Less than a week ago, I posted some information
to this site regarding the ongoing failure of their efforts to filter
the site. Since then, my account has been
effectively eliminated, as I expected would happen when I posted the
information. Revolutionaries are seldom welcomed by the established
power, after all.
No editor stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack,
but evidence points to Jamie McCarthy, as I was involved in a short
exchange with him as a result of the aggressive editor
moderation. During our brief discussion, "jamie" made the interesting
claim that the bitchslap was never used on anyone except bots. This is
a cynical attempt to deceive the slashdot readers.
Let's stick to the facts and examine the evidence:
While doing some unrelated research on the web, I happened upon
this story of a truly unjust bitchslapping
by either Hemos or CmdrTaco. I can only assume that "jamie"'s
non-reply to my question about modslap indicates that he is aware that
this had taken place. I understand that this is probably not news to
several other posters. I must point out that Taco repeatedly refers to
the modslap script as "bitchslap" in his correspondence. There is no
almost no difference between the two.
The article describes an incident in which a user was bitchslapped
for not moderating according to the beliefs of the slashdot
editors.
Even as I was writing the article on slashcode, I was not aware of
how serious the problems at slashdot are. Here is an incident in which
the editors were happy to unleash a bitchslap on almost no
provocation. I repeat, "If you don't mod the way he likes, your
moderating days are over, and your karma plummets to bitchslap
levels."
While the bitchslap script is apparently still in operation,
modslap is probably not used in it's original form. I do know that
karma can be lost for unsatisfactory meta-moderation, as I have seen
this happen to one of my accounts, during a period in which that
account had not posted or moderated anything. What this evidence does
reveal is that the slashdot staff have no particular loyalty either to
their readers, or to freedom of speech. They are willing to suppress
your posts and your account according to their own opinions.
"jamie"'s comments reveal a confused attitude towards the meaning of
freedom of speech, as does this excerpt from his website:
I believe strongly in free speech. I believe just as strongly that no one is required to nod along with a liar, and pretend that he is making valid points: to pretend that crackpots deserve equal billing on the marquee.
Evidently, Jamie McCarthy thinks that "crackpots" should be
afforded fewer rights than us right-thinking people. I wonder what
sort of free speech rights he thinks should have been given to
"crackpots" like Galileo? Or modern "crackpots" like Richard
M. Stallman?
Besides Seth Finkelstein, do any of the contributors to the
now defunct censorware.org actually understand what free speech means?
I advise Jamie, and the other slashdot editors to read, or re-read
John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and Voltaire's "Essay on
Tolerance" to remind them why free speech is not conditional on what
is being said.
Less than a week ago, I posted some information
to this site regarding the ongoing failure of their efforts to filter
the site. Since then, my account has been
effectively eliminated, as I expected would happen when I posted the
information. Revolutionaries are seldom welcomed by the established
power, after all.
No editor stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack,
but evidence points to Jamie McCarthy, as I was involved in a short
exchange with him as a result of the aggressive editor
moderation. During our brief discussion, "jamie" made the interesting
claim that the bitchslap was never used on anyone except bots. This is
a cynical attempt to deceive the slashdot readers.
Let's stick to the facts and examine the evidence:
While doing some unrelated research on the web, I happened upon
this story of a truly unjust bitchslapping
by either Hemos or CmdrTaco. I can only assume that "jamie"'s
non-reply to my question about modslap indicates that he is aware that
this had taken place. I understand that this is probably not news to
several other posters. I must point out that Taco repeatedly refers to
the modslap script as "bitchslap" in his correspondence. There is no
almost no difference between the two.
The article describes an incident in which a user was bitchslapped
for not moderating according to the beliefs of the slashdot
editors.
Even as I was writing the article on slashcode, I was not aware of
how serious the problems at slashdot are. Here is an incident in which
the editors were happy to unleash a bitchslap on almost no
provocation. I repeat, "If you don't mod the way he likes, your
moderating days are over, and your karma plummets to bitchslap
levels."
While the bitchslap script is apparently still in operation,
modslap is probably not used in it's original form. I do know that
karma can be lost for unsatisfactory meta-moderation, as I have seen
this happen to one of my accounts, during a period in which that
account had not posted or moderated anything. What this evidence does
reveal is that the slashdot staff have no particular loyalty either to
their readers, or to freedom of speech. They are willing to suppress
your posts and your account according to their own opinions.
"jamie"'s comments reveal a confused attitude towards the meaning of
freedom of speech, as does this excerpt from his website:
I believe strongly in free speech. I believe just as strongly that no one is required to nod along with a liar, and pretend that he is making valid points: to pretend that crackpots deserve equal billing on the marquee.
Evidently, Jamie McCarthy thinks that "crackpots" should be
afforded fewer rights than us right-thinking people. I wonder what
sort of free speech rights he thinks should have been given to
"crackpots" like Galileo? Or modern "crackpots" like Richard
M. Stallman?
Besides Seth Finkelstein, do any of the contributors to the
now defunct censorware.org actually understand what free speech means?
I advise Jamie, and the other slashdot editors to read, or re-read
John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and Voltaire's "Essay on
Tolerance" to remind them why free speech is not conditional on what
is being said.
Slashdot Mirror
Less than a week ago, I posted some information to this site regarding the ongoing failure of their efforts to filter the site. Since then, my account has been effectively eliminated, as I expected would happen when I posted the information. Revolutionaries are seldom welcomed by the established power, after all.
No editor stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack, but evidence points to Jamie McCarthy, as I was involved in a short exchange with him as a result of the aggressive editor moderation. During our brief discussion, "jamie" made the interesting claim that the bitchslap was never used on anyone except bots. This is a cynical attempt to deceive the slashdot readers.
Let's stick to the facts and examine the evidence:
While doing some unrelated research on the web, I happened upon this story of a truly unjust bitchslapping by either Hemos or CmdrTaco. I can only assume that "jamie"'s non-reply to my question about modslap indicates that he is aware that this had taken place. I understand that this is probably not news to several other posters. I must point out that Taco repeatedly refers to the modslap script as "bitchslap" in his correspondence. There is no almost no difference between the two.
The article describes an incident in which a user was bitchslapped for not moderating according to the beliefs of the slashdot editors.
Even as I was writing the article on slashcode, I was not aware of how serious the problems at slashdot are. Here is an incident in which the editors were happy to unleash a bitchslap on almost no provocation. I repeat, "If you don't mod the way he likes, your moderating days are over, and your karma plummets to bitchslap levels."
While the bitchslap script is apparently still in operation, modslap is probably not used in it's original form. I do know that karma can be lost for unsatisfactory meta-moderation, as I have seen this happen to one of my accounts, during a period in which that account had not posted or moderated anything. What this evidence does reveal is that the slashdot staff have no particular loyalty either to their readers, or to freedom of speech. They are willing to suppress your posts and your account according to their own opinions.
"jamie"'s comments reveal a confused attitude towards the meaning of freedom of speech, as does this excerpt from his website:
Evidently, Jamie McCarthy thinks that "crackpots" should be afforded fewer rights than us right-thinking people. I wonder what sort of free speech rights he thinks should have been given to "crackpots" like Galileo? Or modern "crackpots" like Richard M. Stallman?
Besides Seth Finkelstein, do any of the contributors to the now defunct censorware.org actually understand what free speech means? I advise Jamie, and the other slashdot editors to read, or re-read John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and Voltaire's "Essay on Tolerance" to remind them why free speech is not conditional on what is being said.
Less than a week ago, I posted some information to this site regarding the ongoing failure of their efforts to filter the site. Since then, my account has been effectively eliminated, as I expected would happen when I posted the information. Revolutionaries are seldom welcomed by the established power, after all.
No editor stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack, but evidence points to Jamie McCarthy, as I was involved in a short exchange with him as a result of the aggressive editor moderation. During our brief discussion, "jamie" made the interesting claim that the bitchslap was never used on anyone except bots. This is a cynical attempt to deceive the slashdot readers.
Let's stick to the facts and examine the evidence:
While doing some unrelated research on the web, I happened upon this story of a truly unjust bitchslapping by either Hemos or CmdrTaco. I can only assume that "jamie"'s non-reply to my question about modslap indicates that he is aware that this had taken place. I understand that this is probably not news to several other posters. I must point out that Taco repeatedly refers to the modslap script as "bitchslap" in his correspondence. There is no almost no difference between the two.
The article describes an incident in which a user was bitchslapped for not moderating according to the beliefs of the slashdot editors.
Even as I was writing the article on slashcode, I was not aware of how serious the problems at slashdot are. Here is an incident in which the editors were happy to unleash a bitchslap on almost no provocation. I repeat, "If you don't mod the way he likes, your moderating days are over, and your karma plummets to bitchslap levels."
While the bitchslap script is apparently still in operation, modslap is probably not used in it's original form. I do know that karma can be lost for unsatisfactory meta-moderation, as I have seen this happen to one of my accounts, during a period in which that account had not posted or moderated anything. What this evidence does reveal is that the slashdot staff have no particular loyalty either to their readers, or to freedom of speech. They are willing to suppress your posts and your account according to their own opinions.
"jamie"'s comments reveal a confused attitude towards the meaning of freedom of speech, as does this excerpt from his website:
Evidently, Jamie McCarthy thinks that "crackpots" should be afforded fewer rights than us right-thinking people. I wonder what sort of free speech rights he thinks should have been given to "crackpots" like Galileo? Or modern "crackpots" like Richard M. Stallman?
Besides Seth Finkelstein, do any of the contributors to the now defunct censorware.org actually understand what free speech means? I advise Jamie, and the other slashdot editors to read, or re-read John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and Voltaire's "Essay on Tolerance" to remind them why free speech is not conditional on what is being said.