[tor-talk] Reminder to stay on-topic

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 04:14:02PM -0000, Ben wrote:
> > Rules or policies should be enforced equally in an unbiased way. Even 
> > moderated forums allow certain "unpermitted" discussions while deleting 
> > / closing others immediately.

+100

And, any individual to be banned, when their posts are not outright in
violation of law or list policy, MUST be given at least ONE chance to
agree to "stop posting offtopic".

Surely?

How can doing what was done, with no warning other than the general/
public "Careful now, we're discussing whether to start a new moderated
mailing list!" statement.

Seriously? This was an appropriate warning to all those who got banned?

And do those wielding this authority seriously think this will be
conducive to empathy with the tor-project, to a sense of "community" on
tor-talk list etc???


> As much as I (and presumably everyone else) was getting sick of updates
> on the topic coming into my inbox, there's definitely an argument, given
> the position Jacob held, that it is/was at the very least Tor Project
> related - so tangentially on topic, And as noted, there are plenty of
> other discussions in the past that have wandered far, far off course.

ACK!

> But, for my 2 cents, it's some of the bans I have an issue with. Even if
> we agree that the stuff related to Jacob was off-topic, for me
> personally, it still doesn't sit right.
> 
> ja.talk was spamming the list with reposts - sure, chuck them a ban.

Even then I'd suggest at the least, ONE warning and therefore ONE
opportunity for the poster to comply with the demand thereafter.


> But some of those responding (described as "ludicrous rape
> apologetics".... nice, classy....) were responding to say they felt the
> evidence doesn't weigh up. It's an emotive topic for many, so of course
> people are going to respond to repeated posts that colour someone elses
> character - especially early on when the evidence was best described as
> anecdotal and flimsy, and particularly if they happen to know the guy
> and believe (for whatever reason) that the allegations are false.
>
> Put it another way, regardless of forum, if you saw someone you knew
> being (to your mind) libelled and labelled a rapist, would you sit back
> or would you respond? IMO a warning would have sufficed - assuming there
> isn't other stuff that's happened in the background

When someone brings their heart to a conversation, in this example:
 - a woman
 - who knew intimately the accused
 - who says she found it difficult to stop crying at the allegations
   that kept pouring out from ja.talk postings
 - who spoke from her own experiences
 - who is an actual rape victim
 - who demonstrated a level of inner strength and courage to speak up
   in the face of an avalanche of public opinion (a literal lynch mob,
   whether founded on true facts or not)

And is treated in response with:
 - not even a SINGLE warning or request re her own posts
 - an accusation that she is a rape apologist
 - no right of reply/ response to the ban (the tor-talk list
   administrator personally kill-filed her)
 - no "thanks for your courage and empathy, but this is just too
   offtopic for tor-talk"

WTF?

She was raped ffs, and she brought genuineness, her own reality/ soul/
truth, and Tor treats her this way?! 

Are the administrators out of their firetrucking minds?

Seriously, this is really, really messed up.

Except that somehow this tor-talk "community" clean itself up, or I'm
out of here - at the moment, your record is shameful, and damn, it
speaks for itself!


> At the end of the day though it's the Tor Project's call. I'm not going
> to miss the JA related threads, though I may miss some of the input of
> some of those who've been banned.

When a Juan brings his brash words, at least he has the heart to shout
out!

When Cecilia brings her words, at least she brought her courage to speak
out!

When Alex spoke out in support of Cecilia, and bared his soul, at least
he had the guts to speak his truth!


The rest of us?

Must of us? Fucking corwards!


Folks can create and run and administrate and moderate as many private,
semi public, and "public" private clubs as they do, with whatever rules
they choose.

Take notice, how you treat those who bring their hearts and bare their
souls, determines the so-called "community" you are creating by your
actions.

It is good to have technical forums, where non-technical discussions are
off topic.

But my expectation that Tor Inc was a direct supporter of freedom of
speech, open communication, whistleblowers, tolerance, "community" etc,
is dashed in the face of not even one list supported by Tor Inc, where
those who feel the need to speak their piece, can do so.

Zenaan