Jackson Heights Life

I stumbled upon this site a few days ago, so I did not have an opportunity to view the two threads in question.

However, I will share that privacy and safety were pretty big concerns for me upon registration. I am basically putting myself in a position where strangers could potentially identify me based on harmless clues they pick up on this site. This is a BIG DEAL and I was completely aware this was the decision I was making when I signed up. If my weird, stinky neighbor comes up to me tomorrow and tells me he digs the white bob I'm rockin' on that picture in JHL, I'd have no one to blame but myself.

Now, had someone identified me before I signed up, based on information they read about me from someone else on this site, that would have been dangerous and an absolute invasion of my privacy.

Therefore, I am siding with the moderators on this decision. I don't believe it is a matter of free speech as much as it is of safety and respect for everyone's privacy.

The community should be able to police it self with out much oversight, ideas and thoughts that are counter productive will, in their own time and way, get filtered out by the normal course of discourse.

I used to subscribe to this approach as well, however I've since discovered that online communities are largely incapable of policing themselves because there are no real consequences to misbehavior as there are in real life. The primary mission of forums like these is not to "uphold the values of free speech", but to facilitate dialog about X topic; this automatically implies limits on the speech.

The argument that a top-down approach to speech moderation in a forum like this stifles dialog and has a negative impact on the community I think is a valid position, but it's an equally valid position that entirely free conversation would have the same negative impact. The moderators are looking for a balance, and openly recognize the problems inherent with moderating. It's not easy running a site like this.

It is unfortunate part of history that when small minds are given a little power that they think they can control the world.

hi Avela, I'm not quite sure what your implication is about how this statement applies to this site.

If you read the book pay special attention to their control of free speech.

I took a few days off from posting here so I could give serious thought to how I felt about what transpired on the Roosevelt Ave. Vice thread.  This is what I’ve come up with:

Most communities or organizations can’t police themselves because most people are not selfless enough to do so.  What I don’t understand, is how do u facilitate dialog while limiting speech?  That’s seems like a true oxymoron to me.

I can understand limiting hate speech, vulgarity, name calling to name a few but why limit hyperbole?  Or impassioned repartee?  Who decides for the community participating in any dialogue when it’s enough or too much?

I haven’t read every post but I haven’t come across any post that needed policing...at this point in time.   I consider some posts to be esoteric and oblique and just plain odd sometimes.  But that’s okay.  Who’d want them to be formulaic?  And more important: what is the formula?    I don’t agree with everyone’s posts but I love that many of them are unique and witty and impassioned and interesting.  It seems to me that most people get everyone else’s humor, most of the time.  No, not all of the time.  But most of the time is fairly good in this medium.

quote from: merm Today at 01:07:17 PM
“The moderators are looking for a balance, and openly recognize the problems inherent with moderating.”

Balance is difficult to maintain.  I think this is a wonderful forum for the community.  Already there are many unique personalities here.  I hope people’s voices aren’t stifled in the process of maintaining balance. Some times being off balance is not the worst thing that can happen.  Being overly protective is worse, at least to me, because it doesn’t just stifle people’s creativity, it dulls their enthusiasm. But mostly it lessens their desire to participate.  Passionate debate is what draws people to a talk forum. Without it you might as well join a garden club. Unlike flowers, not every conversation is pretty.

I don’t think the moderators of this site have clearly stated what the guidelines are or how the site is to be policed. And I think that’s because this is very much a work in progress.  But I don’t think it’s always clear when a moderator is talking as a moderator or as an individual participating in the discussion. Maybe that has contributed to people’s recent misunderstanding and hurt feelings.  I  think it would be helpful to see it clearly defined when someone is wearing their “Moderator” hat.  Because when Todd steps into an impassioned debate to say “I really regret dredging up this thread from the back pages.” or Shelby2  says  “I'm not going to address the rest of your post that led up to this comment, but I would hate for anyone outside the neighborhood to be reading this thread and thinking that we are dealing with ducking our heads so we don't get hit with bullets.” they sound less like other posters and more like chastising Moderators trying to control the direction of conversation.

And lastly, that was a low blow to dredge up NYCMac’s comment on Jackson Heights from another site and use it here to turn people against her.  We’ve all said stupid things at one time or another in our lives.  Big deal!  If you’re going to be the Moderators here,  try to rise above and don’t go looking for ammunition from other sites. 

I took a few days off from posting here so I could give serious thought to how I felt about what transpired on the Roosevelt Ave. Vice thread.  This is what I’ve come up with:

Most communities or organizations can’t police themselves because most people are not selfless enough to do so.  What I don’t understand, is how do u facilitate dialog while limiting speech?  That’s seems like a true oxymoron to me.

I can understand limiting hate speech, vulgarity, name calling to name a few but why limit hyperbole?  Or impassioned repartee?  Who decides for the community participating in any dialogue when it’s enough or too much?

I haven’t read every post but I haven’t come across any post that needed policing...at this point in time.   I consider some posts to be esoteric and oblique and just plain odd sometimes.  But that’s okay.  Who’d want them to be formulaic?  And more important: what is the formula?    I don’t agree with everyone’s posts but I love that many of them are unique and witty and impassioned and interesting.  It seems to me that most people get everyone else’s humor, most of the time.  No, not all of the time.  But most of the time is fairly good in this medium.

quote from: merm Today at 01:07:17 PM
“The moderators are looking for a balance, and openly recognize the problems inherent with moderating.”

Balance is difficult to maintain.  I think this is a wonderful forum for the community.  Already there are many unique personalities here.  I hope people’s voices aren’t stifled in the process of maintaining balance. Some times being off balance is not the worst thing that can happen.  Being overly protective is worse, at least to me, because it doesn’t just stifle people’s creativity, it dulls their enthusiasm. But mostly it lessens their desire to participate.  Passionate debate is what draws people to a talk forum. Without it you might as well join a garden club. Unlike flowers, not every conversation is pretty.

I don’t think the moderators of this site have clearly stated what the guidelines are or how the site is to be policed. And I think that’s because this is very much a work in progress.  But I don’t think it’s always clear when a moderator is talking as a moderator or as an individual participating in the discussion. Maybe that has contributed to people’s recent misunderstanding and hurt feelings.  I  think it would be helpful to see it clearly defined when someone is wearing their “Moderator” hat.  Because when Todd steps into an impassioned debate to say “I really regret dredging up this thread from the back pages.” or Shelby2  says  “I'm not going to address the rest of your post that led up to this comment, but I would hate for anyone outside the neighborhood to be reading this thread and thinking that we are dealing with ducking our heads so we don't get hit with bullets.” they sound less like other posters and more like chastising Moderators trying to control the direction of conversation.

And lastly, that was a low blow to dredge up NYCMac’s comment on Jackson Heights from another site and use it here to turn people against her.  We’ve all said stupid things at one time or another in our lives.  Big deal!  If you’re going to be the Moderators here,  try to rise above and don’t go looking for ammunition from other sites. 

Hi Buddy, thanks for your comments.  I am certainly going to spend some time reading over your post and considering it well as far as the speech/privacy issue goes.  I would just like to say that I wish you hadn't taken my comment to NYMacuser about hurting people's feelings out of context by moving it from the Vice thread to this one.  I think it's quite clear why I said to her what I did and why I brought up her comment about JH being a shithole, especially if you re-read her comments to me.  Moderators may need to stay one step above the fray, but on the other hand it is not required that we sit back and take abuse.

What I don’t understand, is how do u facilitate dialog while limiting speech?  That’s seems like a true oxymoron to me.

We shape the speech here the same way that a library shapes speech in that setting. Not every setting is appropriate for every topic, or every type of dialog. This setting is no exception. In the same way that certain types of speech and delivery are limited depending on the venue, this venue has a specific purpose and shaped conversation. Like any venue, you are welcome to step outside and say whatever you want (though even in public spaces speech isn't "free"). The purpose of this forum is not to uphold the values of free speech, but to facilitate respectful dialog about Jackson Heights.

I consider some posts to be esoteric and oblique and just plain odd sometimes.  But that’s okay.  Who’d want them to be formulaic?  And more important: what is the formula?

When people use esoteric and oblique messaging to insult, name call, or belittle other members then that speech becomes a problem. That's I think where a problem arises.

Passionate debate is what draws people to a talk forum. Without it you might as well join a garden club. Unlike flowers, not every conversation is pretty.

Hey! What do you have against garden clubs.

Seriously though, I think it's safe to say that the majority of people actually do not come to this site for "passionate debate". People come for a wide variety of reasons, and debate is certainly one of them - but I think it's unfair to characterize most of the audience as coming here for that when my experience is very different. I do not come here for debate - nor do I start community-centered sites to facilitate "debate" exclusively.

In the same way that being "overly protective" and not allowing for any debate will drive people away that are looking for this kind of experience, allowing for "free" (abusive, demeaning, etc) debate to have free reign on the site will drive away people who are not looking for that experience - I'm not just saying that flippantly, this is my experience after 8 years of running sties like these.

The goal is to find a balance that allows the site to thrive as much as possible - and as you've pointed out, it is a work in progress.