Mother Nature has a sense of humour

[J0E]

... The argument that the OP was 'censored' is spurious because it is akin to a plaintiff making a claim against another individual in small claims court, and then on the day of the dispute resolution, suing that party for $100,000 when the small claims limits this amount to $1000. Rather than dismissing the suit, the judge recommends that the case be moved to a higher civil court with judge, jury and legal representation on both sides. So the court case is set for another date in a higher court.

In the process, the plaintiff is not denied his rights to a fair trial with the accused.The facts of the case have not been altered and the plaintiff has still retained his right to sue, but in a different setting. His case was merely moved to another court requiring a higher level of jurisprudence...

Now you are really talking out of your ass.

A small claims court judge will NEVER refer a small claims case to a higher court because the claimant suddenly wants more money. That is ridiculous. The judge will dismiss the case without prejudice so that the claimant may re-file his case in a different provincial court. The claimant does not receive a refund of his filing fees and must fork-out more cash to re-file.

Am I?

I wrote a prior post as a generic example, not one specific to any locale. I did not specify that the small claims court was in Canada, the USA, Britain, NZ, South Africa or Australia; which legal systems that are guided by similar philosophies. And since there are a number of posters here who live in the United States, your example may well not apply to them. The Americans have 50 states, and each may have completely different remedies to decide or move cases. You can look it up here for yourself:

http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgeba ... -court/all

Some states in fact do provide transferring cases from small claims to higher courts.

For example:

Massachusetts

Statutes: Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 218, Sections 21-25.
Transfer: At judge's discretion, case tried under regular civil procedure of appropriate court.

Minnesota

Transfer: By either side by demand or if defendant counterclaims for more than $3,500, case tried under regular civil procedure of County Court.

Nebraska

Transfer: If counterclaim exceeds $2,700, entire case transferred to County Court. Defendant may request transfer of case from small claims court to County Court docket; must request at least 2 days before hearing and must pay the difference in fees between the small claims court and the regular docket of County Court. After transfer, both the defendant and plaintiff may have an attorney. Jury trial must be requested when transfer is requested.

New York

Transfer: Within court's discretion to appropriate court.

...these are just a few states. I could have posted all those who provide an exception to what you've stated, but there is limited space as to the number of characters allowed in these posts.

[kiebers]

So if your forum was located on http://www.schm0e.com what would you have done with this thread?

[kiebers]

You never set/posted limitations or rules. It seems you adopted the memebee website rules. The thread did not break any of those forum rules. You just wanted it out of your forum. That is fine. You censored it right out of your forum.
Sub forum has threads.
Forums have sub forums which have threads.
Which one of those describes the resource?

[mimi]

Joe doesn't answer questions. He's a one man puppy pack. =)))

[Romero]

Spin it all you want, Joe, but you did censor this thread by having it removed from your forum. That's censorship whether it was right or wrong. The fact that the sub-forum is titled as a "free-for-all" only proves it further.

There's nothing against forum rules in this thread, so don't you understand what a free-for-all is?

You just didn't want it in your forum pure and simple. You censored it from your forum. The thread didn't move all by itself.

[Romero]

double double!

[J0E]

You never set/posted limitations or rules. It seems you adopted the memebee website rules. The thread did not break any of those forum rules.

Yes, I did. You've just chosen to continually ignore what I wrote. I'll repeat what I wrote over a week ago, prior to the creation of this thread:

As I've stated many times before, if I run a forum, I don't ban anybody, but as the mod would reserve the right to throw errant, irrelevant or off the topic posts in the dumpster where they belong.

You just wanted it out of your forum.

...and what proof do you offer to back up your statements?

It's fine to make insinuations, but you have to back up your statements, my friend.
Otherwise it just conjecture and what some might label "dog sh*t".

Or in the lingo y'all Texans kin understand, "Where's the Beef? Where is the f**kin' beef, Kiebers."

You might not like what I write much of the time, but at least I source my material, kin back it up. You caint.

Gotta think, if that's the way you reason in real life, you'd lose big time if you went to court against someone who did.

[J0E]

Spin it all you want, Joe, but you did censor this thread by having it removed from your forum. That's censorship whether it was right or wrong. The fact that the sub-forum is titled as a "free-for-all" only proves it further.

There's nothing against forum rules in this thread, so don't you understand what a free-for-all is?

You just didn't want it in your forum pure and simple. You censored it from your forum. The thread didn't move all by itself.

Well, if the thread was transferred back to the Resource, I would still retain the right to move the thread into the dumpster. As I stated to Kiebers, I never waived my right to move threads, and in fact affirmed this right in a post over a week ago. Here, I'll repeat what I said over and over and over again:

As I've stated many times before, if I run a forum, I don't ban anybody, but as the mod would reserve the right to throw errant, irrelevant or off the topic posts in the dumpster where they belong.

Given what I stated, at very least I could have this thread transferred back to the Resource, but I would still retain the right to have it sent to the dumpster. In fact, give what I stated earlier, I can transfer it anywhere in that sub-forum or anywhere else.

As for Kiebers, he goes mouthin' off that there is and ought not to be democracy in these forums/sub-forums, and yet demands total freedom to post without limitation whatever he wants in another sub-forum. so he wants freedom without limits for himself, yet has no wish to grant these rights to anyone else. Talk about a double standard on his part. What a hypocrite.

At least I've been consistent. I'm moderating the forum much as I promised. I you don't like it, that's too bad. But I've done what I promised.

I think the problem with you and kiebers, is that you have absolutely no desire to recognize the authority of the sub-forum moderators - that we ought to be powerless and no ability to set an agenda. You have both chosen to completely ignore precedent and the directives of this forum and those set by the moderators. And you offer no sources to back up your arguments. So what if you feel this? Or feel that? Or feel that you're right? You have nothing to back them up except and emotional argument.

[J0E]

Joe doesn't answer questions. He's a one man puppy pack. =)))

I have and as you can read in the following comments, I have done so again.

Also, the fact that this thread is still in play, has allowed individuals such as yourself to reply to it, grow it, reaffirms that it has not been censored and is in fact is flourishing.

I think that the forum mods must be pleased.

[Romero]

You just wanted it out of your forum.

...and what proof do you offer to back up your statements?

That's what you're going with? "What proof do you have I wanted it out of my forum?"

Well, you said you wanted it out of your forum, and you requested that it be removed from your forum.

And then it mysteriously disappeared from your forum. Who wanted it out, Joe? Who?

Well, if the thread was transferred back to the Resource, I would still retain the right to move the thread into the dumpster. As I stated to Kiebers, I never waived my right to move threads, and in fact affirmed this right in a post over a week ago.

We're not arguing whether you "transferred" a thread, or had the right to. We're arguing that it's your definition of censorship and it so totally is.

[mimi]

[J0E]

That's what you're going with? "What proof do you have I wanted it out of my forum?"

Well, you said you wanted it out of your forum, and you requested that it be removed from your forum.

And then it mysteriously disappeared from your forum. Who wanted it out, Joe? Who?

OK, Romero, ifthe location of this thread is so important a sticking point to you, I could have it transferred back to the Resource, but given the limitations I set over a week before the appearance of this thread, I would have the right to have it transferred to the dumpster there. As I stated to Kiebers, that feature of the Resource has been there since its inception. I've never waived my right to use it.

As with my own sub-forum, I've always been in favor of a dumpster for the main forum, even against the wishes of evs and the forum mods. If you do a search, you'll find that I've always been an advocate of this feature.

Again, why don't you address the rights of the sub-forum mods to administrate them? That doesn't occur to you does it? Why don't we have rights to set limits if we set them?

You see, you purposely choose to ignore our rights and the limitations we initially set for them.

[mimi]

Careful, Romero. Joe's getting angry. You can always tell. He loses his accent. =))))

Seriously Joe. I think you might have made a big mistake in your censorship. The thread you dumped has had more action in a week than your whole forum has had in years.

[Romero]

That's what you're going with? "What proof do you have I wanted it out of my forum?"

Well, you said you wanted it out of your forum, and you requested that it be removed from your forum.

And then it mysteriously disappeared from your forum. Who wanted it out, Joe? Who?

OK, Romero, ifthe location of this thread is so important a sticking point to you, I could have it transferred back to the Resource, but given the limitations I set over a week before the appearance of this thread, I would have the right to have it transferred to the dumpster there. As I stated to Kiebers, that feature of the Resource has been there since its inception. I've never waived my right to use it.

As with my own sub-forum, I've always been in favor of a dumpster for the main forum, even against the wishes of evs and the forum mods. If you do a search, you'll find that I've always been an advocate of this feature.

Again, why don't you address the rights of the sub-forum mods to administrate them? That doesn't occur to you does it? Why don't we have rights to set limits if we set them?

You see, you purposely choose to ignore our rights and the limitations we initially set for them.

So basically what you're saying is you didn't want it in your forum.

[J0E]

You just wanted it out of your forum.

...and what proof do you offer to back up your statements?

That's what you're going with? "What proof do you have I wanted it out of my forum?"

Well, you said you wanted it out of your forum, and you requested that it be removed from your forum.

And then it mysteriously disappeared from your forum. Who wanted it out, Joe? Who?

Well, if the thread was transferred back to the Resource, I would still retain the right to move the thread into the dumpster. As I stated to Kiebers, I never waived my right to move threads, and in fact affirmed this right in a post over a week ago.

We're not arguing whether you "transferred" a thread, or had the right to. We're arguing that it's your definition of censorship and it so totally is.

But...did I not state that I would move threads I saw fit? Did I not say I had the right to move threads to a dumpster?

YOu see Romero, you never address or anwswer my question. And you've purposely chosen to ignore the limitations I wrote. You're just this mascot, an attack poodle for the CLIQUE, all teeth, no substance.

Additionally, you've chose to ignore the statement at the top of the page which reads:

Any content noncompliant with forum rules will be deleted at moderator's discretion.

Incidentally, I didn't write that, the forum mods/owners did.

So, given what they wrote, I actually had the right to delete this thread if I chose, but of course I didn't.

[J0E]

Careful, Romero. Joe's getting angry. You can always tell. He loses his accent. =))))

Seriously Joe. I think you might have made a big mistake in your censorship. The thread you dumped has had more action in a week than your whole forum has had in years.

Well, if you'd like, I could request to have this thread transferred back to the Resource, but given what I stated over a week ago, I would retain the right to have the thread transferred and placed in the dumpster over there.

[Romero]

Careful, Romero. Joe's getting angry. You can always tell. He loses his accent. =))))

Seriously Joe. I think you might have made a big mistake in your censorship. The thread you dumped has had more action in a week than your whole forum has had in years.

This one thread has more hits than Joe's entire forum. Joe's idea of "I don't censor or get offended".


We're giving you a hard time, Joe! Just don't bother trying to tell us you don't get offended by anything. You moved this thread because you didn't like it.

Nobody cares if you move it back. It has served its purpose well.

[J0E]

That's what you're going with? "What proof do you have I wanted it out of my forum?"

Well, you said you wanted it out of your forum, and you requested that it be removed from your forum.

And then it mysteriously disappeared from your forum. Who wanted it out, Joe? Who?

OK, Romero, ifthe location of this thread is so important a sticking point to you, I could have it transferred back to the Resource, but given the limitations I set over a week before the appearance of this thread, I would have the right to have it transferred to the dumpster there. As I stated to Kiebers, that feature of the Resource has been there since its inception. I've never waived my right to use it.

As with my own sub-forum, I've always been in favor of a dumpster for the main forum, even against the wishes of evs and the forum mods. If you do a search, you'll find that I've always been an advocate of this feature.

Again, why don't you address the rights of the sub-forum mods to administrate them? That doesn't occur to you does it? Why don't we have rights to set limits if we set them?

You see, you purposely choose to ignore our rights and the limitations we initially set for them.

So basically what you're saying is you didn't want it in your forum.

Again, you've chosen to ignore precedent.

Evs stated that the Zen Bee has taken over where the Pink Heat left off. That in its absence, Zen Bee has become the defacto Pink Heat sub-forum. And the moderator of this sub-forum has also agreed to take in threads related to this theme. I could source this threads if you like.

Why should the Resource become the repository for tree humping sex related threads that Kiebers appears to salivate over, when this forum's moderator said she'd gladly welcome them into hers? And that such threads are more closely related to the themes covered in the Zen Bee?

I just think of it has a housekeeping issue.

It's akin to someone starting a thread about Trades training in the Zen Bee, insisting they remain here, even though the Resource would be a better location for them. if the moderator of this forum requested a transfer, I would gladly accept them because they'd be a better fit. Simple as that.

Let the chips fall as they may.

[J0E]

Careful, Romero. Joe's getting angry. You can always tell. He loses his accent. =))))

Seriously Joe. I think you might have made a big mistake in your censorship. The thread you dumped has had more action in a week than your whole forum has had in years.

This one thread has more hits than Joe's entire forum. Joe's idea of "I don't censor or get offended".


We're giving you a hard time, Joe! Just don't bother trying to tell us you don't get offended by anything. You moved this thread because you didn't like it.

Nobody cares if you move it back. It has served its purpose well.

romero, please read my last post, about the appropriate location of posts/threads.

And like Kiebers, you've offered no evidence to support your claims that this thread was moved for the reasons you've cited.

If you have evidence to support those claims, then please post it.

I'd be glad to see it.

[Romero]

So basically what you're saying is, you didn't want it in your forum.

Unless you did want it in your forum. You could just say you wanted it in your forum but your hands were tied up by precedence and you were forced to remove it.

[mimi]

Careful, Romero. Joe's getting angry. You can always tell. He loses his accent. =))))

Seriously Joe. I think you might have made a big mistake in your censorship. The thread you dumped has had more action in a week than your whole forum has had in years.

Well, if you'd like, I could request to have this thread transferred back to the Resource, but given what I stated over a week ago, I would retain the right to have the thread transferred and placed in the dumpster over there.

You're missing the whole point, Joe. I don't think anybody has a problem with you moving threads you don't like, nor do they begrudge you running your forum as you see fit. It just flies in the face of all the little jabs you've made at the mods and admin here. How you would NEVER censor anything...you know...like you do when you're trying to stir up some trouble. It was easy for you to make those comments, because you hadn't been faced with dealing with those issues, because your forum is....quiet. That's all. Lighten up a little. =)

[kiebers]

You're missing the whole point, Joe. I don't think anybody has a problem with you moving threads you don't like, nor do they begrudge you running your forum as you see fit. It just flies in the face of all the little jabs you've made at the mods and admin here. How you would NEVER censor anything...you know...like you do when you're trying to stir up some trouble. It was easy for you to make those comments, because you hadn't been faced with dealing with those issues, because your forum is....quiet. That's all. Lighten up a little. =)

Yeppers...Pretty much in a nutshell.

[J0E]

Careful, Romero. Joe's getting angry. You can always tell. He loses his accent. =))))

Seriously Joe. I think you might have made a big mistake in your censorship. The thread you dumped has had more action in a week than your whole forum has had in years.

Well, if you'd like, I could request to have this thread transferred back to the Resource, but given what I stated over a week ago, I would retain the right to have the thread transferred and placed in the dumpster over there.

You're missing the whole point, Joe. I don't think anybody has a problem with you moving threads you don't like, nor do they begrudge you running your forum as you see fit. It just flies in the face of all the little jabs you've made at the mods and admin here. How you would NEVER censor anything...you know...like you do when you're trying to stir up some trouble. It was easy for you to make those comments, because you hadn't been faced with dealing with those issues, because your forum is....quiet. That's all. Lighten up a little. =)

Actually when I've thought it through, I'd have to respectfully disagree with your definition of censorship.

This thread was not censored. Far from it. It was merely moved to a more appropriate location in the forum which actually increased its exposure to forum members, including yourself. Would you have been inclined to participate in this thread had it remained in the Resource? I highly doubt it. You've had this aversion to visiting my sub-forum, contributing to it, even though I had invited you several times to do so. Moving this thread into the Zen Bee encouraged you to participate in this thread, not avoid it.

And for something to qualify as 'censored' in a true sense, it would

1) contain text which has been partially or completely deleted
2) have prevented others from leaving their comments, contributing, building upon that which already existed
3) Have been closed for making further comments
4) Have been hidden from public view

...to this end, this thread has not been censored. Whether its location is in the Resource or Zen Bee is irrelevant. But the act of moving the thread to this sub-forum actually improved its accessibility to others and their willingness to participate.

I'd say a more appropriate example of 'censorship' is the deletion of several threads from memebee's main forum, such as Lochdubh's thread about 'The Real Girlfriend Experience'.

Like...where is this thread now? I saw it briefly when it existed, I know it went on for several pages, but when I went back to view its contents, it had mysteriously vanished, without trace or official explanation as to why it was deleted. But most damaging, is that the contents of this thread were no longer visible to the public, even for viewing purposes or as a locked thread.

Hence, this example would qualify as a 'censored' thread. For some reason or another, the mod(s) or someone objected to its existence and had it COMPLETELY removed, not even doctored, but deleted.

So even if you assert that this thread has been censored, its perceived egregious transgression pales by comparison to the example I've just cited.

Wouldn't you agree, mimi?

Like to hear your comments on my reply here.

Thank you.

[mimi]

I absolutely agree that this thread has not been censored. Your forum, however has been...at least according to your definition of censorship.
You should know, that I don't disagree that it's your right to do as you see fit. I think the only reason you're taking any flack for it, is because of your repeated claims, that you would never censor. I actually believe you made those claims, more-so to agitate the mods and admin of this place, than you did because of any commitment to your convictions.

See, Joe. This is how I know you don't pay attention to what people say to you. You've brought up the question of Loch's thread before. It was explained clearly what happened to Loch's thread.
Like your action, it was moved to another sub-forum...RO. You did indeed see it for several pages, and somewhere between when you saw it last and when you went back to it, it had been hijacked, and gained several pages more, of the infamous battle that was going at the time. For all intents and purposes, Loch's thread had already ceased to exist as Loch's thread.

Finally....and ultimately, application of the laws of censorship has little (or perhaps even nothing) to do with a privately owned forum. (unless they are in violation of the law) If I chose to start a forum for antique car enthusiasts, I would certainly reserve the right to eliminate discussions of the latest trends in nail polish. That is not censorship imo...that is simply the process of maintaining my forum to the chosen purpose and standards I get to set for my forum.

Whatever the definition of the opposite of censorship is, would apply to those discussing nail polish in the antique car forum...and in many ways, is more destructive in this medium. So...the owner of a forum sets their own rules. While their rules must comply with those set by law, they need not exclude their own set of standards for their property.

[kiebers]

Fact 1) No rules posted within your forum.
Fact 2) Thread properly posted in designated "free for all" area.
Fact 3) You moved the thread completely out of "your forum"
Fact 4) The greatest majority of us call that censoring
Fact 5) The greatest majority of us don't care where this thread is or that you moved it. (including me)

Observation 1) You are a genophobe
Observation 2) You are a homophobe
Observation 3) You are a prude.
Observation 4) You are a shit disturber of the highest order.

And the point is - you (SCHMOE) are a hypocrite who preaches one thing and practices another.

[mimi]

And that too !!!!!! =)))))))

You forgot the misogyny thing. Observation 5.

[J0E]

Thanks for your reply, mimi

While I may not agree entirely with it, at least it's a rational, straightforward POV.

Yes, I took great care not to delete any of the contents of this thread while it resided in the Resource sub-forum. So I tried and believe kept my word as sub-forum moderator, that I would not delete, obstruct or alter any posts/threads, whatever location they were in.

I've seen how forums like the old Asian Canadian Forum and the Blue Cashew have been saddled with criticism & complaints of excessive moderator interference and censorship. So I've tried and will attempt to avoid the kind of transgressions which have occurred over there.

And while I repeatedly stated my approach to moderating a forum/sub-forum in previous threads, perhaps I need to write them down in one place so they are clearer to those unacquainted with them.

Also, perhaps before moving threads/posts I will give others a clearer indication that I intend to do so.

Prior to moving this thread, I did ask and consult Inky, the moderator of this sub-forum, that I was about to do so. And she agreed to accept this thread. But maybe others were not aware that I had done so.

So, better communication is one area which can be improved upon.

I absolutely agree that this thread has not been censored. Your forum, however has been...at least according to your definition of censorship.
You should know, that I don't disagree that it's your right to do as you see fit. I think the only reason you're taking any flack for it, is because of your repeated claims, that you would never censor. I actually believe you made those claims, more-so to agitate the mods and admin of this place, than you did because of any commitment to your convictions.

See, Joe. This is how I know you don't pay attention to what people say to you. You've brought up the question of Loch's thread before. It was explained clearly what happened to Loch's thread.
Like your action, it was moved to another sub-forum...RO. You did indeed see it for several pages, and somewhere between when you saw it last and when you went back to it, it had been hijacked, and gained several pages more, of the infamous battle that was going at the time. For all intents and purposes, Loch's thread had already ceased to exist as Loch's thread.

Finally....and ultimately, application of the laws of censorship has little (or perhaps even nothing) to do with a privately owned forum. (unless they are in violation of the law) If I chose to start a forum for antique car enthusiasts, I would certainly reserve the right to eliminate discussions of the latest trends in nail polish. That is not censorship imo...that is simply the process of maintaining my forum to the chosen purpose and standards I get to set for my forum.

Whatever the definition of the opposite of censorship is, would apply to those discussing nail polish in the antique car forum...and in many ways, is more destructive in this medium. So...the owner of a forum sets their own rules. While their rules must comply with those set by law, they need not exclude their own set of standards for their property.

[J0E]

Yeah, but kiebers, you've negated to mention your POV regarding forums not being democracies or in no way ought to be reflections of them. You said so on many occasions.

You also stated that forum owners and even sub-forum moderators don't owe anyone fair and impartial treatment. So given what you'd indicated, your interpretation should apply to me as well.

So these statements contradict any requests or demands that the Resource should be a democratic forum without limitations and should respect your demands for free speech. Actually, given your absolutist POV, I don't feel I owe you anything.

I'm merely treating you the way you said you expected forum/sub-forum owners should .

Fact 1) No rules posted within your forum.
Fact 2) Thread properly posted in designated "free for all" area.
Fact 3) You moved the thread completely out of "your forum"
Fact 4) The greatest majority of us call that censoring
Fact 5) The greatest majority of us don't care where this thread is or that you moved it. (including me)

Observation 1) You are a genophobe
Observation 2) You are a homophobe
Observation 3) You are a prude.
Observation 4) You are a shit disturber of the highest order.

And the point is - you (SCHMOE) are a hypocrite who preaches one thing and practices another.

[mimi]

I've seen how forums like the old Asian Canadian Forum and the Blue Cashew have been saddled with criticism & complaints of excessive moderator interference and censorship. So I've tried and will attempt to avoid the kind of transgressions which have occurred over there.

I think your compass is a little off. I have a far bigger problem with those who whine about censorship than I do with admins\mods who apply their rules in their own forums. I get a sense, that you still don't get that. Fash has every right to run her forum her way...and you know what those who don't like it can do.
If you come away from this with nothing else besides thinking twice about pointing fingers at moderation, it's a good thing.

[mimi]

You also stated that forum owners and even sub-forum moderators don't owe anyone fair and impartial treatment. So given what you'd indicated, your interpretation should apply to me as well.

No...he doesn't owe you that....because you are the one that persistently argued that point. You are the one that denied that moderators DO owe that.