Three things that *are* essential requirements/safeguards for this split/moderation plan
Darmon C. Thornton
J. J. Novotny <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message
news:38016EF8...@cc.umanitoba.ca...
> 1. That *anyone* (and I mean *anyone*) who wishes to post something on
> topic about anthropomorphics or furry be allowed to do so on the new
> moderated group, *regardless* of their previous posting history, or if
> they are popular or not, or their connection to various political
> groups, or whether anyone thinks they are trolls or not.
>
> 2. That posters to the new moderated group be free (and be made to feel
> free) to post critical or controversial on-topic remarks without fear of
> losing their "green-flag" auto-post status.
>
> 3. That the current unmoderated alt.fan.furry group be allowed to remain
> and stand as the unmoderated group with no cancels given out.
>
> I cannot support any proposal that does not contain these three
> safeguards.
I agree with and support these safeguards.
J. J. Novotny
topic about anthropomorphics or furry be allowed to do so on the new
moderated group, *regardless* of their previous posting history, or if
they are popular or not, or their connection to various political
groups, or whether anyone thinks they are trolls or not.
2. That posters to the new moderated group be free (and be made to feel
free) to post critical or controversial on-topic remarks without fear of
losing their "green-flag" auto-post status.
3. That the current unmoderated alt.fan.furry group be allowed to remain
and stand as the unmoderated group with no cancels given out.
I cannot support any proposal that does not contain these three
safeguards.
Thank you;
J. J.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> 1. That *anyone* (and I mean *anyone*) who wishes to post something on
> topic about anthropomorphics or furry be allowed to do so on the new
> moderated group, *regardless* of their previous posting history, or if
> they are popular or not, or their connection to various political
> groups, or whether anyone thinks they are trolls or not.
I'll second that. Posters should be judged based on what they post, not
who they are.
> 2. That posters to the new moderated group be free (and be made to feel
> free) to post critical or controversial on-topic remarks without fear of
> losing their "green-flag" auto-post status.
Amendment: All posts about Z-philia are off-topic.
Because:
a) Furry fandom isn't about z-philia.
b) Most folks would rather talk about anthropomorphics.
If critical or controversial remarks are to be allowed, then they should
be allowed from both sides. Fair's fair.
If folks really think furry fandom isn't about z-philia, they should
start acting like it. Otherwise, it's no different than the current AFF
with the periodic furry/zoo flamewar that's been cycling through since
1995 or earlier.
> 3. That the current unmoderated alt.fan.furry group be allowed to remain
> and stand as the unmoderated group with no cancels given out.
I currently have no opinion whether AFF stays or not. I trust Mr. da
Silva's judgement on that matter.
Just my $0.02.
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Bahumat
simultaneously the most important, but also the one that will give the
moderators much grief...
Bahumat
"J. J. Novotny" wrote:
>
> 1. That *anyone* (and I mean *anyone*) who wishes to post something on
> topic about anthropomorphics or furry be allowed to do so on the new
> moderated group, *regardless* of their previous posting history, or if
> they are popular or not, or their connection to various political
> groups, or whether anyone thinks they are trolls or not.
>
> 2. That posters to the new moderated group be free (and be made to feel
> free) to post critical or controversial on-topic remarks without fear of
> losing their "green-flag" auto-post status.
>
> 3. That the current unmoderated alt.fan.furry group be allowed to remain
> and stand as the unmoderated group with no cancels given out.
>
ilr
> topic about anthropomorphics or furry be allowed to do so on the new
> moderated group, *regardless* of their previous posting history, or if
> they are popular or not, or their connection to various political
> groups, or whether anyone thinks they are trolls or not.
>
> 2. That posters to the new moderated group be free (and be made to feel
> free) to post critical or controversial on-topic remarks without fear of
> losing their "green-flag" auto-post status.
>
> 3. That the current unmoderated alt.fan.furry group be allowed to remain
> and stand as the unmoderated group with no cancels given out.
>
> I cannot support any proposal that does not contain these three
> safeguards.
>
> Thank you;
> J. J.
Excellent. I move that, among other things, profanities be allowed, despite
their questioning in a recent court loss. Threats = gray area.
Actual trolling tactics, extraneous posting of an agitative subject, unwelcome
surveys that overstep the bounds of privacy, and regular old Spamming;
should be cancelled, or the poster should be suspended, not completely
removed for good. Everyone deserves a second chance or two.
-Ilr
Hangdog
> news:38016EF8...@cc.umanitoba.ca...
> > 1. That *anyone* (and I mean *anyone*) who wishes to post something on
> > topic about anthropomorphics or furry be allowed to do so on the new
> > moderated group, *regardless* of their previous posting history, or if
> > they are popular or not, or their connection to various political
> > groups, or whether anyone thinks they are trolls or not.
> >
> > 2. That posters to the new moderated group be free (and be made to feel
> > free) to post critical or controversial on-topic remarks without fear of
> > losing their "green-flag" auto-post status.
> >
> > 3. That the current unmoderated alt.fan.furry group be allowed to remain
> > and stand as the unmoderated group with no cancels given out.
> >
> > I cannot support any proposal that does not contain these three
> > safeguards.
_Nihil Obstat_ ("No objections," more-or-less)
--Hangdog
Forrest
Bahumat <Lord_B...@nocrud.yahoo.com> wrote:
> I support this, however, I think that precaution number 2 will be
> simultaneously the most important, but also the one that will give the
> moderators much grief...
> > 2. That posters to the new moderated group be free (and be made to feel
> > free) to post critical or controversial on-topic remarks without fear of
> > losing their "green-flag" auto-post status.
I don't think being critical and controversial is a problem; I have been
critical of both groups, and (I think) taken controversial positions, yet if
anyone has suggested I should not continue I must have missed it. Even on
the rare occasion when my motivations were questioned (by one of the most
enthusiastic of the BF opposition) I was not told to shut up or go away. On
the other hand I have not substituted profanity for position.
Chuck Melville
<38016EF8...@cc.umanitoba.ca>...
> 1. That *anyone* (and I mean *anyone*) who wishes to post something on
> topic about anthropomorphics or furry be allowed to do so on the new
> moderated group, *regardless* of their previous posting history, or if
> they are popular or not, or their connection to various political
> groups, or whether anyone thinks they are trolls or not.
>
> free) to post critical or controversial on-topic remarks without fear of
> losing their "green-flag" auto-post status.
>
> and stand as the unmoderated group with no cancels given out.
>
> I cannot support any proposal that does not contain these three
> safeguards.
>
Frankly, I already assumed that these were 'givens'. Why was there a
concern that they weren't?
The only exception I would have made would be to the current trolls, who
have already proven themselves to be such.
--
-Chuck Melville-
"Little one, I would like to see -anyone- -- prophet, king or -god- --
persuade a thousand cats to do -anything- at the same time."
-Neil Gaiman; The Sandman: A Dream of a Thousand
Cats
Chuck Melville
>
> Excellent. I move that, among other things, profanities be allowed,
despite
> their questioning in a recent court loss. Threats = gray area.
Depends on what you mean, re: profanity. The occassional word or phrase
used as emphasis I have no difficulty with, but an excessive slew used only
for shock value or as a direct assault upon someone I take very strong
exception to. As in a post designed only to insult another individual, for
example.
> Actual trolling tactics, extraneous posting of an agitative subject,
unwelcome
> surveys that overstep the bounds of privacy, and regular old Spamming;
> should be cancelled, or the poster should be suspended, not completely
> removed for good. Everyone deserves a second chance or two.
I dunno about that... but I suppose that could be left to the discretion
of the moderator.
Forrest
Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote :
> Frankly, I already assumed that these were 'givens'. Why was there a
> concern that they weren't?
Possibly because of how thoroughly the atmosphere has been poisoned.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> I propose that any posts regarding faction affiliation (BF, FF, etc) be
> regarded as off topic if it goes moderated. Conversations about these
> groups regularly cause long, drawn out weed threads that really should be
> on affp anyway. Any seconds?
I wholeheartedly agree.
Hangdog
> I propose that any posts regarding faction affiliation (BF, FF, etc) be
> regarded as off topic if it goes moderated. Conversations about these
> groups regularly cause long, drawn out weed threads that really should be
> on affp anyway. Any seconds?
Opposed. Burned Fur and its opposition both reflect views strongly held by many
fans which could directly affect many aspects of the fandom.
Wanna link to a zoo site? Have a "Lifestyler Sexuality" panel at your 'con?
Jokes aside--you're going to hear from the Burned Furs about it.
Unless, of course, you deliberately construct your newsgroup to exclude anyone who
doesn't meet your definition of "nyce."
Which would be the effect of what you're trying to do.
--Hangdog, Burned Fur.
LLBF/TINBF
>
>
> --
> Baloo
Hangdog
> In alt.fan.furry Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> > Opposed. Burned Fur and its opposition both reflect views strongly held by many
> > fans which could directly affect many aspects of the fandom.
>
> No offense, but it sounds like its mostly down to you and Squee. Another
> former BF just joined alf today.
Yeah, I guess it IS just me and Squee:
http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=deadfur&list
And I'll tell ya, the two of us have a helluva time keeping up all 79 of those sites.
> > Wanna link to a zoo site? Have a "Lifestyler Sexuality" panel at your 'con?
> > Jokes aside--you're going to hear from the Burned Furs about it.
>
> I also proposed that sexuality topics be banned.
"Silence gives assent." Nope, sorry, the bestialists can go over to alf and talk all
they want; where on UseNet can those who oppose bestiality have *their* say?
I--Hangdog
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> Wanna link to a zoo site? Have a "Lifestyler Sexuality" panel at your 'con?
Personally, I don't think those would be appropriate topics for the new
moderated newsgroup.[1]
Ergo, there'd be no reason for such windmill-slaying crusaders to come
to our "rescue". I think the misguided holy wars against furry fans
should stay in alt.fan.furry.politics, so folks who actually want to
talk about anthropomorphics won't need to deal with them.
Furthermore, I think if we're going to go through the trouble of
creating a moderated newsgroup, we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the
past. It would be really unfortunate if the moderated furry newsgroup
ended up looking just like _this_ one.
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
[1] And besides, there _is_ no Burned Fur, so posting about
them would look pretty silly, wouldn't it?
Jim Doolittle
xyd...@my-AIRHOSEdeja.com wrote:
> Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> > I propose that any posts regarding faction affiliation (BF, FF, etc) be
> > regarded as off topic if it goes moderated. Conversations about these
> > groups regularly cause long, drawn out weed threads that really should be
> > on affp anyway. Any seconds?
>
> I wholeheartedly agree.
Nahh. Like it or not, they're a part of fandom now. Not a real productive
part, usually, but occaisionally something shines through.
-Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press |
| dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com |
| Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest |
| http://www.furfest.org |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Doolittle
> "Silence gives assent." Nope, sorry, the bestialists can go over to alf
and talk all
> they want; where on UseNet can those who oppose bestiality have *their* say?
Not on alt.fan.furry. Or it's deriviate newsgroup, if it ever comes into
existance. aff is supposedly about furry fandom, not about how to stop
bestiality.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> "Silence gives assent." Nope, sorry, the bestialists can go over to alf and talk all
> they want; where on UseNet can those who oppose bestiality have *their* say?
Preferably not on a newsgroup where furry fans are just trying to talk
about anthropomorphic art and writing, and don't want to hear about it.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>Xydexx wrote:
> > Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> > > I propose that any posts regarding faction affiliation (BF, FF, etc) be
> > > regarded as off topic if it goes moderated. Conversations about these
> > > groups regularly cause long, drawn out weed threads that really should be
> > > on affp anyway. Any seconds?
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> Nahh. Like it or not, they're a part of fandom now. Not a real productive
> part, usually, but occaisionally something shines through.
It was not my intention to imply that members of said factions shouldn't
be allowed to post.
Rather, that the crusades those factions are so notorious for rarely
hold interest for anyone other than the folks in those factions. It'd
be a shame to go through the trouble of creating a moderated newsgroup
that looks just like the current one.
But since neither faction exists any more, it's a moot point. -:)
Cerulean
>> J. J. Novotny <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message
>> news:38016EF8...@cc.umanitoba.ca...
>> > 1. That *anyone* (and I mean *anyone*) who wishes to post something on
>> > topic about anthropomorphics or furry be allowed to do so on the new
>> > moderated group, *regardless* of their previous posting history, or if
>> > they are popular or not, or their connection to various political
>> > groups, or whether anyone thinks they are trolls or not.
...
>> > I cannot support any proposal that does not contain these three
>> > safeguards.
>
>_Nihil Obstat_ ("No objections," more-or-less)
Funny, I just read that you would refuse to participate in such a
group unless certain people were completely forbidden to post, based
only on what you happen to know about them. Which message is the
forgery?
--
___vvz /( Absurd Notions is on! -> http://cerulean.st/absurdnotions/
<__,` Z / ( | Cerulean= | DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( | Kevin Pease | FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( h+a!)oS uo!+ewJojuI - ,,Japuom o+ j7asJnoh 77aL,,
Baloo Ursidae
> 1. That *anyone* (and I mean *anyone*) who wishes to post something on
> topic about anthropomorphics or furry be allowed to do so on the new
> moderated group, *regardless* of their previous posting history, or if
> they are popular or not, or their connection to various political
> groups, or whether anyone thinks they are trolls or not.
I agree with this.
> 2. That posters to the new moderated group be free (and be made to feel
> free) to post critical or controversial on-topic remarks without fear of
> losing their "green-flag" auto-post status.
I agree with this.
> 3. That the current unmoderated alt.fan.furry group be allowed to remain
> and stand as the unmoderated group with no cancels given out.
I think the root group of aff should be moderated, but maybe an
alt.fan.furry.misc unmoderated. (I can't remember if this was proposed or
not).
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> I don't think being critical and controversial is a problem; I have been
> critical of both groups, and (I think) taken controversial positions, yet if
> anyone has suggested I should not continue I must have missed it. Even on
> the rare occasion when my motivations were questioned (by one of the most
> enthusiastic of the BF opposition) I was not told to shut up or go away. On
> the other hand I have not substituted profanity for position.
I propose that any posts regarding faction affiliation (BF, FF, etc) be
regarded as off topic if it goes moderated. Conversations about these
groups regularly cause long, drawn out weed threads that really should be
on affp anyway. Any seconds?
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> Threats = gray area.
Im afraid I fail to see how threating anybody is acceptable; Im sure
others wonder about this, too. Could you enlighten us please?
--
Baloo
diespa...@best.com
: Baloo Ursidae wrote:
:> regarded as off topic if it goes moderated. Conversations about these
:> groups regularly cause long, drawn out weed threads that really should be
:> on affp anyway. Any seconds?
: I wholeheartedly agree.
Now the censors show themselves.
All posts must be 'nyce' or be cancelled.
Baloo Ursidae
> Opposed. Burned Fur and its opposition both reflect views strongly held by many
> fans which could directly affect many aspects of the fandom.
No offense, but it sounds like its mostly down to you and Squee. Another
former BF just joined alf today.
> Wanna link to a zoo site? Have a "Lifestyler Sexuality" panel at your 'con?
> Jokes aside--you're going to hear from the Burned Furs about it.
I also proposed that sexuality topics be banned.
> Which would be the effect of what you're trying to do.
Nope. Just common sense decency, evenhanded. No anti, no pro. Straight
down the middle.
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> Nahh. Like it or not, they're a part of fandom now. Not a real productive
> part, usually, but occaisionally something shines through.
Well, honestly, aren't these guys as bad, if not worse, than the supposed
kooks they're trying to fight? The people themselves are alright, but
when classified into a specific group, they're idiots.
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> they want; where on UseNet can those who oppose bestiality have *their* say?
Silence is the best protest as well. Silence gives assent sounds rather
nazi, don't you think?
--
Baloo
Hangdog
Two names, Baloo:
1) St. Thomas Moore, and
2) Godwin
--HD
Baloo Ursidae
> 2) Godwin
Im afraid those names aren't familar to me.
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> On AFF where you always have done so anyway or form an anti-zoo group for
> such complaining if you want to do it on a broader plane than just furry
> fandom. You claim silence=assent. I'll claim silence=We're damned tired
> of hearing about it at all no matter what side of the issue you're on.
I'll agree with that. Before the BF's came around, I honestly didn't know
what bestiality or zoophilia was. I've been reading alt.lifestyle.furry
and alt.fan.furry, and those two abovementioned words come up most
frequently in alt.fan.furry under an anti-zoo post. Who are they
fighting? Seems they're bringing attention to a non-existant problem.
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> Sounds good to me. Add to that list topics that center on sexual
> preferences and practices and we have a good start at getting rid of the
> flamewars.
Cool. Both my suggestions. Im on a roll.
--
Baloo
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
> > they want; where on UseNet can those who oppose bestiality have *their* say?
>
> Silence is the best protest as well. Silence gives assent sounds rather
> nazi, don't you think?
Godwin!
Y'know, the Germans were silent about things that went on in their
government some years ago and people still say that meant they approved
of it. Funny about that, eh?
"Silence gives assent." sounds rather anti-nazi (anti-totalitarian in
general) right about now.
Use "Brought To Light" if you prefer.
Hangdog
> In alt.fan.furry Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> > Two names, Baloo:
>
> > 1) St. Thomas Moore, and
>
> > 2) Godwin
>
> Im afraid those names aren't familar to me.
Precisely, dear boy. Precisely :o)
--HD
ilr
Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:7tu23g$i5h$4...@crucigera.fysh.org...
Several things.
-The average person is too unmotivated to carry most threats.
-Legal troubles, even convincing police to protect you from someone
making threats is very difficult.
-It's too hard to discern who's serious over the Net.
-Anonymity gives the average person a little more "mouth" than usual.
-Possible Newbie mistakes.
Peter da Silva
or topic, it's possible for moderators to provide a throttle on the
topics if they start to get out of hand, rather than completely shut them off.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Entropy Gradient Reversals.
Peter da Silva
>-Possible Newbie mistakes.
What's the worst that this can lead to? Their message doesn't get posted,
but instead bounces back to them.
Jim Doolittle
<ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
> I'll agree with that. Before the BF's came around, I honestly didn't know
> what bestiality or zoophilia was. I've been reading alt.lifestyle.furry
> and alt.fan.furry, and those two abovementioned words come up most
> frequently in alt.fan.furry under an anti-zoo post. Who are they
> fighting? Seems they're bringing attention to a non-existant problem.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The bear gets a prize! :)
Forrest
Jim Doolittle <dool...@tbcnet.com> wrote :
>>where on UseNet can those who oppose bestiality have *their* say?
>
>
> Not on alt.fan.furry. Or it's deriviate newsgroup, if it ever comes into
> existance.
My position: once AFFF* exists, any discussions on AFF will cease to be of
any concern to me regardless of their topics or content.
[* alt.fan.furry.fill-in-the-blank]
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>I don't think it would be necessary to completely ban mention of any group
>or topic, it's possible for moderators to provide a throttle on the
>topics if they start to get out of hand, rather than completely shut them off.
I find its alot easyer for moderatories to act if they have a chater
that backs them up.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In alt.fan.furry Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
[...]
>: Unless, of course, you deliberately construct your newsgroup to
>: exclude anyone who doesn't meet your definition of "nyce."
>
[...] If one manages to get through the moderator(s), that
>still isn't license for you or others to turn on the flamethrowers.
Here here
Hangdog
> On 12 Oct 1999 05:03:20 GMT, spam-...@pobox.com <spam-...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >In alt.fan.furry Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >: Unless, of course, you deliberately construct your newsgroup to
> >: exclude anyone who doesn't meet your definition of "nyce."
> >
>
> [...] If one manages to get through the moderator(s), that
> >still isn't license for you or others to turn on the flamethrowers.
>
> Here here
Definition of "flamer" used here being anyone who says anything that isn't "Nyce."
"Self-referential definition:" see, "Definition, self-referential"
--HD
Peter da Silva
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>On 12 Oct 1999 07:01:17 -0500, Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>>I don't think it would be necessary to completely ban mention of any group
>>or topic, it's possible for moderators to provide a throttle on the
>>topics if they start to get out of hand, rather than completely shut them off.
>I find its alot easyer for moderatories to act if they have a chater
>that backs them up.
The way I was going to set it up, a moderator simply has to *not* act and
the timeout would make the decision for them.
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>The way you were going to set it up. Not in the way you thought it might be
>set up. Not in the way you thought it COULD be set up. In the way you were
>going to set it up. It's not your newsgroup. You don't get to decide.
I don't see anyone else volunteering time and hardware and bandwidth to run
the moderation software. I did ask around first.
diespa...@best.com
: I don't see anyone else volunteering time and hardware and bandwidth to run
: the moderation software. I did ask around first.
I will. I have DSL connectivity and the money to put towards
whatever hardware you need.
Hangdog
> In alt.fan.furry Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> : Definition of "flamer" used here being anyone who says anything that
> : isn't "Nyce."
>
> Definition of flamer is one who flames. Flames are personal attacks on an
> individual or in some cases groups of individuals. Disenting oppinions are
> not in and of themselves flames though they can become such depending on
> how they are presented.
>
> Example 1: Jane, you ignorant slut! = flame
>
> Example 2: Jane, you mistated the facts, here is the actual data. This
> proves you were wrong. = disenting opinion
That's as it should be. However, what you also get on aff is
dissent = flame (or troll)
Threats, abuse, ridicule directed at a dissenter = not-flame.
"dissent" being defined as trying to discuss fannish problems (other than a
lack of Nyceness).
--HD
>
>
>
Dr. Cat
: where on UseNet can those who oppose bestiality have *their* say?
Last time I looked, alt.sex.bestiality was the newsgroup for arguing about
the morality of the subject. Admittedly that was several years ago, I
don't know if it's still an active group today or if it got drowned in
spam advertisements for adult sites like some other alt.sex.* groups have.
Anyway it's a newsgroup where the subject is explicity on-topic. This
newsgroup (and any descendants or spin-offs, presumably) is more for
talking about furry stories, art, comics, and fandom. Back when there
were a large number of arguments here about the morality of that practice,
I don't think anybody on either side of the argument thought that it
turned out to be productive or desirable to debate it here.
I have my doubts anyway about how successfully you can create a large
public forum for only one side of an issue, whether it be the pro- side or
the anti- side. If you establish that people are talking about that issue
in the forum, you'll tend to get both sides showing up to discuss it, or
all three sides, or all seventeen. I'm also not convinced that there's
any real use or need for a forum to have one side just repeatedly posting
their reasons why something is morally wrong, with no debate or discussion.
That vast majority of people already believe it to be morally wrong so it
won't convince them of anything. The minority that don't aren't likely to
change their minds either. And it does nothing to increase the amount of
discussion of furry art, stories, comics, movies, etc. on here - on the
contrary, it distracts people from that, and diverts their time away from it.
Anyway I suppose if we end up with a new moderated group plus this old
group left as-is, you can continue to post your opposition to the practice
here instead of taking it over to alt.sex.bestiality. So there wouldn't
be one less group where you could oppose it, there'd just be one more new
group where it's considered off-topic.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: I still think it's off topic here too, but some people
disagree with me on that point.)
(Other disclaimer: If somebody's really THAT serious about opposing the
practice, I'd think they'd want to oppose it when practiced by people
outside of furry fandom, rather than just the small minority of them
that are in furry fandom. That's another reason to take it to
alt.sex.bestiality, to reach more of the people you oppose. Well unless
it's been taken over by spam and isn't a viable group any more. I dunno.
I could check but I'm lazy. :X)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<xyd...@my-AIRHOSEdeja.com> wrote:
[...]
>Amendment: All posts about Z-philia are off-topic.
Plushiphila, The lifestyle ect should be included.
>If critical or controversial remarks are to be allowed, then they should
>be allowed from both sides. Fair's fair.
Here here.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <slrn806k4s....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
[...]
>>I find its alot easyer for moderatories to act if they have a chater
>>that backs them up.
>
>The way I was going to set it up, a moderator simply has to *not* act and
>the timeout would make the decision for them.
Then you get "Why didn't you approve my post?" whines. I would prefer
an explicit rejection.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>J. J. Novotny <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in article
[...]
>> I cannot support any proposal that does not contain these three
>> safeguards.
>>
>
>
> Frankly, I already assumed that these were 'givens'. Why was there a
>concern that they weren't?
This is usenet, there are no givens.
Forrest
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) :
> >The way I was going to set it up, a moderator simply has to *not* act and
> >the timeout would make the decision for them.
>
> Then you get "Why didn't you approve my post?" whines.
In an anyone-can-pass system with a wide range of politics among the mods
this is going to be rare, I wager. Any message that -nobody- will pass is
going to be way off.
Forrest
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) :
> >Amendment: All posts about Z-philia are off-topic.
>
> Plushiphila, The lifestyle ect should be included.
As off-topic? Given there are 4 plush NGs that seems fair.
Peter da Silva
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>On 12 Oct 1999 12:22:40 -0500, Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrn806k4s....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>>>I find its alot easyer for moderatories to act if they have a chater
>>>that backs them up.
>>The way I was going to set it up, a moderator simply has to *not* act and
>>the timeout would make the decision for them.
>Then you get "Why didn't you approve my post?" whines. I would prefer
>an explicit rejection.
That means that now you have a situation where a single moderator can
blackball someone, or there has to be some complicated voting process to
reject posts... which complicates the process and creates a new place
for things to break down.
I can see a certain amount of that, but without a specific person to focus
their complaints on that will reduce the pressure on the moderators all
by itself.
AJL Video
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:44:38 -0400, Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> <xyd...@my-AIRHOSEdeja.com> wrote:
>
> >Amendment: All posts about Z-philia are off-topic.
>
> Plushiphila, The lifestyle ect should be included.
I disagree. Plushophilia (aka: using a plushie to masturbate) would not be
on topic. That has nothing to do with the fandom of anthropomorphic
characters.
However, owning a large collection of plushies (regardless of what you do
with them) would be.
--Darrel L. Exline (posting from work: please don't reply to this addy.)
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> > >Amendment: All posts about Z-philia are off-topic.
> >
> > Plushiphila, The lifestyle ect should be included.
>
> I disagree. Plushophilia (aka: using a plushie to masturbate) would
> not be on topic. That has nothing to do with the fandom of
> anthropomorphic characters.
>
> However, owning a large collection of plushies (regardless of what
> you do with them) would be.
Agreed. The general consensus has been that people aren't interested in
talking about non-anthro sexuality anyway.
--
K. Xydexx Jorgensen [ICQ:7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.