Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:46:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3264 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
... because murfling was
never meant to be the same as cancelling or deleting a post. The idea is
that questionable posts are visibly separated but still accessible - in
essence, a compromise between the ideal of totally free speech and the
practical need for no cursing on a family site. Somehow murfling got
equated with censorship, which it was never supposed to be (nor is it
now).
-Lenny
|
While murfling may not equate to cancelling or deleting a post, I find it
hard to comprehend that anyone would not consider it a form of censorship.
Though it has not been used widely on LUGNET, and as a result there are few
examples of actual murfling to examine, I feel that it is distinctly a form
of censorship, albeit a superficially subtle one.
While murfling does not remove posts, it sets them apart, makes them
‘special’ in some way and highlights their unacceptability to some
prevailing (or assumed) standard. To claim that this is not censorship, but
mere cautioning, or setting aside, is, I find, patronising at best.
To my mind, murfling is an insidious Orwellian alternative to ‘cancel’ or
‘delete’ button of the traditional censor. Deleting or cancelling removes
the evidence (or most of it) of the offending post, murfling labels it
forever with something like this post is bad, nice people wouldn’t read
it.
But then, I guess euphemisms often help people feel better about things.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
I find it amusing, in a sad sort of way, that cries of censorship continue
to crop up on Lugnet, which is one of the most unmoderated and self-policing
communities on the web (at least that I’ve frequented). The complaints about
censorship imply (to me) a deeper problem - that for some, anyone else
imposing their judgment on someone else is not acceptable. The attitude
that there should be no moderators or administrators who can levy punishment
or single out a post that the admins felt violated the ToS. The attitude
that somebody would have (gasp) power over someone else. The feeling that
nobody else should appear better than the rest of us. This attitude was
instilled - apparently by design - at the beginning of Lugnet and appears
integral to at least some long-time members.
|
As I’m sure you remember the internet used to be a great bastion of free
speech and self-policing. In some ways that attitude has lived on in Lugnet
and I’m glad it has.
I’d like to know why you think Lugnet should be changed?
|
I’m not advocating it be changed, at this point. A couple of years ago, I tried.
Now... no. Lugnet will continue to be Lugnet for the forseeable future.
| |
If it was still the
only LEGO forum I could see your argument but if people want to frequent a
censored or administered forum they can choose to do so. There is no need to
change Lugnet to a different model and the push, as far as I’ve seen, has
never been from the owners/chief administrators but always from certain
members, just as the push against has been from certain members.
|
Actually, Todd was fully behind the push that Lenny and I were involved with,
but I can see where that wouldn’t be obvious (which was part of the reason it
didn’t work, I think.)
| |
I suspect too that given the disaster (in some people’s minds) last time a
more moderated version of Lugnet was tried out that there are some who
believe that the status quo is preferable to the unforseen consequences of
attempts to change it. There is a good arguemnt that the time it got nastiest
was when it was made more moderated.
|
Yes... mainly because many members refused to acknowledge that the people trying
to instigate change had the authority to do so.
One of the people I had suspended during that brief time recently attended
BrickFest, and I had the opportunity to discuss things with him. I’m glad to say
there appeared to be no ill will, and I had a good time talking with him during
the event.
| |
| |
Lenny described the history and intent of murfling very well. You can choose
to interpret a murfled post as censorship, but that doesn’t mean it is
censorship. And more to the point, I don’t really see why it matters.
Kelly
|
Nor does it mean it’s not censorship.
|
Granted.
| |
Murfling is there to change the
appearance of certain posts on the web-based viewing system of the lugnet
newsgroups.
|
Agreed.
| |
That is, to my mind, a form of censorship and not, as Lenny
suggests, an alternative to censorship.
|
Again, not seeing why it’s an important distinction. But I hope you’ll
understand that the intent was to try to meet two conflicting requirements. As
far as it’s been used, I think it’s a reasonable solution.
Kelly
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| --snip-- (...) OK (...) OK. I was pretty much a lurker at that time so I really didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. (...) From my observations that wasn't the only reason nor even the main reason. From my solo, lurking position (as in (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) As I'm sure you remember the internet used to be a great bastion of free speech and self-policing. In some ways that attitude has lived on in Lugnet and I'm glad it has. I'd like to know why you think Lugnet should be changed? If it was still (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
