An example of equality, free speech and democracy OR IS IT??

Anything relating to the operation of this site.
Elster
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:55 pm

An example of equality, free speech and democracy OR IS IT??

Postby Elster » Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:57 pm

m gomez
Sam wil be on the bench for one week for a particular nasty post centered on a poster.


I have been Reading these posts now for quite a while. However I did not read the one concerning the above.

Banning Sam for a week is rather harsh. (what ever happened to verbal warnings!!!!) There have been threads posted about him in a personal manner and he has every right to defend his position.

One in particular as quoted saying
'Headteacher's son demands resignation of Govenors'

Do you think that this was not reason enough for you to act as judge and jury as to whether this new thread should have been posted.

As far as I can see Sam did not DEMAND the resignation of the govenors, he merely agreed with the intention set.

I am sure Sam would have apologised and would understand that curbing his personal attacks is essential.

Daffy Some of this activity is welcome, but much of it is just garbage or abuse that will deter legitimate users from contributing if it is allowed to continue


Have all the the rest been banned as well.

Daffy Vigorous debate is tolerated and even encouraged, but please do not allow yourself to be sucked into gratuitous slanging matches.


No doubt this will continue as St James Pupils stand united and defend their school and personal remarks made against them and their family members.

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

freedom of speech etc

Postby ross nolan » Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:45 pm

Dear Elster,' freedom of speech' does have limits in the interest of respect for individual opinion -- civilized persons try to elicit reasons for others holding opinions and possibly provide arguments to convince others that there are better reasons for believing something else --to resort to written swearing or juvenile 'slanging' is certainly deserving of censure.

Just as any 'contact' sport can be robust and involve physical 'violence' there have to be rules that prohibit or punish a 'kick in the crutch' -- not all robust activity, physical or intellectual, is acceptable and the 'yellow card' system seems a reasonable practice to enforce the rules of the game.

For you younger people discourse on the net seems to be somewhat different to those who grew up with slower but more permanent methods of the written word -- it sometimes seems like you want to exploit the shock value of seeing your words appearing without any apparent responsibility being accepted because you feel anonymous (like throwing a brick through someone's window and running away or the old schoolboy joke of ringing the front door bell and dissappearing but secretly watching the perplexed owner) . If you current students want to convince your predeccessors that there is nothing wrong with the present conduct of the schools you will not do it by resorting to abuse or verbal 'throwing bricks and running away' .

I have not heard one cogent defence of the curriculum at St James (in the 'unique aspects' such as Sanskrit,Vedic maths or Hindu practices,study of the Gita etc ) based on a reasoned example or argument in any way referring to what 'wisdom' you have learned and yet you are defending these things in effect.

How about treating your posts as an exercise in 'clear thinking' or reasoned debate and possibly earning some respect for you educated conduct ?
Skeptic

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Re: An example of equality, free speech and democracy OR IS

Postby Daffy » Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:52 pm

Elster wrote:I have been Reading these posts now for quite a while. However I did not read the one concerning the above.


You can read the post that got Sam his suspension here: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... .php?t=472

Anyone who still doesn't understand why this sort of rubbish is not tolerated, please Google for "forum etiquette" or "board etiquette" and read carefully any of the guides listed.

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:44 pm

I have quite a few issues with Ross and his past posts but he's hit it on the nail here.

Sam was told over and over that he was being rude, arrogant, insensitive, etc.

This is not a government-run public forum. This is a private forum where people apply to be members and the owner and moderator are well within their rights to discipline those involved.

Again, I have to draw analogies because people can't understand this abuse thing. If this was a board where people were discussing being raped by members of a group in the past and current members of that group came on and were acting this way, I don't think anyone would disagree that they should stop. And if they can't stop when asked, they should not be allowed. In the internet world, it's called trolling.

p.s. Daffy - that link says that only moderators can read the forum. Is it in the locked posts?

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:59 pm

Elster, after you had a chance to read Sam''s post and still have questions, place them here.
Mike Gormez

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:34 am

I can't read it either. Must be in the locked posts.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:03 am

I can't read it either. Bugger!

But given that Mike is a very tolerant sort of guy...

Hmm, perhaps it best I CAN'T read it.

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Postby Daffy » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:39 am

Free Thinker wrote:Daffy - that link says that only moderators can read the forum. Is it in the locked posts?

Oops, you are correct, only Mike and I can read it - which is probably just as well!

The post was just a screed of personal attacks that did not express any constructive views whatsoever and was intended to further degrade the level of conversation on this site.

It is worth reminding everyone that we are not trying to censor anyone or any particular views. We are just trying to ensure that users feel able to express themselves without being screamed at by others.

User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:53 pm

Hmm,

Maybe a drink and then a good friendly punch up would sort this out. Clear the air an everything.

When is he off the bench? ;o)

Jerome
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: LONDON

Postby Jerome » Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:04 pm

I feel a strong need to defend Sam, mainly because he isn't here to do it himself, but also because some of the posters are getting up in a web of hypocrasy. Lets just see some of the allegations/comments/attacks made against him...

SES Militant
I'm sure prospective parents would be very happy to send their children to a school which spits out pupils performing as poorly as you,
self righteous attitude
Your view is very limited
wrapped up in school doctrine
the school seems to be actively recruiting young, inexperienced and heavily indoctrinated pupils
How little you know and how loudly you proclaim it!
ignorant, sheep-mentality
organisation you probably love in place of your parents
Stick that in your arrogant, ignorant, militant pipe and smoke it!
[quote]

Alright, care to enlighten me on why, Mr. Gormez and Daffy, you are not sin-binning some of the other more experienced ex-pupils? Oh, maybe because they're pushing out the message you want to put across and because current pupils are doing soemthing different, you want to stifle them? Kindly explain.

Not a personal attack, just that everyone should take more care before they come out with 'personal attacks', Sam and The O, this includes you.

Jerome[/i][/quote]

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:21 pm

Daffy wrote:
Free Thinker wrote:Daffy - that link says that only moderators can read the forum. Is it in the locked posts?

Oops, you are correct, only Mike and I can read it - which is probably just as well!

The post was just a screed of personal attacks that did not express any constructive views whatsoever and was intended to further degrade the level of conversation on this site.

It is worth reminding everyone that we are not trying to censor anyone or any particular views. We are just trying to ensure that users feel able to express themselves without being screamed at by others.

Suspension is one thing, but locking the very post that lead to the suspension, thus making it impossible for the other members to see for themselves whether the suspension is justified, quite another. Even if the post itself had no merit whatsoever, it needs to be unlocked now so that we can judge the basis for Sam's suspension. Your actions may be well-intended, but they also create the exact same lack of transparency, and treat us in exactly the same way as immature little children, as many of the practices that have been discussed on this board in connection with cults.

... only Mike and I can read it - which is probably just as well!

No, it's not.

The post ... was intended to further degrade the level of conversation on this site.

Then let us see the post so that we can judge for ourselves.

... we are not trying to censor anyone or any particular views. We are just trying to ensure that users feel able to express themselves without being screamed at by others.

But not at the expense of accountability.

AH

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

suspension

Postby ross nolan » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:03 pm

Some of the chatter on this forum is becoming pedantic in the extreme and non informative to say the least.

Having waded through the increasingly vitriolic and out of control shouting of the person in question I am prepared to accept that;-

1. any action taken was certain to be deserved and was not excessive or otherwise objectionable ( he needs a cooling off period and to reflect)

2. the 'locked' nature of the posting was unintentional and probably due to some quirk of the software (why else would Daffy have posted it and invited inspection?)

3. Any offhand comment afterwards was just that - a trivial aside not some sinister evidence of ulterior purpose.

4. I believe you (Abel) and any other reasonable person would already know that .

Concentrate on what is important, please.

Ross.
Skeptic

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Re: suspension

Postby Abel Holzing » Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:46 pm

ross nolan wrote:Some of the chatter on this forum is becoming pedantic in the extreme and non informative to say the least.

Agreed (although we might not necessarily agree what bits are pedantic and non-informative :-)).

Having waded through the increasingly vitriolic and out of control shouting of the person in question I am prepared to accept that;-
1. any action taken was certain to be deserved and was not excessive or otherwise objectionable ( he needs a cooling off period and to reflect)

You may or may not be right, but, regrettably, I am not in a position to judge, since the very post that was the reason for his suspension is - and continues to be - locked.

2. the 'locked' nature of the posting was unintentional and probably due to some quirk of the software (why else would Daffy have posted it and invited inspection?)

"Quirk of the software"? "Probably"? Are you kidding? If 'unintentional', why was this not put right after it was reported by a number of members that the post was inaccessible? And does this ...

Daffy wrote:"... only Mike and I can read it - which is probably just as well!"

... sound like coming from someone whose true intention is make the post accessible? "Software quirk" - ha!

3. Any offhand comment afterwards was just that - a trivial aside not some sinister evidence of ulterior purpose.

I beg to differ - matters concerning the suspension of a member, its basis, the availability and removal of related evidence and questions of accountability are not trivial asides.

4. I believe you (Abel) and any other reasonable person would already know that. Concentrate on what is important, please.

What is important is that this board retains its credibility, and it won't do this by employing practices which it finds unacceptable in organisations it tries to expose.

AH

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:15 am

Sam is back shortly and anyone can ask him in email/PM what it was about.
Mike Gormez

User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:57 am

Jerome,

It is disingenuous to take comments out of their context to paint a different picture.

What might you say if you added in comments like this to the equation:

ps: MISSREPRESENTATION AND SLANDER IS ILLEGAL, get over it!

you dont need secret cameras and investgational journalists to see the truth! If you do, matthew, justice, alban and the rest...then your judgement is obviously heavily clouded, sodd going spec savers, consider getting ur eyes removed!

ps: justice your a nobody!

Ps: lets keep this civilised)

I have thruthfully only good old st. james to thank for my literacy and numeracy dissabilities and as im sure you would appreciate trying to learn your 9 X tables in front of a class in floods of tears whilst ducking flying caligraphy boards and rubbers is challenging to say the least.
None the less, that was 12 year ago, good old CR.

For the people who hurt you have little to do with me and my school. Im sorry but your world just doesn't exist anymore

Do NOT assume that through your mental instability...


Maybe the attitude loses some sympathy. But in his winning way Sam did eventually calm down in response to a stirling effort on the part of insulted but mature ex pupils who saw the futility of a slanging match. To his credit Sam recognised his own human failings and moved on.. for a bit.

Thankyou all for your remarks, Keir especially, occasionally I do apprecciate having my head pulled out my ass.


Evidently he wrote a further angry post (possibly in response to something provoking) that was deemed 'over the line' by the moderators. True we cannot see and therefore judge whether we felt it to be over the line, but to substitute by cut-and-pasting what are by now old responses to some rudeness and dismissiveness by a newcomer to the board (under a provocative thread heading it should be noted), is not the most constructive way forward, even if it is done out of concern for bullying.

In my understanding it is this post that few have seen that banished him to the sin bin, not his rough housing in another thread.

Have you seen the dreaded post? No? Me neither.


Return to “Housekeeping”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests