Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Laughable

Lurker in the corner

12:28 / 02.09.03

I started a relatively harmless and well-meaning thread in the Headshop about the word nigger and now I see that it has been locked and the word 'nigger' has been deleted!!! And without so much as a PM sent my way!

To whomever removed it - I think you are bang out of order. Have you never heard of common courtesy? Or forward thinking? IT WAS MEANT TO BE A DEBATE!!!

I'm certain that the way I presented my original post and clearly detailed my contentions in a possible debate relating to my original post are more than clear.

Out of interest, I ask exactly what grounds there were for the locking of the thread and the deletion of the word that it centered round, and who authorised the actions. As far as I can see, a point of debate was put forth and there was nothing inherently insulting or wrong with the post itself. The only stigma attatched to the thread, therefore, has come from an over-anxious and successful (whether wrong or not) attempt to shut it up.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:37 / 02.09.03

I'll address the issue of the amendment of the word 'nigger' in the title and abstract: I approved this moderation request because I think that where a word carries such potential derogatory overtones, it's best to use caution in titles and abstracts, both of which are visible to people who don't choose to read the thread itself. (I've less objection to the use of the word in the first post itself, because it arguably needs to be spelt out for clarity's sake.)

I don't really agree that the thread should be locked, but I chose to PM the Moderator who'd put in the request rather than veto it (and obviously in the meantime someone else has approved it). Personally while I don't agree with the initial proposition, I don't see any reason to lock the thread - in fact, locking it prevents anyone from making an opposing case.

So I'm quite happy to move for the thread to be unlocked - I would advise Lurker in the corner that your conduct in this thread may affect the chances of that being agreed upon one way or another...

Tryphena Absent

14:45 / 02.09.03

If the reason for a thread being locked isn't obvious than shouldn't there be some kind of explanation by the moderator as to why they've done it?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

15:49 / 02.09.03

SHOULD a moderator talk to someone before they lock their threads? PMing them to explain why they've done it quite possibly, but talking to them first would suggest that all Lurker would need to do is not reply and the thread would stay open indefinitely.

16:29 / 02.09.03

I agreed the locking of the thread (I think. I got an error which made me think the action had been disagreed.) And I then proposed the change in the title and abstract, for the reasons that Human Fly gives.

While I accept that the debate proposed is valid, I'm dubious about the use of language in the first post. Having said that, the thread can be unlocked if people wish it.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

18:49 / 02.09.03

Having looked at the thread in question I'd quite like it to be reopened, although based on how things went last time we had this sort of conversation I think moderators should keep a keen eye on it...

19:30 / 02.09.03

I've proposed deleting it altogether on the grounds that the identity of Lurker In The Corner is pretty damn obvious, as is his familiar pattern of preoccupations.

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:20 / 02.09.03

That seems reasonable, on the whole. If anyone who is not our pet troll, and thus does not get an explanation or consultation for the usual reasons, would like to start the discussion anew, they are asked to avoid using terms likely to offend in the thread title and the topic summary, since these may upset people who would otherwise have the option of simply not clicking on the topic. Precedent for that exists in a thread discussing other terms of (if you are that way minded) racial abuse, where the upset caused was judged not to be worth the specific value of the presence of the words in those places.

Otherwise, fill your boots. This thread will probably be archived and deleted, and the password of the suit for "Lurker in the Corner" changed. Just routine, really.

00:02 / 03.09.03

Without using the offensive terms, what was the substance of the thread?

I would have thought censoring and locking it and changing Lurker's password sufficient. By deleting the thread, a certain transparency has been lost.

07:07 / 03.09.03

We took the decision long ago that this individual had forfeited his 'right' to post on Barbelith. For a while, we experimented with allowing his less objectionable contributions to stand; problem is, he inevitably pushes things too far and we're back to slash 'n' burn.

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:33 / 03.09.03

Okay, okay: to clarify, I'm not in any way disagreeing with the current policy on that individual. I wasn't convinced that the case for the 'Lurker' suit belonging to him had been made 100%, but if other people have access to information that I don't, whatever.

09:41 / 03.09.03

FTR, like Human Fly, I wasn't entirely sure that Lurker was that individual, though I admit it seems pretty likely.

Tryphena Absent

09:47 / 03.09.03

Well this thread certainly begins with our favourite person's rather familiar posting style and it's a possibility that someone else has adopted it... but not much of one. Ignoring that I'd like to address the locking of threads in general quite quickly, though I'm not sure this shouldn't go somewhere else...

SHOULD a moderator talk to someone before they lock their threads?

When I suggested this I wasn't necessarily talking about the person who started the thread in question (or any person who started any thread that's locked) but rather referring to the fact that general users of the board should have some access to information on why a specific thread has been locked. So perhaps it should be loose policy that a moderator putting forward the suggestion to lock should post in the actual thread explaining why it's happening (which I know could be problematic if someone else clicks on disagree).

09:48 / 03.09.03

I agree the right to free speech is not absolute, certainly not on a privately-owned message board.

But you're not going to tell us anything about this person's post or how you know it was him? You see, I've never knowingly read any of his work -- I came in after the big storm and it's been all but erased since. I don't have a problem with deletion in itself, I'd just feel more comfortable if things didn't disappear quite so completely down the memory hole.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

10:18 / 03.09.03

Here we go again. It's like people being afraid to say 'Voldemort'. The implication is the 'Lurker' is Andrew Calo, aka the Knowledge, Barbelith's persistent recidivist offender. If this is the case, the thread should be removed, and the suit placed beyond use. If anyone wants to pursue the discussion, they should simply restart it in a new thread - always bearing in mind that it may end up as a feud-fest, or that Andrew may pop up and turn it into a mess.

10:35 / 03.09.03

I doubt the thread was worth restarting. It would have been nice to see that for ourselves though.

I don't think anyone's scared of uttering the name of the beast, it's just that it's possible that there could be complications IRL if one, say, wanted to use another four-letter word beginning with 'C' in the same context.

Tryphena Absent

10:46 / 03.09.03

Oh I think everyone knows who he is already. It would be difficult not too and personally I find it best not to use his name because the swear words do want to come out and are best confined through the use of anonymous language that, should you have heard my voice in real life, attempts to be biting, patronsing and bitchy all at once.

I think the thread might be worth restarting, if only for the sake of amusement. I sense a lot of scope for the utterly ludicrous there.

11:52 / 03.09.03

Mmm. It sounds like it may be material ripe for satire and I could do with some amusement. But I'm at a loss because I don't know what he actually writes when he gets going.

11:52 / 03.09.03

Ignatius, check out this locked thread: take time to explore the various links; absorb some of the familiar obsessions (racist/homophobic/misogynistic 'ultra-violent' terminology presented as experimental, creative or humorous) and style (disproportionate anger at those seen as being 'in control of Barbelith' for censoring his inalienable right to use the terms 'nigger', 'faggot' and 'bitch' as comedy, a need for both attention and acceptance on his own terms); note 'Lurker's references to film-making and imminent foreign travel.

Then, if you're Tom, there's IP addresses...

We have this discussion on a regular basis, and the above FAQ link was an attempt to avoid it. Do check it out.

12:10 / 03.09.03

Yeah, no, I've seen that already, though there's not much left of the artist's original work.

I can't believe there's any argument other than that he's nothing more than an obsessive wretch bent on mocking other people's sometimes perhaps over-liberal ideas of free speech. He doesn't belong anywhere.

I'm just saying, Lurker here one day, gone the next. I thought Lurker was a bit of an arse and I'm not very surprised he was really the Knowledge, but when suits start being "disappeared," I think we should have a little more explanation than, "it was Snowball." Do you see?

12:19 / 03.09.03

In this case, Ignatius, no, I don't. Barbelith belongs to Tom. Tom's stated that Andrew has forfeited his 'right' to post here. Suits that are confirmed as Andrew's (via Tom checking IP addresses if necessary - although there are obvious ways around this) are removed from the board.

Please forgive my crankiness; this is a slightly weary discussion, and it's so familiar that sometimes I actually forget I'm not having it in my sleep.

Incidentally, you might well hear from Andrew in the next few days. He's always keen to build on anything which might conceivably be construed as support...

Tryphena Absent

12:21 / 03.09.03

I can't believe there's any argument other than that he's nothing more than an obsessive wretch bent on mocking other people's sometimes perhaps over-liberal ideas of free speech

Ah but there is more isn't there- attacking people personally, legal threats, hunting out phone numbers and email addresses, it's more than mocking and that's why "it was Snowball" is such an adequate explanation. I don't see why any user should require more.

12:47 / 03.09.03

I am quite aware of the ownership of this board and I was not suggesting we should have had a vote on Lurker's continued use of it.

I do not think it would have been so hard to paraphrase Lurker's final post as an illustration of why he had to go.

And "it was Snowball" is never adequate.

But please, forget I brought it up.

Tryphena Absent

12:58 / 03.09.03

It's okay to talk about this stuff. The point is that it's been explained countless times before. If you go through policy you can find each individual explanation but people can't keep rehashing it over and over again. It's too much and it's not fair on them.

13:21 / 03.09.03

It's not OK with me. See, this is going nowhere, that's why I asked that you forget it.

13:23 / 03.09.03

Okay. Any objections if I move to lock and/or delete this thread too?

13:54 / 03.09.03

Assuming you are deleting it because it is started by Calo and probably dead as well, no.