http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=27667&page=4&pp=15
Kind of busy at the moment and don’t have time to read the thread. Rigante sent me a PM bitching about Hedge doing something that got his panties in a bunch.
Hedge, did you edit someone’s posts?
Don’t fucking do that, okay? For anything other than racist language, IT’S JUST NOT ON. Please.
I would like to see Hedge restore Rigante’s original post, or print it here so we can see what the compelling reason for his action was. The only other reasons I can think that would justify such editing are 1) Something incrediably libelous offered with no proof. 2) the revealing of some sort of deeply personal information, like a social security number on an open forum.
Unless there is a really good reason, I think we owe Rigante an apology.
You know what? I just read the thread in question and I WHOLLY APPROVE OF HEDGE’S ACTIONS. It openly states that the post will be restored – Hedge is trying to make a point, and a good one, and Rigante is a fucking whiner.
As long as the post is restored, I approve.
Your ball. Thanks.
Apologizing to that fool is silly. We really should go back to fixing stuff and leaving it at that. When we get to apologizing and listening to whining and shit, it encourages it. I dont care if someone has a problem, but its annoying as fuck when they start screaming bloody murder everytime something happens.
Hedge, you have a copy of that post? Could you send a copy to me by PM? I just want it to keep the bases covered.
Rigante is a fuckwad anyway.
I disagree.
Sure. Why?
Let me again state something you all know.
I don’t think we should edit people’s posts. Ever. But it’s going to happen sometimes. In this case, I’m not fussed about it, so much. I would prefer it hadn’t been done, BUT AS LONG AS THE POST IS RESTORED, I’M OKAY WITH IT.
I disagree as well, think of all the people who are highly objectionable and whom we don’t edit their posts. kungfools, JFS, KFDS, we shouldn’t play favorites here. Either Hedge had a very good reason for what he did, or he didn’t, teaching someone “a lesson” is not a good reason. Otherwise we could edit the posts of most of the people here.
I want to see the text of what was cut, and I don’t think a 12 hour or 24 hour restore should allow editing. It should either be cut or not.
Should we be editting shit left and right, its a problem. Someone fucking around once and a while is hardly an issue. Let hedge have his fun and then restore the guy’s shit as he promised to do.
One’s person’s fucking around is another person’s vendetta. I remember once when Brand edited one of my posts for laughts in a “Ask Brand” thread. I didn’t have a problem because we were on good terms at the time and I we were both fucking around, this is disciplinary in nature, hence there needs to be a good reason.
In this case I feel it was an extreme form of something I would do. Rigante starts bitching about “thought police” because he know we have this open free speech policy and he hates it when people disagree with him. Hedge is trying to make a valid point about what ACTUAL thought policing would be.
I actually APPROVE of this, since I am TIRED of the whining.
For the same reasons already expressed.
I hate censorship.
The means (censorship) do not justify the ends (his point, whatever that is).
Its not censorship if he restores it. Once again, and I recall this being brought up when I nuked one of Doch’s trolls, removal of a post is not the same as suppressing an idea. What Hedge is doing is simple antagonism, not censorship. Obviously not something any of the staff should make a habit of, but somehow I think Rigante will survive. And I don’t think anyone will be confused as the post will be back. Rigante is a racist troll and holds no weight on the forum to cause us any problems.
It’s rewriting or substituting text in place of something a poster wrote. Antagonism is “Fuck you douche” censorship would include removing the text itself. Now occasionally there are very good reasons to censor, which would justify this action, and I’d like to know what they were in this instance.
No, censorship implies blocking something for the purpose of supressing that idea. That is not what hedge did. Hedge nuked his post because he was bitching about thought police. That has nothing to do with the content of that post, but instead the foolishness of his whining. Its like when I did the same thing to ICY. I wasnt censoring the guy, but illustrating fascism.
I would agree that censorship involves blocking a communication that someone finds objectionable. (I’m cribbing from my american heritage dictionary.) The act does not require the intent to suppress an idea, if it did, then removing say ten posts would not be censorship as long as one variation on the theme was left.
Do you realize how Hedge removing a post like that plays into the complaint? And I still haven’t seen the original text, so I don’t know exactly what R was saying.
At the time you got ICY I have to admit I found it funny, in retrospect, I was wrong.