I have tried on two occassions to find out what criteria are being used to determine who is permitted to post on EY's new forum. The questions I have asked are:

What are the censorship criteria?

Could the sysops responsible for deciding who is permitted to post and who isn't. please answer the following

1) what criteria is being used to determine who is banned and who isn't?

2) how is this criteria measured?

3) is the criteria being applied to everyone equally or just to those who have certain views?

4) can you supply a complete list of all those banned, why they have been banned, and what criteria were applied to have them banned?

Now almost 48 hours after the first time that I asked these questions, I still have not had a single one of them answered.

Ed himself responded by saying he understood I had left the forum, and Big Dog said he thought my use of the word "censorship" was inflamatory.

But, so far, no straight answers to any of these questions. I would hesitate to assume any answer, however it may be necceassy to post some assumed answers and see if they can be rebutted. But from reading Ed's comment to Z1X4Y7 on another thread, it would appear that to continue asking would be considered spamming.

Does anyone else have any ideas on how to elicit a response from TPTB?

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 04, 2000

Answers

I think these are legitimate questions, and I would be interested in knowing the answers to them. It would make a difference as to whether or not I would feel able to participate in such a forum.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 04, 2000.

Malcolm...I would let it drop already. You KNOW what the reasons are. It's got everything to do with the sysops personal feelings, and that might upset you and me, but it's their forum. Countless people pointed that out...and okay,..it's sunk in. I understand. I don't like it, but I understand. Since I consider SOME of the sysops friends..especially Old Git...I would hate to turn this into a war. We have here...can't we let that be enough?

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), March 04, 2000.

Malcolm:

Many have asked and answers have NEVER been given. I think it was Debra who summed it up: "The child asks WHY?" "The parent answers, 'Because *I* SAID so!'"

What *I* couldn't understand was why some folks were calling the uncensored TRAITORS for coming HERE as opposed to nodding in silent agreement over THERE....so even the "If you don't like it, create your OWN home" concept wasn't found to be acceptable.

Bottomline: You're beating a dead horse.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 04, 2000.

Malcolm,

If you'll wait until tomorrow, I'd love to tell you what kinds of problems you're going to run into and why, if you set strict criteria for censorship.

You named this forum "TBK spinoff uncensored", so I think you might want to listen to what lessons I've learned for myself, and what actions might help you with your endeavors here in the future.

Peace, sir.

Laura

~*~

-- laura (Ladylogic46@aol.com), March 04, 2000.

It is their right. Their freedom of speech, their right to free assembly. And it is our right to not go there, if we don't want too.

-- ET (bneville@zebra.net), March 04, 2000.

Malcolm,

Kritter pretty much answered it all, I don't have to agree with what happened, I pretty much voiced as much, in the meantime, let it go.

Personally I want to visit Ed's forum, I recognize I'm a guest, If the host doesn't want to run the party the way I'd like, I can leave.

My choice and his, I just have to bookmark two sites instead of just one.

Would have preferred to only have to visit one, not my choice, I'll learn to live with it.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), March 04, 2000.

Malcolm, Lady is right:

"You named this forum "TBK spinoff uncensored", so I think you might want to listen to what lessons I've learned for myself, and what actions might help you with your endeavors here in the future."

Translated: I learned how to spam and I will teach how to do the same.

-- lessons learned (lessonslearnedd@lessonslearnedd.xcom), March 04, 2000.

NO!

I have no intentions of teaching people how to spam. That's ludicrious. I assure you, I have better things to do with my time than spam, or teach someone else how to.

(Where do you get ideas like that anyway?)

~*~

-- (Ladylogic46@aol.com), March 04, 2000.

Anita, in light of the new development, I think you're right on the money. I'm afraid to be seen as "associating with the wrong people" by posting on here now.

..oh gawwwd..especially with LL on same thread as me *snicker*

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 04, 2000.

ET,

That was very eloquent,I think Thomas Jefferson just got wood :)

Malcom,

Could we trust or rely on said response? What should I expect, from those, whom I do not respect?

Sad.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 04, 2000.

Malcom, I have no intent on posting at the EY forum. As far as I am concerned, THIS is the New TB2K forum, the one that respects different views. Glad you're here!

-- FactFinder (david@bzn.com), March 04, 2000.

"I have better things to do with my time than spam"...

-- (Ladylogic46@aol.com), March 04, 2000.

Excuse me, I think I'm gonna barf.

Enjoy your new "home", oh ye of the powdered butt.

-- what better things (might@those.be?), March 04, 2000.

Malcolm, when the only valid answer is "because I am being venal and childish", then you won't get any answers at all. I believe Yourdon once again made a misjudgement. He tried to sneak in these bans through the back door, and the response took him very much by surprise. And he "admits error" in disturbing fashion.

I was amused that someone with a fake name and private email address said I operated by "stealth" like "all pollies", when I've used my real name and address on every post I've ever made, to every forum. To be honest, I've never been privately flamed despite my minority opinion, and my very large number of posts. Nor have I received excessive junk mail. This leads me to doubt the nominal reasons for anonymity.

And I notice all of the sniper attacks are made by anonymous posters. So as a rule of thumb, I regard real names and addresses, or anonymity, as a measure of the pride people take in what they contribute.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 04, 2000.

Malcolm:

It was a noble effort but it's sort of like getting one of your kids to admit who stole the cookies. No matter what answer you get, it's likely not to make any difference since the cookies are already gone.

On another subject, we have been discussing embedded systems in the oil industry versus utilities. I haven't seen any embedded system problems in our utility beyond the typical, every four years, leap year stuff. Have you seen anything different in New Zealand?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 05, 2000.

The general feeling of everyone here appears to be that I should just drop the subject over on the other forum, as it is not going to get any satisfactory response. I actually agree that that would be the wise course of action, however I am going to make one last attempt tomorrow to see if I get a reasonable reply.

My reason for trying one more time is really quite simple. We beat the Y2K issue in the electricity industry by testing everything, and not taking anything at face value. If a supplier said their product wasn't Y2K compliant, we replaced it. If they said is was compliant we tested it anyway. If we got no response then we assumed the worst, but kept on trying to get as much informationas possible. In some instances when we tested supposedly compliant items we found they failed our tests, and we would then follow it up with the supplier.

In this instance of the other forum, I am at the testing stage. Ed has stated the conditions under which forum members will be admitted, but the initial test of his conditions appears to show that they are failing. Therefore it is neccessary to follow the issue through.

kritter & Anita, you are probably right in that there may be little to be gained by flogging a dead horse, but when one horse dies why not climb on another one and continue the ride.

Jim, at this stage I am unaware of any embeddeds failing in NZ on 29th Feb, however we did have a couple of minor issues at work which I have already reported in the old forum, and I believe that there may have been a handfull of other issues raised nationwide. Nothing that could be called a problem anywhere though.

-- Malcol Taylor (taylorm@es.nz.co), March 05, 2000.

Watch out, Malcolm, you'll get yourself banned. Or is that what you're trying to do? (G) Today the banning warnings are flying high, wide, and handsome against other forum contributors. It's not an idle threat, and it is being wielded.

How can anyone feel safe to voice there an opinion that is contrary?

Thanks for the utility update. What is happening with fuel prices?

-- firefly (forest@calm.dot), March 05, 2000.

Firefly, I am certainly not trying to get myself banned over there, and I am very carefull to ensure that all any post I make does meet all the rules which appear at the top of the board. I am merely trying to establish the exact parameters under which the censorship is applied. Its very hard to stay within their guidelines if they wont say what the guidelines are.

Fuel prices over here have been rising steadily over the last six months. The local price has risen from $0.91 per litre to $1.04 per litre. Part of the increase is due to higher crude oil prices, and part is due to a weaker $NZ against the greenback. There are no fuel shortages though as we produce over 50% of our own oil and gas needs.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), March 05, 2000.

Chris:

I've made it quite clear on the EZBOARD forum that when there are SEVERAL folks in a group with whom *I* enjoy sharing company, and one or more of those folks are not allowed to congregate at a given place, that my choice would be to congregate at a place where ALL the folks I enjoy are allowed.

I've felt free to post wherever I've wanted throughout the years of Y2k. SOME Debunkers didn't approve of my posting to TB2000 and SOME at TB2000 didn't approve of my posting to Debunkers. The choice of where to post has ALWAYS been MINE, and the opinions of a few don't bother me at all. There is no GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION. We all stand alone on our own words and actions.

The "choosing one over the other" issue projected on the EZBOARD forum is NONSENSE. Ed and the moderators have been INVITED to post HERE, where everyone can be together under one roof. If they CHOOSE not to post here, that's THEIR choice....but the choice is available to them. The choice is NOT available to some to post THERE.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 05, 2000.

Hey folks, cut LL a little slack. As someone said, she never spammed some of the other forums. Sometimes when you treat people shitty, they act shitty. Treat them like a decent person and they act decent. This does not mean that you can't argue, opine, preach, swear creatively, joke, teach, and disagree "raucous"ly, or debate endlessly, it just means treating her with a "hail fellow well met" attitude.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 05, 2000.

BTW, does anyone know who all has been banned? Just for the sake of curiousity. Theres, Flint, Johnathan, Hoffmeister, who am I missing?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 05, 2000.

Gilda, I haven't seen the ban list. It doesn't appear to have been published as it was on the original board. Probably some of those who believe they're banned are not but are simply having difficulty working their way through the cumbersome procedures typical of bloated software. :)

Malcolm

"I am certainly not trying to get myself banned over there...."

Good luck! One of the criteria appears to be repetition of a post or of a question--for some, at least.

"...fuel prices have risen from $0.91 per litre to $1.04 per litre."

A 14% increase. Inflation seems inevitable. What is happening to interest rates?

Malcolm, I should stress I'm a staunch supporter of yours dating back to the wonderful job you did of reporting to the euy2k board. I was appalled when I saw some of the comments directed at you when you first appeared on the EZboard...you are undeserving of such a lack of respect. When I say "power to you" I do it with sincerity but with apprehension.

-- firefly (forest@calm.dot), March 05, 2000.

gilda, there were five of us banned at the original TimeBomb but AndyRay got his name taken off the list when he promised not to post there anymore:

NEW TBY2K POLICY: Trolls Will Be Trashed. Keep That In Mind Before Posting. Any Posters Or Group Of Posters That Engage In Or Have Participated In Spamming The Forum Or Denial Of Service Activities Will Be Rapidly Tossed -- No Explanations. Thanks -- TBY2K Sysops

Especially:

 (Doomers@suck.big time!!) (Lead spammer)  You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com)  Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com)  Laura (Ladylogic46@aol.com)



-- (Lady@..........), March 05, 2000.

You said `I am merely trying to establish the exact parameters under which the censorship is applied. Its very hard to stay within their guidelines if they wont say what the guidelines are.'

Well doesn't that nail it right on the head.

I posted this earlier on that site under "What are the censorship criteria?" (http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage? topicID=261.topic):

If clearcut criteria for censorship are provided, participants will know what they can and cannot say.

If no clearcut criteria are provided, yet, posts and users continue to get deleted for violating the (unspoken or ill-defined) "rules", the REST of the participants will quickly learn to be "good citizens" and treat The Rulers with due deference -- in public, at least. In private, a growing sense of cynicism and contempt will grow.

It's really an interesting microcosmic study in stalinism.

Let's see if this post gets deleted.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), March 05, 2000.

See this beautifully telling exchange between "RussBigDog" (astericked) and Mr. Farley above. I don't think a better argument could be handed to Russ. And he responded by saying, in effect, you prove my point. Truly chilling behavior -- but then BigDog was always an angry, easily fluffed-up little puppy whose bark was louder than his bite.

* There is a balance between underdefining and overdefining criteria that is delicate.

Define "is".

* Also, people like yourself are not asking sincerely, but only wish to have something to pull apart, attack and mock.

Build a strawman, then knock him down. How do YOU know the measure of my sincerity? As I see it, anything that questions party line is automatically defined as "insincere" and "mocking", and then immediately discounted and attacked.

* It would be foolish to hand you such criteria.

Of course it would. That was precisely my point. Letting people know WHAT the acceptable bounds are would be counterproductive for The Rulers. As long as they DON'T know what the bounds of acceptable behavior are, they'll do their damndest to stay as FAR from any POSSIBLE limits as they can. Thin ice and eggshells make for a polite stalinist society.

Imagine a jurisdiction where the traffic signs simply said "No Speeding", but didn't give a speed limit. How fast will people drive? I'd bet a LOT of them will drive VERY slowly.

Now imagine that in that jurisdiction, the police were empowered to arrest you if they didn't like your attitude. So, when you get pulled over for doing, say, 35 MPH in a no speeding zone, if you asked, "how much over the speed limit was I driving", the cop proclaims that you're insincere, challenging his authority, and only trying to cause trouble, so off you go.

What would life be like in that society?

It would be like life in Stalinst Russia. Everyone would live on eggshells on top of thin ice. Never a challenging word in public. But growing cynicism and contempt, fertilized by the iron fist in the velvet glove.

* Finally, the responsibility for defining and/or adjusting criteria is dynamic, just as the Internet is.

Hogwash. You POSTED your criteria, and then demonstrated that they meant nothing. Perhaps if you had added, "or, if we just feel like banning your sorry ass", it would have been more accurate. But that would have meant taking the iron fist OUT of the velvet glove. Can't have THAT, can we?

* Some situations are unexpected.

It appears that likewise, some situations are expected. Such as what seems to have happened here.

* Being locked-in to a particular set of criteria is foolish.

Selective enforcement at its best.

So why bother posting any rules at all, when you now in essence admit that you rule by fiat, and the "guests" are allowed to speak on the sole basis of your whim du jour?

Oh, that's right. The velvet glove.

* Most of the participants here already have (and have long had) a "feeling" for what is acceptable. And the range of acceptability appears to be enough to satisfy them, so far.

That's odd. It seemed to me that in all of the threads that called for something along the lines of a show of hands, the consensus was OPPOSED to the iron fistery, and the reply by The Rulers was along the lines of "tough luck, we ruled, so shut up".

* If folks aren't satisfied, they'll vote with their mouse by leaving this forum and, say, joining one that you prefer.

Or, they'll vote with their keyboards by countering the absurd charges raised against them (i.e., disagreeing equates to insincerety) here, just as I'm doing now.

Perhaps you can simply put up a banner saying "Hooliganisim among the proletariat will not be tolerated."

-- The Chaplain (snotty@handkerchief.com), March 05, 2000.

Malcolm, you lucky dog. LL has the hots for ya.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), March 05, 2000.