Let's have a war!

[trashcanman]

I'm currently engaged in a bit of a protest on my current homebase of Lunch.com. Fortress alum Mackshere has been banned from there twice in the past and fessed up to baiting the mods so I raised no fuss. He snuck in again under the guise of Christy thinking they'd go easier on a female. It worked. Eventually, he was outed as a dude and now all of the sudden he's being banned again for posting objectionable reviews. Well, he watches harder core movies than I, but my reviews are generally more "objectionable". I've snuck nudity and jokes about Cleveland steamers involving children and every curse word you can imagine into my reviews and have only been hassled once or twice for suggesting suicide to insufferable idiots (a favorite pastime of The Curmudgeon) and the like. So is Lunch launching a purge on exploitation cinema or just on my buddy? Either way:


My Normandy offensive: www.lunch.com/reviews/UserReview-Censorship-1433793-22899-Create_your_own_reality_.html

The counterattack was received not by me, but was sent to a friend of mine (ANOTHER ex-Fortress resident, Count Orlok) and forwarded to me. In keeping with their cowardly and pompous precedent, they don't deem me worthy of direct acknowledgment. I like 'em scared.

From: jrjohnson
Received: Jun 4, 2010 03:32 PM EDT
To: Count_Orlok_22


"Hey guys,

I'm writing to you two because you are leaders within the community and therefore you deserve to hear my quick two cents. If you decide Lunch isn't the place for you and you decide to leave, i totally respect that decision as i hope you respect my decision to maintain some level decorum on this site.

First of all, the decision to leave Lunch was made my the member himself... not by me. He has been crystal clear on what type of content is permitted on Lunch and what isn't. In fact, his warnings have numbered in the double digits. He has had two accounts deleted after multiple warnings and explanations about what is permitted and what isn't. Now on his current account we have been going over the same issues for months. I'm bummed he doesn't want to participate on Lunch, but it has come to the point where his participation is putting me in a role that i don't enjoy... i don't want to be the constant arbiter of what is permitted and what isn't, nor do i want to be the enforcer of these policies. But someone has too. Adult/pornographic content, content that glorifies violence toward women or crimes in general, doesn't have a place here on Lunch. Now i get a lot of complaints about content on the site to which i turn the other cheek, but this type of stuff is so detrimental to encouraging other people to contribute to the site that we are losing new members because of it. That is bad for our business and for the future of Lunch. I can't have it.

Let me say that i'm damn proud that i live in country where someone can say these things and not be prosecuted by our government for it... that's freedom of speech and i believe the world would be a much better place if more governments operated that way. But Lunch is not the government and therefore we can't restrict anyone's constitutional right to free speech. Anyone who thinks that it is, should review their con law outline. If i owned a radio station you wouldn't claim freedom speech if i didn't play a song you wrote? If i owned a magazine you wouldn't claim freedom of speech if i didn't publish your pornographic story? This is the same. We maintain the certain standards of what is permitted on Lunch ensure that it's a place where everyone can feel comfortable to share. There are plenty of other places where people can start their own sites and say what ever they want... there is no restriction on free speech. As i've constantly asked of the member in question... please just go to those sites and exercise your freedom of speech there.

I understand that you disagree with my perspective of what type of content should be allowed on Lunch. That's fine... we can disagree on that... but this is my site so i have to make those decisions. However, please be very clear that the actions I've been forced to take with this member have been spelled out with this member repeatedly and it's his choice not participate on Lunch. This has not been an arbitrary or capricious act.... we have been through these issues ad nauseam. In fact at the time im writing this, he hasn't even responded to my latest message where, as a courtesy to him, i offered to save all of content in a text file for him in case he didn't have it saved elsewhere. He's been playing me for a while and now he's playing you guys to get everyone all fired up. I just think it's a waste of all of our time and energy.

You can vote with your feet and just leave Lunch. And like I said at the beginning i will respect your decision to do so. I hope you decide to stick around as I really enjoy reading your content and the community would miss you guys.

J.R."


To which I say:


Mackshere has sent me copies of his messages to this tool and unless he's dicking me around (which he's never done before)the lies in that message are LARGE.

Here is Lunch's official statement on what they do not allow and my comments on them: www.lunch.com/Forums-HelpForum-What_s_not_OK_on_Lunch_-67-1-1.html

Funny, this JR guy seems to have made up his own guidelines and didn't bother to post them publicly. THAT is bad for business. Wanker.

So that's where it's at, fellas. I've got three days off to sort this out and we'll see what happens. Worse case scenario, I quit reviewing altogether. Lunch is an amazing reviewing site. The very best and getting better, in fact. But there are some things I will not stand for and I'm not feeling like going back to Amazon (who have zero problem with Mackshere's reviews, by the way). Since The Fortress has been quiet, I thought I'd offer up some drama.

[The Curmudgeon]

Quiet day or not, this shit belongs in here.

I'd be interested to read what comments/reviews have got Lunch so hot and bothered in the first place. What did you say to get them pissed, Trash?

One of my major gripes with the internet are those that police it, often because, as the old saying goes, power corrputs. That's a cliche, but I've been removed from sites so many times, just because someone with the power to click "ban" doesn't like what he/she reads.

It's a tricky situation, and props to this guy for at least contacting you with a lengthy personal message (something you sure wouldn't get on Amazon). But unless its pointless spam or pornography, I don't see why any comments should be banned. Who's to say what gets printed and what doesn't? Your initial Lunch review on the subject was pretty damn definitive, Trash, so I won't repeat anything you've already said. But once there's someone reading over things and removing them, that's a slippery slope and one I have always had a problem with.

Keep us up to date on this, Trash.

[trashcanman]

That's just the thing, C. They DIDN'T send me a personal message. They sent it to Count Orlok (who had little to do with this) because they know who the hell I am and I smash idiots on that site regularly and mercilessly with pure logic. They won't deal with me personally. Orlok has kept me busy imploring me to delete any comments critical of Lunch and airing the dirty laundry and I've told him BULLSHIT and I believe the best way to handle this is to make a loud enough noise publicly to let all of our friends know what is happening and why so they can make their feelings known. Orlok thinks I'm being selfish and trying to bring everybody else down with me and the best thing to do is accept whatever they tell us behind closed doors and let Mackshere get banned. I won't post any more of our PM's because Orlok has asked me not to and he's still a friend so I will respect his cowardly wishes, but there are tons of comments under that review that tell the basic story.

Mackshere is being banned under false pretense for violating rules that we all violate. And they aren't actually rules in the sense that there is anything you can read in public that tells you you can't say that. They are JR's personal rules and he apparently decides who and when he enforces them on behind closed doors. I believe if you are going to ban a member with triple digit reviews who is in the site's top-ten and has an extensive friends list that you need to be able to produce the alleged complaints in quantity and variety of plaintiffs. If one stupid bitch follows Mack around just so she can flag him every time he uses the word "hooker" (no joke, they made him change site), that hardly counts. JR is acting like they've received thousands of complaints and people are uprooting their content and leaving because of him. But here's the thing. Mackshere's account has long been "quarantined". Basically, whenever anybody does anything on Lunch there is a data feed on the homepage that tells you what the latest activity on the site is. So when I comment on a review or post a review of my own or whatever, it shows up as part of that feed. Lunch removed Mack from that feed long ago. And since noting he does is ever featured (and our reviews are ignored these days as well) his content is invisible to anyone who doesn't go looking for it. So where exactly are these complaints coming from? They won't tell. They say that they can't show us what Mackshere has done to get banned so I had him PM them and publicly post on that link in my opening post here that he has nothing to hide and us authorizing them to share anything at all that they have on him. They've been gone for the weekend and I'm sure were hoping this wojuld blow over. Not. Bloody. Likely. I'm still waiting for contact and am rallying the troops in the meantime.

Check your messages on Lunch, too, C. I know I sent some out concerning this. Lunch is made up of a handful of core members and a shitload of people who show up, post a handful of reviews and comments, and then move along. Now, if a few chicks showed up here to post sad weight-loss stories and talk about all of the baby-strollers they own and they saw something I posted that they didn't like and threatened to delete all of their posts if you didn't ban me, what would you say to that? Exactly. Check the comments on my Censorship review. There's plenty more to this, but no way I can keep track of it all and post it here. I'll let you know when I finally make contact with the Imperial destroyers.

[trashcanman]

It appears the war is at an end. And the rebels have lost. Read on.


From: jrjohnson
Received: Jun 7, 2010 05:45 PM PDT
To: trashcanman

Hey Nick.

Thanks for the note Nick. I can tell you're really upset about this. I'm not sure how to respond to this. But if you decide to leave, i totally respect it.

I"m sorry you had the impression that this was a site where there was "no censorship" as you say, because that's not accurate. If i led you to believe that somehow that you have a "blank sheet of virtual paper" to say what ever you want , then that's my bad. There are a lot of types of content that aren't permitted on the site... as a starting point, just check our user agreement and beyond what is listed there Lunch still has the ability to remove anything or anyone. We obviously don't want to or like to do it because for our business to succeed we need a lot of people enjoying using the site. So for us to remove anything or anyone is a big step. I'm not going to talk about any issues relating to any pending actions we are taking but suffice it to say that no one has been deleted without numerous explanations as to why and that is way more due process than would provided on many sites. So therefore, we have treated you "senior lunchers" with a lot of respect by taking the time and energy to explain it rather than just acting without warning.

As far as your inability to stay on Lunch, i understand that you will leave. If it's not tomorrow it will be some time soon because i can tell from your note that censorship is so core to your personal beliefs that i know we are going to delete something or someone that you disagree with at some point. It's going to happen. Hell, you think i'm "insane and bigoted". btw, that is really offensive. I want people on Lunch who enjoy it... you obviously don't enjoy it anymore, and you should find a site that more aligns with the core values that are most important to you... and that obviously involves a place with zero censorship. We will continue to delete content that is in violation of our user agreement and additionally any content that glorifies violence especially toward women. The content will be deleted and the member will be warned. If that member continues to post that type of content, their account will be deleted. Simple.

If you want us to delete your account provide you a text file for your content, i'm happy to do that. I'm sorry that we've offended you so deeply. Good luck.

J.R.



And my reply:


I appreciate your response. When I say "blank sheet" I am not referring to your intent, but rather to the data point format, which is essentially exactly that. It's brilliant and I really do think any limitations aside from explicitly pornographic content or hate speech is very much a shame. And obviously, "insane" was a bit over the top, but I tend to categorize things I can't comprehend and can't be logically defended as such so please don't take it personally. Freedom is not just a buzzword. To me, it's a way of life in real life or on the internet. Right is always right and wrong is always wrong no matter if you are talking about a country or a website. And singling out things you or someone else doesn't like and attempting to eliminate them out of simple personal preference is the epitome of bigotry so if that upsets yo, sorry. The word reflects your actions. Look it up. I'm flexible and willing to negotiate on nearly any number of solutions to make everyone happy (which can happen) and you are obstinately condemned to stay the course with no room to so much as explain the reasoning your actions in factual detail. There's only one way to look at that kind of situation and the view upsets you, there's no reason not to alter the situation.

And the meaning of your standards of conduct is nebulous-to-indecipherable. What exactly qualifies as "glorifying" violence? Does The Godfather not glorify violence as much as any horror movie? Does the prevalence of violence in entertainment qualify as glorification? If so, then pretty much every movie is guilty. James Bond is a hero with a license to kill anyone he wants and he regularly slaps women; yet I've seen an entire community dedicated to him be featured on the site. The only reason such language is used is to give somebody the power to discriminate based on personal preference. One user can post violent content as long as you and yours enjoy that particular version of violence....even against women. But if somebody a little less in favor posts something with a more realistic depiction (which is not meant to glorify, but to sicken) you shut them down. In my mind, bloodless violence where the conquering hero slaps his lady down for talking back and then simply points at a villain with his gun and they fall down -the day now saved- is way more glorifying than a horror film that portrays violence as a disgusting and disturbing thing that makes you want to look away from what is surely a more realistic version of a similar act that is portrayed as heroic in a mainstream action film. There is a certain thrill to be gained by these bold and adult portrayals that those of us who truly love cinema can appreciate on a level that people who prefer watered-down and childish portrayals of these things cannot. The fact of the matter is you user agreement can quite literally be interpreted to ban just about anyone you choose if they dare to venture into the realm of art be it movies, television, books, video games, paintings, or anything else.

Anyways, I can see you're an immovable object on this matter and you're the man with big red button so you can very much do what you will. Just be aware that as surely as I am being loud and obnoxious about this there is no shortage of fellow Lunchers quietly waiting to see if the content they stick around for will still be there. I've been told by more than a couple members that guys like myself, Woopak and Christy are exactly why they enjoy the site so it's not just a matter of losing a few very loud members. For every one of us willing to stand up and shout there are a great many watching who will simply lose interest and go elsewhere. It's not a threat or a warning, but a sociological fact. Like I said, I've had an inkling that this may be your intent and if that is so, it's been fun. I've invested a great amount of time and energy here and it does not please me to see that end, but if the site wishes to go that way, that's what's going to happen. But do realize that we are not mad dogs out to ruin your site and offend people. it's a very simple manner not to read something you don't want to see. But seeking it out specifically to censor something you otherwise would ignore completely just because you can is the ultimate act of online intolerance. if you don't like that wording, I'm afraid the only way to make it untrue is to change your actions so they no longer fit. The meaning of words like bigotry, censorship, and intolerance stay the same regardless of whether or not you practice them. These age-old practices don't come to you, you go to them.

I would appreciate taking you up on your offer for my content in a file, if I could. I haven't decided whether I'm moving on elsewhere or taking some time off from my hobby, but I did work pretty hard on that content and would like to have the option to post it elsewhere in the future if I so choose. Thanks for the good times, JR, and good luck to you.

Nick



So that's what time it is. Where to proceed from here, I'll have to wait and see. but I'll get by with a little help from my friends and JR and company will continue to sit in his power chair with a stick up his ass searching for reviews to be offended by. Maybe I'm not the one who lost, after all.

[The Curmudgeon]

Like you said, man, he's the guy with the big red button. Fucking sucks, I know, but when it comes to trying to change someone's mind about what's offensive or not, it's all just words on a screen. I'm curious, what exactly was posted that started all of this off?

And if you ask me, it IS their fucking loss. Lunch is a baby website, and to lose guys like you who've contributed hours and hours of material.. that's gotta hurt. Look at me - I managed two damn reviews before the novelty wore off. Finding dedicated, long term members is no easy task.

I saw your last bulletin too. Bummer. A real shame.

[trashcanman]

I believe it was a review of the horror/sexploitation movie "Emmanuelle and the Last Cannibals" where Chris suggested that the movie had too much sex and not enough gore or something like that. While the movie is not my thing, the review itself was much tamer than the sort of thing I typically write. They've been hassling him for a while and he says they have made him remove words like "strippers" from his reviews and also forced him to censor the title of the Tool song "Hooker With A Penis". I gave a positive review for Zombie Strippers, for crying out loud. And don't get me started on Woopak's taste. He's reviewed some of the most violently misogynistic films and even had them featured on the site. JR actually went on to ask me to inform on any reviews I knew of that violated his made-up guidelines. I'd be there for months. And hell no I'm not about to fet other reviewers in trouble. Can't believe he thought he was going to enlist me on his censorship brigade.

[The Curmudgeon]

But surely if you're reviewing an actual film with that content that's acceptable? I can understand them wanting to delete bad language or racial/sexual insults and shit like that, but to ban members because of the choice of film they want to talk about? That makes no sense whatsoever. It's a website devoted to reviewing things YOU are into and letting others know about them. So, what, if it's not fucking Transformers 2 it's not allowed? I can't believe you stuck that shit for so long, Trashy. That is garbage.

Not allowing porn - I understand. Not allowing threats, sexual/racial dialogue - I understand. But to remove or ban the review of genuine music and movies that you can legally buy.. what is the point of that? Lunch deserves to sink without trace because of that.

[trashcanman]

Yup. I'm pretty bummed. They left us alone for a long time and just let us sit in our own little corner so I was cool. They pretty much stopped featuring any of our stuff and they actually made Chris invisible by making it so he didn't even appear on the activity feed. They used to have a top ten members list, but we all wound up at the top of it so they changed it to a "featured members" list where they'd just put random people with like 3 reviews total and shit. This was not sudden. When they tried to ban Chris under false pretense, I knew it was time for the endgame. That site was awesome. You saw some of my reviews right? SOOOO much cooler than Amazon. That's why I made it home. I'm still kind of regretful since I met some really awesome new friends who aren't likely to follow me wherever I choose to go and I doubt I'll find a reviewing format I like as much. But I'd do the same thing over again given a choice. Some things I just won't abide and that fucker's attitude towards his site's biggest and best contributors is right at the top. But nobody harasses my online homies that way without a decent explanation and retains my services.

[The Curmudgeon]

So did you officially retire then, Trash?

[trashcanman]

Probably not. I know that kind of thing never lasts so I wouldn't proclaim it. But for right now I'm laying off and will transfer my Lunch reviews to Amazon so my time wasn't wasted. When I feel like writing again, I will.