Aren't we all just so very grateful that they're willing to share their deep insights so freely?
(puke).

lousy spam attacks.

I find users like 'home office furniture', 'Furniture Store', 'Arizona Payroll Company', and 'Camera Guy' really bring a useful and unique perspective to every story they comment on. I'm sure Google PageRank has nothing to do with any of them, and that we should really just be grateful that they're willing to share their deep insights so freely.

These recent comments, the ones
with subject lines like "yes" "employee"
"I agree" that link to pretend posts are like: "I like to
eat food too" "I hate it when my legs get sore"
---all linked to furniture stores or commercial
websites and such....

I bet *these* posts at least can be easily identified
and erased without hurting anyone's lively
conversations.

...thou shalt not sweat thy words uttered on this or any other space, for they are meant with a pure heart, and are most welcome, always...
-now go shave thine head with aveeno 'extra sensitive,' gel, and be careful not to nick thyself, as it would causeth a mark, resulting in TP being worn on thy head, and cause thy brethren (and sistern) to snicker at thee...
(...seriously, bro, the stuff gives a great shave, no razor burn at all.)

you have never been a pain, nor will you ever be.

-I'll show up unexpectedly for that coffee, and it will be the bright spot of my day, (as seeing you and the lovely Ms.Liz always has been.)

Ed?
Keep yer powder dry, hope you get the gig, and as they said in Airplane: '...now go out there and win one for the zipper.'

to you both. I'm not trying to be a pain.

Good luck ed. Peace Mr. Void.

Someday we will consume caffinated beverages throwing back our heads in laughter recanting our discussions.

Diablo

but note:

-though this is Ed's blog on Fresno Famous, it's not Ed's blog, say on Blogger... (I've read some of his posts there, but am more of a lurker if anything, -I usually don't post on other folks blogs on 'specific,' blogs unless invited to do so.)

His comments on this?
Well, it's interesting..
Ed said that I may have taken a word 'content,' and such in a manner that he was not intending.
---Okay, so he cleared that up, and my writings were really more about the whole issue of 'determining site eligiblity,' and 'what's of Fresno.'

-Along the lines of his origional post? (To which he was writing in his blog, (yes, his) --but it was about what we thought of him offering to be a part of what goes on and what does not? The responses were appropriate.

That he's saying '..I'm just looking to go after the basic hum-drum stuff, cleaning up spam,' and such (clarifying,) I don't have much of a problem with, and think it's part of his responsibility (as well as all of ours,) to keep the crud out, (I've written Jarah and Suzi in the past regarding porn-bots and such when they've come up, try to be in touch with the site ops on problems when I find them, etc. ---that's part of caring for the site and supporting the community of it.)

As for dealing with content?
I think it's normal and healthy to interract with others regarding what they are saying, and how they say it, on both good and bad subject matter. It's how discussion happens, ---and it's also fine to say '...this is what you are saying, and how it sounds, -is that what you mean???'
-Again, Ed clarified the issue that he was not looking to make judgement calls in terms of 'subject matter,' other than to go after stuff that is obviously wrong.

My concern? (which if this is no longer a concern, great... I applaud our growth,)
-for the longest time, the Fresno Famous coverpage had a woman named 'CMCass' on the 'I'm Famous,' part, (lovely girl, from a bit north of here, actually,)
-I don't think she even comes to the site anymore.
-She hasn't been onsite in a long time..

Why?
She wrote something that was deemed to be 'not site specific,' and was blown out of the water by a site regular. (They even used her writings as an example of 'what not to write,')
---Now, the person who did this?
Is admittedly a wise-ass, and was trying to make a point that her feelings on life were not 'about Fresno,'

It was one of her first postings on Fresno Famous, she's a brilliant girl, (when I say girl, I mean somebody who was well into her twenties, had gotten a Masters, and who was highly skilled in working with people, loved the arts, culture, --and just wanted to get to know Fresno, (as she was going to move here...)
(after all this happpened, I invited her down, we rode Bike-Hop one night,)
and she was also a great writer...

-Though not some shrinking violet, she was pretty put out and hurt by the situation, and was able to dismiss the behaviors about her being 'fresno-centric,' or not as just the way some people are.'
But it fell in line with this whole '...if it's not Fresno oriented, it doesn't belong on Fresno Famous,' crap...

THAT?
I personally would never like to see happen again.
(The irony of it is? She's listed as one of the 'famous people,' yet, I don't think has darkened the door of FresFam in a year and a half.)

That Ed wants to do something to weed out spam? Fine.
More power to him.
That anybody would want to start 'screening,' comments as to their being 'worth reading or 'fresno based,' or not?
--I think I've written enough and have been clear enough on the issue.

.

blog it's a curtesy to stay on the topic or heading of the blog. String drift is when the conversation no longer has anything to do with the oiginal heading. For insance now we 'could' start a new thread on this all instead of mudding up ed's good idea with talk of censor, free speeh and string drift, to a more fitting header, on your own or my blog, labeled blogs and free speech in Fresno.

I would consider that polite to ed, but that's just me, and this is his blog. Is/does it still pertain to ed's initial post, yes. His post birthed the dicussion. However his initial post heading is about him offering his service, and I think it's a good idea and a lot of work.

I'm sure if they decided to take him up on it he'd know specifcally what they expect him to moderate. Thus far I have not read their MOU or job description for a Moderator on this site. Either way however they choose to define moderate is their prerogative and we're all getting older as we type/read. If we don't like their definition, there are other blogging sites.

Diablo

but, here is a bit from the t.o.s.,
"You acknowledge and agree not to not use, display, distribute, submit, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. You also agree that you will not post content that is fraudulent, promotes information you know to be false and misleading, interferes or disrupts the Website or services of the Website, is pornographic in nature, is offensive to the Fresno Famous community, such as content that promotes racism, bigotry, homophobia, hatred or physical harm to any group or individual, or violates any applicable laws."

now, i'm not interested in enforcing that part. and, i think josh does this. and, you can't post other people's copyrighted material.

well, there are terms of service that outline what is allowable content. but, right now that page isn't loading properly. (the link to the t.o.s. is down @ the bottom of every page but the tos and the privacy policy aren't working.)

by being a registered user you have to agree to the terms of service. so, ootv, at some point you clicked, "yes, i agree." if you violate the terms, i suppose they can boot you. i remember orangebear mentioning in a comment about getting warned. i don't know why, but i'm guessing he was close to violating the terms.

anonymous posts? "Yes, however please familiarize yourself with our Terms of Service. Comments in violation can be deleted or edited without warning. We want people to feel safe on Fresno Famous, and encourage productive discussions. We also want people to stand behind their comments and information, so know that comments from registered users will be taken much more seriously."

(Edit: Ed's post and mine hit at the same time, his response regarding further epxlaination had not posted yet, (the one just above this.)

a series of moderators, if needed, -fine.

THAT they're needed... -sad.

What they are supposed to be about?
maintenance, sure.
policing, (whups, did I say 'police,') comments?
sure...

-but there has to be a criteria that is not about any one persons stance or feelings on the issue (else it gets back into being just somebody's blog.)

(Edit: -again, going after SPAM, -good, fine.)

-I can see the importance of preventing such things as 'spam,' as well as going after comments or threats made -that are liabel in nature, slanderous, or derrogatory,
--WHEN they go against a set group of missunderstood rules.

Problem with that?
What are the rules here?
-Are people permitted to say things that are derrogatory about other beliefs, races, political views, places of origin, or areas of town?
(If they are, -well it could get uncomfortable and ugly, -and believe me, it already has.)

If people are NOT allowed to say things of that nature?
-What defines that?
--Do you have any idea how much online 'fresno,' talk is basically dissing one subject, stance, viewpoint, problem, section of town, another town, the behaviors of people groups, etc...(etc. etc.)?
(Look it up sometime.)

As far as arguements.
-That's kind of an interesting situation.

If you're going with a social concern, heck, even with an opinion on a musical event,
--do you realize that everything is going to have to be
'...gee, I liked it, it was fun,' (with a greek chorus of 'yeah, me too, me too.') -or it's seen as an argument?
--Now, I am not advocating for trashing somebody out, or tearing them down personally,
-but if somebody says something that is wrong, -are we supposed to be like '...yeah, funny, that's great.' -and be reduced to the mental level of Beavis and Butthead, without discussion as to why it's an incorrect thing to say or do?

I'm not even from Fresno, and I'm telling you, if argueing is not allowed on this site?
You're not going to have any Fresnans on it.
If derrogatory or defamaing remarks aren't allowed? Almost the same.

-why do I say that?

I think it plays into the whole mindset of having to HAVE a person act as a schoolmarm in a public discussion board.

People don't really know how to debate anymore.
They're not really interested in logic or facts on an issue.
Rarely does 'reason and sense' play into it, ---and there is a very strong current of conforming to whatever the 'trend,' is in terms of the opinion.
I've even heard complaints that having to think about what's been said, or what is being written (as being accountable for the words and statements that one uses,) is too big a burden...
-oh, do tell.

It's why folks look at comments that are completely false, off the hook, insulting, and often don't meet them with an intelligent response back (where it's warranted, some comments just don't warrant any attention at all.)
It's also why, if somebody has a different opinion, or stance,
-often they don't respond with an intellectually correct, or factual response.
They're afraid of (whatever,) no longer being fashionable, afraid of offending somebody, afraid of no longer being 'cool.'

Is that what this site is?

Adults should be able to communicate on issues and subjects regarding the town without knee jerk and perjorative remarks, (that's a given.)
--they also should know how to respond to someones comments, either chiming in, disagreeing and stating why, and do such all with the intent of finding out why each other feels that way,---and progressing on with it.

THAT is what's lacking.

Why can't the writers on this site do that (anymore?)
Why are people so afraid to really say what they think, and give other peoples comments and views merit, -or at least treat them with respect?

The answer is not to drop back, feed into it, and treat people like children, (even if they're acting like them.)
Jr. Hi was a long time ago, I have no interest in going back,
-why are we headed back there?

What I find quite ironic, (again,) is that the first thing that you'll hear as a concern from the Fresno Famous crowd,
---even the 'alt,' crowd that is all for others rights and such, --is 'Free Speech.'
(well, that, and how 'oppressive the cops are.')

What people don't get?
Free speech is not free.
It takes responsbility, it takes acting on what you are saying, -and communicating with the understanding that others are listening, and will be affected by your words.
--What I'm seeing?
Somebody says something, everybody either agrees and thinks it's great (or funny,) --and if somebody disagrees? it's considered 'an arguement.'

So basically Freedom of speech in this venue is based upon 'everybody liking what is being said'... (that is not Free-speech, nor is it new or progressive.)

Further?
I find tons of comments and things said, -and when you question what the person is saying,
(like: did you really mean it that way? -the response is often 'it's a joke,' or 'who are you?' (etc.)
--When the remarks can be incredibly stupid or irresponsible and damaging.
When you question the remarks, or the stance (even if they're moderately accurate,) it's like
'...so uncool, just go with it, don't argue.'

There are definite rules and boundaries that have to be observed when it comes to public discussion on the sort of things that are on any website,
-including this one,
I'm all for seeing them realisteically enforced and reviewed (because rules change and things are not set in stone.)
But what are they?
Does anyone know?
Do we have any good examples of what is acceptable and what is not?

What I'm (quite concened about?)is a bunch of folks who happen to be 'in,' who have a particular 'bent,' on an issue,
-dictating what is considered worthy or not worthy of attention (or even posting,) on what is supposed to be a public message board.
Welcome to clicque.

I don't go on other people's sites and write with the freedoms that are on here, -and that's because it's THEIR world, and their blogs (I respect that.)

Who does THIS site belong to?

If the answer is 'it's a people's site, everybody contributes, and we set the rules.'
---then fine, lets do that.

But one individual (regardless of who it is,) calling the shots (not just in terms of maintenance and preventing spam and carpetbombing (etc.)
---but 'content,' and 'subject matter?'

I can see that ONLY if there is an established set of rules for what is permissable and what is not,

--but so far? I'm seeing a ton of criteria that is not any real standard,
-just somebody's idea of cool or hip.

And (finally,) as to the 'wandering,' aspect...

Are you kidding me?

What do you think a string subject is for?
The whole idea (and part of the beauty,) of a comment site, IS that a subject comes up, and you find a myriad of different feelings on the subject, --and that can and will go all over the place. (It's just the nature of the thing.) It leads to other comments and perespectives splintering off, --the answer to that?
Somebody saying (either,)
-this is for another string, so I'll START ONE
(or)
-this IS relevant, -and I need to try to explain why.

BOTH of these moves?
EXACTLY what has to happen
-the one is recognizing a turn in direction, thereby CREATING something new, (whoah, creating, vs. complaining... radical concept,)

-the second? ('...but this IS relevant, I'll try to explain why')
--is the very nature of an individual sharing their view, and showing their side of things to others.
It's why a person bothers to say anything at all. -and we often don't all see the same things, nor experience them the same way,
-so in this situation, a person explains what they're seeing, why they see it like that, and how it connects, ---and what's the worst that can happen (either)
'...nope, still don't get it,'
or
'...whoah, never thought of that or saw that before, huh... cool.'

Neither of these methods mean '...sorry, I don't see the relevance, next applicant please...'

To just post something, and expect only a certain few remarks and comments?,
-and for those comments to be only about 'what you were thinking when the subject was introduced? (thereby making other things 'non-relevant.')
IS being Narrow Minded.
It IS what Fresno's Reputation already is.
--Why do you want to further it?

Saying something, then only going with responses and content that uses others words to bolster your own opinion?
---that's not discussion, that's masturbation.

-and for this to now be 'site-wide,' (not definitions of what different catagories mean 'blog,' 'venue,' 'discussion,' etc... (at least guiding a posting over '...dude this is more like a blog, than a venue thing, maybe it should go THERE, -where it's cool?'
-I've gotten that from time to time from Jarah, -and completely respected that, -but it was respect shown first which I appreciated, (NOT) 'This is not about Fresno, This is not about X subject, you cannot say it.'

Basically, by doing this, you'd be turning Fresno Famous into the areas newest 'gated community.'

I may be the only one who sees it, but it clearly is what I see happening, and again, for a town of creatives that is so hell-bent on 'free-speech,' there seems to be little to no understanding what it actually means,
-except past one's own personal interests.

(Final Edit:
--This is NOT in any way about going after one person (Ed) for me, it's about how to deal with the situation correctly, and see correct measures taken where needed. Though Ed and I have not always agreed on many things, -and I appreciate his offer to 'help,' (seriously,) I just think that there are ways of so doing, and ways of completely shooting freedoms in the foot, --clarifying that it's about 'SPAM,' goes a long way.)

sorry, i was checking famous mobily so i was brief on the last comment. here's some more in depth thought i have on it.

in a way, and it may be wrong, but i think of josh/famous whitewater as the talent for the site. he helps to create comment, push the site in some directions, and does a bit of the corporate watching, i.e. monitoring for slander, etc.

but, every good chief needs some indians. or, every queen bee needs some drones. i'm offering to do some of the daily drudgery.

in no way is this censorship. it would be to help the site be what it is intended to be. a site where people come and find out what is going on around fresno.

what i proposed, "i will read all of the comments that are posted, determine if they are contributing to the website, or if they are just spam, even well disguised spam," seems pretty transparent to me, but i think where ootv may have gotten a bit off of my intention is the word contributing. all i'm talking about is weeding through the spam, or deciding if a comment is spam. i'm not talking about censoring or changing any content. or deciding if something is "adult" enough for dialog. or whether it relates to fresno. or whatever else.

for instance, as i look @ the 25 most recent comments right now (tuesday, 3:15 pm), 9 of them are clearly spam. that's a little more than 1/3 of the comments. if 1/3 or more of the comments are spam, it is going to have a negative effect on the website. how do i determine that these 9 or spam? i read the post and try and figure if they're really interacting with the post or just throwing in enough content to sound like they are. then i click on what they're linking to. if it's something like an online job reference or a talking recipe book, it seems to be spam. it's not like they're linking to a relevant link for the story they're posting on.

and, in my best estimate they're being done by paid spammers that read a post on a busy site, make a psuedo comment, and then link to their business. this is harder to beat than a spambot that you can hinder with captcha or something similar.

as for the community having values, i think it does. it values people using the site properly. and it dislikes when people post spam blogs and comments. how do i know this? well, others have commented openly to that effect. it's not just whether or not this is fresno related content or what not. it is about whether or not the site is being dragged down by spammers.

yeah. What the alien said.

And I didn't take any comments personal

What I have seen them do is keep the flow of a topic/post in order. As in move a post to start another thread due to discussion drift. Stop senseless verbal fighting in threads by shutting threads down and even banning posters. Delete spam postings. Usually some site maintenance as well. Usually the moderator is highly involved with the site regarless of being a moderator, and have proven themselves as being good contributors to the site. It isn't about censoring as much as it is about continuity and maintenance.

Sites usually have a handfull of moderators as it is hard for one person to do all the work by themselves, for little to no pay. I'm not saying this site needs it or that Josh isn't enough, but I think this site is a lot of work and sharing some of that might be a good odea. It's hard to be everywhere all the time. From my experience on other forums, this site should have a handfull of people behind the scenes helping to keep things runnig smoothly.

Diablo

Isn't that what JT does?

ya know... seriously?

I don't know if it's a step forward or backward in terms of having a self-policing message board.

-of course, saying '..I'm not too thrilled about this,' may come across as '..no, not Ed doing this.'
-but basically it has nothing to do with Ed, (or anyone else,) as a person,
but more of 'why,' and feeling that this is not the correct path to take.

Even if it 'was his job already,' (IE paid staff policing FresFam) I would hope that there would be some sort of agreed upon grid to run comments through, that is not simply not one's persons fancy.)

I think it should be discussed further.

-like (questions?)
1. -Is there somebody doing this already in a very basic sense? (for example, Josh?) (Bryan's gone, but did He do this too?)

2. -what is the criteria for 'Fresno Material?'
(that one has ALWAYS been highly subjective, and the answers can range from really creative to awkward at best, the scarey part: '...it's what I like about Fresno, if I don't like it or participate in it, or feel this way? It ain't Fresno.' ---Fresno is changing and a lot of 'non-Fresno,' folks and situations are actually now, VERY Fresno...fyi.)

3.-With all the concerns (particularlly among the creatives) in Fresno, -how does taking a 'self-policing board, contributed to by all'
-giving it to one person to moderate IE: 'pass/fail' in terms of comments,
NOT set up that person as:
'czar,' 'king,' 'arbitrator,' 'censor,' 'dictator,'
(all interesting words, not all viewed as nice words by some, -but all pointing to this scenario:
'...one person decides if anothers comments, subject matter, feelings, opinions (etc.) is something others should hear...'

I think that's the biggest concern I'd have.
It sounds like Fresno Famous becomes 'that one persons' (in this case, Ed's) blog.

Now, if Ed has a blog, or anyone has a blog, they have every right to decide what they want on the blog, as well as what comments to publish, and what things they feel are pertainant to the blog content, (that's great, I think people should control their own creative channels.)

But that is a site/blog where one person 'owns,' it and that's understood going in, you play by their rules, and that's fine.

To my knowledge?
This was a site owned and operated by Jarah, (to a degree,) that was opened up to others, and run with a very 'court of common opinion,' approach. (Jarah did pretty good with that, and I say this having found myself on both sides of challanging those standards.)

Then the site went over to the Bee
--and everybody was concerned about one thing in particular:
'...the Bee will censor, the Bee will censor, Fresno Famous is dead, we'll not be allowed to publish our true feelings because the Bee will control our speech...'
--Even the new owners (Bee) talked about not interfering with the comments, and assured that they wouldn't do such things..
---Still, the paranoids flew that flag, (and sometimes still do,
---let one technical issue come up, things start to dissappear (due to a bug of some sort,) and it's like '...they're censoring, they're censoring... tyranny...!'

Among the creative community of Fresno, there is a constant theme of 'equality, each person having a say, equal rights, all voices count, no unnecessary policing, and freedom of speech,'

-yet, when the scenario comes up, and folks need to be mature and (actually) tolerant about each others views?,
-And (even after the roundtable discussion on the pod-cast about
'If you don't like something, say it, if you don't like something DO something of your own, don't just sit there and complain...' (I totally agree and have said the same, many times, (kudos MikeOz)

THIS is the proposal?
---'put one person in charge of what is pertainant talk and what is acceptable.'
What????

Maybe the proposal was worded a bit too loosely?
(I mean, sure the recent spate of 'newbies' making comments just to revive old strings with vaguely relevant comments has been annoying, --but then again lots of things about a public use site are annoying.)

The answer is not to sit there and say

'We can't all be grown ups here,
and we can't run the site and REALLY dialogue (positive and negative,) about any given subject,
-WE need somebody to decide what is right -and not right talk (when it is supposed to be open to anyone.)

In some ways? (such as deciding what is suitable content for the site,) it is a great way for a standard to be arrived at and worked with,
-in other ways? Waaaaaaay more censorship and relinquishing of freedom of speech than anybody really understands, (yet, has been yapping about for the two years I've been reading/writing etc.)

I'm sorry to see this.
It's just showing that (if this were to take place,)
-that the Creative 'adults,' of Fresno can 'talk a good talk about equality and freedom of speech,'
--but really don't want it, CAN'T do it, nor know how to conduct themselves in it.
(I've found this in other areas, -and have written about it from time to time, -I'd hate to see the entire site succumb to such a thing.)

I STILL feel that adults in any forum need to be able to convey their feelings in an appropriate manner, not have to step on eggshells,
be able to communicate thoroughly and intelligently,
-and hear what each other are saying,
-and choose to remark (positive or negative,) freely, ---and that it's a sign of being an adult to be able to do so.

Do I like what I hear on the site, -or some of the nonesense and hatespeech that is written sometimes?
No.
-and I think the recent declaring of a church of being 'gay-friendly,' (when it actually was a prank,) could have been quite dangerous.

Yet, I find all of the comments written, no matter how poorly worded, how badly misspelled, or how mentally twisted, gifted, or naieve, -to be very very honest depictions of what is happening in Fresno.
--That the content is not to my choosing, or (possibly,) missrepresenting more of Fresno? -purely the problem of more people NOT CONTRIBUTING THEIR comments and views.

What is hilarious?
I think it more common (in this community,) to look at local and distant governments, belief systems(churches,) and social orders, and point out
'...how controlled and 'boxed in,' 'one track-minded,' 'they,' are.'
-yet, by not being able to deal with others views?,
(that we like or dislike,) and simply handing the decision of 'yes or no,' to one person?
This site's community is running open armed into the same situation.

Further?
Giving the site to one person, (paid or not) to decide what is siteworthy and what is not? Just gives those who want to see open and free communication fail, as they sit back and say '...those liberal pot-smoking tower asshats, they can't even run a message board and talk to each other, even when it's mostly about concerts and where to eat...'
--Why give them ammo?
--Why prove them 'right?'

I'm kind of hoping it was meant as a joke,
---(OR) meant as something other than how it sounds,
Because, otherwise?
It is coming across as we'd be paying Ed to be an adult, (as well as decide and control what is said on the board,)

--when we're all adults, all need to grow up and act/communicate like adults,
--and need to actually do what we claim to care the most about.

Again, Ed, this is not saying 'no,' to you, as a person.
-It's saying 'why?' to this problem,
saying 'no,' to THIS solution,
and saying that a site's community needs to embrace some sort of rules and values -have the guts to call them that, and live by them.

Freedom of speech and in the arts is NOT:
'...I'm going to say whatever I want, and if somebody else doesn't like what I say? or says something I don't like, I'm going to shut them down!'

No, it's about everybody having the opportunity to speak, everybody taking the time to listen, (because they respect the situation, if not the person and their views,)
and then voicing their feelings about what is going on, and working with THAT.

Eric Field

i do...i'm currently anticipating the opening of mr. sushi. i walked by and peaked in the window, and it looks like they're still a way off from opening.

(my phone doing weird things with he posts)

Does edluv dine on raw fish?

Diablo

well, they haven't offered this to me. i'm offering it to them.

here's to hoping they read this and accept.

Congrats!

Diablo