Recent events, not limited to the ending of the past contest, have made us faculty members revise a lot. So far, we have new drafts of the official rules, and have edited the TOS some. We have decided to enforce our TOS policy, and have a new policy in place in terms of removing people from the contest if they have TOS violations.
Within the next few days, FAQ entries will be posted elaborating on the consequences of TOS violations, as well as what, exactly constitutes a violation. Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the rules, so I suggest everyone reads them. The links to the specific FAQ entries will be added to this post when appropriate.
However, it was noted when we were going through the posts of the top candidates for the scholarship that a LOT of content on the site has violated the TOS, old or new. Whether it's in terms of plagairism (we found lots of that), or blogs of less than 100 words, or of blogs with no purpose other than to bring down a certain individual.
So, over the next few weeks, our faculty members will be reviewing all the content on the site. Slowly but surely. And we'd like your help.
Every post has a flag link at the bottom of it. If you feel, after reading the revised Terms of Service, that a comment or blog violates this agreement, flag it, and we will add it to our list. Note that if the blog or comment hasn't been written in the past 6 months, we probably won't contact you regarding its removal. So be aware.
We want to make this site better for everyone, and we can't do that without our member support, so help us out. If you have any further suggestions, feel free to leave a comment here.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I see a great deal of value in some at least borderline hostile discussion. Has the administrative staff considered just moving the more volatile discussions and topics into an easily avoidable section? Maybe with an adult content type double warning. Censorship is so distasteful to me that it seems to be a cure worse than the disease.
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
I fail to see where it's censorship when you never had the right to personally attack, call names, threaten otherwise harass, post materials (in their entirety) that did not belong to you in the first place. The Terms of Service have not changed (aside from the mention of establishing multiple accounts which has nothing to do with this).
There is little to no merit, that I can see, in name calling or attacking another. It degrades your personal integrity, as well as the integrity of the ProgressiveU mission and the atmosphere of the website. We aren't saying no conflict. We're saying you can't do the things you never had the right to do in the first place and that is the same as it has always been. We're merely going about enforcement a little bit differently now. Three strikes and you're out. If you can't debate and discuss with a little responsibility, we don't want you here and neither does much of the community if the number of flags we receive for such violations are taken into account.
And as per usual, I don't refer specifically to "you" when I say "you". I just haven't gotten around to remembering that whole generalization thing yet.
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."- Thoreau
-----
To my expectations of what would be disallowed.
How would any but the people deciding what to remove and the poster whose writing was removed know? The nature of censorship is that we do not know what was lost when they burned the library at Alexandria.
That is not to assume that anything goes is better, I was just sugesting a purgatory or enter at your own risk zone. Rather than total erasure, a banishment not execution.
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
So... what? You'd rather us send people to a part of the site that we endorse when they can't follow the rules? You'd rather let us say 'oh, say whatever you want' when people start getting into fights and turn the entire site into this 'adult only' zone? Fights break out anywhere, and it's pointless to say 'oh, take it to this special area' when things start getting personal. You can't verbally attack someone and get away with it in the professional world (unless you're a lawyer, but even then...). Why should we encourage it here?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
And perhaps even violence than many people. I would not want to restrict ANY expression that someone felt compelled to hurl at me in responce to a statement I made to them, even though my verbage may be within the limits set by the ToS, and theirs not. So if a thread or conversation passed the acceptable limits The administrator would remove it. It would no longer be on the main site, but if onlookers or I wanted to see the responce it would be possible.
In the scenario I outline above under the current method I would get the last word, then the responce would be gone, except for a note of the removal. Perhaps you would not care to ever see it again, in fact if you removed it I'm sure, but I would want to see, and others following the conversation might.
I do not think that the power of the administrators has been abused, but this method would remove any doubt. Any discussion of the rationale behind the editorial removal could also be held in the blighted area.
I'm sure that all of you who have had discussion of where to draw the line on these issues realize better than most that there is a grey area, and where to draw the EXACT line is somewhat arbitrary. Some violations are most likely screaming to be removed but others have only marginal or partial culpability. The only run-in I have had, I tried to take as a hint to upgrade my rhetoric, and I am sure that it was meant that way.
This is just a sugestion. I really am not too invested in it being adopted.
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
I do understand what you're saying, and others have expressed interest in the same system...
"Let the fights stand on their own merits" type of thing.
But the problem is two-fold...
First, the point of the TOS is to maintain a comfortable atmosphere for everyone to enjoy and feel comfortable posting their opinions and debating they're arguments. There's no debate going on if people start calling each other names. That's just childish; it corrodes comfort of all members involved, and it sets an extremely poor example for new members who come in. So TOS violations must come down...
Second, it does no good, whatsoever, to take down a TOS violation and leave responses to it. To do so would still leave the overall feelings of an uncomfortable atmosphere.
Think about it this way. Let's say, for argument's sake, that I disliked you. And I decided for whatever childish reason, to call you an asshat (one of Fallon's favorite words).
You then respond however you wish, but probably in some way addressing my statement that you're an asshat. Perhaps you're mature and saying something like "call me an asshat if you wish, but being an asshat doesn't negate my right to disagree with you" or you could be just as childish and say something like "shut up, you're the asshat, you moron".
Obviously, yours would be a retaliation to mine, and therefore mine would probably be flagged; and even if it didn't get flagged it would probably be caught first. So someone goes in and edits mine so it no longer says that you're an asshat. Now your reply A) doesn't make sense (whatever reply you used) and B) continues to allude to the fight in which I called you an asshat; thereby corroding the comfortable atmosphere.
As far as deleting comments, we try not to do that outright, we try to just edit out the TOS violations and references to those TOS violations. This is because we can't merely pick and choose which comments to delete. I.e., if I called you an asshat, and you replied, and my comment gets deleted, there is no option for us to leave your comment viewable - no matter the response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
Okay...it's pretty obvious that saying "you're a moron" is a personal attack. But, where do you draw the line? I mean, is it only direct personal attacks that count? What if the member says something like, "only a moron would argue that {whatever it was that you said}"? What about indirect attacks? Let's say I know you're a girl, and I want to bash you. I can't say, "Fallon is dumb," obviously, but can I say, "girls are dumb" or get even more subtle and say, "that sounds like a very girlish opinon?" What about terms that aren't attacks on their face, but which are used in an invective manner? There's nothing inherently offensive about the word "communist," but I can think of quite a few members who would probably flip their tops if someone said, "you are a communist" to them. What about offensive analogies, such as "I don't agree with homosexuality, but then I don't agree with murder, either." What about religious invectives, such as saying that a member is "immoral" or "sinful" (both of which are terms that have very specfic and uniquely negative meanings). What about passive aggressive flaming, I can't call you an asshat, but can I say that only asshats would hold the same opinion as you?
percivale
P.S. I know you guys are working on the policies, so the questions above are meant only to discuss, not to demand an immediate and absolute answer.
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
Hi Percivale;
We've actually been working on better defining personal attacks for the next contest. Both you and Lance (and a few others) were correct when you stated that it's simply too vague as the TOS stated.
You can see what we have posted here: http://www.progressiveu.org/node/37891
And of course if you have comments or suggestions (or if anyone else has any comments or suggestions) you can PM any faculty member or email us, or comment here, and we'll take them into consideration...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
I think that one of the difficult issues you're going to face is that in order to create a line that one cannot cross, you indeed will have to 'take sides'
or else there will be no room for anything someone might find offensive. I happen to be greatly offended by anti-christian rhetoric. I am greatly offended by people who condemn 'organized religion.'
However, I can't expect that you guys will go and find every case of someone making such offensive statements, because I don't expect you to be offended by the same things that I am. Is my offense justification for action on your part?
percivale, for instance, is offended that some people would say that the act of homosexuality is immoral. They do, indeed, have that ability and freedom to be offended. However, is their offense justification for action on your part?
If a line is drawn at, say, abortion, and anyone who calls abortion murder will be flagged for violating TOS, because it offends those who support abortion, is that evenhanded to those who oppose abortion when the pro-abortion people's stance is defended by default?
There is no requirement that you all need to be evenhanded. This is your site, you are by virtue allowed to do as you wish. We come to play in your sandbox.
However, please do understand that it is not possible to enforce rules and regulations without taking sides about what is or is not offensive.
One of the bloggers I supported has been victimized (oops, did I just violate an unwritten TOS? Will this be interpreted as a personal attack on the moderators? Whatever they may think my INTENT was - which I don't think ANY of them have a right to interpret - it is NOT to offend, but to point out bias) by this very thing. All of a sudden, when no one else but me agreed with the blog, the blog was ripped apart by censure, even though the moderators did not find one single statement that broke any TOS as stated. This action was justified on the basis of INTENT, which was inaccurately represented, as only the blogger could determine. The blog was concerning homosexuality, and is called Homosexuality - Choice or Fate? NOWHERE were there personal attacks, yet it was censored only AFTER I pointed out that a Progressive U Faculty Member actually used a direct personal attack on the blogger - "you are disgusting." What kind of nonsense is this? And then the censure of the original post was defended on the basis of the blog's intent - which was clearly to express a belief that differed from the majority. The Bible was maligned, Judeo-Christian tradition was called non-existent (who do you think the Separatists, the Puritans, the Pilgrims, etc. were? They came here for RELIGIOUS freedom. Everything from the Mayflower Compact to the Articles of Confederation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were based on the laws of the Bible. And BTW, we are technically, according to our founding documents, a REPUBLIC, not a democracy), Christians were called "intolerant" (that WASN'T removed, BTW), and all of that is fine, though it is insulting to Christians. There is a liberal bias here that seeks to protect only liberal thought and groups that practice things that Christians believe are sinful. This precludes many subjects from open debate by castrating a book that has never ONCE been proven false by any shred of historical, scientific, or archaeological evidence and a belief that is claimed by a majority of Americans. In fact, though the Bible isn't primarily a history, science, or archaeology text, it has made innumerable such statements that were for periods of time THOUGHT to be error, until the "specialties" caught up with it and it was shown to be true. NO ONE has questioned the right of others to disagree with it, or the teachings it contains. But while the moderators consider themselves free to make outrageous statements against it (without ANY documentation, BTW. For instance, yes, there ARE outside sources that record the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as historical fact - ever heard of the Jewish historian Josephus? Yeah, that's a real "biased" source). In fact, the Bible itself was not originally one book, but many, written (we believe) under divine inspiration, but by many different authors. And there are over 500 witnesses to Jesus' resurrection alone. To say that there is no "corroborating evidence" just because all of the writings are contained in what we now call the Bible is ignoring the fact that the resurrection would have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in even today's court system. But yet, there IS outside written and other support for this. Does that preclude faith? Absolutely not. The Bible also says that it is by grace THROUGH FAITH that we are saved. However, the Bible should not just be arbitrarily stated to be irrelevant in discussions. Consider the "About Us" section of Progressive U:
"Progressive U forces you to think. Writing a good blog post forces you to think. Reading opinions or ideas of others who think differently than you forces you to think. Pointing out inconsistencies or extending the arguments of others forces you to think.
"Progressive U allows you to speak up. When you write you are writing for thousands of Progressive U members and millions of guests who visit the site each month.
"Progressive U allows you to reach out. Share your experiences with others. Give encouragement to those who are following in your footsteps. Enlighten people who haven't had the same experiences."
Unless, perhaps you think in a way that is deemed objectionable by the majority. Unless you want to speak up about a topic on which the majority (at least on this site) disagree. Unless, perhaps, your experience is deemed worthless. So much for open discussion.
Kim Tracey
any merit in any of your arguments notwithstanding, this is their sandbox and have the right to set the rules.
While the government is unable to infringe on your freedom of speech, progressiveu.org is not the government and has full right to do so.
moderators have the authority to do so as a part of progressiveu.org.
Whether you agree with their actions or not, you really don't have the right to say anything you want on a privately owned board.
If you want to be able to say anything you want with no consequences on the internet, you can purchase server space and start your own blog.
Of course, then you'll still have to bow to the TOS of the company that owns the server you're renting time on. (I guess "The Man" is always able to keep you down somehow)
I've had posts and comments edited by the moderators. While I PERSONALLY have my own opinon about some of those choices, I am mature enough to recognize that it is their blog, not mine.
Can you do the same?
(Also, it is pretty much bad form to take problems from one blog and complain about it on other blogs.)
I don't have a problem with fairly imposed rules. What I DO have a BIG problem with is when a poster (a "faculty member," no less) breaks the rules they are supposed to be enforcing, and then censors a blogger whose statements are in disagreement with theirs, but who broke no rules. All over the place they have misquoted her - exaggerating her statements to try to make them sound bad when they weren't. I am being objective here, and I'm going by what is in the TOS. And I never said we should be able to say anything we want. I am the LAST person who would believe that the freedom of speech should be interpreted that way. But one of the first bloggers titled his post, "Here we go again with Christian intolerance." That was never censored, and it is a blatant slam against Christianity. And as for blogging about another blog in this post, I am doing so only because it is a relevant example of what people are talking about here. That's allowed.
Again, I have no problem with rules. What I do have a problem with is the fact that they are being applied arbitrarily and unfairly.
And BTW, merit in arguments should be considered, and not relegated to the realm of "notwithstanding."
To reply to your final question, this is their SITE, but when I or anyone else post something, it is OUR blog, not theirs. And as long as it is within the stated rules, it should NOT be censored.
Kim Tracey
Jsaj did not censor your daughter, and to say that he DID is also a blatant disregard of the facts. Content was removed from your daughter's blog (due to a violation of the rules), and from the comments of other members of the site, but it was not by Jsaj, but rather two OTHER members of the faculty.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Once again, they have the right to censor you, as it is not public domain, but the blog service that they own and run.
It doesn't have to specifically violate TOS. They MAKE the TOS. They can censor a blog because the first letter is "T" or because there are 3 mispellings per paragraph.
It doesn't matter that YOU disagree with what they did, they're still allowed to do it.
That you are ranting about it on this and that blog only show a bit of an irrationality in regards to this clear matter.
This is not YOUR sandbox. You come and play here, so you play by someone else's rules and, yes, whims.
I agree completely with lancekates comment about this. Almost any strongly held opinion is going to offend someone, especially if it is regarding a controversial subject. If it is okay for a religous conservative to make a moral judgement and call a gay person "immoral," consistency would seem to dictate that it is okay for a gay person to make a moral judgement and call the religious conservative "bigoted" in response (or vice versa). If it is NOT okay to do this, then it should be equally "not okay" for BOTH to make and express these judgements.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
Strange when we agree,
?
Sometimes something is just.... true.
I think that it's not what's deemed "offensive" but what is "meant to offend". The first is completely variable; the second is always quite obvious. That's the rule I would go by.
After all--
"Things aren't offensive--people are just offendable."
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.