MikeMcLean

Thought experiments are thought experiments; and useful in that they help understand environments and situations. Straw men are where someone intentionally misrepresents another persons statement, attacks the misrepresentation, and claims some sort of debate victory because of the attack on the misrepresentation. Since I've already been accused of hating on the site, threatening to sue, etc. I am, with all due respect, fully entitled to be wary of approaching strawmen. It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

It's time to be careful with matches, straw man are approaching It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

My grandfather used to say: "With a little force you can snap your finger off in your ass." Just because you can do something doesn't mean it’s a good idea nor that it will always serve you well. Did you miss my disclaimer: Disclaimer: To prevent the predictable false dichotomy responses and straw man arguments; I am not complaining about the site, I am not saying I am going to sue, I am not unhappy with the site (and even if I was the "two choices" of accept it or find another site are not the only two choices available). I am not looking for porn on dz.com. I am not even actually complaining about the moderation ... Maybe; the correct answer is that it depends on prevailing jurisdictional laws, both codified and case law. Do you know what jurisdiction I am in, do you know the case law around community businesses? From an earlier thought experiment, are you sure? It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

did you miss my disclaimer: Disclaimer: To prevent the predictable false dichotomy responses and straw man arguments; I am not complaining about the site, I am not saying I am going to sue, I am not unhappy with the site (and even if I was the "two choices" of accept it or find another site are not the only two choices available). I am not looking for porn on dz.com. I am not even actually complaining about the moderation ... It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

True. But I don't think that sangiro should let his site get overrun with threads about feces (or whatever similar subject) just because he's afraid of a potential lawsuit over deleting some of those threads. I'm not suggesting that; I have merely presented some intriguing thought experiments. The individual moderators are bearing the risk. Anyone choosing to initiate a civil action would be remiss to only initiate against the site and not also include the individual mods. The mere fact that there are continued threads about "why my post was deleted" or "please explain" indicate that a degree of heavy handedness is occurring. The increasing number of public complaints indicate a tip-of-the iceberg effect. One of the patterns of how a group can become its own worst enemy is a religious veneration. The moderator memes are presented with a religious-like veneration and in that presentation are de facto heavy handed and part of the problem, not part of a solution. It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Exactly the point, you don't know, i don't know, the moderators don't know. Basic rule of law, anyone can sue for anything at anytime. The courts being what the are, no one can accurately predict the outcome. This is especially true in the area of community web sites where the customers help create the content that drives the traffic that create the value that advertisers pay for -- because there is a lack of case law. The moderators continue to push the false dichotomy that the choices are a) accept it or b) move on; this is not and has never been true. There are additional options such as bringing a lawsuit. Who know, who cares; not relevant. The fact that it could happen is the relevant issue. Not exactly, and that's again part of the point; a lack of case law implies a high degree of unpredictability in the courts. This unpredictability is further magnified by cross-jurisdictional issues, new internet laws, and globalization. Because they can? For the most part, I'm just replying. Discounting the interlaced humor this thread was dead over 12 hours before a moderator posted in reply to me. In a more general sense, thought experiments are useful devices in thought, analysis, and investigation of how things work. If a thought experiment makes a moderator realize that (*) he/she is carrying personal risk and liability is her/his actions; maybe the moderation as a whole can be less memetic, less heavy handed, and serve as a positive example on how to better the community and not fracture it. Of course, maybe i've been smoking weed this afternoon and none of this is possible; maybe the community is destined to be it's own worst enemy. As the Zen Master said, "We'll see". (*) however small note; my previous disclaimer still applies It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Disclaimer: To prevent the predictable false dichotomy responses and straw man arguments; I am not complaining about the site, I am not saying I am going to sue, I am not unhappy with the site (and even if I was the "two choices" of accept it or find another site are not the only two choices available). I am not looking for porn on dz.com. I am not even actually complaining about the moderation ... Though the writing below will be one-on-one terminology, any moderator can be substituted ... indeed every moderator may benefit from the thought experiment below. As in individual moderator have you considered that in some jurisdictions you may be held personally liable in the courts for your actions(*)? Have you considered the cost of legal fees if such an event were to happen? Has your family be consulted on the financial risks that you are incurring? Is your child's college fund available for use in protracted legal defense should an event occur? Have you consulted a lawyer on the point of using various dz.com mantras and memes (HH's house, ain't no damn democracy, free site, not a business, etc.) are valid? Have you consulted a lawyer on the use of those memes as a legal defense against any type of lawsuit that may be brought against you? Have you considered that the memes and mantras just may be wrong and that your reliance upon them may expose you to personal liability? Have you, as a moderator, questioned the memes, validated them for yourself, and applied critical thought to those memes? Or are you simply content to follow the heard ignoring all risk to yourself and others? And again, I will close with the most vital of all questions to the thought experiment: Are you sure? Really Sure? If you are not Really Sure, with valid legal advice covering all of the potential jurisdictions, than you cannot be telling me or anyone else "what is actually going to happen" you can only tell us what the opening salvo(**) is likely to be; a user who feels victimized, biased against, with time, money, and lawyers available to him/her could completely determine "what is going to happen" to you, the site, your family finances, etc. If you are not Really Sure have you considered that a more open, less heavy handed, and meme-less / mantra-less moderation style might substantially reduce the risk to both the site and yourself personally? (*) especially in cases where a party has been or believes (valid or not) that he/she has been the victim of some type of bias -- the whole legal area of bias crimes is another Pandora's Box ... do you want to open it? Have you already opened it through your past moderator actions? (**) and historically the opening salvo has also been the end; but past performance doesn't predict future behavior It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Nope, and I never said that I would; I am cautioning against the lemming/mantra view of most people at this site. If someone does take this (or any community site) to court there is very little predictability related to the outcome. Oft-repeated statements like "it's HH's house, behave" or "this aint no damn democracy", or "but you can click on the forum rules at the top of every page" or "this site is free" or the posted forum rules themselves are all very likely meaningless, and quite possibly dangerous. It's a mistake to believe the various mantra statements simply because they are a DZ.com meme. Never said I didn't like it ... It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

High Altitude, Low Opening -- aren't we all ? It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

DZ.com customers contribute to the community and increase the value of the community every day and receive a community experience in fair exchange for it. The customers are not "taking" anything, nor have I suggested that anyone push people around and take whatever they want .... And just where did I do that ? It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

I could care less about seeing porn here or not; I defy you to find one statement of mine that argues for porn here. Suggested Reading: Straw Man It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Have those rules been tested in court? In my jurisdiction? In every possible jurisdiction with an interest? You need to realize that posted forum rules, nor matter how sensible they may seem or how clearly they are posted, cannot override prevailing laws. Thought experiment; if the business sign said "we reserve the right to refuse service to " would the sign be valid? If not, why not? Is it possible that the sign is valid in some places and not others (thinking globally here)? If the store is in one jurisdiction (state, country, etc.) and the customers are in a different jurisdiction(*) is the sign valid? In all cases or in some cases? What if there are laws in one or both of the jurisdictions specific to the series of tubes? What if the customer owns part of the tube (for example the last piece closest to the customer)? How sure are you of all of your the answers? (*) Maybe with the connection between the customer and the store being facilitated by a series of tubes It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Incorrect; in your straw-man example the customer gets to keep a physical object (the washer/dryer) he/she didn't have before which is completely different than an online community. In an online community, the visitor gets a community experience during which he/she also contributes to the community(*). The contributions are fair exchange for the received community experience; anything else (such as selling the user's eyeballs, having the user spend his/her bandwidth dollars on ad downloads, etc.) change the balance -- benefiting the site more than the user -- and thereby making the experience not free. Free ~ guest in house Not Free ~ Customer / Business relationship under most interpretations of the various commerce laws (**) Also, remember free / not-free in an economic sense doesn't require the exchange of cash. (*) negating the effect of the pure lurker (**) again recognizing the lack of quantity of case law It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Keep the mantra going; you (the "site" as you) have clearly convinced yourself and many of the community members that the laws (such as they are) don't apply to you. Someday someone will call the site on the customer/business relationship and no amount of your mantra repeating will influence the courts, lawyers, and judges who will adjudicate that future dispute. From a purely sense of community standpoint; you (again the site as you) would be better off to realize that the value of this (or any community site) is the community itself. In other words, from a business and economic standpoint -- this is a damn democracy. It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Escrow review? Covering the cost of projected increases in property taxes and/or insurance? It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Actually, despite the oft-repeated mantra around here this site is neither "HH's house" nor "free". You, me, everyone pays for their bandwidth (*). I am currently typing into a web form that has a flash advertisement loaded at the top of the page which was loaded using my bandwidth and therefore my dollars. You, reading this comment, are likely looking at a similar ad paid for with your bandwidth dollars. This effectively makes this site "not free". Those ads are there because collectively our eyeballs are a valuable commodity. Other people are selling that commodity for us and reaping the benefits of that sale (as a condition of being a site member). This, combined with the paid-account option, clearly and legally delineate our relationship to the site as "customer to business" not "guest in a home". Have some fun googling around the definitions in the Uniform Commercial Code, various state laws, various international laws, and in particular the case-law surrounding all of the boundary conditions related to online communities (hint, not much there which means a whole lotta gray area). (*) bandwidth charges "per MB" or "monthly flat rate" or "quota based" are irrelevant technicalities, you pay for bandwidth regardless of how it happens to be billed today It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

bias, noun; prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair Suggested Reading: Overcoming Bias It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

I want to thank the original poster; the 2 girls, one cup phenomenon was one that I had managed to miss and seeing the (safe, harmless) pic in the original thread prompted a very fruitful google search. It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Looks like she has sharp knees, way below my standard It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

"Going on a year now, I ain't had nothing twixt my nethers weren't run on batteries." It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Floopy too big lips. Yuk. It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Always Remeber, never Forget: http://www.ceilingcat.com/ It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

Absolutely. Just watch last night premiere on DVR this morning and am thinking "is it next Friday night yet?". It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention

It wouldn't hurt you to think like a fucking serial killer every once in a while - just for the sake of prevention