; people here, like BoN, invest a lot and effort in their involvement here and, to them, it becomes a community, not just an Internet Message Board. You, of all people, point this out all the time, and should understand it.

 

It's hardly a surprise that BoN - or anyone else - would react with extreme emotion upon learning that someone, out of the blue, caused them to be expelled from the community to which they had (by your own account) devoted so much for so long. To say: "well, what's the big deal? it's just a message board" is to ignore how human beings work, not to mention is to contradict everything else you have been saying about what this place is.

 

Human beings can pretty much tolerate anything as long as they have an outlet to express their dissatisfaction. But once you take that away from them - once you start silencing them and denying them the ability to voice discontent - that's when they resort to extreme measures, because the extreme measures become their only outlet for expressing dissatisfaction.

 

All of the recent acrimony here arose directly and almost exclusively from acts of censorship - where people had threads locked, threads deleted, posts zapped out of existence, and then entire long-term memberships revoked arbitrarily and without warning. Absent those acts of repression, the discourse here would have been what it's been for the last several years - ups and downs, waves of civiility and acrimony, nothing special.

 

But if you take a place that people have participated in for a long time and start forcibly silencing them and even booting them out, it takes a real naivaite to think that they're not going to respond strongly. My guess is that if you were suddenly booted out of here after all this time, you wouldn't just throw up your hands and say: "oh, well, it's just an Internet Board."

 

Of course this place generates strong emotions and feelings. All places where people congregate do - every single one of them. And when people feel wronged by authority or silenced, they are going to lash out in ways that are uncharacteristic or that seem extreme. That's how human being function; whole revolutions have been spawned by exactly that dynamic.

 

And for the people who have invested lots of time here to have endured years of being told "Fuck you" by one of the people "in charge" here - followed by mass purges of people who began offending that person - it's hardly a surprise that people reacted strongly. What would have been a surprise is if they didn't.

[Doug69]

>Finally, I'd suggest kindly that hatred is an awfully strong

>emotion to attach to someone who moderates a message board.

>I'd be surprised if you said you were in love with Deej or

>Barry or Cooper. Similarly, it seems an unlikely target for

>something so strong as hatred. It's just a message board.

>Life goes on no matter what happens here.

 

I think this is really the heart of the issue, and let's use BoN - since he's being discussed (and criticized rather aggressively) here without the opportunity to respond - as an example of how this issue manifests.

 

Let's be clear first about one thing: BoN had his membership here deleted BEFORE, not AFTER (and NOT as a result of), his posting of the link to Deej's personal website. He posted that link as an undestandably angry response to having his membership here - after 4 years of active participation - deleted without warning. I'm not defending the posting of that stuff about deej nor am I justifying it - but it's important to understand it in its context.

 

You can say - and you are right, as far as it goes - that this is just a message board, so what's anyone getting so upset about? But those rules you just wrote are based on the principle that this is more than just some Internet Message Board; people here, like BoN, invest a lot and effort in their involvement here and, to them, it becomes a community, not just an Internet Message Board. You, of all people, point this out all the time, and should understand it.

 

It's hardly a surprise that BoN - or anyone else - would react with extreme emotion upon learning that someone, out of the blue, caused them to be expelled from the community to which they had (by your own account) devoted so much for so long. To say: "well, what's the big deal? it's just a message board" is to ignore how human beings work, not to mention is to contradict everything else you have been saying about what this place is.

 

Human beings can pretty much tolerate anything as long as they have an outlet to express their dissatisfaction. But once you take that away from them - once you start silencing them and denying them the ability to voice discontent - that's when they resort to extreme measures, because the extreme measures become their only outlet for expressing dissatisfaction.

 

All of the recent acrimony here arose directly and almost exclusively from acts of censorship - where people had threads locked, threads deleted, posts zapped out of existence, and then entire long-term memberships revoked arbitrarily and without warning. Absent those acts of repression, the discourse here would have been what it's been for the last several years - ups and downs, waves of civiility and acrimony, nothing special.

 

But if you take a place that people have participated in for a long time and start forcibly silencing them and even booting them out, it takes a real naivaite to think that they're not going to respond strongly. My guess is that if you were suddenly booted out of here after all this time, you wouldn't just throw up your hands and say: "oh, well, it's just an Internet Board."

 

Of course this place generates strong emotions and feelings. All places where people congregate do - every single one of them. And when people feel wronged by authority or silenced, they are going to lash out in ways that are uncharacteristic or that seem extreme. That's how human being function; whole revolutions have been spawned by exactly that dynamic.

 

And for the people who have invested lots of time here to have endured years of being told "Fuck you" by one of the people "in charge" here - followed by mass purges of people who began offending that person - it's hardly a surprise that people reacted strongly. What would have been a surprise is if they didn't.

[Boston Guy]

Doug,

 

Thanks for a reasoned reply. I don't have time to respond at length this morning and, in any event, want to consider what you've said. But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your post. I'll reply again later when time permits.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

Doug,

 

Thanks for a reasoned reply. I don't have time to respond at length this morning and, in any event, want to consider what you've said. But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your post. I'll reply again later when time permits.

 

BG

[Guest ReturnOfS]

Nice smooth muscular arm. I wouldn't mind licking it. :9

[Guest ReturnOfS]

Nice smooth muscular arm. I wouldn't mind licking it. :9

[woodlawn]

>Bravo!! We ALL owe deej a debt for which he has never sought

>credit.

 

That is absurd. Deej is justly renowned for his constant whining about how difficult and time consuming his work on this board is and how anyone who has the colossal temerity to criticize any of his actions is nothing but a worthless ingrate. I don't know why you want to pretend he hasn't posted such sentiments time and time again, but I have no intention of letting you get away with such a ridiculous falsehood. Don't try it again.

 

> Deej was one of the calming

>voices that helped HB weather those rough seas at the time.

 

Is that right? I distinctly recall that after one controversial banning of a certain escort/poster from this board deej posted that he had offered Hooboy his resignation as moderator but that Hooboy had "refused to accept it." It took a moment for the implications of that statement to sink in, but when they did I was convulsed with laughter. How on earth could it be possible for Hooboy to compel an unpaid volunteer to continue in a job he wishes to resign? Was Hooboy blackmailing him? Did he owe Hooboy money? Or was this just part of deej's constant whining and self-justification? My money's on the latter.

 

> He never stooped to

>revealing personal information, although I suspect he had the

>opportunity if he wanted.

 

You really should be more truthful. You know full well that on a number of occasions deej has made veiled threats against posters here based on information he has obtained from reading the site's "server logs." Someone who does that has no business to complain if he is on the receiving end of the same type of threats he himself has made.

[woodlawn]

>Bravo!! We ALL owe deej a debt for which he has never sought

>credit.

 

That is absurd. Deej is justly renowned for his constant whining about how difficult and time consuming his work on this board is and how anyone who has the colossal temerity to criticize any of his actions is nothing but a worthless ingrate. I don't know why you want to pretend he hasn't posted such sentiments time and time again, but I have no intention of letting you get away with such a ridiculous falsehood. Don't try it again.

 

> Deej was one of the calming

>voices that helped HB weather those rough seas at the time.

 

Is that right? I distinctly recall that after one controversial banning of a certain escort/poster from this board deej posted that he had offered Hooboy his resignation as moderator but that Hooboy had "refused to accept it." It took a moment for the implications of that statement to sink in, but when they did I was convulsed with laughter. How on earth could it be possible for Hooboy to compel an unpaid volunteer to continue in a job he wishes to resign? Was Hooboy blackmailing him? Did he owe Hooboy money? Or was this just part of deej's constant whining and self-justification? My money's on the latter.

 

> He never stooped to

>revealing personal information, although I suspect he had the

>opportunity if he wanted.

 

You really should be more truthful. You know full well that on a number of occasions deej has made veiled threats against posters here based on information he has obtained from reading the site's "server logs." Someone who does that has no business to complain if he is on the receiving end of the same type of threats he himself has made.

[woodlawn]

RE: One Way Street

 

>So I cannot agree with your statement. No matter the subject,

>I think it's always worthwhile to listen to someone who

>disagrees with us.

 

And my point is that deej, the person you are defending, NEVER does that when HE is on the receiving end of dissenting views. So according to you the rest of us really should consider deej's position when he does something we find offensive, but he has no reciprocal obligation. I can summarize my evaluation of that argument in one word: bullshit.

 

> It's really one of the only ways to learn

>if our own positions and opinions are as solid as we think.

 

It certainly is. So you be sure and let me know if your pal deej ever decides to try it. THAT is something I'd really like to see.

[woodlawn]

RE: One Way Street

 

>So I cannot agree with your statement. No matter the subject,

>I think it's always worthwhile to listen to someone who

>disagrees with us.

 

And my point is that deej, the person you are defending, NEVER does that when HE is on the receiving end of dissenting views. So according to you the rest of us really should consider deej's position when he does something we find offensive, but he has no reciprocal obligation. I can summarize my evaluation of that argument in one word: bullshit.

 

> It's really one of the only ways to learn

>if our own positions and opinions are as solid as we think.

 

It certainly is. So you be sure and let me know if your pal deej ever decides to try it. THAT is something I'd really like to see.

[Boston Guy]

RE: One Way Street

 

>

>>So I cannot agree with your statement. No matter the

>subject,

>>I think it's always worthwhile to listen to someone who

>>disagrees with us.

>

>And my point is that deej, the person you are defending, NEVER

>does that when HE is on the receiving end of dissenting views.

> So according to you the rest of us really should consider

>deej's position when he does something we find offensive, but

>he has no reciprocal obligation. I can summarize my

>evaluation of that argument in one word: bullshit.

>

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't do it to you.

 

You know perfectly well that I didn't say "the rest of us really should consider deej's position when he does something we find offensive, but he has no reciprocal obligation."

 

What I did says was "No matter the subject, I think it's always worthwhile to listen to someone who disagrees with us." Please note the word "always" in the middle of that sentence. It's advice I would offer to all parties in a dispute. Listening -- really listening -- to people who hold an alternative opinion doesn't cost a thing. And if can often save time, money, and angry disputes.

 

How often have any of us decided that we know what someone else is thinking and then gotten annoyed with them because of it -- without actually determining if that's truly what they were thinking. People see someone do something, decide they know the person's motivation and get angry. The unfortunate thing, of course, is that the person to whom we're attributing certain feelings or motivations often doesn't have those feelings or isn't working from the motivations attributed to him. Asking someone why he did something or said something and then listening to the answer with an open mind is almost a lost art these days. But it's valuable nonetheless.

 

>> It's really one of the only ways to learn

>>if our own positions and opinions are as solid as we think.

>

>It certainly is. So you be sure and let me know if your pal

>deej ever decides to try it. THAT is something I'd really

>like to see.

>

 

I don't speak for Deej. And he isn't my "pal". We've never met. But I do respect very much the contribution he has made here over a period of years. And I will defend him just as I would defend you if someone were trying to reveal your personal information here.

 

As a matter of fact, I have defended you here before, when I thought you were right or being unfairly criticized by other posters.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

RE: One Way Street

 

>

>>So I cannot agree with your statement. No matter the

>subject,

>>I think it's always worthwhile to listen to someone who

>>disagrees with us.

>

>And my point is that deej, the person you are defending, NEVER

>does that when HE is on the receiving end of dissenting views.

> So according to you the rest of us really should consider

>deej's position when he does something we find offensive, but

>he has no reciprocal obligation. I can summarize my

>evaluation of that argument in one word: bullshit.

>

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't do it to you.

 

You know perfectly well that I didn't say "the rest of us really should consider deej's position when he does something we find offensive, but he has no reciprocal obligation."

 

What I did says was "No matter the subject, I think it's always worthwhile to listen to someone who disagrees with us." Please note the word "always" in the middle of that sentence. It's advice I would offer to all parties in a dispute. Listening -- really listening -- to people who hold an alternative opinion doesn't cost a thing. And if can often save time, money, and angry disputes.

 

How often have any of us decided that we know what someone else is thinking and then gotten annoyed with them because of it -- without actually determining if that's truly what they were thinking. People see someone do something, decide they know the person's motivation and get angry. The unfortunate thing, of course, is that the person to whom we're attributing certain feelings or motivations often doesn't have those feelings or isn't working from the motivations attributed to him. Asking someone why he did something or said something and then listening to the answer with an open mind is almost a lost art these days. But it's valuable nonetheless.

 

>> It's really one of the only ways to learn

>>if our own positions and opinions are as solid as we think.

>

>It certainly is. So you be sure and let me know if your pal

>deej ever decides to try it. THAT is something I'd really

>like to see.

>

 

I don't speak for Deej. And he isn't my "pal". We've never met. But I do respect very much the contribution he has made here over a period of years. And I will defend him just as I would defend you if someone were trying to reveal your personal information here.

 

As a matter of fact, I have defended you here before, when I thought you were right or being unfairly criticized by other posters.

 

BG

[woodlawn]

RE: One Way Street

 

>You know perfectly well that I didn't say "the rest of us

>really should consider deej's position when he does something

>we find offensive, but he has no reciprocal obligation."

 

If that's not what you meant, then I find it very hard to understand why you are urging the rest of us to consider deej's position in this controversy when you know full well he is not one to afford others the same consideration. If you DO think he has a reciprocal obligation, you should be chiding him for failing to abide by it. So far I have not seen you do that.

 

>How often have any of us decided that we know what someone

>else is thinking and then gotten annoyed with them because of

>it -- without actually determining if that's truly what they

>were thinking.

 

Frankly, my dear BG, it is not very difficult to deduce what someone is thinking when he responds to a question or complaint with a hearty "Fuck you!" or words to that effect. That, as you know, is deej's habit. If people have gotten the impression that he is an uncaring, hostile jerk, then he has only himself to blame.

 

And when people have complained about this behavior his response has always been "I am a moderator here. If I don't like the way you act I can sanction you for it. If you don't like the way I act there is nothing you can do but leave. So fuck you!" or words to that effect. With this attitude I really am surprised that something of the kind BofN did has not happened to deej long before now. And if he continues to treat people that way I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again. As you may know, BofN briefly posted a link on another site to a certain page where information about deej could be found. How do we know how many other people copied that information before deej took it down? In fact, we don't. If I were him I would give that issue some serious thought.

 

>As a matter of fact, I have defended you here before, when I

>thought you were right or being unfairly criticized by other

>posters.

 

You have, and I acknowledge that gratefully.

 

In your earlier post you picked up on my use of the word "hatred." Let me tell you that if there is anything in this world I hate, it is someone who occupies an official position in an organization in which he is supposed to treat all members equally, but who actually uses his position to attack members with whom he has some private quarrel. Deej makes no bones about the fact that he has done this, and he thumbs his nose at those who object to it. I can't believe that you would defend this kind of behavior. But even if you do defend it, that will not change my feelings about it.

[Boston Guy]

RE: One Way Street

 

I think being a moderator is one of life's more thankless positions. You're often caught in positions that have no happy alternative. And, on any board, there are always some posters who decide that it is their task in life to give one or more of the moderators shit. It's a job I don't want and wouldn't take. And I'm surprised only that more moderators on more boards don't blow up more frequently.

 

Having said that, I think moderators should abide by the rules of their board and treat everyone equally. ("Treating everyone equally" might be "anyone who does the thing you just did would get the same treatment you are getting" rather than "I treated everyone I spoke with today in exactly this manner".) I think moderators should be moderate. They shouldn't break the rules and I don't think that they should be telling posters to "fuck off" or waving around wands of power.

 

I've criticized the management of this board any number of times, going way back to the original days. At times, I think HB saw me as a real thorn in his side. And I'd do the same thing again today, willingly, if a moderator broke the rules.

 

But let's be realistic, too. We're all human. If a moderator -- any moderator -- is given shit for long enough, or if they're having a bad enough day, they might snap. We all do it from time to time. It doesn't mean it's the right thing to do or something we should be proud of. But we're not perfect and we ought to -- all of us -- be trying to give the other guy a little break here instead of waging war on one another.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

Doug,

 

First, let me make clear that I am not arguing that either side in this mini-drama was faultless. I do think that the people involved on both sides got into positions where they felt their backs were up against the wall and responded in ways that, in retrospect, were anything but optimum.

 

I do agree with you that people take this "community" seriously. It's one of the things that make it worthwhile. Many people have taken real value from it over the years and that's due, in large part, to the efforts of many people. That list includes the ones who started it, the ones who keep it running, and the ones who come and share so generously of their time and thoughts.

 

But it's still just a Message Center and I hope that everyone who comes here keeps that in context. It's a source of information, amusement and fellowship, to be sure, but it's still just an Internet message board. If any of us gets to the point where M4M looms large in our lives, well, it's probably time to start adding some new activities to our life.

 

I don't pretend to know the sequence of events that led up to the meltdown. I'm happy to accept your version of the chronology for the moment. But you and I both know that the moderators here -- including Deej -- have not historically just deleted people because they didn't like them. There was always something leading up to it, usually many somethings, with a final straw breaking the camel's back. Most of us have pissed off the management at one time or another here and we didn't get thrown out. That's a good thing. So I have to assume that the "battle" that raged had some fuel being thrown on the fire by both sides.

 

As a general rule, I think there should be virtually no moderation at all. I prefer freedom of speech and like the ability to express my opinions without censorship, even when they run counter to the opinion of the management. There's a pretty good track record of allowing that here.

 

But any gathering of people has to have at least some minimal rules for how people should act in that group -- something, some kind of baseline that everyone can agree on. The rules here have always seemed to me to be sensible. Other than not posting libel or child porn, they pretty much allow anything so long as the person writing it is willing to state what he wants to state in a way that isn't directly attacking other people.

 

In a perfect world here at M4M, I'd prefer that the moderators were so invisible that everyone forgot they were there. And that would be the case, I think, if everyone sticks within the rules. Unfortunately, we're human, we get angry and then the flame wars begin. It's as old as the Internet. No one, to my knowledge, has figured out a real solution. It falls on the moderators at each board to deal with it. But the problem, in my opinion, always BEGINS with a poster who has broken the rules of the board he has posted on. You can claim that it began with censorship and perhaps it did and perhaps it merely looked that way. But if we could truly back up the tape and look at the entire history of things, I'm not at all sure it would be entirely that clear.

 

Finally, I want to address something else. Some of us are old enough to well remember a time in America when you simply didn't tell someone else you were gay, unless they, too, were gay and you felt pretty darned comfortable with them. Being gay was not a good thing in the minds of society and there weren't any voices telling people it was wrong to speak out or act violently against "queers and fags".

 

Coming out meant entering a new community, one that had its fair share of queenly attitude, to be sure, but one that also had a real sense of camaraderie. You didn't out other people, even people you didn't like. It just wasn't done. Everyone knew how hard it was to come out and how much the odds in society were stacked against anyone who was gay. The term "gay community" really meant something and this wasn't so long ago.

 

I'm probably an idealist, but I still believe in the gay community, in a community that looks out for itself and lends a hand to those in need. It was a little hard for me when I came out and I was helped a lot by a series of total strangers, guys who didn't know me from Adam. Ever since, I've tried to return those favors whenever I could.

 

Today, there are still a lot of people who don't like "queers and fags". Yes, we've made progress, a lot of it, and it's a damned good thing. But there's still a long way to go.

 

I assume that most people here are gay. And, frankly, I cannot begin to understand why it is more important to worry about some stupid post that got deleted or edited by a moderator, even completely unfairly, than to put it all into context and realize that we've come here to learn from each other, to help each other, to share, to commiserate -- to be, in fact, a community. We're not all alike. But we share many things. And it pains me when we tear each other down. There are lots of people on the outside quite willing to do that for us. It seems to me that it's a lot better when we stick up for each other instead, and maybe especially so when someone -- a poster or a moderator -- seems to be having a meltdown.

 

Instead of lashing out in anger, why not ask the person what the problem is? Why not go take a walk and come back refreshed? Why do people need to "win" all of these battles. When it did it become so important to "take no prisoners". It's a message board. Sometimes it's like playing pool with friends. Someone has to win every game. Hopefully, over time, everyone gets to win some.

 

I urge the moderators to use the new rules wisely and with tolerance. And I urge all of us who are posting to remember that there are real, living, breathing gay men at the ends of these wires. Words can hurt and do real damage. It might make us feel good to lash out at someone but we do well to ask what the effect on another gay man is going to be before we do so.

 

BG

[woodlawn]

RE: One Way Street

 

> And I'm surprised only that more moderators on

>more boards don't blow up more frequently.

 

Are you? I've been reading this board for more than three years. If we exclude deej, I can't remember the last time a moderator got into a prolonged and acrimonious argument with any poster about anything. I can recall a few occasions when Barry was the target of a critical remark and made a tart rejoinder, but nothing like what we are discussing. The truth is that deej is in a class by himself.

 

> They

>shouldn't break the rules and I don't think that they should

>be telling posters to "fuck off" or waving around wands of

>power.

 

With the exception of deej, I know of no moderator who has been in the habit of doing that. The moderators are all different people from different places with different backgrounds, but they all seem able to tolerate the give and take of this board for long periods of time without blowing up at anyone and without alienating whole groups of posters. All except for deej.

 

The job of a moderator is not an easy one to do, but it isn't difficult to understand. The job is to keep the discussion within certain bounds but without stifling or chilling it and without making anyone feel he has been treated unfairly. One can't accomplish that by issuing arbitrary orders like a drill sergeant and responding to complaints with insults and threats. Some people, no matter how dedicated or diligent they may be in their duties, simply don't have the right personality for that job. Deej is obviously one of them.

[Barry]

RE: One Way Street

 

>I can recall a few occasions when

>Barry was the target of a critical remark and made a tart

>rejoinder

 

I am NOT a tart!!

 

Barry :+

[Juan Vancouver]

God! It does feel good to be back.

Let´s hope we can achieve and mantain a healthy balance between open and trutfull communication and an adult and respectful attitude. There are few things that I enjoy more than listening to people with whom I disagree, as long as communication is healthy and respectful.

 

But... truth be told... I have gotten used to all of you guys... We can discuss topics here that would be a little odd out there.

 

Hugs and licks to you all!:9

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: One Way Street

 

>>I can recall a few occasions when

>>Barry was the target of a critical remark and made a tart

>>rejoinder

>

>I am NOT a tart!!

>

>Barry :+

 

LOL!