"I don't find male to male sex a turn-on" is hate speech, then? Intended to intimidate? Are you trying to dictate that people have to find homosexual sex attractive? To me that is no better than straight people assuming that everyone is turned on by hetero stuff.

smonster, I meant my statement to be a general statement w/r/t the First Amendment. It was not a reply to any specific cited incident.

A privately run BBS is not bound by the First Amendment.

I think that's what needs to be kept in mind, not "was that hate speech" or "is that harassment".

Anyhow, poster-in-question's in Scotland. Just sayin'.

"I don't find male to male sex a turn-on" is hate speech, then? Intended to intimidate? Are you trying to dictate that people have to find homosexual sex attractive? To me that is no better than straight people assuming that everyone is turned on by hetero stuff.

No, she means (EDIT: Okay, I mean) that this board is not constitutionally protected. Obviously, we encourage people to say all sorts of shit here and speak their minds, but you can't call down the first amendment.

A privately run BBS is not bound by the First Amendment.

Oh, well, crap. I didn't think of that.

t edit Dana, as much as I wish I meant what you said I meant, I didn't.

I have realised that I have been reading the CS (regardless of the words, this is just me projecting onto them) as saying "We want you to behave respectfully of us as individuals and as a community."

That is what I *try* to do, sometimes more successfully than not, but something I think is intrinsic to the success of the board.

No, not everyone is deserving of the same respect as individuals -- that's something that's earned and lost. But the community? Abso-freaking-lutely should command respect, otherwise you're souring it for the rest of us.

And that's when I get tense. When it's dogging the amorphous "y'all" that make up the Buffistas. That, I find offensive, above and beyond specific offensive statements.

Quantifiable? NSM. It's based mostly on a pattern of behaviour, but I don't think it's unreasonable to agitate for action when it's sensed.

smonster, I think the point Steph is trying to make -- well, I'm trying to, as well -- is that the 1st amendment abjures restriction of the freedom of speech only by Congress. We are not Congress; we are a private entity; so within reason, we can make whatever speech rules we like.

1st amendment is stretch a lot of the time to mean things it really sort of doesn't.

Can we move forward and talk about procedure?

Zoe's already gotten a notice. If anything happens again (going forward) I'm sure there will be complaints here, and they'll be resolved in thread or in bureaucracy, (like Steph's question about the zealot thing was resolved when someone pointed out it was a riff on Matt's Angel recap) or Zoe (or any other offender) will be warned.

smonster: I don't think the problem with Zoe expressing her opinion that time was so much with the opinion (i.e. "This isn't a turn on for me") but rather it was that it was expressed in a manner which felt demeaning of anyone who didn't share the opinion.

If you want Allyson to be spanked, then by all means ask for an official warning.

I know this was more hypothetical than not. However, can I say, whether this had been Allyson or any other poster, I think an offense has a shelf-life.

If you're going to bring it up to show there's a pattern of behavior when we're questioning whether small offenses are deserving of discipline, that's one thing. I don't think we get to bitch a month after the fact, that someone said a bad thing.

When an offense is fresh, bring it up. If it only bothered you after you stewed on it for a month, let it die.

I have realised that I have been reading the CS (regardless of the words, this is just me projecting onto them) as saying "We want you to behave respectfully of us as individuals and as a community."

That's what I take it to mean, also.

And I think that Zoe's pattern on posting is not respectful of the community, up to and including today's post that likens us to vengeful zealots.

I see no respect there.

ita's version of Community Standards is kinda how I see it.

Someone a ways back said to those of us who were asking for warnings against Zoe "Do unto others" I'm not sure who that was.

Well, if Zoe's been treating us like she wants to be treated then she doesn't want to be treated very well.

I'm not saying that because I think we should all run out and be rude to her. Just, hold her up to that same standard.

(like Steph's question about the zealot thing was resolved when someone pointed out it was a riff on Matt's Angel recap)

Excuse me. I *don't* think it was resolved. She called the Buffistas vengeful zealots. Just because she took it from Matt's recap doesn't mean it was acceptable.

I could take things from Matt's recap and then use them to make an unflattering comparison to HER. Would that be okay, just because it was taken from Matt's recap, or any other post?