Do the members of ConCen want to be able to share politically motivated comedy?

[h3rm35]

this post was inspired by this thread:
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?t...#pid205834

Do the members of ConCen want to be able to share politically motivated comedy?

[yeti]

Who is going to be forced to decide what is political and what is not? The mods, that's who.

Why not allow music, fiction and movies too? Who will have to decide what's in or out? The mods, that's who.

This topic has already been discussed at least twice at great length.

What makes you think people will be able to agree on anything? Do you want to turn this place against itself? Do you want ConCen to lose its unique place in the P2P community?

If you want to share and discuss political comedy, what's stopping you from posting a link?

[h3rm35]

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  Who is going to be forced to decide what is political and what is not? The mods, that's who.
do you really think after a little poll like this, you're all of a sudden going to be inundated with massive amounts of inappropriate torrents being uploaded? I think you're making this out to be a little more of an issue than it actually is.
Why not allow music, fiction and movies too? Who will have to decide what's in or out? The mods, that's who.
I completely understand why those items listed aren't allowed. The reason why I posted this poll was because you seemingly ignored my question here and the torrent which it relates to (that you explicitly stated was against the rules and since has become freeleech,) as well as all the Bill Hicks torrents I mentioned in that thread are still up, so I assumed that the topic was open for discussion.
This topic has already been discussed at least twice at great length.
where? when? would you mind providing a link? or simply answering my question in the link above?
What makes you think people will be able to agree on anything? Do you want to turn this place against itself? Do you want ConCen to lose its unique place in the P2P community?
that's being a little extreme and putting the cart before the horse, I think. If you look at my posts during the dust-ups over the recent months, I think you'll see that, for the most part, I appreciate this community, its rules and its resources, and I respect the staff, their jobs, and appreciate the work that they do. Accusing me of trying to "turn this place against itself" is out of line. As far as people "agreeing on anything," That's what the poll is for, to find out whether or not they do.
If you want to share and discuss political comedy, what's stopping you from posting a link?
absolutely nothing. That's why I posted one in the Mark Thomas thread to the original VODO torrent. I did that because up until that point, the rules seemed to reflect a ban on uploading comedy and I assumed that the torrent would be taken down. the fact that it hasn't and has now become freeleech seems hypocritical in the light of this kind of frustrated rhetoric that you've now levied at me for having the "audacity" to post a poll. I was the one that called attention to the fact that that the rules reflected comedy not being allowed on the tracker, and now you're giving me shit, someone who's backed you and your decisions, for simply asking a question? We all know that you don't have to respond to a poll that might go against what you'd prefer to have happen on the site, so where's the harm in asking a question?

[yeti]

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  Who is going to be forced to decide what is political and what is not? The mods, that's who.

do you really think after a little poll like this, you're all of a sudden going to be inundated with massive amounts of inappropriate torrents being uploaded? I think you're making this out to be a little more of an issue than it actually is.

Do you really think I think that? Obviously I'm referring to the consequences of implementing the policy.

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  Why not allow music, fiction and movies too? Who will have to decide what's in or out? The mods, that's who.

I completely understand why those items listed aren't allowed. The reason why I posted this poll was because you seemingly ignored my question here and the torrent which it relates to (that you explicitly stated was against the rules and since has become freeleech,) as well as all the Bill Hicks torrents I mentioned in that thread are still up, so I assumed that the topic was open for discussion.

I answered your post. I'm sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for.

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  This topic has already been discussed at least twice at great length.

where? when? would you mind providing a link? or simply answering my question in the link above?

On the tracker news items, when we first moved to TT, and about a year after.

AFAIC, I've answered your question, but let's try again. Precisely what is your question?

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  What makes you think people will be able to agree on anything? Do you want to turn this place against itself? Do you want ConCen to lose its unique place in the P2P community?

that's being a little extreme and putting the cart before the horse, I think. If you look at my posts during the dust-ups over the recent months, I think you'll see that, for the most part, I appreciate this community, its rules and its resources, and I respect the staff, their jobs, and appreciate the work that they do. Accusing me of trying to "turn this place against itself" is out of line. As far as people "agreeing on anything," That's what the poll is for, to find out whether or not they do.

Show me the exact quote where I accuse you of anything. Asking a question is not the same as making an accusation. BTW, I'd appreciate an answer. I take this matter very seriously.

The purpose of the poll is not whether people can agree what is conspiracy and what isn't. This is what I'm referring to. Everyone has their own answer to that question. Obviously if your proposal was implemented, mods would have to make that decision for each torrent while at the same time dealing with users arguing over their worthiness.

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  If you want to share and discuss political comedy, what's stopping you from posting a link?

absolutely nothing. That's why I posted one in the Mark Thomas thread to the original VODO torrent. I did that because up until that point, the rules seemed to reflect a ban on uploading comedy and I assumed that the torrent would be taken down. the fact that it hasn't and has now become freeleech seems hypocritical in the light of this kind of frustrated rhetoric that you've now levied at me for having the "audacity" to post a poll.

There IS a ban on uploading comedy. Dunamis has stated that this is a documentary. I haven't seen it, so I'm taking his word about it. Have you seen it?

I've already stated that Hick's standup should not be on the tracker, but I haven't had time to delete it since there are no seeds and I have other priorities.

I guess I'll have to do it now then... OK done.

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  I was the one that called attention to the fact that that the rules reflected comedy not being allowed on the tracker, and now you're giving me shit, someone who's backed you and your decisions, for simply asking a question?

I appreciate your support. Please quote exactly where I give you shit.

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  We all know that you don't have to respond to a poll that might go against what you'd prefer to have happen on the site, so where's the harm in asking a question?

Oh really? We all know that? Sorry, but I don't have the luxury of ignoring a poll which proposes changing a fundamental rule of the site.

I'd like you to answer the questions I asked you, please.

[h3rm35]

I'll reply in a bit...

[h3rm35]

(12-23-2010 04:27 AM)yeti Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  Who is going to be forced to decide what is political and what is not? The mods, that's who.

do you really think after a little poll like this, you're all of a sudden going to be inundated with massive amounts of inappropriate torrents being uploaded? I think you're making this out to be a little more of an issue than it actually is.

Do you really think I think that? Obviously I'm referring to the consequences of implementing the policy.

maybe it didn't come across clearly, but my intention was to address the implementation of the policy as well.

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  Why not allow music, fiction and movies too? Who will have to decide what's in or out? The mods, that's who.

I completely understand why those items listed aren't allowed. The reason why I posted this poll was because you seemingly ignored my question here and the torrent which it relates to (that you explicitly stated was against the rules and since has become freeleech,) as well as all the Bill Hicks torrents I mentioned in that thread are still up, so I assumed that the topic was open for discussion.

I answered your post. I'm sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for.

the question I'm seeking the answer to is this:

Quote:If it's flat-out political comedy, I don't see how its any different than Beck, Limbaugh, or any of the other bobble-headed blowhards that end up on the tracker all the time. Political commentary is political commentary, IMO, so I guess I was just wondering why political stand up wasn't allowed.

Specifically, in light of your point that it makes more work for the mods, there's somehow already a delineation between Glenn Beck and, say, Lewis Black each giving an hour long, flat out political rant. Who's making that decision?

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  This topic has already been discussed at least twice at great length.

where? when? would you mind providing a link? or simply answering my question in the link above?

On the tracker news items, when we first moved to TT, and about a year after.

AFAIC, I've answered your question, but let's try again. Precisely what is your question?

I wasn't privy to those interactions. Would you mind rehashing it into a reader's digest version for me?

As far as my question, see above.

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  What makes you think people will be able to agree on anything? Do you want to turn this place against itself? Do you want ConCen to lose its unique place in the P2P community?

that's being a little extreme and putting the cart before the horse, I think. If you look at my posts during the dust-ups over the recent months, I think you'll see that, for the most part, I appreciate this community, its rules and its resources, and I respect the staff, their jobs, and appreciate the work that they do. Accusing me of trying to "turn this place against itself" is out of line. As far as people "agreeing on anything," That's what the poll is for, to find out whether or not they do.

Show me the exact quote where I accuse you of anything. Asking a question is not the same as making an accusation. BTW, I'd appreciate an answer. I take this matter very seriously.

Quote:Do you want to turn this place against itself?

It may not be a direct accusation, but it's definitely insinuated. You're using an accusatory tone by rhetorically asking me if that is what I want, when it's plain that I wouldn't want that, insinuating that my asking of the poll question would create such division that it would turn ConCen against itself

The purpose of the poll is not whether people can agree what is conspiracy and what isn't. This is what I'm referring to. Everyone has their own answer to that question. Obviously if your proposal was implemented, mods would have to make that decision for each torrent while at the same time dealing with users arguing over their worthiness.
OK... that's the perspective that I addressed when I was talking about being inundated with loads of inappropriate torrents in relation to the extra work in our very first exchange, and also again from a different perspective when I was talking about the delineation Between Beck and Black... and isn't every comment on every torrent "dealing with users arguing over their worthiness?" You have to deal with that anyway. As we all know, the torrent comments weren't censored and didn't disappear.

BTW, your interpretation of what the purpose of the poll I created is simply that. I created the poll, and its creation was for a purpose of my invention.

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 02:30 AM)yeti Wrote:  If you want to share and discuss political comedy, what's stopping you from posting a link?

absolutely nothing. That's why I posted one in the Mark Thomas thread to the original VODO torrent. I did that because up until that point, the rules seemed to reflect a ban on uploading comedy and I assumed that the torrent would be taken down. the fact that it hasn't and has now become freeleech seems hypocritical in the light of this kind of frustrated rhetoric that you've now levied at me for having the "audacity" to post a poll.

There IS a ban on uploading comedy. Dunamis has stated that this is a documentary. I haven't seen it, so I'm taking his word about it. Have you seen it?
yes, I have
I've already stated that Hick's standup should not be on the tracker, but I haven't had time to delete it since there are no seeds and I have other priorities.

I guess I'll have to do it now then... OK done.
see? Now you're going to catch shit for removing Hicks from the tracker, because his insights and commentary have an affinity within the community and the subject matter on the tracker, plus the fact that he's really popular. If you really don't want to deal with catching crap from users and you don't want extra work, your best option is to remove another item from your ban list... then you have that many less possible files to worry about watching out for. The only reason that I can see to keep political stand-up off the tracker is for legal reasons, and that only applies to the rest of the allowed files on a case by case basis when notified that there's a problem, right?

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  I was the one that called attention to the fact that that the rules reflected comedy not being allowed on the tracker, and now you're giving me shit, someone who's backed you and your decisions, for simply asking a question?

I appreciate your support. Please quote exactly where I give you shit.
see my response to your question about "accusation" and my comment about it being out of line.

(12-23-2010 03:54 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  We all know that you don't have to respond to a poll that might go against what you'd prefer to have happen on the site, so where's the harm in asking a question?

Oh really? We all know that? Sorry, but I don't have the luxury of ignoring a poll which proposes changing a fundamental rule of the site.


I don't know if that's the case, and it certainly didn't seem to be the case while reading some of your comments in the recent torrent comment debate. Maybe you were just using hyperbole at trolls, but you said things that I would guess led most who read them to believe otherwise.

I'd like you to answer the questions I asked you, please.

Does that work to your satisfaction?

[yeti]

I fixed your unorthodox reply style once already; since you repeated the practice, I won't waste my time again. I'll have to pull your quotes one at a time...

h3rm35 Wrote:maybe it didn't come across clearly, but my intention was to address the implementation of the policy as well.

Proposal -> implementation -> consequences

I have to deal with every step.

Do you think the consequences of implementing your proposal would be minor? While you're contemplating the answer, also ask yourself what makes ConCen unique in the P2P community.

I await your reply, h3rm35, and I believe your answer will be as valuable as your participation here...

h3rm35 Wrote:Specifically, in light of your point that it makes more work for the mods, there's somehow already a delineation between Glenn Beck and, say, Lewis Black each giving an hour long, flat out political rant. Who's making that decision?

Mods make the decision. There is a delineation. It's fiction vs. nonfiction. Very clear and totally unambiguous. Art = fiction. Comedy = art. Glenn Beck is nonfiction, Lewis Black's standup is art. You see where I'm going here?

Take a look at how common law deals with the issue. Glenn Beck is presented as non-fiction. Therefore he is susceptible to that standard. Stand-up comedians are not held to the same standard because they have artistic license.

h3rm35 Wrote:isn't every comment on every torrent "dealing with users arguing over their worthiness?" You have to deal with that anyway.

We try to read every post. We have to make judgment calls. Currently it's just a matter of whether the aggregate posts of a user constitute trolling, or whether a post is fiction or non-fiction.

I'm assuming that you understand that the consequences of implementing a fiction allowance would make being a mod next to impossible.

yeti Wrote:

h3rm35 Wrote:I don't have the luxury of ignoring a poll which proposes changing a fundamental rule of the site.

I don't know if that's the case

OK, fair enough, I could just walk away. I don't do things half-assed. I tried to walk away. I tried to get the other mods to set up an alternative server. It became obvious after a couple of months that if I threw ConCen off my server, it would die.

So here I am, taking my role seriously - at least ConCen isn't a 404...

h3rm35 Wrote:it certainly didn't seem to be the case while reading some of your comments in the recent torrent comment debate. Maybe you were just using hyperbole at trolls, but you said things that I would guess led most who read them to believe otherwise.

Could you be more specific? If you were in my shoes, how would you have done things differently?

[h3rm35]

I used an unorthodox reply style so that you'd have to pay attention while you responded. This is an issue that can be addressed in public in a way that publicizes the decision making process at this site. during the "torrent comment debacle" things weren't very transparent. Much of that had to do with the fact that no one ever posted a poll to check how the majority of site users felt about the issue. people didn't voice their opinions and the descision came down to the staff of the site, the management.

Right now, I'm showing how to raise an issue with management with the belief that there is actual popular support behind it.

I may very well be proven wrong, but I believe that the majority of current users of the site would like to have Lewis Black, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, or Rush Limbaugh available to them, as long as they were fans of any of those performers and wouldn't appreciate the banning of any of them simply because of the marketing angle in which they're ensconced.

[rsol]

I am a political comedian in my own way, when i try to explain things to people i often make it funny.
comedy is often to do with pointing out inconsistances in life. government is a great subject for this.

I dont think we need to be throwing all comedians out there who ever mentioned the word government.
I think this vote has been raised because of the mark thomas video im hoping to download properly tonght. mark wouldnt be considered a political comedian more an activist comedian. I think he has a place here.

h3rm35 actually mentioned the whole management making the call thing. Its interesting how people actually reacted to this. there are people out there that will use you then if you make a change they cant trust you. this is echoed in public/government relationships too. food for thought when addressing issues of the day.

[h3rm35]

Quote:While you're contemplating the answer, also ask yourself what makes ConCen unique in the P2P community.

I await your reply, h3rm35, and I believe your answer will be as valuable as your participation here...

I'm not sure if you're trying to give me shit over what I offer, but I seem to remember a positive balance in my favor while recounting the last year... I most certainly didn't tax this place.

Concen, IMO is an encyclopedia of conspiracy information combined with the community that uses it as a resource..

Concen is unique in the fact that it doesn't take shit seriously, unless it's serious shit. I personally believe that the community that takes part here would be better served by scathing rhetoric from political analysts that take a non-sponsored approach to the truth than they would be having to deal with constantly being exposed to a bunch of sponsored lies sculpted by sponsored market research groups.

[Hans Olo]

I could live without any mainstream media political commentary, that includes Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann and also Jon Stewart on the tracker. The latter is "Satire" which is a hybrid of political commentary and comedy. Anyway, since they are all mainstream they are available everywhere else. I don't come to the tracker to get things I can get anywhere else, quicker and better seeded.

So maybe a solution is to say, comedy yes, only if it's anti-NWO and not Mainstream Media. But, to be honest, that's just an idea. I haven't thought that one through.

[yeti]

(12-23-2010 08:31 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  I used an unorthodox reply style so that you'd have to pay attention while you responded.

One shot.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077416/

[h3rm35]

(12-23-2010 08:58 AM)rsol Wrote:  I am a political comedian in my own way, when i try to explain things to people i often make it funny.
comedy is often to do with pointing out inconsistances in life. government is a great subject for this.

I dont think we need to be throwing all comedians out there who ever mentioned the word government.(1)
I think this vote has been raised because of the mark thomas video im hoping to download properly (2) tonght. mark wouldnt be considered a political comedian more an activist comedian(3). I think he has a place here.

h3rm35 actually mentioned the whole management making the call thing. Its interesting how people actually reacted to this (4). there are people out there that will use you then if you make a change they cant trust you. (5) this is echoed in public/government relationships too. food for thought when addressing issues of the day. (6)

(1) what does that mean? what do you mean by "throwing them out there?"

(2) download properly... how so? Freeleech here, or pick it up from the VODO site, which I'm sure actually gets recognition and credit in its attempts to fundraise by getting downloads from their own site, off their tracker?

(3) Since when has there been a differentiation between "political" and "activist" comedians? What the hell is going on here?

(4) How did people react to this, and what is "this?"

(5) to whom are you referring?

(6) what issues are you talking about?

I don't mean to nitpick, but a lot of that seemed a little vague, and I'm sincerely trying to gauge the members' opinions on this subject.

[yeti]

(12-23-2010 08:31 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  I may very well be proven wrong, but I believe that the majority of current users of the site would like to have Lewis Black, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, or Rush Limbaugh available to them, as long as they were fans of any of those performers and wouldn't appreciate the banning of any of them simply because of the marketing angle in which they're ensconced.

You're describing an alternate reality.

"Lewis Black, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh" you describe as performers. I see only one performer - Lewis Black. The rest are journalists. Therefore they are liable for their words.

Who has been banned on your list, other than Black, if even him?

[h3rm35]

(12-23-2010 09:29 AM)yeti Wrote:  

(12-23-2010 08:31 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  I used an unorthodox reply style so that you'd have to pay attention while you responded.

One shot.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077416/

Well now, how cryptic...

care to clarify? was that a threat? are you saying I'm playing Russian roulette by trying to raise awareness of how to gauge the member's feelings on a topic? what does that mean? I don't get the analogy.

You had obviously ignored the link in which I raised a question that you demanded clarification on, twice. Is it surprising, considering this fact, that I might try to get your attention about something that I've felt strongly about for months? I don't think that the style in which I replied was deserving of scorn, whatever the reason.