I Quit
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
I am sorry to see you go. Thanks for all your work.
In soc.sexuality.spanking you write:
>And that brings us almost up to the present. About two months ago, I
>decided that someone's attempts to blackmail members of this newsgroup
>into silence had gotten out of hand, and I felt that I had to do
>something about it. I had reached the point where his actions were simply
>intolerable, and I either had to act or to resign. After a lot of email
>discussion and a tearful phone call with another moderator in which I
>talked about quitting, I decided to act, in part because I felt that I'd
>be letting the group down if I resigned.
>Since then, I have received a lot of supportive email, but I've also been
>the target of quite a few vicious attacks from people who I thought were
>my friends.
I hope you don't count me among those vicious attackers.
>I've been accused of betraying the group's trust in me
By me, among others.
>Well, I feel like I am the one who has been betrayed. After all of the
>time, effort, and emotional energy that I and the other moderators have
>devoted to this group, people won't even give usa minimal amount of
>trust, respect, or credit for having good intentions.
I don't doubt that your intentions were good, but you know which road is
paved with good intentions.
>Instead, there's
>all this talk about betrayal, about violating the charter, and so on.
You did violate the charter. When you are entrusted with such power, you
must play by the rules.
>People have accused usof all sorts of nasty things, from conspiring to
>take over the group to lying about what we're going to do in the future.
>This has hurt me a lot.
I am sorry to hear that. Yuo reacted to an unpredicted situtation which
placed a group member in danger in the way you found best at the moment.
I think it quite obvious that your choice of action was wrong (though
I know that others disagree), but I can well understand why thought you
had to do it. However, I also think that we need some kind of assurance
that the moderators will not do so in the future. I said in a private
mail to you that if you would promise not to do so again, I would trust
you. I hope that you don't take that as an attack.
>I will give the other moderators a reasonable amount of time to find a
>replacement for me and a new home for the robot. I'll set up mail
>forwarding from old posting and admin addresses. I'll be a good girl. And
>when it's all over, I'll start trying to become a member of this
>community again, the way I was a year ago before I was stupid enough to
>volunteer for this thankless job. I'll try to start writing those long,
>emotional posts again. This one is a start.
I do thank you for all your work.
Klaus O K
Y. Lee Coyote
On 20 Nov 1997 20:49:23 -0800, la...@goodkitty.com (Laura Werner) wrote in
<MPG.edeb170e...@nntp1.ba.best.com>:
Laura,
I was very sad to see your post of resignation because of the great pain that
it indicated you had endured for the past months. And, admittiedly, because it
bodes long term trouble for s.s.s.
There are several problems occurring simultaneously for which the moderators
and particularly the 'bot maintainer get blamed for regardless of what the
trouble is or if they had any control. There is also the general proclivity of
people to expect that things will be right (somehow by themselves) and never
give a word of praise. Of course, there are lots of complaints. To illustrate
this point I have a r/l experience. I was happy with the way a movie theater
did something and requested to speak to the manager. As I did so, he started
to apologize before I finished. Compliments were so rare that he did not know
how to react.
There has been lots of yelling about 'free speech' and 'censorship' but very
little deep thinking about it. These are concepts that apply between *the
people* and *their government* not in a moderated newsgroup. Just as a
newspaper does not publish everything that everyone submits to it nor
everything that happens in the entire world neither does a moderated ng. There
is a difference between editorial judgement and censorship. A ng, particularly
a moderated ng, is a limited speech forum. Articles such as "Rebuilding your
carburetor" and "Making your Living room Drapes" are likely to be welcome in
only one magazine of, say, <Auto Repair> and <House Beautiful> but not both.
(I did post a comment on this topic back on 6 October but it was largely
ignored.)
There is also apparently an impression that the entire web and in particular
Usenet functions all by itself as a natural feature of the universe where in
reality it is the construction of many people, companies and technologies.
Perhaps because it is so vast, it appears to be a natural feature that can not
be contaminated by *other* people (and their nasty ideas that differ from
ours). Laura and your fellow moderators were unfortunately well positioned to
be perceived as the big bad regulators; even worse -- you have names and
addresses. You become convenient targets.
You were accused of going beyond your 'job' when you acted in a human way.
First you did NOT have job. You were a volunteer. Not an employee. Not even
a government official. You had the obligation to act within the bounds of your
conscience. This was the point that was settled at Nuremberg in 1945. (I
posted on this topic on 29 September.) To discuss that you were wrong or the
action taken was ineffective would have been reasonable. To attack your
integrity was just stupid and rude.
Like yourself, I am also surprised with the low voter turnout for the change
procedures. I am currently waiting a reply as to why my vote was not
indicated. To decide that the charter is perfect and believe that all changes
must be sinister is unrealistic. As technology changes we will need to change
to charter in order that he moderators can moderate. The problem will be eased
if Usenet finds a way to generally block spam, but it will occur.
Finally, let me explicitly once again express my thanks for the hard work and
long hours that you put into the worse paid "job" that you ever (or will) have.
Y.
Valid return address is <YLeeC...@Juno.com>
Vincent Papa
BRAVO!!!! We will miss you. This is a terrible loss for the ng, however, it is
their loss and hopefully Laura's gain.
dblack
What a shame that it has to come to this.
On all other ng's you MUST wade thru all kinds of spam to get to the few
good items, and the good people that do post to the other ng's are bailing
out. Which leaves the spamers so it isn't worth going to other ng's.
Now I am new to this group and have enjoyed reading the stories and related
comments. I think that you are doing a great job, and I know it is a
thankless job.
In any groupe of people you will always have people who have a lot to say
about the way you as the leader do the work, but ask them to help out and
they will give a lot of reasons for not being able to do any of the work.
Laura don't take any of their negativism to heart, you have done something
that most of us can't do and done it well, be proud of your accomplishment.
D
Laura Werner <la...@goodkitty.com> wrote in article
<MPG.edeb170e...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
> "Well, it's time."
Peach
Dear Laura,
I read your "I Quit" post. I feel grateful for all you have
done and relief for you that your long ordeal is finally at an end. I
wish you greater free time and greater freedom to post as a NG member.
Your website led me to A.S.S., and I have always felt you were the link
between the group and me. I would like to see you free to go back to
writing and working on your own creative projects.
Thank you for your enormous contribution to the group.
Best,
Peach
IronWynch
Klaus Ole Kristiansen wrote:
> I do thank you for all your work.
>
> Klaus O K
That sounded alot like the tone of "This is going to hurt me more than it's
going to hurt you...
Don't pretend to be sympathetic, if you're not.
Laura's post was long, and emotionally charged, but if I may, I'd like to
simplify the gist of what she's saying:
Some of us (myself included) do not feel safe in an environment wherin the
victims will be punished more than the criminals. When a person hits someone
back, who hit them without consent, it's self defense...If self defense, or
the defense of the group one is bound to protect is illegal, then so be
it...but it doesn't make the person wrong, bad, or a traitor...It makes the
person strong.
This is a case where she had to pick the lesser of two evils:
Sacrifice the group for some blackmailing jerk's sense of righteousness,
or
Sacrifice my image of righteousness for the sake of the group.
Her decision may have been against the rules...But it was the right
decision...
There is a big difference between law, and justice...
--
===========
`Niki
VA, U.S.A
Warmbotty
Laura,
I would like to place on record my thanks for all the hard work and effort
you have put into your time as a moderator of s.s.s.
As you know, I disagreed with the action you took over Chris Dugan, and
still do; but I have never doubted the honesty of your emotions in all this.
I am sorry that we have to agree to disagree on the matter, but your
commitment to his group has never been in question.
I hope you will take this as it is meant: a sincere appreciation of a
thankless job performed in often difficult cirumstances, and a glance
forward at how you may continue to enrich s.s.s. for many years to come in
your new-found freedom.
--
Warmbotty
to reply by e-mail, please delete the "BOUNCE"
CDGertrude
Laura Werner (la...@goodkitty.com) wrote:
: "Well, it's time."
: About two months ago, that was how I began the email in which I convinced
: the other moderators that the time had come to ban a blackmailer from the
: newsgroup. Now it's time for something else: for me to resign as a
: moderator of this group.
: I was ready to resign a month ago, but the other moderators convinced me
: to stay at least until we had voted on a procedure for modifying the
: charter. In my opinion, that vote was at least in part a vote of
: confidence for the moderation team. I and the other moderators felt very
: strongly that the charter needed to be changed and that the proposed
: procedures were a good way to do it. Most of you apparently didn't
: agree, at least not enough to overcome your apathy and vote on the
: proposal. Although there was a 2/3 majority of Yes votes, the turnout
: was underwhelming, with only 50 votes total.
: I shouldn't have been surprised by this, but I was. I expected at least
: a moderate show of support. I should have known better. Almost since
: the very beginning of this newsgroup, on May 12th of this year, there has
: been an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility towards the moderators.
: People whose posts get lost often accuse us of censoring them. Folks who
: don't like a post or a thread demand that we "do something" about it.
: Then there are the creeps who get hostile when we warn them about posting
: personals or commercial ads. The people who interpret every personal
: opinion we post as an official statement of the moderators' policy. The
: people who blame us for all of the glitches in their news servers. And on
: and on and on.
: Add to the negative atmosphere the fact that the five of us have been
: working our asses off, and you end up with some very unhappy moderators.
: In the weeks before this group was started, I spent quite a few weekends
: and late nights writing and debugging the software robot that keeps the
: group going. I skipped play parties and munches because I felt an
: obligation to the newsgroup. I essentially gave up all of my free time to
: write a piece of software that the group needed. And I did it all for
: free, and without complaining (well, not too much). In case you're
: wondering, my consulting rate starts at $80/hour; I'm damn good at what I
: do.
: After the bot was written, I spent lots of time adding new features that
: we needed. Fine-tuning the spam filters. Figuring out the right way to
: deal with binaries and crossposts, and so on. And I'm not the only one
: who has worked hard. The other moderators have have tried to welcome
: every newcomer to this group. They have written polite notes to everyone
: who has posted a personal ad. They have written warning letters to people
: who post commercial ads and have complained to the ISPs of spammers. This
: takes up a *lot* of their time, and mine.
: We've even dealt with the unpleasant task of banning someone from the
: group for 30 days for posting repeated commercial ads. (And no, I won't
: say who it was, because I don't want to embarass the person here in
: public. S/he is perfectly free to talk about it if s/he wants to.) I
: don't think any of the five of us enjoyed that episode. I know that I
: didn't.
: The environment of mistrust combined with the hours I've spent doing
: moderation have made the newsgroup a lot less fun for me than it was
: before. I've had to spend so much time fighting fires, dealing with
: spammers, and answering complaints that I haven't had very much time or
: energy to devote to devote to just *being* here, to being a member of the
: community. I used to write lots of long, emotional, introspective, posts.
: Recently, a RL friend who looked at my web site commented that I hadn't
: done any of that type of writing for a long time. And he was right. I
: haven't. I haven't had the time, and the hostility toward the moderators
: has made me unwilling to let my guard down and pour out my emotions on
: the group.
: And that brings us almost up to the present. About two months ago, I
: decided that someone's attempts to blackmail members of this newsgroup
: into silence had gotten out of hand, and I felt that I had to do
: something about it. I had reached the point where his actions were simply
: intolerable, and I either had to act or to resign. After a lot of email
: discussion and a tearful phone call with another moderator in which I
: talked about quitting, I decided to act, in part because I felt that I'd
: be letting the group down if I resigned.
: Since then, I have received a lot of supportive email, but I've also been
: the target of quite a few vicious attacks from people who I thought were
: my friends. I've been accused of betraying the group's trust in me. I've
: been accused of lying about my motives, of conspiring against the
: blackmailer, of manipulating the group, and of being swayed by *other*
: people who were conspiring against the blackmailer.
: Well, I feel like I am the one who has been betrayed. After all of the
: time, effort, and emotional energy that I and the other moderators have
: devoted to this group, people won't even give usa minimal amount of
: trust, respect, or credit for having good intentions. Instead, there's
: all this talk about betrayal, about violating the charter, and so on.
: People have accused usof all sorts of nasty things, from conspiring to
: take over the group to lying about what we're going to do in the future.
: This has hurt me a lot.
: Well, I've had enough. I am resigning as a moderator of this newsgroup,
: effective immediately. I will continue to host the bot on my account
: until the other moderators can find a new home for it, but I am not going
: to put any more work into it. I'll help move the thing to its new home,
: but that's more because I'm a R/L friend of the moderator who's likely to
: get stuck with the job than because I feel an obligation to the
: newsgroup.
: I will give the other moderators a reasonable amount of time to find a
: replacement for me and a new home for the robot. I'll set up mail
: forwarding from old posting and admin addresses. I'll be a good girl. And
: when it's all over, I'll start trying to become a member of this
: community again, the way I was a year ago before I was stupid enough to
: volunteer for this thankless job. I'll try to start writing those long,
: emotional posts again. This one is a start.
: --
: Laura
You never proved that CD was a threat. And now he's off the board.
As I said before, if anyone posts on any internet venue, they run
the risk of being "outed." So, some modicum of protection is called
for...but not from a moderator!
--
Life is too short to belittle
() , __
/`-'| _/_ / _/_ / / ) / /
/ / _ __ / __ . . __/ _ / /_ _ / /_ . . __ _. /_ ______ ____. . _ _
/__-<_</_/ (_<__/ (_(_/_(_/_</_ <__/ /_</_ (__/ / /_(_/_/ (_(__/ /_/ / / <_(_) (_/_/_)_</_
_ _ _
' ) ) ) /
/ / / o _. _ __. __ _ _ , __/> __ __ , , , , /_ _ __ _
/ ' (_<_(__</_ (_/|_/ (_</_ </_\/ (__/ (_/ (_/_(_(_/_/ /_</_/ (_</_
/
'
Wanderer A.
I don't normally read or post/respond to sss. I usually use
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm
I'm not familiar with the problems of this group or the conflicts that
have taken place here, so I can't comment on the merits of any debates
that have taken place here.
I'd like to add my 2=A2 worth on one subject, however, modertion. Right
now my newsgroup is under heavy attack by spammers and binaries, both of
which cause a considerable amount of wasted time and trouble to the
group. We knock down one and two more pop up. These spammers and
binary posters care little for the group, only for profit. We are
plagued by a flame war that has gone on for ages and shows no signs of
letting up. The damage is so great that it no longer matters who was or
was not at fault, or even if there was a reason for it to begin with.
These problems have driven away many who could've benefited from our
group or could've contributed something. It would be very nice if
moderators and cancle bots weren't needed. But everyone and his mother
has access to the net these days. If just one in 10,000 is a problem,
everyone has a problem. I don't presume to know the solution. But
before you withdraw support from a moderator, please consider the
alternative. Mild and gentle people get run over in this world, that's
why we have cops. Mild and gentle people get run over in newsgroups and
have spam/binaries pushed down their throats, that's why we need
moderators. I wish you all the best of luck in dealing with these
problems.
Gramps
Wanderer A. wrote:
>
> I don't normally read or post/respond to sss. I usually use
> soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm
> I'm not familiar with the problems of this group or the conflicts that
> have taken place here, so I can't comment on the merits of any debates
> that have taken place here.
<snip>
It'll cost ya $2 now, I bought it all at .02, I know a deal when I see
it.
Good luck to you too, Wanderer.
Doug <jealous 'cause he don't have a cent sign on his wonderful ALPS>
--
"I know you don't wish to hurt me", she said, bending
across his lap. Raising her skirt, he replied, "Do I
detect a butt my dear?"
Gramps
Laura,
I'm happy for you and look forward to your return to the posting
citizenry. I think the group has gotten what we've asked for and I
hope it's pleasing to one and all.
I'll trade an ace 'bot wrangler for a happy Laura-brat anyday, so I'm
happy.
Much Love,
Doug
Fanny Lane
Laura,
>"Well, it's time."
<snip>
>Now it's time for something else: for me to resign as a
>moderator of this group.
You've done a lot of work for this group. You certainly deserve to feel
appreciated for your contributions. Regardless of recent events, I hope
that we all appreciate the generous gift you've given to this group --
the countless hours of your life.
>In my opinion, that vote was at least in part a vote of
>confidence for the moderation team. I and the other moderators felt
very
>strongly that the charter needed to be changed and that the proposed
>procedures were a good way to do it. Most of you apparently didn't
>agree, at least not enough to overcome your apathy and vote on the
>proposal.
<gulp> Guilty as charged. Does it help that I have an excuse...of
sorts? Some may see it as apathy, but for me it's an issue of 'the
rules of the game'. I fell in love with this group for what it was and
the people that were a part of it (even sweet and sour have their place
together)...way back in the days of spam when we were bonded by a common
enemy and didn't have to find them amongst ourselves!
I've never been one to post much, and SSS *is* posts (what goes on
behind the scenes is a different story). So therefore, I CHOOSE to
leave the decisions about the group to those that actively participate.
Why should I influence the rules of a game that I rarely ever play? Let
the players determine how their game will be. If I like the game I may
choose to play once in a while, if not I'll go do something else. It's
only a newsgroup. (And I can *hear* some of you gasping at that! <BG>)
I can see how you may interpret a lack of response as apathy, but it was
never my intention to be unsupportive. (Can't help quoting the Talking
Heads "...when I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed...") By my
silence I really *have* been placing trust and confidence in you
all...and even in human nature. I'm content to let the Universe run as
it will, knowing that it did just fine all those years before I got
here, and knowing it would continue even if I were gone tomorrow. In
retrospect, I guess the more politcally correct move would have been to
abstain, huh? (Hmmmm, but isn't that kinda like raising my hand to say
that I have nothing to say?)
>I shouldn't have been surprised by this, but I was. I expected at
least
>a moderate show of support. I should have known better. Almost since
>the very beginning of this newsgroup, on May 12th of this year, there
has
>been an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility towards the moderators.
<snip>
>Add to the negative atmosphere the fact that the five of us have been
>working our asses off, and you end up with some very unhappy
moderators.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'm really *not* surprised by the way things
turned out. I remember back when people were first volunteering to be
moderators...I was thinking:
"Now these people really ARE masocists!" <bg>
You're never going to be able to make all of the people happy all of the
time. Not on this planet. Just forget about it. AND to make matters
worse, only they can control whether they're happy or not! (Remember,
we're talking about people who understand about finding joy in pain!
They *can* do it if they WANT to. <g>)
>About two months ago, I
>decided that someone's attempts to blackmail members of this newsgroup
>into silence had gotten out of hand, and I felt that I had to do
>something about it. I had reached the point where his actions were
simply
>intolerable, and I either had to act or to resign. After a lot of email
>discussion and a tearful phone call with another moderator in which I
>talked about quitting, I decided to act, in part because I felt that
I'd
>be letting the group down if I resigned.
It was...*is* a no-win situation. People can debate all they want about
which shit is easier to swallow...it all tastes like shit to me. (Funny
thing is, it even makes spam sound good in comparison!)
You agreed to take on a thankless job with no pay, lousy benefits, and
demanding hours. All I can say about that is: If I were to hire an
employee to run my office I'd be sure to point out all the things I
wanted done while I was gone...but I'd sure feel disappointed if the
office burned down while I was away because I "never said anything about
putting out a fire if it started."
Nobody anywhere ever lives by all the rules all the time. Not even the
people bitching about following them to the letter. (Taxes, speed
limits, bootlegged software, etc. -- why just think of how many places
our kink is illegal!) We all decide where and when it's acceptable to
break the rules. And you were working on our behalf...it's tough enough
to know what a specific person would want you to do on their behalf, let
alone hundreds. Think of it this way: Even if half of the people are
yelling at you for what you did, that only means the other half would be
yelling if you didn't. <g>
Which makes me wonder what's in store for us now with respect to
moderators? Are we going to have to examine the morals and character of
each and every candidate? (Because know you can lead a moderator to the
rules, but you can't deny the fact that they're human.) And how, I ask,
are we ever going to agree on WHAT those morals should be?
>Since then, I have received a lot of supportive email, but I've also
been
>the target of quite a few vicious attacks from people who I thought
were
>my friends. I've been accused of betraying the group's trust in me.
I've
>been accused of lying about my motives, of conspiring against the
>blackmailer, of manipulating the group, and of being swayed by *other*
>people who were conspiring against the blackmailer.
>People have accused usof all sorts of nasty things, from conspiring to
>take over the group to lying about what we're going to do in the
future.
Sheeeeeeesh, good thing this is only a newsgroup, huh?
Makes me think that we need a NEW newsgroup...sort of an Inside
Edition...a newsgroup that caters to the dirt going on in newsgroups.
Don't ya think that's what we need? <g>
>I'll be a good girl.
<bbbg> (Not gonna say it, not gonna say it, not...)
>And when it's all over, I'll start trying to become a member of this
>community again, the way I was a year ago before I was stupid enough to
>volunteer for this thankless job.
Well, enjoy the t-shirt if nothing else. And remind yourself about all
the lessons you've learned, the friendships you've made or strengthened,
the things you've gotten to know and do...and the people you have
touched, whose lives are now all the richer for it. <hugs>
Your post made me realize that although I appreciate you (the bot, and
the other moderators) often, you rarely ever get to *hear* it. <g> I
know there are countless others of us out there who just don't step up
to the mic, clear our throats, and say "Thank You" often enough. I
guess we assume you know...or we feel if that's all we've got to say
then why give you MORE to read, besides it's hardly original and
somebody else just said it...or sometimes we think we will, and then
something else comes up...
So, without any criticism, conditions, or further excuses: Thank You!
<smile> And I will continue to be charitable unless someone tries to
make ME do your job! <vbg>
Fondly,
Fanny
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
BunToaster
Laura wrote:
>I was ready to resign a month ago, but the other moderators convinced me
>to stay at least until we had voted on a procedure for modifying the
>charter. In my opinion, that vote was at least in part a vote of
>confidence for the moderation team. I and the other moderators felt very
>strongly that the charter needed to be changed and that the proposed
>procedures were a good way to do it. Most of you apparently didn't
>agree, at least not enough to overcome your apathy and vote on the
>proposal. Although there was a 2/3 majority of Yes votes, the turnout
>was underwhelming, with only 50 votes total.
Sigh. Guilty as charged. Sorry, Laura, it never really occurred to me that
you would see the vote that way. In retrospect, its obvious that you would
expect some sort of response to an issue that was sucking up so much of your
energy and emotion. I (and I have the gall to believe, most readers of this
newsgroup) never felt much need to get involved. To me, the ng was working
just fine, and I saw little need to worry about tinkering with it. (We all
know the old saw about what ain't broke.)
And, honestly, I never felt people (like myself) who were not involved with the
moderation really ought to have much say. Why should we? We weren't the ones
doing all the work. To me, the fact that the ng got so much attention, so many
readers, so many posts, was always the most sincere form of praise for the
moderators efforts. Some people didn't like your way of doing things? What in
the world gives them the right to criticize? If they don't like SSS, they can
always start their own group. The fact that no serious competitor HAS started
speaks volumes for the wisdom and dedication of its moderators.
I hate to see you go, Laura. But, after reading what you've had to say, I'd
hate to see you stay, too. You don't deserve this kind of crap. Take a deep
breath and enjoy the removal of some of the load you've been carrying around. I
do look forward to seeing some "fun" posts from you.
BunToaster
(btw, my friends call me Dan. I kinda hope I might persuade you to think of me
in that category)
Mike
I am selfishly sorry, though not surprised, to hear this.
And I am sorry for the group.
But I am glad for you Laura. You deserve to be able to enjoy the
newsgroup once again. Few, if any, people can have contributed so
much to the benefit of spankophiles on the Web and the Net. There are
hundreds of people out here who will always be grateful to you.
Mike
Paul Abbott
In article <1997112202...@super.zippo.com>, RosyB...@super.zippo.com (Rosy B. Goode) wrote:
>In article <6559n5$d77$1...@gail.ripco.com>, cdg...@ripco.com (CDGertrude) wrote:
>> You never proved that CD was a threat. And now he's off the board.
>> As I said before, if anyone posts on any internet venue, they run
>> the risk of being "outed." So, some modicum of protection is called
>> for...but not from a moderator!
>
>perhaps?
Well, I WAS one of the voters (damn few, if I read things right) who
responded. It took 3 tries for confirmation to be sent. Never did understand
why but at least I was acked.
Frankly, you're lucky that I wasn't one of the moderators. I'd have burned the
guy MUCH quicker than Laura did (& the other mods). I don't suffer fools
gladly and have the famed Irish temper that goes with (once) red hair.
Laura, I say now that I have appreciated your and your colleagues (?sp)
actions on my behalf and am very glad that one ng is relatively clear of the
junk that permeates most of them. I wish you the best, tho I'm saddened that
some feel so WIERD (my viewpoint) about what anyone who is a thinking being
would realize is a hard and thankless task.
Just think, all you carpers, think back to how it was on ASS. (and yes, I was
THERE also. You think possibly we who don't post aren't there? I have some 4
years and more of postings from ASS/SSS and have been reading as long. I have
to say I think there are a few real pikers here.
And lest you feel the need, I certainly know how to use the delete key (I'm an
OLD hand at this computer biz) and won't hesitate to use it time and again.
Paul Abbott Seattle, WA
{xer...@GTE.RemoveThis.net}
fishface
Laura,
Sorry things have come to this. I'm a relative newcomer to the group,
but let me say again what a wonderful job the moderators are doing
here. SSS is about 5% spam and 95% content, as opposed to the rest of
the sex-ng universe, large segments of which have been wholly given over
to the spammers (who knows--maybe they visit *each other's* websites).
Although I'm a confirmed libertarian who bristles at the merest mention
of censorship, I find myself, for pragmatic reasons, in full support of
the moderators' decision to impose bans for certain types of behavior
(not at all the same as censorship, in my view)--blackmail being, as
I've said before, pretty much the most mean-spirited, antisocial breach
of trust one could encounter in a group of this sort. Repeat personal
advertisers can sit out for a spell, too--let them ruminate on their
sins for a while.
I've done volunteer work myself, and I know that it is thankless in its
nature--the less money you're paid for a given job, the more blowhard
idiots you have hanging around, telling you how to do it. For what it's
worth, again, let me say that you-all have done/are doing great work
here, providing this safe haven for so many people, at no charge.
I can't thank you enough, Laura, so let me just say that I'm truly sorry
to see you go as a moderator, glad you're coming back as a member. I
look forward to those long, introspective posts.
Best to you,
fishface
"The world is your lobster!"
naughtyboy
Although I have never really delurked & have posted only occassionally I
felt the need to say something.
I feel that Laura should be given praise & a statue in the Assville town
square in her honor. Perhaps there could be a commorative paddle made
with her name on it, a plaque would be too vanilla for Assville.
Laura, you deserve heartfelt thanks from spankos everywhere. Not grief.
In creating the bot to run this group you made possible our Cyber
meetingplace to share openly the thoughts that so many of us harbor
within.
I'd like to go on record as saying that Laura has every right to step
down, she has done more than her share & should be paid the respect that
any retiring statesperson has earned.
naughtyboy
Rivhard
S...@Signature.line (Y. Lee Coyote) wrote:
>There has been lots of yelling about 'free speech' and 'censorship' but very
>little deep thinking about it. These are concepts that apply between *the
>people* and *their government* not in a moderated newsgroup. Just as a
>newspaper does not publish everything that everyone submits to it nor
>everything that happens in the entire world neither does a moderated ng. There
>is a difference between editorial judgement and censorship. A ng, particularly
>a moderated ng, is a limited speech forum.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for presenting this point. And
put on your flameproof suit... Your post is very well
articulated and thought out.
Riv
--
To construct e-mail address, remove noharvest.
Kfr975
Laura,
I won't get into the argument about right and wrong here, just suffice it to
say that IMHO you and the other moderators did/do a wonderful job of insulating
the group from the crapola by which we would otherwise be inundated. I remember
ASSville, and what it became due to spammers and those who refused to behave in
a civilized manner. For my part, I thank you with all my heart.
I have not had much time to spend on the NG, except to post the occasional
story, and due to a grinding professional schedule, I too missed the vote. As a
believer in democratic process, I am dismayed at my inability to support your
efforts and the welfare of the group. My apologies.
While I refuse to debate the right/wrong of what has happened, especially from
the viewpoint of "Free Speech", I can state without hesitation that wherever
there is freedom, responsibility follows. Just because you have (or perceive
you have) the right to do something, does not necessarily mean that you should.
Freedom of speech does not mean unlimited license. A responsibility to behave
in a civilized manner is inherent in the right itself. Outright criminal
behavior, perpetrated by those who hide behind their keyboards, should not be
tolerated in ANY venue, international or not. Those who hold the "government"
of the group in stewardship, i.e., the moderators, have a responsibility to
protect the group from this kind of behavior, else anarchy prevails. That was
largely the problem in ASSville, which is why we broke away to create a
moderated group in the first place.
You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Those who don't want
regulation can go back into the jungle with the animals. As for me, I deeply
appreciate the time, effort, stomach acid, tears, and soul-searching you have
given on our behalf. You may go, but I guarantee your role in creating and
supporting SSS will not be forgotten. There will come a time when those who
have thrown rocks find themselves surrounded by the debris of their own
creation, and wish they had appreciated you more.
Thank you. I look forward to your particiation in a gentler sense.
There is nothing you must do.
There is nothing you must be.
There is nothing you must have.
There is really nothing you must know.
There is nothing you must become.
However, it helps to understand that fire burns,
and when it rains, the earth gets wet.
Fuljimakis
J. P. "Squire Hobbit" Goetz
My Dear Laura,
Let me start by saying that I for one am deeply grateful for the sweat
and heart you pumped into this group, as I said in a personal much
longer post I sent some time back. I only wish that I had seen the call
for votes, sadly with working 65+ hours a week leaves little time for
the NG but You would have had 51 votes and another strong vote for a
charter changge (as well as another vote of confidence for you in
particular) I can appreciate to a degree some of the abuse that was
directed towards you having filled a simmilar role it took me quite some
ttime before I felt back at home and content in my fellowship
afterwards. Just know my friend that ssome of us do appreciate your
HUGE contributions and will miss them, I for one feel that the group
will be poorer for your loss
Squire Hobbit
Cherokee Prayer Blessing
May the warm winds of heaven Blow softly upon your house. May the
Great Spirit Bless all who enter there. May your moccasins Make happy
tracks In many snows, And may the rainbow Always touch your shoulder
>
> Well, I feel like I am the one who has been betrayed. After all of the
> time, effort, and emotional energy that I and the other moderators have
> devoted to this group, people won't even give usa minimal amount of
> trust, respect, or credit for having good intentions. Instead, there's
> all this talk about betrayal, about violating the charter, and so on.
> People have accused usof all sorts of nasty things, from conspiring to
> take over the group to lying about what we're going to do in the future.
Pablo
Stejen wrote:
>
> I found this group right as the stuff that apparantly tore this place apart was
> about to end so I never knew what all happened to get it started. I do have one
> thing to say, however; I have said this before but I will say this again, I
> NEVER had a problem with the moderators, it was the people that thought THEY
> should be the moderators that gave me grief and, from what I can understand,
> seem to be causing others the most problems. I hate to see Laura go but until
> people know their place here, it will probably always be hard to be a
> moderator.
Steve,
Thanks for the thoughts, but, with respect, no-one is suggesting
that anyone should `know their place'. I'm sure you didn't mean
them to, but those words might have been designed to stir up
resentment.
Pab.
Debbie Ann
In article <654kd0$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Y. Lee Coyote <S...@Signature.line> wrote:
>
>There has been lots of yelling about 'free speech' and 'censorship' but very
>little deep thinking about it. These are concepts that apply between *the
>people* and *their government* not in a moderated newsgroup.
I absolutely agree with you on this point. This is not an issue of
censorship.
>
>You were accused of going beyond your 'job' when you acted in a human way.
>First you did NOT have job. You were a volunteer. Not an employee. Not even
>a government official.
Volunteers still have rules they must follow. They can choose not to
follow the rules, but certain things might happen when they make that
choice. Here's an example - I volunteer for San Francisco Needle
exchange. The rule is a one for one exchange. Some volunteers might
decide to break the rule due to how they personally feel. When they break
the rule, if they break the rule, one thing that might happen is that the
entire program might be shut down, or that volunteer be asked to leave -
EVEN IF what they did was right in a human moral ethical sense.
You had the obligation to act within the bounds of your
>conscience. This was the point that was settled at Nuremberg in 1945. (I
>posted on this topic on 29 September.) To discuss that you were wrong or the
>action taken was ineffective would have been reasonable. To attack your
>integrity was just stupid and rude.
I think Laura did act with integrity.
>
>Like yourself, I am also surprised with the low voter turnout for the change
>procedures. I am currently waiting a reply as to why my vote was not
>indicated. To decide that the charter is perfect and believe that all changes
>must be sinister is unrealistic. As technology changes we will need to change
>to charter in order that he moderators can moderate. The problem will be eased
>if Usenet finds a way to generally block spam, but it will occur.
I think the charter was fine in May and it is still fine. I think if
people want a different newsgroup with a different charter, they should
start one.
>
>Finally, let me explicitly once again express my thanks for the hard work and
>long hours that you put into the worse paid "job" that you ever (or will) have.
>
>
>Y.
>
>Valid return address is <YLeeC...@Juno.com>
>
>
I really do appreciate what Laura did - many people have said thank you-
and volunteering is often thankless and unpaid. Laura chose to volunteer
out of her own free will, and now she is choosing to stop. She is not
powerless over her life.
Debbie Ann
Ken Morton
Laura,
I am relativly new to this group, although I used to lurk on the old
ASS. I was not here when the whole Dugan situation started so I have
no opinion on that. Furthermore, I did not vete on the charter shange,
as I did not know the facts behind the change.
I think that this newsgroup is at least a 200% improvement over ASS,
and that is the reason for this post. I wish to personelly thank you
and all the other moderators for the time and energy that you
obviously have put into making this group the way it is.
I am sorry to see you resign, and even sorrier for the reasons. I
*did* read some of the posts directed to you on the recent situation,
and felt very strongly that some were attacks on you personelly, and
not discussion of the relevent issues. It saddend me and embarresed me
that some of the people here would respond in such a manner.
So, thank you for all your work. I look forward to reading your future
posts, and your return to the newsgroup. I sincerly hope that you will
recieve the warm welcome that you deserve as you post.
Ken Morton
kenbrat
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
IronWynch <irnw...@gte.net> writes:
>Klaus Ole Kristiansen wrote:
>> I do thank you for all your work.
> That sounded alot like the tone of "This is going to hurt me more than it's
>going to hurt you...
>Don't pretend to be sympathetic, if you're not.
I am. I meant what I wrote. But I do not pretend that I understand her.
She broke the rules of the group, and then calls it a viscious attack
when someone says that she should not have done that. I don't think I
will ever understand that.
Klaus O K
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
IronWynch <irnw...@gte.net> writes:
>Klaus Ole Kristiansen wrote:
And I don't understand you either. I appreciate that Laura has done a lot
of good work. I thank her for that. I do that even though I would be much
happier if she had not broken the rules. We need moderators why play by the
rules. Even so, I thank Laura for all her work. I don't see why you have
a problem with that.
Klaus O K
Klaus O K
domino
On 23 Nov 1997 08:48:55 -0800, ste...@aol.com (Stejen) wrote:
>until
>people know their place here,
Pray tell, what 'place' should I know?
domino
domino
On 21 Nov 1997 18:46:33 -0800, RosyB...@super.zippo.com (Rosy B.
Goode) wrote:
>So who, pray tell, is going to provide that "modicum of protection". You
>perhaps?
Well, you see - some of us think that we'd rather have no protection
then protection imposed on us without our consent....
love
domino
Rosy B. Goode
::
Anon-Post-To: soc.sexuality.spanking
##
References: <MPG.edeb170e...@nntp1.ba.best.com> <6559n5$d77$1...@gail.ripco.com> <1997112202...@super.zippo.com> <347eb7ee....@news.demon.co.uk>
Path: rosy
In article <347eb7ee....@news.demon.co.uk>, dom...@cocoon.demon.co.uk
(domino) wrote:
Domino, it is your right to feel that way. The person I was responding to,
cdg...@ripco.com (CDGertrude), said:
> So, some modicum of protection is called
> for...but not from a moderator!
Since this person didn't go on to say who they thought _should_ do it, I
responded to ask what hir solution (since s/he _did_ think it was
appropriate) was. This is a separate question from whether or not there
actually should be such protection.
Personally, if someone were to post a story that included real name,
address, and phone number, as the recent outing post tried to do to someone
else (which is not to say that I _know_ the recently posted information to
be accurate, but if it was me I would know:-S), I would welcome the
"protection" of whoever is running the 'bot doing whatever they could to
get the post cancelled and off of as many servers as is possible (some
servers do not accept cancellations, others do) as quickly as possible. I
know not everyone feels that way, and that is their right. I also know
that the charter doesn't cover this type of situation, but I've never been
one to have much respect for officialdom or pieces of paper so I can't
expect other people to do so either.
This is a tough problem. It's fairly easy for some people to say that you
shouldn't post anything you're not ready to see on the front page of the
paper with your real name on it. There are people whose
lives/jobs/families would not be particularly affected if such a thing
happened. A bit of embarrassment is one thing, but some of us would face
some pretty real tragedy in one or more of those areas if knowledge of our
kink/orientation became public. It gets so lonely being isolated with this
kink/orientation. Some of us are lonely enough to risk it despite the
danger. We try to be careful, but there _is_ a real risk and it's scary
even when things are mellow on the ng. When some maniac is out there
trying to expose one of us it's scarier still. If posts like the recent
one continue to come in (and more so if they are not subject to
cancellation at least) it will be so scary I'm not sure if I could continue
to post. It's not easy now.
Someone (I don't have time to go find who) suggested that the person who
made the post is trying to break up our community, not just expose one
person they've got it in for. If people like you and me, who RL love each
other, cannot find a way to build a bridge between our various viewpoints
they will likely succeed. And that's a really scary thought, too. I've
made enough friends here (and I really hope I can keep them all through
this crisis) that I would hopefully never again be as lonely as I was, but
what about the people who haven't found us yet?
I hope we can find ways to build bridges... I hope it with all my heart.
Love,
Rosy... who one way and another is largely living on hope right now....
John Palmer
On 24 Nov 1997 00:53:09 -0800, Klaus Ole Kristiansen <kl...@diku.dk>
wrote:
>IronWynch <irnw...@gte.net> writes:
>>Don't pretend to be sympathetic, if you're not.
>
>I am. I meant what I wrote. But I do not pretend that I understand her.
>She broke the rules of the group, and then calls it a viscious attack
>when someone says that she should not have done that. I don't think I
>will ever understand that.
A lot more than that was said, by many people, and a statement
that it was the wrong thing to do is a statement that can be taken to
mean that it was an "immoral" thing to do.
Something can be against 'rules' and not be immoral; something
can be within rules and still be immoral.
Klaus, I don't know what you said, so I'm not specifically
directing this at you. I do know that some folks said nothing more
than "you broke the rules", but did so in a manner that made the crime
out to be much worse than it was.
--
"Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in
kidnergarten. Like: morality must exist beyond the
purview of a deity if morality is to have a meaning
beyond tyranny.
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
RosyB...@super.zippo.com (Rosy B. Goode) writes:
>Personally, if someone were to post a story that included real name,
>address, and phone number, as the recent outing post tried to do to someone
>else (which is not to say that I _know_ the recently posted information to
>be accurate, but if it was me I would know:-S), I would welcome the
>"protection" of whoever is running the 'bot doing whatever they could to
>get the post cancelled and off of as many servers as is possible (some
>servers do not accept cancellations, others do) as quickly as possible. I
>know not everyone feels that way, and that is their right. I also know
>that the charter doesn't cover this type of situation, but I've never been
>one to have much respect for officialdom or pieces of paper so I can't
>expect other people to do so either.
This seems to be a clash of cultures. For me, respect for rules is basic
to all civilised behaviour. Respect for agreements and promises is essential.
We set up this group to be just like an unmoderated group, only without
the spam. That is what the commitee agreed on. That is what all those
people voted for. We have to trust the moderators to follow those basic
rules.
Nød bryder all love (distress breaks all laws) is an old Danish proverb.
Blocking a post outing someone is IMO a good thing. But blocking a poster
(as oposed to a post) that might out someone is something else. And
canceling posts to cool a flamewar is (again IMO) obviously not an acceptable
emergency measure.
>This is a tough problem.
It is. I don't envy the moderators. They were placed in an almost impossible
situation. I still think they made the wrong choice.
Klaus O K
Petulant2U
>This is a tough problem. It's fairly easy for some people to say that you
>shouldn't post anything you're not ready to see on the front page of the
>paper with your real name on it. There are people whose
>lives/jobs/families would not be particularly affected if such a thing
>happened. A bit of embarrassment is one thing, but some of us would face
>some pretty real tragedy in one or more of those areas if knowledge of our
>kink/orientation became public. It gets so lonely being isolated with this
>kink/orientation. Some of us are lonely enough to risk it despite the
>danger. We try to be careful, but there _is_ a real risk and it's scary
>even when things are mellow on the ng. When some maniac is out there
>trying to expose one of us it's scarier still. If posts like the recent
>one continue to come in (and more so if they are not subject to
>cancellation at least) it will be so scary I'm not sure if I could continue
>to post. It's not easy now.
I don't understand something. How can someone expose anothers name and address
unless they are given that information by the person they wish to expose? You
talk about risk, you are correct, when you give information out to strangers,
you risk being exposed. When you post personal information in your bio or
profile on line, you take a risk.
I'm sorry, I have to agree with domino here. You want people to be protected
with or with out thier consent. I think we should all be responsible for our
own protection. You can still talk, relate to, communicate with others in your
situation with out giving your name and address out!
Personally, I'd like my own proctection to be secured by me. Moderators should
moderate spam so as to keep this NG open for people to communicate and post
stories without shifting through all that *crap*. Its not thier job to baby
sit us. To shift through all posts to make sure that someone is not violating
someone elses privacy. Thats up to the individual to make sure thier privacy
is protected.
If we start asking the moderators to do this for us, its no wonder they quit.
That's some undertaking don't you think?
Pet
Gary
On 25 Nov 1997 06:00:31 -0800, petul...@aol.com (Petulant2U) wrote:
>
>I don't understand something. How can someone expose anothers name and address
>unless they are given that information by the person they wish to expose? You
>talk about risk, you are correct, when you give information out to strangers,
>you risk being exposed. When you post personal information in your bio or
>profile on line, you take a risk.
>I'm sorry, I have to agree with domino here. You want people to be protected
>with or with out thier consent. I think we should all be responsible for our
>own protection. You can still talk, relate to, communicate with others in your
>situation with out giving your name and address out!
I don't believe what you said is true about not being able to expose
someone without one's consent.
Gramps
Petulant2U wrote:
>
> I don't understand something. How can someone expose anothers name and address
> unless they are given that information by the person they wish to expose?
Too many people already know the answer to that question. There are
ways. Our first outer on sss actually posted one method along with
his outing post, supposedly so we could all enjoy outing each other.
> You
> talk about risk, you are correct, when you give information out to strangers,
> you risk being exposed. When you post personal information in your bio or
> profile on line, you take a risk.
> I'm sorry, I have to agree with domino here. You want people to be protected
> with or with out thier consent. I think we should all be responsible for our
> own protection.
Whatever information you gave your isp when you signed up can be
uncovered by anyone with a strong enough desire to do so. I guess
there are some exceptions (firewalls perhaps) and safeguards but the
more knowledgeable among us will have to speak to that.
>>snip<<
> If we start asking the moderators to do this for us, its no wonder they quit.
Laura didn't quit for that reason. I haven't seen any indication that
the other moderators would either.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Doug
Rosy B. Goode
::
Anon-Post-To: soc.sexuality.spanking
##
References: <1997112419...@super.zippo.com> <1997112509...@ask.diku.dk>
Path: rosy
In article <1997112509...@ask.diku.dk>, Klaus Ole Kristiansen
<kl...@diku.dk> wrote:
A post that I am trying to answer most respectfully...
> RosyB...@super.zippo.com (Rosy B. Goode) writes:
>
> >I also know
> >that the charter doesn't cover this type of situation, but I've never been
> >one to have much respect for officialdom or pieces of paper so I can't
> >expect other people to do so either.
>
> This seems to be a clash of cultures.
It could well be... and I am a counter/sub-culture person from waaaayy
back, which may increase the clash.<g>
> For me, respect for rules is basic
> to all civilised behaviour.
For me, rules are things that try to make up for the fact that some people
refuse to act civilized... sort of a substitute for the real thing... and
they often don't work all that well. If everyone treated everyone else
with respect and consideration we wouldn't need all those "rules"... and
when there are rules, there are things that arise that are not covered by
the rules.
> Respect for agreements and promises is essential.
> We set up this group to be just like an unmoderated group, only without
> the spam. That is what the commitee agreed on. That is what all those
> people voted for.
Like most of the elections I vote in, I felt like I needed to make the best
of a bad choice. I wasn't entirely happy with the charter, but people I
cared about had put a lot of their time into it and it did seem like the
old group was going to lose too many people to spam. I did vote, but I did
it rather reluctantly and with considerable trepidation.
> We have to trust the moderators to follow those basic
> rules.
Perhaps some people see it that way, and that is their right... but what if
one voted for the overall charter without agreeing with everything in it
(or while being unhappy with grey areas or omissions)? I think a great
many people did just that. I know I did.
> Nød bryder all love (distress breaks all laws) is an old Danish proverb.
> Blocking a post outing someone is IMO a good thing.
I'm glad to hear you think so (no irony intended whatsoever.. I truly am
glad). To me an actual outing post is a heinous act.
> But blocking a poster
> (as oposed to a post) that might out someone is something else.
That is certainly a different situation, as it much more a subjective
decision. Whether a person may think it right or wrong to do so, it
definitely is a different thing to consider than an actual outing post.
> And
> canceling posts to cool a flamewar is (again IMO) obviously not an acceptable
> emergency measure.
Has this actually been done , or is it, unlike the other scenarios you
mentioned, just a hypothetical projection of possibilities? (I am
certainly not aware that it has, and it would surprise me considerably if
it did, but I was totally off-line from the group for over a month.)
> >This is a tough problem.
>
> It is. I don't envy the moderators. They were placed in an almost impossible
> situation. I still think they made the wrong choice.
My personal belief (which is my own and I am not trying to convert others
but just explaining my position/feelings) that people must follow their own
hearts and consciences in times of crisis does not allow me to make that
call. They are the ones who have to live with themselves all the time. If
I were in a moderation position, I would most certainly have moved to block
an actual outing post in whatever way possible. As for the "might" kind of
situation, it's too hard for me to say what I would do, since I haven't
really undergone the process of feeling responsible for this group in the
way that the people who moderate it do, and I might not have information
that they have. OTOH, I _saw_ the outing post, and it most certainly was
exactly that (though I am _not_ saying I know the information in it to be
accurate, but the poster certainly made it sound like it was).
I think it's a shame that the recent vote failed, because without any way
to change the charter these situations will continue to crop up
periodically with no clear solution possible. I'm not exactly sure if
changing the charter would really help the current situation (though it
might), but to me there was always some grey in it and lots of ommisions of
one kind or another (like what to do if enough moderators cannot be found
or <sorta crooked g> how to change the charter if that should be needed
someday or not explaining somehow that due to the nature of Usenet, not
every post will show up on every server so the moderators wouldn't get
accusations of censorship in cases where there wasn't any). Without a
process delineated there is no way to even "officially" discuss such a
change and whether or not it is needed, and as potentially new situations
that the "rules" do not cover arise, the moderators will have to get
through as best they can. Like it or not, life is change. Cyber-life is
most certainly change. If the framework (ie. the charter in this case) of
the group is static, can the group ultimately survive?
Love,
Rosy
Kiralyn121
Laura,
I know I am still new here but I would like to add my voice to the others who
have stated they are sad to see you go. From what I have seen of SSS you, and
the other moderators, have done a wonderful job. Not only have you kept out
the vast majority of spam, you have also acted to protect the members of this
community. I'd like to join Mija in applauding the work that you have done and
thank you for your time, consideration, and caring that have gone into this
group.
Thank you Laura, for a job well done.
Kira
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
RosyB...@super.zippo.com (Rosy B. Goode) writes:
>> And
>> canceling posts to cool a flamewar is (again IMO) obviously not an acceptable
>> emergency measure.
>Has this actually been done
No. That was my memory playing tricks on me. I apologize.
Klaus O K
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
Sorry if this appears twice. My newsreader rejects posts to sss, but
occasionally posts them even though it claims not to.
RosyB...@super.zippo.com (Rosy B. Goode) writes:
[I had written:]
>> And
>> canceling posts to cool a flamewar is (again IMO) obviously not an acceptable
>> emergency measure.
>Has this actually been done
No. That was my memory playing tricks on me. I apologize.
Klaus O K
John Palmer
On 25 Nov 1997 01:11:37 -0800, Klaus Ole Kristiansen <kl...@diku.dk>
wrote:
>RosyB...@super.zippo.com (Rosy B. Goode) writes:
>
>This seems to be a clash of cultures. For me, respect for rules is basic
>to all civilised behaviour. Respect for agreements and promises is essential.
Yep. Respect for rules, agreements, and promises is essential...
but respect needn't be slavish obedience. If the rule is that you
must never handle a child roughly, I would do so to avert a threat to
that child's life (right now, I'm imagining forcing the Heimlich
manuver on a frightened child). ANOTHER basis of civilized behavior
is "any rule must be set aside when the rule would cause more harm
than good".
You can *ALWAYS* argue that following the law would have caused
more good than harm, and you might be right. . . but a person can't
know the future, and thus can't be sure what will cause more harm than
good, and thus has to use his or her best judgement.
You are saying, reasonably, that "These rules will cause more
good than harm." Others are saying, equally reasonably, "there are
times they are causing more harm than good".
I won't expect that you'll agree with the other side, but I
*WOULD* hope you'd stop seeing this as a matter of black and white, as
you seem to be doing.
John Palmer
On 25 Nov 1997 06:00:31 -0800, petul...@aol.com (Petulant2U) wrote:
>
>I don't understand something. How can someone expose anothers name and address
>unless they are given that information by the person they wish to expose?
If I saw you driving a car you own, in most states, you have
"given" me your name, address, and maybe some more information. The
information needn't be given out as blatantly as you seem to suggest.
LordRedbun
Laura,
I hope you're enjoying the well deserved accolades I see on this thread. Like
so many others who have written you and/or posted on this matter, I want to
acknowledge you for having made SSS possible, for your thankless but none the
less invaluable work as a moderator and for having the guts to stand by your
convictions in dealing with what, IMO was a totally unacceptable situation.
I was one of those who you honored by soliciting an opinion from prior to your
decidion to ban CD. Even though the action was, for all practical purposes,
more symbolic than effective in preventing an outing, I believe it still made a
strong statement that needed to be made - that some kinds of behavior are
simply unacceptable in this community.
I am truly sory - and somewhat ashamed - that you had to endure so many
slanderous accusations about your intentions and integrity as a result of your
decision and even sorrier that the atmosphere degenerated into something that
transformed moderating from an act of love to a frustrating, thankless task.
You certainly deserved better in my book - as do the rest of the moderators.
While I am saddened to see your resignation, I can totally understand your
reasons and support you taking care of yourself as you see fit. You leave
behind you a legacy you can be proud of. And I am looking forward to seeing
more stories and posts from you.
With deep respect and appreciation,
Dave Knight - Gleefully Swapping Swats in LA
Your Lap Or Mine?
"Nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits."
--- Mark Twain
Cestvrais
Lord Redbun said:
(to Laura)
>You certainly deserved better in my book - as do the rest of the >moderators.
>
>While I am saddened to see your resignation, I can totally >understand your
reasons and support you taking care of >yourself as you see fit.
LRB said some eloquent things here, and I couldn't agree more. Thank you,
Laura, for your courage and hard work. I wish I had not let my RL intervene to
the point where I missed the charter amendment vote. Any constitution written
without a provision for amendment is (as we always see clearly in hindsight) a
crisis waiting to happen.
I wish you all the best, Laura.
Cestvrais
Tony Elka
Dear Laura,
Anyone can get burned out, even doing something they enjoy. You have put
up with a lot, and I wouldn't blame you for never wanting to see this
newsgroup again. But you've already made it clear that you intend to stick
around and enjoy this place, as most of us have been able to do since the
beginning. That shows a lot of class.
I've never gotten around to properly thanking you or any of the moderators
for making this newsgroup happen. I do so now. Thank you indeed.
I made a point of looking at alt.sex.spanking again, it's completely
unusable now. This place is the Garden of Eden by comparison.
But is it possible, that after six months, or a year, you might consider
getting back in the saddle?
Best,
Tony
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Elka E-mail:shad...@mindspring.com
Shadow Lane Voice: 818-985-9151
P.O. Box 1910 Fax: 818-508-5187
Studio City CA 91614-0910 Web-Site: http://www.shadowlane.com
MARIE10502
>If I saw you driving a car you own, in most states, you have
>"given" me your name, address, and maybe some more information. The
>
>
I understand that. You could get my name, address, etc. quite easily. Now
tell me. Why would you want it? Unless, of course, you knew something very
personal about me and wanted to expose me.
Hmmm.... Now how would you know something that personal about me, and why would
you want to expose me?
Pet
Corne...@super.zippo.com
Pet,
when I first started to write to ASS, someone found out my real name
and address, which is I why I use a super.zippo account now for my
postings on SSS. I *never* gave my real name to *anyone*, but still it
turned out to be possible to find out my name as well as the city I
lived in. And since this city was *very* small, using the
telephonebook was enough to find the address too. Now the guy that
found out all this turned out to be someone very neat, and he warned
me and we still are emailing, so no big deal, but it shows that
someone who wants to harm someone for some reason *can* find out a
lot.
Love
Cornergirl
D Landhill
>>
> You were lucky. That's why I ask, again, knowing you can be exposed, why
>reveal personal information about yourself to a NG?
>
>Pet
>
>
The point is, she didn't *knowingly* reveal such informationn. The posting
address, or other headers in a posted msg, can be used to get considerable
information about the poster, often including legal name & address, UNLESS the
poster takes steps to PREVENT this, steps which many posters do not know how to
take, or that there is reason to take.
Much depends on where you get your internet connection. If you get it through
a large, commercial provider, like netcom, compuserve, or AOL, you are fairly
safe. If you get it though your woek, your school, or a smaller, cheaper
commercial provider, you may be at considerable risk, even if you don't know
it. For complete safty, you need to use a truly annon remailer (see the recent
FAQ additions on this subject)
Don A. Landhill
John Palmer
On 30 Nov 1997 07:08:24 -0800, marie...@aol.com (MARIE10502) wrote:
>>If I saw you driving a car you own, in most states, you have
>>"given" me your name, address, and maybe some more information. The
>>information needn't be given out as blatantly as you seem to suggest.
>
>I understand that. You could get my name, address, etc. quite easily. Now
>tell me. Why would you want it? Unless, of course, you knew something very
>personal about me and wanted to expose me.
Keep context in mind. You said "if someone outs someone else,
that someone-else must have given the someone the information." I
agree.
BUT "giving that information" can mean simply the equivalent of
"being seen driving your own car".
Thus it's not reasonable to say "If someone is outed, its their
own fault; they gave the information away in the first place."
MARIE10502
> BUT "giving that information" can mean simply the equivalent of
>"being seen driving your own car".
>
> Thus it's not reasonable to say "If someone is outed, its their
>own fault; they gave the information away in the first place."
>
>
>
>
But they did. They gave the details of thier sexuality to strangers on the
internet. True, thinking they were anonomous, but still common sense should
caution a person to becareful of what they say, and to whom.
Its like taking the pill. You think your 100% safe, and we all know how many
women got pregnant while on the pill.
Point is, if knowledge of one's sexuality can devastate ones life if
discovered,then they should definatly keep that knowledge under lock and key.
Pet
Petulant2U
>MARIE10502 (who signs herself "Pet" --- was that giving out unintended
>information? --- writes:
I never do anything unintentionally, I've posted many times under Marie. I
have two accounts, no mater where I post from, I sign Pet. And I am not afraid
of being "outed"
>In which case, this newsgroup could not exist at all. If we all followed
>your
>advice, we would all have to go back in those closets where so many of us
>stayed for so long.
You misunderstand me then, I do NOT wish to go back in the closet, we should
come out. As most Homosexuals did, but expect the conquences. It wont be
pleasant. If you cant afford to come out, then stay in.
You confuse me. Do you want to come out of the closet or stay in? If you want
to come out, you must expect negative reactions. Society is not ready, as is
proof with the homosexuals, to except alternative livestyles. I'm not trying
to be cruel, just realistic. If knowledge of your sexual lifestyle can
devastate your life, then YES, stay in the closet! Unless of course your
willing to make the sacrafice for your sexual freedom.
Last night, on 20/20 there was a great piece on Homosexuals revealing thier
homosexuality after years of marriage. They focused on these two Lesbians.
The one left her husband, and children. The family was devastated. She told
the reporters of 20/20 she did it because she had to be true to her own
sexuality. As she told them, she cried and said, in the process, she lost her
family, and will never get over that loss. Its not an easy situation, I
understand that. I'm not passing judgement. I just think, especially after
seeing the pain in that womans face last night, that perhaps, if it causes that
much damage and grief, then maybe they should stay in the closet. Keep it a
secrect. Is it worth the pain? The sacrafice?
>Why blame the victim when there is such an obvious perpetrator? Why blame
>the
>person mugged for going for a walk in the street? Should all of us really
>keep
>our lives under lock and key, and would you even be here if we did that?
Should all of us really keep our lives under lock and key? I think that is a
decision we all have to make, individually. If you weight the consequences,
and you know you can't live with those consequences, than whats your
alternative?
I truly wish people weren't outed. Its a harmful, malice act. I wish people
didn't get mugged, raped, and violated. But sad truth is these things happen.
And we have to take precautions to protect ourselfs.
After talking to you Spirit, I understand that people believed thier identity
was secrect when they got outed. That they didn't blantly give out names and
address. And I'm very, very sorry that happened. But its time for damage
control now, and not dwell in the *victuim* mode. Blackmailers only exsist if
we allow them to.
What's the answer? I don't know. Maybe this incident made some of us a
little bit wiser.
Pet
JoniBsub
Pet wrote:
>Maybe this incident made some of us a
>little bit wiser.
I, for one, do not wish to be made *wiser* at the expense of what this has done
to Spirit...
Sad facts, yes....but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't help protect each
other. No one here is *playing* the victim - there IS a victim - one who has
been targeted over and over.
And frankly, if there is something I, or anyone else can do, to help stop this
from happening again, then by all means, let's do it. I'm not willing to say
it all has to be *personal* responsibility. I don't exist here alone. I
depend on the kindnesses of strangers. I give that. And I expect it to be
returned.
There are a lot of sad things that happen in the world. But I'm not about to
walk by and say, *Oh well, it's not me - I'm not going to help or even
acknowledge there are things that can be done to make the world safer.*
I'm delighted there are folks who live in the world, and everyone knows who and
what they are. I think it takes a great deal of courage and some particular
circumstances to allow that. I admire those folks. Just because some folks
are invulnerable, doesn't mean that everyone *should* be just like them. It's
NOT a perfect world. Not everyone can be *out*.
Pet cited the 20/20 report and the anguish of the woman who had lost her
family, and suggested that if it was so painful, maybe she should have stayed
hidden. It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't statement, isn't
it?
Someone who couldn't live a *lie* anymore...and had to trust and hope and pray
that perhaps the people who loved her would be a bit tolerant? And then when
they are not, to suggest from the outside that she should have continued to
live in a lie?
People choose what they choose...and second guessing whether or not it was a
*good* choice is pretty immaterial, IMO. There are folks here who know me in
RL...who know what I do for a living, and with whom I have trusted that
information. If that info ever ended up in the wrong hands...as it did last
year <thankfully the two who outted me by profession couldn't remember my last
name or where I live> I could well be in deep shit. Was I wrong to trust that
information to people who said they were friends? I don't think so.
Were they irresponsible in using it in a public way? You bet. It was mean and
petty.
I will continue to believe, with all my heart, that people are more important
than things. And I will continue to support, as best I can, those who act in
that fashion.
Like a lot of other folks, I understand the frustration at voting for a
charter, and finding out things aren't working the way we thought they would.
In no way, again, in my opinion, is that the same as the kind of anguish that
has been caused by the recent outting.
I don't mean those feelings aren't important...but given the choice between
making sure someone gets to an emergency room before dying, and someone else
gets a bandaid for a minor *owie*....I'll vote for making sure there are some
emergency procedures in place.
Joni
Daddy said, *It will hurt the skin, but it will help your spirit grow.* No
wonder I love him.
CaptainHar
>Subject: Re: I Quit
>From: joni...@aol.com (JoniBsub)
>Date: Fri, Dec 5, 1997 11:31 EST
wrote to Pet> <<< No one here is *playing* the victim - there IS a victim - one
who has been targeted over and over. And frankly, if there is something I, or
anyone else can do, to help stop this from happening again, then by all means,
let's do it. >>>>>>
>Like a lot of other folks, I understand the frustration at voting for a
charter, and finding out things aren't working the way we thought they
would....<snip>>... In no way, again, in my opinion, is that the same as the
kind of anguish that has been caused by the recent outting. I don't mean those
feelings aren't important>>>>
Joni, Pet, and everyone-- Please remember that the ruthless outing of Spirit
on sss was cancelled as soon as the moderators found it. Spirit's outing is not
a subject of controversy regarding the charter. Everyone seems to agree (well
I am not sure about Debbie Ann) with the mods action in cancelling the outing
post. And even (reluctantly) to accept banning replay.com. (Although who
knows where that might lead?) The pain surrounding the charter is not about
Spirit. Its about authorizing the moderators to stop a potential outing, and
what to do about threats and blackmail, and what if a member outs on another
venue, like going to an employer.. and so forth..actions that take us beyond
outing and into protection. It seems to me that our individual efforts to
protect ourselves and (as Joni says) the trust and good faith we place in
others and the sss community are ALL we have to *prevent* outing, outing
threats, blackmail and so on. The moderators cant prevent it, and shouldn't be
charged with trying to. IMHO. If it happens, they can cancel the post, and
stop that email address from further posting (which they did).
I think Pet has a good point. I dont think those who went thru this will ever
make idle threats again or be such a fool as to leave ISP addresses open to
"fingering." Its been a real education for all concerned, even CD who
apparently made a joking threat, I believe. It certainly has educated me.
Probably the only person who didnt learn something was MsGadfly, s/he already
knew how much this would hurt not only Spirit but the integrity of the group.
Oh, dear I am going on and on.. Sorry.. Gene (hoping we move along into the
Holidays real soon now!)