Bring back Ogrim!

Bye.

I don't see how some people think, I mean yeah what he said was offensive, so what? Lot's of people say offensive things. The idea is that when people do and say offensive things we talk it out, not shut it down.  

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/05/27/who-can-make-...

http://www.ajokes.com/jokes/6353.html

http://jezebel.com/5094798/is-a-rape-joke-ever-funny

What would George Carlin do?

clipped by poster.

Wow, he got banned for that?
Funny thing about college - they like to advertise as being tolerant and accepting, yet it seems with instances of outright censoring they are really just sheltering people in this little bubble from the real world.

If he's getting banned for saying rape is surprise sex, which I don't find offensive, then the people who spout their religious nonsense and anti-gay rights propaganda need to be banned cause I find that offensive.

He got banhammered?

Banning on forums is equivalent to murder of one's alter ego. Ergo, the admins are murderers!!!

if you read every third letter of the guidelines you'll see that rape jokes are not allowed. It's just like that movie with tom hanks... 

Ogrim was great, I didn't know they banned him. The moderators are awfully restrictive. Childishly so, even.

Did i miss the memo?  How do we know he was banned?

Ogrim was one of my favorite people on here.  He was never afraid to say things he knew people would be offended by.  He's a martyr in my mind.  I'd like to give him some surprise sex, just like the moderators did.

Fine, I'll be the only odd one out on this forum.  I was not aware that he was banned until now, but I DID find his comments highly offensive and am glad that the moderators did something to limit what can be said on the school-supported/sponsored forums.  There's a limit to everything, and some things need to have a stop put to them.  He was warned and continued to choose to use offensive language.  Those that have not had a harrowing or close to home experience with rape may not be able to understand the weight of the word and the hurt of using it lightly, but in such cases it can't just be said to "buck it up" or "turn the other cheek".  Think about it, if your mother or sister had had such a life altering experience, you may be just about ready to beat the crud out of anyone who thought it was cool or fun to make a joke out of it.  There are situations in which childish talk truly does hurt other individuals (and not just the overly emotional or feminime) and I'm glad there have been individuals appointed to over-see such things. 

You should read the links that Pete posted above. 

good for you guys, im glad you dont find "surprise sex" offensive but there are a lot of people who do. yeah, there is free speech and all that, but cant you be a little bit sensitive? im not saying someone should have been outright banned, but come on do you have to spew your rape jokes on a college forum?

it is a difficult subject, however making it taboo is not the answer, imo. it's better, imo, to get these things out in the open. It is not something that anyone should be ashamed of. You have every right to speak out and I respect your position. I would never ask you to buck it up or turn the other cheek. You should speak out against rape, and when people make jokes that you think suck, tell them.  But the dialogue should be open, I think. It's not about free speech, it's about honesty. It is dishonest to replace some one's words with words that are deemed less offensive by a few people that are hurt.

Look, lot's of people in all of our families have suffered sexual abuse; I am not going to cite statistics. We are all hurt by this, how could you not expect people to feel calloused and look for humor in misery. It was a joke, and humor is part of why many of us are on this forum. It's not like every thread is a slew of smut, we all make compromises. We all know that we are fellow students, and we will listen to you talk about what you think is offensive and we will probably even consider revising things that we say or apologizing. I know I have apologized to people that asked for it. 

ok. back to activated complex theory. 

Too bad. I kind of liked him. But I can't say I'm shocked this happened. In that thread, you'll recall someone posted saying that they were raped, and were offended by the causual use of the word, and Ogrim's response was somewhat unempathetic... well, just apathetic, it seemed. My best friend from high school was a rape victim. It's some pretty serious shit, people.

that was the late george carlin. He was a comic genius. If it is removed it is on the shoulders of the person that pulls it. It is a classic bit of contemporary humor. 

... on another thread.

But it does look like one of his bad jokes got snipped from one of his comments. 

Whatever, this is not my forum and luckily I don't have to moderate it. If someone wants to make a judgement call, so be it, but the least that person or committee or whatever could do is talk about it. let us all talk about what is being censured and why, so that we as forum members together can work out what we want the forum to look like. Ogrim was not trying to hurt anyone, he just made a joke. This is the second time he has been banned to my knowledge, and I think it is lame that there is no dialogue, no discussion, just poof him and what he said is gone. 

 One less troll.

I'm flattered I got a thread,
And Pete, after the whole year of foruming, I think we agree on most everything, except drug policy. Never would have realize that back when I was ripping on you about decriminilization stuff, we'll just agree to disagree on that, and if you ever want to smoke a bowl, let me know hah *smiles*
I emailed Andy peterson to see if we an maybe work something out but I'm not gonna hold my breath.  I dunno who actually banned me or if it was voted on or whatever, but the dictatorship here is very authoritarian so ya, who knows, I doubt Andy has enough time to keep track of me so maybe it came from elsewhere?~

I actually think he said that surprise sex WASN'T rape.  Haha

 I know what he said but I fear if I post it again I'll be banned~

I think our policies and guidelines are rather simple. These forums were not created with an "anything goes" policy that many online forums have. It's a forum that is readable by anyone with internet access and hence, since WWU's name is posted all over it, it reflects upon the university. It is sponsored by the university. As one wise advisory board member put it, there is no constitutional right to post on Viking Village forums. Imagine this place as a sort of classroom discussion. If someone makes a joke about rape like Ogrim did in that kind of environment, on top of everything else Ogrim has said on here, the facilitator probably isn't going to laugh it off. He's going to point at the door and say, "Out." There are plenty of other forums and places and such where you can exercise all the free speech you want. Heck, there's TONS of stuff I would say other places that I wouldn't say here, just like there's lots of stuff I wouldn't say out loud if I were at a church, or around certain people, etc. Some people have been turned off by the maturity level that is sometimes displayed on the forums. So take a step back and try to see things from our perspective. We want to create an environment where everyone feels welcome to post appropriately. If you don't like it, I'm almost certain that anyone is welcome to attend the advisory board meetings.

I took Carlin down out of respect for you Jon. 

The last thing Ogrim said before he was banned is irrelevant.

From what I understand, he was repeatedly warned for similar behavior.  The first rule, written or otherwise, of any forum, is always the same: do not defy the moderators expressed wishes.

As funny/distasteful/offensive as his joke may have been, if he was warned multiple times and still chose not to change his conduct, the ban was/is completely justified.

This is the only fact that is relevant.

 I guess we better take the WWU name off this place eh~

Why?

As explicitly laid out many times, while WWU is a public university, free speech does not apply here.  In fact, free speech doesn't apply anywhere except as protection from government action.  Oh well.

It's how the comment is perceived, not intended. If he's saying things like that, he's just out to make people laugh and get attention. Good riddance to him.

I would just like to say that I am impressed that Ogrim managed to get banned before it happened to me.

I guess I'll stop now that I have my ten bucks.

what's wrong with getting laughs and attention?

I don't think a bad joke should result in banishment. Sure, clip the offensive thread. Make a statement that the thread was clipped because it violated the guidelines. Talk about how and why it violated the guidelines, but banning a user should only happen in severe cases, like if someone posted pornography or made threatening remarks, or tried to make it impossible for anyone to use the forum (by for instance posting new threads over and over again that are clearly meant to be offensive and disruptive).

Doesn't mean making a crass remark to get a laugh is right. It's the lowest form of humor next to Bush jokes. ;)

People often confuse the right to free speech with the privilege of exercising it in a particular venue.  Similarly, all rights (free speech included) come with responsibilites.  The right to free speech is a social right, so with it comes social responsibilities.  People who abuse the right to free speech without accounting for their responsibilities are not strengthening the right through exercise.  They in fact strain the right.

We (as a society) upon claiming a right, are effectively stating that we can regulate our social behavior better than a governing body.  People that disregard the responsibilities that accompany the right, by asserting their personal freedom over the consideration of the greater society, provide evidence that people cannot, in fact, regulate their own behavior.  It therefore makes it difficult to justify affording everyone the right at all.

This is why we have governing bodies.  Fundamentally, the role of a governing body is to protect the greater society from the abuse of those that cannot self-regulate - those that abuse their privileges and ignore their responsibilities.

-Brent

don't be confused. I am not taking the position that the right to free speech has been violated. My position is that the way that the inappropriate dialogue was dealt with was ineffective. 

Look, this is not a forum where the moderator is king. Some of our moderators are students, just like you and me. Some of them signed on to be mod's because they like the forum and they like posting, not because they have some supreme knowledge or understanding, and certainly not because it is their invention. There should be discussion about what/who is removed from the content of this forum. Otherwise, maybe they should take WWU's name off the forum and call it Andrea's forum, or Jon's forum, or Jasper's forum. It's not any of those things, it is the Viking forum and we all get to talk about what we think the limits of acceptance are because we are all Vikings. 

I was just making a general observation - not directed at your comments at all.

-B

A decision to ban someone is made by the Advisory Board.  The Advisory Board includes five students as well as a variety of faculty and staff (see the about section for more details).  This decision was based on multiple flags from within the community and only after multiple warnings were sent over a period of time as well.  Making a poll or asking the entire community to decide whether a particular user should be banned is not practical or effective. It's not Andrea's forum, but it also isn't Pete's forum, though sometimes it sort of feels like Pete's forum. :-)

Riddle me this: why do we (a nation) have a republic instead of a democracy?  From there I think you can infer the rebuttals to your entire post.

 While I definitely found Ogrim's remark disrespectful to victims of rape, I don't think he should be banned forever. Yes he was trollish at times and frequently said things to get a rise out of people, but I don't think it was bad enough for a perma-ban. Maybe a ban for a while might be in order?

I absolutely hate censorship in all its forms, but in all honesty it seems that Ogrim just had fun provoking people. Every time I saw him come up in a thread it seemed it was something blatantly offensive and pointless just to get a rise out of someone... so I don't think he was banned because of one specific thing he said, but just because he was a vicious troll.

So, what I gather from you Jasper, is that it is ok to troll the forum as long as you are the one doing the trolling. Or, as long as rape is never joked about? Sorry to pick on you, I certainly could have found someone else (such as cole edwards) to quote several times. 

Point is, this forum is full of questionable bullshit from lot's of people and Ogrim got shot down while other people such as yourselves get to call their fellow students douche bags because they don't like the new e-mail system. I have a problem with singling out one person for trolling and totally ignoring others. 

I am sorry you feel like I am dominating the forum.

Smily faces make everything you say ok.

Seriously though, I think that the advisory board made a mistake. I don't expect there to be polls and votes from everyone to clip an offensive post, but maybe it would be a good way to deal with banishments. Several times I have heard Mods say that they want this to be as open as possible, that they want to avoid locking threads. That is fantastic! Keep that approach going strong.

Does the advisory board keep minutes from their meetings? Is there a vote that happens among the advisory board members to determine weather or not some one is banished? If so, would you mind sharing how many votes were for and against Ogrim? 

When is the next advisory board meeting? I would like to go.
 

 There won't be another meeting until fall and I am sure you are welcome to attend. The decision to go ahead and ban Ogrim/MATHES! was unanimous.

All I have to say, is thank you.

 You know what Pete, I'd love to come with you to the advisory board meeting but after posting and discussing the AS event's council screw up with banning a band with questionable content with questionable procedures, I have less and less hope that this administration will listen to a damn thing any student says.

http://forum.wwu.edu/node/159

It's an old forum but it happened this year.  Now that "the state" is paying for less of our education... don't you think we should get a bigger say?  Gotta love censorship

Gotta be careful with that word "censorship".  True, it is, by definition, censorship, but there is an important distinction between two forms of censorship.  One form is concerned with the regulation of conduct for the purpose of upholding public interest or societal norms.  The other is concerned with the pursuit of a particular social or political agenda contrary to the status quo.  In short, one is interested in maintaining a particular atmosphere expected by the participants, whereas the other is interested in modifying that atmosphere for a particular purpose.

The former should be supported by members.  This is why we have moderators.  Without some sort of regulation, a few people abuse the privilege and create an atmosphere that alienates the majority.  This forum is an extension of the university.  As such, participants should be expected to conduct themselves as they would in any other university venue (such as a classroom).  Those norms are established to ensure that all participants are treated respectfully while giving each person the ability to voice opinions.  There is nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion.  However, the manner in which one presents that opinion must be respectful and considerate of everyone in the venue.

If a person cannot voice opinions (popular or otherwise) in a polite and respectful manner, then the person should not be allowed to voice them in this venue.

Disallowing rude and disrespectful behavior, though technically "censorship", should not be thrown into the same pool as the systematic suppression of ideas.  What we are talking about here, is not the latter, but the former.

-B

It is not a classroom, and there is no instructor. It is, to me, more like red square. Which, when I took my tour of this school was billed as a free speech zone. That means, to me, that rape jokes are ok in red square, and unless there is clearly laid rules then someone should not be singled out for a rape joke. I don't see clearly laid rules regarding freedom of expression on this forum, so it is only safe to assume that the red square interpretation is a good one. After all, we are not being graded here.

There is an advisory committee, and it is healthy and normal to question what action that committee takes against an individual. I am not sure if I am comfortable with any committee that unanimously banishes anyone for a joke. My gut instinct tells me that a vote was not cast, and that it has been left up to a single moderator to decide who and who is not banned (therefore it was unanimous because 1 out of 1 person voted to remove Ogrim). But, I will just have to take Jamin's word and assume that whomever made the decision has the support of the committee. I do hope that the committee keeps minutes, because, if this is to be considered a classroom, then clear and accurate records of the decision making process that leads to banishment from the forums should be kept.

I think your analysis of the duality of censorship is, quite frankly, BS. For one thing, there are people on this forum (myself included) that have said and done things that could/should be considered "alienating" to other users. Yet, I have received no warning. To my knowledge no one that has seriously offended my sensibilities has received a warning either. 

When you talk of abusing the forums, I think of seriously disruptive behavior and criminal activity. Posting pornography (see the teddy bears thread), name calling (see douche bag quote from Jasper), violating copyright laws, posting new threads over and over and over, making violent threats, etc. Jokes about rape don't fall into any of these categories. They are simply jokes about rape. If the forum does not allow jokes about rape they should be explicit in this, and they are not. The guidelines, in fact, contradict any judgement call about humor because they state that we should "Be forgiving: We all make mistakes; if something offends you, express a genuine response while giving others the benefit of the doubt." Where was the benefit of the doubt for Ogrim? There was none, there was only censorship and expulsion. There was no explanation, there was no discussion among the users of the forum, and there was no learning from either party that experienced the difficult exchange of ideas. So, if you must censor, don't candy coat it and don't pretend that it is not associated with a political agenda. At the very least, be forthright and consistent.

My major discomfort with what happened was that it revolves around the silencing of the word rape. Maybe it was used poorly in a joke that you thought was not funny, that is fine with me, you should speak out about it. But when we silence anyone that uses the word rape we give rapists the upper hand. We send a message that it is not ok to talk about rape because it is an offensive subject. This is what bothers me, that rape is something that we can't talk, laugh, cry, discuss, in public. That is wrong. It is wrong for one person to say "I was raped and it hurt so bad that no one can use the word". It is wrong because when people don't talk about rape, then rape doesn't get reported. Sure, tell us that the word is upsetting to you. Tell us that we should not joke about it, that we should not take the word lightly, but never silence anyone that uses the word rape because that is exactly what rapists want. The same is true for any sexual abuse. Make it taboo and you just increase the odds that sick people can keep doing what they do, because no one talks about it.

No.  Have you ever been to a forum?  Forums are nice happy places where idiots get shat on for being idiots.  It's also whatever the staff wants it to be as it's basically their house.  If the moderators think User X is being rough, it's their job to say so.  Don't complain about how trolling occurs and only Ogrim got banned for it, try being a useful member of the community by working towards a troll free environment (as futile as the effort may be, especially here as it's just so inviting).  If you think the moderators are doing a poor job, try letting them know in a civil manner and/or working towards becoming one.  If you have issues with how the moderators are determined, try bringing that issue up with the appropriate people (probably Andy Peterson/Advisory Board).  (Also, I didn't call Jeff Martin a douchebag because he didn't like the new email system, but there's a thread for that)

I could continue, but nothing new is being said.  Here's a repeat that you can contest with irrelevant rebuttal.  Again.

No, I have never participated in a forum other then this one.

I am doing my best to express my concerns about the way this situation was handled in a civil manner. Maybe it was the word bullshit that lent an uncivil tone. If you could be more specific, I would consider your ideas about being civil. I think you are telling me that I should become a moderator. I don't know, I guess that depends on how things go at the advisory committee meeting next fall. I certainly would like to see at least one person on that committee that would oppose students being banished at all costs. 

I don't really think that the Viking Village forums are a place for students to shit on other students, in fact I thought that was exactly the opposite of what it was about. It seams obvious, after reading the guidelines, that the viking forums are different then other forums in the sense that a certain level of respect is shared among the members of the VVf community. We are, after all, working together as students and employees of the college.

The desire to shit on one another is not something I share with you.

There is a certain level of intelligence/capability that this University accepts into it's halls and to say that anyone here is an idiot is both a personal insult and an insult to the entire University. Sure, sometimes you will have to share your opinion, however unpopular it may be. But if your intent is to find people to shit on, well I would be happy to be the only person on a committee that did not support your banishment from the forums. 

 We're here to shit on one another? Please elaborate.  I thought this was a forum.  And I have no problem using the word censorship when I see it occurring.  Back when this forum was young, I kept tabs on the "roaming moanies incident" (see above post) and learned quite a bit about the culture that people in power here at western have created.  I don't fling the wod censorship around though.  No, I'd rather use it tactfully and when I deem it's appropriate because I thought that I was expressing my opinions on here when I post, not shitting on others.  Bring back Ogrim!

Maybe I do agree with you to some extent Brent, this forum should be moderated and there should be some threshold that does not get crossed. I would probably define that threshold to be pretty far out. The problem I have here is twofold. First, I truly believe that Ogrim did not intend to hurt anyone. It was a harmless, meaningless joke. Second, regarding the provision of a respectful and safe environment, I feel that e-bullying by certain individuals on these forums to be far bigger problem then Ogrim's bad jokes.

It is understandable that what Ogrim said was flagged, especially by someone that was sensitive to the subject of rape. It is also understandable that his post was censored. I can accept a certain level of "appropriateness". I don't like it, but I am able to compromise. Again, my feeling is that the moderator that censored Ogrim's thread could/should of been more explicit about why it was censored, and actually started the conversation about what the limits of appropriate discussion are (maybe by starting a thread about the limits of the usage of the word rape with a disclaimer that warned people that were sensitive about this to skip that thread?)

Anyway, when you say this:

"If a person cannot voice opinions (popular or otherwise) in a polite and respectful manner, then the person should not be allowed to voice them in this venue."

It means (to me) that more people should be banned, possibly myself included for some rude remarks I made a while back. Our friend Jasper seems to think this is a place to shit on people, don't you think that is good reason to throw his ass out too? The problem with this is that no one wins. Throwing Jasper out, or seeking to throw Jasper out, does not teach Jasper a lesson. It does not improve the overall spirit of cooperation. It does not better the community. Sure, it might be difficult at first to stomach someone whose main contribution is humor of questionable taste, but behind that bad joke is a person. A person who made sacrifices and probably worked hard to get where he or she is, and to quote the guidelines we should "give them the benefit of the doubt" that they are good people trying to be part of this online community. We can all win by teaching and learning, which is why we all came to this university at some level.

Again, I believe that banishment should be reserved to behavior that is absolutely disruptive and/or criminal. I believe that censorship can easily slip from disallowing rudeness to the systematic suppression of ideas, very quickly as well. I believe that we stand a better chance to make this a safe place for the exchange of ideas by opening our arms to our fellow students (no matter how vile their behavior might seem at first), and I believe that we should give everyone a chance to learn and grow as part of the community. I believe that talking about what we find offensive is better then silencing a troubling voice. 

just words.

=)

The Advisory Board welcomes your input on the site, the functionality, and the moderation of Viking Village.  We are listening to you -- that is the whole point of Viking Village.  However, it is really up to Ogrim to plead his case to the Advisory Board.  Since this is a second ban, resulting from multiple flags and objectionable posts over the last five months, this ban will be longer and will require Ogrim to talk to the advisory board.  If he does so, and convinces us that he is willing to abide by the guidelines and the computer use policy, he may be allowed back on.  That decision will be made by the board after that discussion.

Our philosophy this year has been one of letting the community moderate as much as possible, looking most closely at those posts which have been flagged. We will be adding to the guidelines, posting a range of possible responses from the moderators, and adding more moderators next year so we can address your concerns more closely.