Fahrenheit 212

[rex]

There is an UGLY trend-starting raise in the two boards I frequent.

Censorship.


Words written by any number of folks are disappearing, gone forever.


It’s gotten to the point that if one has the power or has a post in the right position, said person can censor anything they wish.

Absolute power corrupts--- Absolutely


I believe we where warned about this in a book with the same title as my leader.


rex

[Ump20]

I am one of the strongest supporters of free speech. The Internet is one of those strange animals that has great potential to inform but because access is so easy abuse is oftentimes rampant. For example I am interested in an eventual relocation to Florida. I signed up for an alt. FL board. It was so inundated with Spam, ads, and derogatory comments that it rendered it useless and I quickly withdrew.

I think that some "censorship" may be acceptable however I think just just one individual against one poster should not arbitrarily apply it. This could lend itself to vendettas by the person controlling the site. I think that a panel of at least three "controllers" should decide on the acceptability of a post in question.

I also think that it should be posted on the website what the "criteria" are for removing posts.

I know there are both sides to this issue but I am in favor of not posting anonymously. When we know whom you really are I think you would tend to be more thoughtful in choosing your words. Jim Simms - NYC

[ozzy6900]

I've been on that other board for many years. Personally, I am getting tired of post after post turning into a personal feud. It's apparent that certain individuals feel a need to be superior to all who do not think as they do. Oh, they will tell you that they are just stating their side and they are not arguing, but the outcome speaks for itself.

The only thing that I hope is that these individuals do not umpire on the field as they do on the boards!

[Dakota]

I am a strong civil libertarian. I believe in the Bill of Rights.

Because of that, I get very annoyed when people appropriate the Bill of Rights to back up their whining.

Your right to free speech means that the government cannot restrict your right to speech.

The actual amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It doesn’t say “George shall make no rule…” or “Jack shall delete no posts…”

Your right of free speech does not extend into my living room, into my place of business, or onto any part of my private property.

I don’t know what board offends you, but presumably it is the private property of the board owners. If you don’t like their rules, even if they are arbitrarily enforced or made up on the fly, don’t go there.

It is not infringing on your rights – you are perfectly free to start your own board.

[Edited by Dakota on Jan 17th, 2002 at 11:27 AM]

[BJ Moose]

All these boards are private affairs run by private people, some for free, some for profit. The government is not involved.

Board owners can delete anything they want. Like Network TV... you don't like, leave.

Now I may also agree that I don't like it. But it is not CENSORSHIP in "that" way.

Heck, I just 86ed a thread on Eteamz. Cool feature.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by rex


There is an UGLY trend-starting raise in the two boards I frequent.

Censorship.


Words written by any number of folks are disappearing, gone forever.


It’s gotten to the point that if one has the power or has a post in the right position, said person can censor anything they wish.

Absolute power corrupts--- Absolutely


I believe we where warned about this in a book with the same title as my leader.

Rex IMO, it's not Censorship, but the owner's right to do whatever they want. I wish I could remember the thread, but perhaps Bradly Batt or Kelly Kistner will respond with "the rules".

I believe the "rules" of this Forum were put on this board last year, but I just can't remember.

As a general rule, IMO threads get deleted when they no longer deal with the Subject Matter of the sport you are visiting be it the Baseball, Football or Basketball Forums.

Pete Booth

[GarthB]

Private Internet boards are operated on the "Golden Rule",

He who has the gold, rules.

As pointed out, the Bill of Rights only protects citizens from action by the government or an agency thereof. (The courts, though, have greatly expanded upon who may be considered an agent of the government)

When it comes to internet boards, all rights belong to the owners. Just criticize them and you'll see.

With the dearth of posts that this board suffered a few weeks ago, you'd think that any post that drew attention would be welcome. This could be the best board on the intenet. Unforutnately, in terms of visits, it's coming in a way behind eteamz, URC and McGriffs.

The owners should be asking themselves, "why", instead of deleting everything they disagree with.

(Better read quickly, this thread won't be here long.)

[rex]

Private and Internet seem to be a conflict of terms. Add in public forum and all bets are off.

Yet others have posted that on this PUBIC FORUM as long as it pertains to baseball all things should be available for discussion.

Now then this board is unique in that it is affiliated to a PRIVATE (subscription) non-interactive electronic media form, that pertains to baseball. As its other affiliate has no open letters or readers write column, not even a Q&A area. It would stand to reason this forum would be available.

As has been stated and proven this is not so.

Perhaps this boards lack of patronage is due to a lack of a business plan. Or perhaps the business plan WAS to use this board (and all public baseball forums) solely as an advertising platform. Either way people don’t come here and one is not allowed to make negative comments about the media “Sacred Cow”.

The prospect of any change in either case seems slim next to none.

In the mean time on this board I would assume the users really don’t care. That is until something they may feel strongly about gets popped.





rex

[Ump20]

Originally posted by GarthB
Private Internet boards are operated on the "Golden Rule",

He who has the gold, rules.

As pointed out, the Bill of Rights only protects citizens from action by the government or an agency thereof. (The courts, though, have greatly expanded upon who may be considered an agent of the government)

When it comes to internet boards, all rights belong to the owners. Just criticize them and you'll see.

With the dearth of posts that this board suffered a few weeks ago, you'd think that any post that drew attention would be welcome. This could be the best board on the intenet. Unforutnately, in terms of visits, it's coming in a way behind eteamz, URC and McGriffs.

The owners should be asking themselves, "why", instead of deleting everything they disagree with.

(Better read quickly, this thread won't be here long.)

I agree with you 100% that this forum is underutilized. This is especially so in the off-season. It is clear that McGriff's and Baseball Umpires (BU) List has much more activity. But I think that as some posters have become more and more comfortable with the Internet as a communication tool and have in fact formed friendships with some of their fellow umpires you can have posts that are far a field of umpiring. For example on BU over the last several days a lot of posts have concerned how you access the Internet i.e. dial-up, cable modem et. al. This may be of interest to many posters. It has nothing to do with umpiring per se. I could just as easily ask, "What is your favorite color?" and get lots of replies.

I have yet to find any forum that really stays on topic and does not, at least at times, get (for me) much too personal.

I think when a post is deleted a notation should appear such as "Post by Tommy Umpire on 1-17-02 has been deleted." I might be able to judge the degree to which this was "censorship" vs board owners trying to keep issues focused rather than have them deteriorate into personal attacks. Jim/NYC
Jim/NYC

[Dakota]

rex,

If I am reading you correctly, you hold a number of misconceptions regarding where free speech (or, technically I suppose, press, since this is not the spoken word, but the published word) exists and where it does not.

Originally posted by rex
Private and Internet seem to be a conflict of terms. Add in public forum and all bets are off.

Yet others have posted that on this PUBIC FORUM as long as it pertains to baseball all things should be available for discussion.

First, an internet site is not a soapbox set up in some vast mystical public square where anyone can hop up on the box and speak whatever they want. An internet site, such as this one, is private property. A private person or group or company owns or leases the computer server, the hard drive space, and the network connections to that server. This private property owner either purchases the software, or employs or contracts with the software engineers to write and maintain the software that makes this board function. You are allowed to post your thoughts here at their pleasure. It is not a public forum. You have to register, and you have to agree to abide by the rules of the site. Those rules may be interpreted anyway it suits the owner of the site. Whether their decisions are good for them and their overall objectives is for them, and them alone, to decide.

You reference a open letters area as if this, if provided, would provide you with your free speech area. Do you really think the letters to the editor of your local newspaper provides anyone with free speech or free press other than the owners of the newspaper? They choose which letters to print, and even edit those letters to match the criteria they set (length, clarity, addressing a pertitent topic, etc.).

If you want free speech (press) on the internet, start your own baseball site. Make if fully and freely open to anyone to post whatever they want. See how long it takes before your board is complete chaos.

But, there would be no censorship!!!

BTW, I deleted a thread I started on the football section of this board. Not because it was in any way controversial, but because it was not providing the information I was looking for. Big deal.

[Rich Ives]

Rex, think of these examples too

Per the US Supreme Court, (and probably most rational people), free speech does not give you the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Perhaps in a more relavent venue, free speech does not mean your child can paint "My Parents Create a Partial Vacuum" in big red letters on the front of your house.

[His High Holiness]

All;

Several of you are missing Rex's point. He is not talking about the first amendment or whether eumpire has a RIGHT to delete posts. Of course they have the right. Rex is arguing about whether legal censorship is a wise policy. Most censorship is legal. Eumpire can legally censor anything on this site that it wants.

But it's still censorship. Too many posters are confusing government censorship which is illegal with private censorship which is legal.

Posting boards are learning forums. Rex's whole point is that learning is corrupted and disrupted when censorship takes place.

I agree.

Peter

[Dakota]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
All;

Several of you are missing Rex's point. He is not talking about the first amendment or whether eumpire has a RIGHT to delete posts. Of course they have the right. Rex is arguing about whether legal censorship is a wise policy. Most censorship is legal. Eumpire can legally censor anything on this site that it wants.

But it's still censorship. Too many posters are confusing government censorship which is illegal with private censorship which is legal.

Posting boards are learning forums. Rex's whole point is that learning is corrupted and disrupted when censorship takes place.

I agree.

Peter

That may have been what he meant, but that is not what he wrote. He wrote about public forums available to all, removing words written by others (the inference I drew from that was in rex's view the writer somehow had rights to keep those words before the readers), etc.

This sounded to me like he was arguing against censorship on this site from a perspective of principle, not from a perspective of practical.

Maybe I misunderstood. It wouldn't be the first time (or the last, I'm afraid.)

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jim Mills
I, like many, demand an entertainment factor as well as information. Frankly, this board is a bore most of the time.

Who the hell are you to talk like that? We don't need deadbeats here.
We don't need people who want a circus every day. This is a serious forum for serious people. Why don't you take your whinny little butt over to McGriff's. That ought to "entertain" you.

Disgusted in Edinburg.






BTW: Is that the kind of post that, if serious, would create the entertainment you were talking about? (grin)

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Who the hell are you to talk like that? We don't need deadbeats here.
We don't need people who want a circus every day. This is a serious forum for serious people. Why don't you take your whinny little butt over to McGriff's. That ought to "entertain" you.

Disgusted in Edinburg.


BTW: Is that the kind of post that, if serious, would create the entertainment you were talking about? (grin)

Now when I read Jim Mills' reaction I thought I recognized him from being an umpire who has been a part of serious discussions here in the past. He has, according to the record, posted 87 times in the past. In fact on February 27th, of last year he responded to my original thread-starter on the need for abuse legislation that he did not want his NASO dues used "...to lobby state legislatures..." I thought at he time his response was quite intelligent and well thought out and that it contributed to the dialogue

I may have felt similar to the way CC felt (that's conjecture on my part) after Jim Mills' last post that it would be far better if Jim contributed an intelligent post rather than just seemingly complain about the negatives he sees with this forum including possible censorship.

Rather than dwell upon the negatives or cast aspersions at fellow umpires I would suggest that actions speak louder than words. I will try taking my own advice and post a question of comment here before the week is out.

My opinion is that I use this forum and other Internet sites as tools to enhance my umpiring knowledge and skills. If I don't like the way that a person says something here I still try to focus on what was said.

Finally, whether you posted here 200 times or 2 times this is a forum in which all of us can contribute in a positive way if we choose to do so. Jim Simms/NYC

[Edited by Ump20 on Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:12 AM]