Some of the best arguments on fornits against censorship and moderation of fornits were made in the past by the very people who have now instituted this policy, ironic, I know. Now these very same people make arguments against their previous held convictions. I thought some people might enjoy reading this contrast, so with no further delay, I give you, Then and Now: In their own words.
Then
This project definitely was conceived as an open battle ground, not a closed, safe therapy session.
Now
Staff is just another phase of the program. The decisions to let someone moderate a forum have to do with things like their willingness to do it and our belief in their integrity and ability to keep themselves in check most of the time (which is all you can ask and more than you should expect of a human being). I don't put much stock into which walk-on part someone may have played in their particular episode of the Twilight Zone.
Then
I understand the desire among program vets to have a safe, healing place to deal with our issues. I just got an earful the other night from a close friend telling me that this site should be all about healing. I've got a couple of good friends who won't come around here anymore because it's been too painful. And even that has been because of cruelty or misunderstanding among survivors, never mind the overtly pro-program assholes like Who.
Unfortunately, such a thing as a safe, therapeutic forum can't exist in freedom. Even if it could, I'm nowhere near qualified nor inclined to bring it about. How would I go about deciding which stories and viewpoints are valid and true and who gets to speak and who doesn't? Hell, some of the craziest, most frightening and probably actually dangerous people who come around here are fellow program vets. I won't ban them either, no matter what transpires among friends and combatants. It's all part of the story.
See, program zealots can only win an argument if they're able to control the dialog and force coalescence.
Now
Having an ex steffer moderate dialog betwween program survivors,is like having an ex nazi moderate dialog between holocaust survivors.
Shindler was a high ranking Nazi in good standing when he did his thing and Solzhenitsyn was a high ranking Soviet officer on the day of his arrest.
Then
No banning on Fornits. Period. Free speech is paramount. Once censorship starts, it's a slippery slope before there's duct tape on your mouth.
"I detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
Now
We respect your right to spew whatever you feel like on your own property or public property but not on our private property. If you choose to participate in a moderated discussion you agree to the rules. When you're warned about them, and you still continue, ignorance no longer remains any sort of excuse. I didn't necessarily want to ban you (i feel sorry for you), but i can't make an exception. If I did it would be unfair to everybody else. Goodbye.
Then
At least one difference between you and I is that I believe a level playing field and a fair and open moderated discussion allows the truth to bubble to the surface.
Fair and open is subjective. Fox calls itself "fair and balanced". It does not make it so. The only truly fair discussion is one where nobody has any power over the words of others. Sure it results in a fair bit of chaos, but there is also the guarantee that it is fair. You might have been a benevolent monarch, but such a system is only as good as it's leader... and people shouldn't have to trust in a leader... they should be able to trust in a system. As it is a system exists that does not rely on a single person's benevolence or fairness where in a sense nobody and everybody is in charge. Everybody has a fair shake at the discussion table including the "trolls" which is really a term for that which you personally find irrelevant, distracting, or otherwise offensive..
Now
There is nothing to worry about. A good system has been built.
Then
Anybody can "manipulate" the system, influence the discussion, etc... Everybody has a fair shake in that and nobody has a upper hand. It's up to each individual reader to determine whether a person is a "troll", playing devils advocate, or talking to himself as you imply. I like to think people on this forum have gotten pretty good at detecting that based on writing style, post timings, and other clues. It doesn't exactly require a moderator and the mystery adds a certain intrigue to the discussion and attunes one's senses to bullshit.
So what is your definition of a forum as a success? By the mere act of defining that you're influencing the dialogue in a direction you choose... Instead of letting the people decide what is relevant and what is not you're implying they're not mature enough to do it for themselves. Benevolent monarch, maybe, but a monarch nonetheless.
opinions have changed and the zeitgeist of the forum does shift. People with powerful opinions and arguments can influence others. Example: When I came to this forum nearly everybody viewed parents as intrinsically misguided and evil for sending their kids to program. Over time, that has changed significantly as posters have been exposed to information regarding exactly how parents are fooled, how thought reform works, etc. I'd like to think the forum as a whole learns, and I think that can only truly happen when nobody interferes with the "thought process"... even with the best of intentions. Sure, it can be harsh, but i you can wade through the BS, there are a lot of gems on this forum an a lot of real discussion.
I was thinking in the car today. I find it sad that so many people no longer seem able to absorb and process unfiltered information on their own... they want some moderator to filter it into an easily digestible piece of text. well... there is nothing about this industry that is easily digestible and I think filtering out the muck takes the authenticity out of the discussion. As it is, i feel this is a pure snapshot of the troubled teen industry with all the crazy and fallout preserved on both sides. Sure it's not for everybody, but i feel it's an important lesson to re-learn how to look at everything as a whole and meditate on it without having some sort of babysitter. Even the crazy, even the trolls, have meaning if you reflect on it. You might not see it and it might be direct, but those posts are in some way a result of this industry, and without that, the snapshot would be doctored and the warts airbrushed off.
why not moderate the forum to delete any mention of anything remotely pro-program... and nobody would ever know? If the majority of posters here are anti-program that merely reflects the majority opinion. Sometimes the minority is "shouted down", yes, but there is nothing stopping a minority opinion from sticking it out and influencing the majority. It's happened before.
Now
Ajax. Use a proper thread title like I warned you twice already to do. It's a violation of rule 4. Next time I will ban you. I don't care what you write in threads as long as it's in the proper forum with a descriptive title.
Then
"Rule" in this case would be deleting or modifying a person's words. What you're referring to is simply the majority being louder, which is natural. As I wrote in my longer post above, nothing at all prevents a minority opinion from becoming popular. It seems as if you want to artificially balance the forum and interfere with the open commerce of ideas. Sort of like socialist economics applied to a discussion...
Again, that depends on your definition of fair. Is it artificially induced "play nice" "fair" or an adult version where people are free to make up their own minds as to whether they choose to continue in a discussion or not. If they choose not to stick it out, their opinion will always remain minority. That is their choice. You seem to rather prop them up (by censoring others) and shield them from verbal "harm" when they choose not to help themselves. You put the responsibility of protecting individual posters from verbal offense on the moderator. I believe that adults should be able to decide for themselves what is pertaninant and skip past what they find offensive. That, to me, is fair.
Why take the risk of choosing a human leader that can be contaminated with bias when you can leave the decision up to the individual. That's liberty. I had enough of people telling me what was ok to say and what was ok to read in program. As it is there are no subjectively made decisions by any authority over who can say what.
It seems as if you want to have a private discussion where we can invite the staff in for a nice little tea party. After everything so many survivors have been through, do you really find it appropriate to tell them one more time they have to be polite to their tormentors? I have to say I find that notion a tad bit offensive in itself. They dished it out in program and if they can't take it back... fuck em. Then that's their choice not to participate (and at least they have it... at least they can turn off the fucking screen which is not exactly an option in program).
Now
The Gatekeeper can be trusted.. there is an appeals process you can go through if you feel you have been unjustly warned or even informally warned. There is nothing to worry about. A good system has been built.
and DJ. People learn, as gatekeeper is learning, as one does on a new job. You're being a bit cruel.
Then
Nobody gets banned from Fornits. It would be a relatively simple matter to ban him by IP and email address, but that is just not done here.
Moderation ensures the group-think is enforced and irreversible.
Now
Ajax violated the rules, was warned repeatedly, and refused to stop. It's only a 7 day ban anyway. If I allow him to do what he did I have to allow people to come on here and post penis enlargement information with TTI titles (happened earlier this year). I intend on applying the rules not selectively, or subjectively, but universally and objectively. I'll be sure to warn people before banning as I did with ajax (multiple times)
Then
If you knew me better you'd know that there is no secret motivation behind my opinions on these policies. I'd actually like it if more staff came on here, roughed it out, and stated their case, but it's not worth the cost of telling others they can't say something. Survivors are verbally attacked severely sometimes and myself and Antigen will get PMs begging us to take something down and we have to say no. It's the only way to be fair. It's not an issue of picking sides. Some leave, some stick around, some I talk to on chat and recommend a private survivor group or something. Again you don't know me well enough of you're saying something like that. I understand that most staff are recruited from within and indoctrinated and so forth... but they were still in a position of power over others and intentionally or not they did victimize others. I think it does a disservice to those victims to tell them what they can or cannot say to their tormentors. You can't force forgiveness. It's too much like a program and once again puts the victims in a position where in a sense their tormentors have power over them, even if by proxy. Sometimes the most healing thing, I think, is to be able to say whatever the hell you choose to those who once had power over you and get away with it... to not be silenced.
Now
Penalties:
You will be informally warned if you violate a rule. If you continue, you'll be formally warned through the board's warning feature. If repeated violation occur, your account may be disabled temporarily. After your account is enabled again, you will be considered on a probationary period. If further violations occur, you may be banned permanently.
Then
Fornits is an _open_ forum where people are free to speak
their opinion without fear of censorship. If you want, you can
become a part of the "Fornits agenda". It's not closed, controlled,
edited, manipulated, glossed-over, or propagandized like ST.
Do not try and censor my ideas because they conflict with your own
agenda. They did that in program and I will never let that happen to
me again. Either let me speak my peace, respectfully, wherever I
please, to whomever I please, or get ready to become my new pet
project. And you do NOT want that.
Now
Ginger and I made the final decision last night. I'll be drafting up a new constitution for the forum tonight. I'll post it publicly for comment, and then ratify it once it meets the group's majority approval. Outing parents in the way you did before, resulting in a kid being sent to a program, is not going to happen again. You think parents are likely to listen to anybody on the anti-program side after you out them? You made us all look like lunatics. It's unpleasant sometimes but parents ultimately hold the kid's fate in their hands and if it's necessary to hold your tongue and be diplomatic to prevent the kids being sent to programs, it's worth it. In this one case, Whooter is absolutely right. You have a good deal of responsibility to bear for Morgan being sent to a program. Driving off parents for kicks won't be tolerated anymore on this forum.
My, oh my, how the rhetoric has changed. I wouldn't believe these quotes came from the same people, unless I saw them with my own eyes. So different, and contradicting.
But why would they do something like this? Perhaps this quote is a clue:
If Fornits could be run without being hit by tons of spam, porn etc. which scare the important viewers off (which is parents and other people trying to seek a desperate solution for their kids), then the moderation should go.
I have asked for moderation several times and my arguments was shut down by both Psy and Ginger. Suddenly one they did choose otherwise.
It's clear fornits has chosen to censor and control, because they think they can reach "the most important" viewers, the people Psy and Oscar are so concerned about, potential program parents. So let's destroy a free outlet of expression for survivors, and ban then, so parents who are considering a program can be coddled? When's the last time a real parent even showed up for advice?
When you conveniently, for your own purposes I'm sure, overlook the fact that the moderator was a survivor of a program that was probably far more psychologically insidious that your little Seed faggotry.
A program staff telling a survivor that the abusive program they went to The Seed isn't as bad as the bad ass hell hole his brother went to, how laughable is that? Big bear coming in to protect little bear, how absolutely adorable.
why don't you spend less time trying to get into the whooter's pants and more time trying to smash ridge creek? oh wait.. they scared you off.. to timid after your lawsuit went down the shitter.
or the whooter is telling the truth and you spent like 3 weeks max there.
hard to say with a loudmouth like you.
Rhetorical emasculation and domination, a staffers most useful tool. Here is a program staff telling a survivor they are timid, scared, and a wimp for complaining about being in a program for only 3 weeks.
Tag team, back again, Aaron and Joel are gonna staff again! Great job putting that darn survivor in their place, staffer, for daring to question the authority imposed upon them here.
Does it matter if I am an ex - staffer as a moderator? If you don't like that, tough shit.
Hell yes, it does! If you don't understand that, take a look at Psy's old posts I quoted, he explains it quite well, actually.
People IMHO are more on topic but unfortunately it took several warnings. People being more on topic is a good change.
You see? Fornits posters should be grateful that this program staffer was able to bring order to this chaotic forum. What on Earth did we ever do before they showed up here? Even though it's ten times more confusing now, navigating through all the moved, duplicate titled, cut up and censored threads, let's all join hands and thank this staffer for bringing much needed law to this lawless land of fornits!
You hear that survivors? It's time to bow down once again, and submit yourself to the authority of a program staffer. Accept it. It's a good system, Psy told us so.
I want to leave you, the reader, with something that perhaps will make you laugh. Or cry, depending on how you view, hate and/or cherish fornits. This is a message from a forum moderator giving a warning to a poster for negative personal attacks. That is rule number 6 now on fornits, "No attacking other posters with insults".
Hello Psy,
I wanted to let you know why I closed the "Going it alone" thread and deleted your post.
Unlike other forums, this board does use moderation to keep parents safe from negative personal attacks. Your post was taken as a personal attack against one of the parents who posts here. This is not only a threat of safety, it is a direct violation of the agreement you electronically signed to become a registered user.
Furthermore, we do not allow links to other discussion forums on this forum. If parents want to go to the other forums, they are welcome to do so from a search elsewhere on the web.
I will not ban you at this time, but please keep in mind the agreements you made to become a registered user, and stay within the boundaries.
Thanks,
Kristie
Board Administrator
Psy has become what he once hated. How interesting.
