Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors

It has come to my attention that there was a thread at SBFII asking where I have been. Sadly, I was unable to read and respond to said thread because I was out all day and it was deleted almost as fast as it was posted. Any attempt I might make to respond on the SBFII forum would never see the light of day, so I have taken the opportunity to reply here. Whatever negative things the moderators and administrator of that other site might say about this one, at least I know that my thread here will not be censored or deleted. That speaks volumes as to which site is run by an administrator who promotes openness, doesn't it?


To answer the question raised in that now-deleted post, I haven't posted at SBFII since the day I was put on pre-moderation without warning, without recourse and in complete violation of SBFII's posted rules.


I was not the only one who fell prey to the arbitrary and capricious actions of the administrators that day. As I understand it, quite a few members were summarily punished at the same time. One supposes that the copy-and-paste, one-size-fits-all PM that all of the people put on pre-moderation that day received served as both a warning and a punishment. Who needs rules, consistency or common decency when you have the absolute power to censor others? And we all know what they say about absolute power, don't we?


What was the crime that caused the people who run that site to decide they had to censor every and any comment I might attempt to make? They accused me of making “provocative” posts. Curiously, they cited no examples of particular "provocative" posts that led them to this decision. From what I can gather, anyone who refuses to toe the party line, kiss up, kick down and say, “Excellent post!” like a Stepford fan will eventually be declared “provocative” and/or “contentious” at SBFII.


Well, when the posts aren't excellent and the party line is something I disagree with, I am not one to go along to get along. I will ask questions, post contrasting opinions and, yes, provoke, in the sense of provoking discussion. These sites are, after all, discussion forums. Statements will be made and countered, points will be contended and opinions will be stated and discussed. At least, that's the ideal. Unfortunately for all of its members, SBFII has always fallen far short of that ideal, as well as the ideals of comity, respect and justice.


Lately the people who run SBFII have been trolling Twitter and YouTube in hopes of netting new members. Presumably they are seeking to replenish the ranks that have been depleted by banning, harassing and censoring so many current and former members. Unsurprisingly, their police state tactics have been driving off newbies almost as fast as they sign up. One new member lasted all of five days before being sent to the penalty box for some innocuous comment or other. It must feel like Hell Week for that unfortunate person. Given the current rate of attrition, soon they will be left with a baker's dozen moderators and a handful of “Excellent Post!”-ers, all either too blissed out or too terrified to say much else.


“What would Susan think?” indeed.

xeno wrote:

It has come to my attention that there was a thread at SBFII asking where I have been. Sadly, I was unable to read and respond to said thread because I was out all day and it was deleted almost as fast as it was posted. Any attempt I might make to respond on the SBFII forum would never see the light of day, so I have taken the opportunity to reply here. Whatever negative things the moderators and administrator of that other site might say about this one, at least I know that my thread here will not be censored or deleted. That speaks volumes as to which site is run by an administrator who promotes openness, doesn't it?


To answer the question raised in that now-deleted post, I haven't posted at SBFII since the day I was put on pre-moderation without warning, without recourse and in complete violation of SBFII's posted rules.


I was not the only one who fell prey to the arbitrary and capricious actions of the administrators that day. As I understand it, quite a few members were summarily punished at the same time. One supposes that the copy-and-paste, one-size-fits-all PM that all of the people put on pre-moderation that day received served as both a warning and a punishment. Who needs rules, consistency or common decency when you have the absolute power to censor others? And we all know what they say about absolute power, don't we?


What was the crime that caused the people who run that site to decide they had to censor every and any comment I might attempt to make? They accused me of making “provocative” posts. Curiously, they cited no examples of particular "provocative" posts that led them to this decision. From what I can gather, anyone who refuses to toe the party line, kiss up, kick down and say, “Excellent post!” like a Stepford fan will eventually be declared “provocative” and/or “contentious” at SBFII.


Well, when the posts aren't excellent and the party line is something I disagree with, I am not one to go along to get along. I will ask questions, post contrasting opinions and, yes, provoke, in the sense of provoking discussion. These sites are, after all, discussion forums. Statements will be made and countered, points will be contended and opinions will be stated and discussed. At least, that's the ideal. Unfortunately for all of its members, SBFII has always fallen far short of that ideal, as well as the ideals of comity, respect and justice.


Lately the people who run SBFII have been trolling Twitter and YouTube in hopes of netting new members. Presumably they are seeking to replenish the ranks that have been depleted by banning, harassing and censoring so many current and former members. Unsurprisingly, their police state tactics have been driving off newbies almost as fast as they sign up. One new member lasted all of five days before being sent to the penalty box for some innocuous comment or other. It must feel like Hell Week for that unfortunate person. Given the current rate of attrition, soon they will be left with a baker's dozen moderators and a handful of “Excellent Post!”-ers, all either too blissed out or too terrified to say much else.


“What would Susan think?” indeed.

Well put.

"These sites are, after all, discussion forums. Statements will be made and countered, points will be contended and opinions will be stated and discussed. At least, that's the ideal." That's been my belief from the start. SBFII and its predecessors were my first experiences with fansites/forums. I always thought that they existed to foster discussion; if not, they'd simply be websites, with static content. As it currently stands, SBFII has got to be about the most static "forum" on the Web.

Excellently expressed, Xeno. Thank you! Aren't you glad that you've got at least one place to come where you can freely express your thoughts and your side of things?

Well said and I hope it gives a lot of readers something to mull over.....

Lovin' Every Minute wrote:

xeno wrote:

It has come to my attention that there was a thread at SBFII asking where I have been. Sadly, I was unable to read and respond to said thread because I was out all day and it was deleted almost as fast as it was posted. Any attempt I might make to respond on the SBFII forum would never see the light of day, so I have taken the opportunity to reply here. Whatever negative things the moderators and administrator of that other site might say about this one, at least I know that my thread here will not be censored or deleted. That speaks volumes as to which site is run by an administrator who promotes openness, doesn't it?


To answer the question raised in that now-deleted post, I haven't posted at SBFII since the day I was put on pre-moderation without warning, without recourse and in complete violation of SBFII's posted rules.


I was not the only one who fell prey to the arbitrary and capricious actions of the administrators that day. As I understand it, quite a few members were summarily punished at the same time. One supposes that the copy-and-paste, one-size-fits-all PM that all of the people put on pre-moderation that day received served as both a warning and a punishment. Who needs rules, consistency or common decency when you have the absolute power to censor others? And we all know what they say about absolute power, don't we?


What was the crime that caused the people who run that site to decide they had to censor every and any comment I might attempt to make? They accused me of making “provocative” posts. Curiously, they cited no examples of particular "provocative" posts that led them to this decision. From what I can gather, anyone who refuses to toe the party line, kiss up, kick down and say, “Excellent post!” like a Stepford fan will eventually be declared “provocative” and/or “contentious” at SBFII.


Well, when the posts aren't excellent and the party line is something I disagree with, I am not one to go along to get along. I will ask questions, post contrasting opinions and, yes, provoke, in the sense of provoking discussion. These sites are, after all, discussion forums. Statements will be made and countered, points will be contended and opinions will be stated and discussed. At least, that's the ideal. Unfortunately for all of its members, SBFII has always fallen far short of that ideal, as well as the ideals of comity, respect and justice.


Lately the people who run SBFII have been trolling Twitter and YouTube in hopes of netting new members. Presumably they are seeking to replenish the ranks that have been depleted by banning, harassing and censoring so many current and former members. Unsurprisingly, their police state tactics have been driving off newbies almost as fast as they sign up. One new member lasted all of five days before being sent to the penalty box for some innocuous comment or other. It must feel like Hell Week for that unfortunate person. Given the current rate of attrition, soon they will be left with a baker's dozen moderators and a handful of “Excellent Post!”-ers, all either too blissed out or too terrified to say much else.


“What would Susan think?” indeed.

Well put.

"These sites are, after all, discussion forums. Statements will be made and countered, points will be contended and opinions will be stated and discussed. At least, that's the ideal." That's been my belief from the start. SBFII and its predecessors were my first experiences with fansites/forums. I always thought that they existed to foster discussion; if not, they'd simply be websites, with static content. As it currently stands, SBFII has got to be about the most static "forum" on the Web.

I once ran fan sites of my own, LEM, and they always existed primarily for the fans, not for the stars and their PR campaigns. That is why they are called fan sites. My forums were very free-wheeling, with only a few rules and no censorship. Their only reason for being was to give fans a place to meet and discuss their favorite entertainers, television shows and movies. When discussion becomes ridiculously constrained or near impossible due to over-moderation, forums have a tendency to wither and die.

xeno wrote:

Lovin' Every Minute wrote:

xeno wrote:

It has come to my attention that there was a thread at SBFII asking where I have been. Sadly, I was unable to read and respond to said thread because I was out all day and it was deleted almost as fast as it was posted. Any attempt I might make to respond on the SBFII forum would never see the light of day, so I have taken the opportunity to reply here. Whatever negative things the moderators and administrator of that other site might say about this one, at least I know that my thread here will not be censored or deleted. That speaks volumes as to which site is run by an administrator who promotes openness, doesn't it?


To answer the question raised in that now-deleted post, I haven't posted at SBFII since the day I was put on pre-moderation without warning, without recourse and in complete violation of SBFII's posted rules.


I was not the only one who fell prey to the arbitrary and capricious actions of the administrators that day. As I understand it, quite a few members were summarily punished at the same time. One supposes that the copy-and-paste, one-size-fits-all PM that all of the people put on pre-moderation that day received served as both a warning and a punishment. Who needs rules, consistency or common decency when you have the absolute power to censor others? And we all know what they say about absolute power, don't we?


What was the crime that caused the people who run that site to decide they had to censor every and any comment I might attempt to make? They accused me of making “provocative” posts. Curiously, they cited no examples of particular "provocative" posts that led them to this decision. From what I can gather, anyone who refuses to toe the party line, kiss up, kick down and say, “Excellent post!” like a Stepford fan will eventually be declared “provocative” and/or “contentious” at SBFII.


Well, when the posts aren't excellent and the party line is something I disagree with, I am not one to go along to get along. I will ask questions, post contrasting opinions and, yes, provoke, in the sense of provoking discussion. These sites are, after all, discussion forums. Statements will be made and countered, points will be contended and opinions will be stated and discussed. At least, that's the ideal. Unfortunately for all of its members, SBFII has always fallen far short of that ideal, as well as the ideals of comity, respect and justice.


Lately the people who run SBFII have been trolling Twitter and YouTube in hopes of netting new members. Presumably they are seeking to replenish the ranks that have been depleted by banning, harassing and censoring so many current and former members. Unsurprisingly, their police state tactics have been driving off newbies almost as fast as they sign up. One new member lasted all of five days before being sent to the penalty box for some innocuous comment or other. It must feel like Hell Week for that unfortunate person. Given the current rate of attrition, soon they will be left with a baker's dozen moderators and a handful of “Excellent Post!”-ers, all either too blissed out or too terrified to say much else.


“What would Susan think?” indeed.

Well put.

"These sites are, after all, discussion forums. Statements will be made and countered, points will be contended and opinions will be stated and discussed. At least, that's the ideal." That's been my belief from the start. SBFII and its predecessors were my first experiences with fansites/forums. I always thought that they existed to foster discussion; if not, they'd simply be websites, with static content. As it currently stands, SBFII has got to be about the most static "forum" on the Web.

I once ran fan sites of my own, LEM, and they always existed primarily for the fans, not for the stars and their PR campaigns. That is why they are called fan sites. My forums were very free-wheeling, with only a few rules and no censorship. Their only reason for being was to give fans a place to meet and discuss their favorite entertainers, television shows and movies. When discussion becomes ridiculously constrained or near impossible due to over-moderation, forums have a tendency to wither and die.

Well, stay tuned . . . . .

Xeno I wish I had the eloquent words to express the sorrow I feel right now.

xeno wrote:

I once ran fan sites of my own, LEM, and they always existed primarily for the fans, not for the stars and their PR campaigns. That is why they are called fan sites. My forums were very free-wheeling, with only a few rules and no censorship. Their only reason for being was to give fans a place to meet and discuss their favorite entertainers, television shows and movies. When discussion becomes ridiculously constrained or near impossible due to over-moderation, forums have a tendency to wither and die.

_______________________________________________________

.........Interesting choice of words. Whatever happened to that forum we once joined with such excitement and high hopes for fun and interesting discussion?? People are now hesitant to post for fear of retribution,---and new members are being placed on pre-moderation. What a shame when we consider what it might have been,------what it should have been. And those of us placed in pre-moderation as a group have received neither a stated reason for our status nor any indication of its possible duration. Seems the entire mechanism is being run on whim and fancy. They seem to make it up as they go along.

bajaraquel wrote:

Xeno I wish I had the eloquent words to express the sorrow I feel right now.

I'm sad, too, baja. At one time I fought passionately to save that site from the very people who are now running it into the ground. When the July insurrection was at its height I jumped into the breach without hesitation, hoping against hope to keep the ship from being sunk by its erstwhile crew. They were not able to sink it then; in fact, it was righted and handed right back to them, to do with as they wished. It is quite obvious that they wish to run it like their own personal fiefdom.


Well, enough is enough, to quote their leader. I can no longer stand and watch as good and trusting people have their goodness and their trust abused on a daily basis.

WAMcKinley wrote:

xeno wrote:

I once ran fan sites of my own, LEM, and they always existed primarily for the fans, not for the stars and their PR campaigns. That is why they are called fan sites. My forums were very free-wheeling, with only a few rules and no censorship. Their only reason for being was to give fans a place to meet and discuss their favorite entertainers, television shows and movies. When discussion becomes ridiculously constrained or near impossible due to over-moderation, forums have a tendency to wither and die.

_______________________________________________________

.........Interesting choice of words. Whatever happened to that forum we once joined with such excitement and high hopes for fun and interesting discussion?? People are now hesitant to post for fear of retribution,---and new members are being placed on pre-moderation. What a shame when we consider what it might have been,------what it should have been. And those of us placed in pre-moderation as a group have received neither a stated reason for our status nor any indication of its possible duration. Seems the entire mechanism is being run on whim and fancy. They seem to make it up as they go along.

Yes, I just read that newbies at SBFII are now put in immediate lockdown. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply there. It truly is sad to see the place become such a hotbed of censorship and paranoia. I have to wonder if they're tweeting: "Come to SBFII! We'll treat you like a criminal or a child, your pick!"


Edited to add: KateOHio has deleted her post in which she stated that new members are automatically put in pre-moderation for seven days. Her post was in response to a member's question about the pre-moderation of new members.

You express yourself so well Xeno. That is not what they want there. They are looking moreso for the Stepford personality.
I wonder what Lirpa Loof would think if she knew that the forum she sometimes posts on is run like that! It is a very sad situation! The most intelligent people seemed to have been banned, left, or have been put on Pre-Mod.

TxTammy wrote:

You express yourself so well Xeno. That is not what they want there. They are looking moreso for the Stepford personality.
I wonder what Lirpa Loof would think if she knew that the forum she sometimes posts on is run like that! It is a very sad situation! The most intelligent people seemed to have been banned, left, or have been put on Pre-Mod.

__________________________________________________________________

I have the distinct feeling that Lirpa has never posted there, but that posts are made for her by helpful visitors when they are visiting Susan's home. I doubt seriously that Susan ever uses the computer at all,---but maybe looks over the shoulder of other folks who do, when asked to. But I don't think this is a popular theory, this theory of mine. We're supposed to think that Susan is checking out the forum all the time and typing out her own self-composed messages at the OS.---------- Hmmmm. Yeah,....riiiiiiight.

Xeno, you write so well, I want to thank you for posting this.

Xenophobia is defined as the "hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture".[1] It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "stranger," "foreigner" and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear."[2]
Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination
General forms
[show]General
Specific forms
[show]Social
[show]Manifestations
[show]Policies
[show]Other forms
[show]Related topics
Discrimination portal
This box: view · talk · edit
Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity.[3] Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality".[4]

WRONG!! IT IS THE SBFII FEAR OF XENO TELLING THE TRUTH!!

---

Thank you Xeno for your wonderfully clear post, it had to be said.
The PTB are ruining that forum, why? only for the power trip?
I'm almost sorry for the sheeple who are still blind to reality...

What a gift to have such clarity in articulating your views, Xeno. Thank you for saying it for all of us here - well, nearly all of us!!!

Yes, it is sad to see the place where we all started our SB time together going to the dogs - or gone to the dogs.

Thanks again DJG for being a true admin and allowing us free expression but stepping in if things get really out of hand. We appreciate you enormously.

fudgemeister wrote:

Xenophobia is defined as the "hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture".[1] It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "stranger," "foreigner" and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear."[2]
Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination
General forms
[show]General
Specific forms
[show]Social
[show]Manifestations
[show]Policies
[show]Other forms
[show]Related topics
Discrimination portal
This box: view · talk · edit
Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity.[3] Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality".[4]

WRONG!! IT IS THE SBFII FEAR OF XENO TELLING THE TRUTH!!

Hey, fudgie. One of them told me in New York that the mods were all afraid of me. I wonder why?

---

The new member is out of Pre-Moderation...

You have to do a lot of this to be 'accepted' there!

Actually, I think this just about sums it up!

PT in charge of the asylum---