On one of forums I use, an interesting topic has arisen. Someone has written:

“Ok so a while ago in the news there was controversy about a teacher having sex with a 12 year old boy he might have been a little older but anyway it wasnt forced or anything the boy was willing the female was very pretty according to other peoples standards she was in playboy or something and because she is a atractive female they didnt want to put her in jail and because the boy wanted to have sex as well but because of her age and his young age it is illegal if it was a man he would be in jail faster then you can blink.”

My answer was:
I don’t see anything wrong with it if both sides are willing. Hence she was much older she carried responsibility for protection.
I am not sure about realizing consequences… As to going pregnant I said than it is responsibility of the older but about psychic consequences… It really depends on person. I red nonsenses in some books about children staring to discover sexuality in teeny age. It is true for some but others (I am not sure about gender but definitely it is true for males) are sexually “awake” since “always” that means the age 2+ (some say even younger but of course in a different way, they write that even infants experience sexual pleasure). Of course it is not the same as by older persons but many young boys in an age above 10 would react on so opportunity with a scream of joy as above. I am certain that I would had no problem with it even in a much younger age if the partner would be gentle and indulgent. Besides children sometimes plays with their sexuality spontaneous. It couldn’t be called straight sex (mostly) but sometimes very close to it. Would it be seen as a crime too? I think it is completely different case.

It is interesting that handicapped children have no social breaks in that topic so when living together they often could be cached on having sex…

I think that those laws are for protection against abuse because in some cases there would be really better to wait cos psychological consequences are hard to predict but there is no clear and constant borders and human sexuality is probably not enough investigated and covered in cultural codes.
Summarizing, in general I am against treating this as criminal case as long as there is no pressure from any of sides and everything is going by mutual agreement.

On LJ group Theist Satanism user bookoflies in his post turned my attention to English version of article “MARILYN MANSON, BEHEMOTH To Be Banned From Performing In Poland? – June 16, 2007″. This information is well familiar to me. It is one of many blatantly stupid events in Poland lately, of course thanks to present “beloved” extreme right wing government.

Below is a fragment of that article:

Michal Stangret of Poland’s Metro reports that a Polish anti-sect organization calling itself the All-Polish Committee for Defence against Sects has compiled a list of artists who allegedly “promote Satanism” through their music. The list, which will be distributed to various Polish officials in July, will likely result in the artists becoming registered and getting banned from performing in Poland.

“Until now it has been unclear which bands promote these values, and therefore the authorities, unaware of the facts, have allowed these kinds of concerts to be organized, in the process giving these bands a platform from which they could spread their dangerous message. So we decided to help them,” explained Ryszard Nowak, who heads the All-Polish Committee for Defence against Sects.

According to Nowak, hundreds of bands who have performed in Poland over the course of the last 20 years have been evaluated before the final list was compiled. Just exactly which artists will be included? The document’s creators are unwilling to reveal that information just yet but it is almost certain that Polish acts BEHEMOTH and KAT, as well as American shock-rocker MARILYN MANSON, will make the cut.

“The index will not only contain metal bands, but also rock artists,” Nowak explained, before adding that the list will include any groups who promote Satanism or encourage murder and animal sacrifice.

The document will be distributed to government authorities and various other officials around the country. Some of the local governments are already looking forward to receiving it.

My commentary (here I place slightly extended version) which I posted to mentioned above group says:

This Novak is crazy fanatic. His organization isn’t linked with Catholic church or any official anti-sect organizations. Moreover, they deny having anything in common with him, recognizing him as insane, uneducated, dabbler and potentially dangerous maniac. You can read the official statement here (only in polish language). Alas there are still many naive but influential people who are stupid to give him any credit so he was able to stop few particular concerts few years ago but people weren’t fully aware at that time with whom they were dealing with. His constantly blatant stupid actions and public accusations makes him more and more ridicule so hopefully it’s just sensational news but without any consequences. I write hopefully because with present extreme right wing brainless polish government and toady, officious administration everything is possible and so the danger that any most incredibly stupid idea will hold on and will be incorporated into practice.

“This thread is a part of Theistic Satanism Blog Network. All comments must follow these rules.”

It’s a response on Diane’s post.

Diane
The problem is that, if a comment contains even a very brief offhand borderline political remark, even this can have an extreme “red flag” effect on many of the people who have strong disagreements with the political viewpoint in question.

If someone will react that way then I agree that the discussion should be forwarded to different thread with different tag but till no one clearly tend to discuss it further I don’t see reason to forbid mentioning it right away in a first comment (again, if it’s not broader part of the post). Maybe I place general stipulation on my journal that further responses not holding to TS BN guidlines will be forwarded to new entry with a proper tag but such considerations seem rather like splitting a tiger’s skin on a living tiger. I think that every blog will have its own specific, advantages, disadvantages and own moderation issues so will see what happen. We have main guidelines and that should be sufficient for the start.
I’m personally not interested in discussing strict political topics hence I though TS-eth-pol wouldn’t be a group for me but surprisingly I found out that the most interesting discussions and subjects were lead there. I don’t mind if others are willing to follow the discussion into strict political debate if it holds on cultural level. Even on your Yahoo group people haven’t been often discussing politic of particular country but rather social, ethical problems or more general, international politic which I find interesting.

You would not necessarily have to forward the comment. I’ve suggested several alternatives. However, in my opinion, something should be done immediately in response to even the first hint of a sociopolitical digression, to mitigate the red-flag effect, rather than waiting for it to turn into a full-blown political debate.

Like I stated above: we’ll see if problems occurs.

The first step is a preventive measure: Requiring all new bloggers to engage in discussion about the rules on their blogs, as a way of trying to ensure that they all understand the rules. It probably would be a good idea to have a private Yahoo group for the bloggers as well, so that ongoing issues can be dealt with in a semi-private manner.

It’s a good idea. However in best case if the TS BN will be very successful , sacrificing so many time for each blogger will be impossible for you but bloggers private group could help us to share with others with moderation problems and how in particular case it was solved.
It would be good if at the beginning there would be more than ten willing bloggers. I hope that most still wait till everything will work properly or for situation where they wouldn’t have any other alternative. It’s also possible that quite many people hope your idea won’t work and nothing or little will change or that everything will settle somehow by itself, without doing much from their side… It is you who feel the biggest need for change. For most participants Yahoo groups are not perfect but comfortable and easy solution and they likely prefer it will stay that way.

Note the additional alternative I added at the end.

Most will probably prefer the easiest and the least labour-consuming solution but hence people will be dealing with different moderation issues the solutions will be different for each blogger. I self can’t say for sure which one I will prefer at the end.

Introduction posts were a great idea to start and roll discussion but now I can’t imagine how it would work on blog network. The big role played beginners who are excited and starve for contact with like minded people. TS BN could be some kind of challenge but for others it will be simply an obstacle and they will seek other place. Is there any reasonable idea for such potential active group or they must simply work this out?
To lave periodically an entry with invitation to write introductions as comments? Strange idea and probably not too functional. But on other hand TS BN is not to please everybody. It sifts strongly.

[...]I’ve had much better luck finding bloggers than finding co-moderators.

Because this is something new, fresh and thus exciting. Additionally being blogger moderator one have more freedom and is not so timely obliged as it would be by Yahoo group where regular receiving posts through the day is very important feature.

Diane answered here on my previous post “TS Blog Network rules“. She also updated TS BN rules site and asked me to take another look on it and comment in details what points would be unclear, etc.

Diane also wrote:
“Zalbarath says he finds my draft page Theistic Satanism Blog Network: Tag topicality and other rules and guidelines to be more confusing than the rules for my Yahoo groups.

This surprises me. Zalbarath, are you sure that the blog network rules are actually more complicated, or are you just disappointed that they aren’t several orders of magnitude simpler? Offhand, I don’t see any ways that the blog network rules are more complicated than the Yahoo group rules, except that some issues are discussed as gray areas rather than as absolute black-and-white prohibitions.”

Well, I thought it through, red your updated rules site and I agree now that they’re not more complicated per se but rather more complicated than I expected. I awaited just a few very basic and obvious guidelines but it was naive from my site to think you will let it that way. I must admit that after reading your explanations Why all these rules, it all seems to be more clear and maybe I just needed some time to digest it. This time I red it really carefully, what took quite much of my time, and knowing what I should expect this time it wasn’t so confusing. I admit also that by my first response emotional factor played important role. I was disappointed by the increase of planned tags on topical division (which I was against) and detailed rules what one should post or not under particular tag. Besides, even when you would have right I would protest as well… First, your rules are worked out in years but I don’t have similar experience and I can only logically agree with them or not but it’s not the same as self experience and it tempts to make it in own way, even when it would be more troubling or/and in final I would came to similar solutions. Second, in many fields of life I act like a dictator and dislike when someone establish rules for me even when they seems to be right and, what is probably also a factor here, I have typical polish contrariness…
Anyway, after second look on your rules and thanks to extended section with explanations I tend to agree with you or maybe more understand you but it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have differences at some points but it’s irrelevant now.
What I find worrying is that maybe first TS BN users – owner of blogs will try to keep your rules scrupulously but assuming that in the future there will be more willing persons (and not exactly pedantic ones) I can’t imagine that all of them will maintain their blogs so well as you wish to because it’s want you want – you want us to moderate our blogs so strict as you.
Jason King mentioned also lately on TS-eth-pol about time factor and I think he’s right about it. Having to moderate own blogs is maybe much less work as the entire forum/blog network but anyway for many it won’t be main activity so some discussions could stick in dead point from the lack of time or irregularity of blog owner. That was also probably one of very important factors why you haven’t found too many co-moderators.

There is another aspect (a positive one) of your TS BN. It selects blog owners to very few who are really interested and are ready to sacrifice their time to participate on that level and this probably could be your dreamed target group (or hopefully close to it) of intelligent and sane theistic Satanists but it will limit (at least at the beginning) strongly the count of participants. Now it’s just a matter of question how strong participation will be and if it would be enough to keep the whole network alive, evolving and spreading. On the other hand your blog network will in some way teach how to manage groups successfully and without trouble and if this idea will work maybe you will have some of your future successors. Like you have elsewhere noticed your forums aren’t anymore the only place where we can find intelligent and sane discussion but still they’re in many ways unique and your TS BN could still improve it. It would be like your heritage .
But I aberred from the main topic – rules. I concentrate on point 4 and 5 as other are pretty clear and I don’t have much to add.

4. Blogger discretion on comment policy.
That is a good one:
“[...]if by some miracle a post with the Theistic Satanists only or Satanists and Pagans and occultists only tag gets an inoffensive comment from a friendly Christian[...]“
A by side commentary: LOL, I wonder why many thinks you have no sense of humor? Your articles and sermons contain after all many subtle ironical remarks which I find quite entertaining – collision of your serious, scientific style with this little intrusions grant them more force, spice – but maybe that’s just me.

You wrote:
“It is okay for bloggers to make occasional spur-of-the-moment exceptions to announced comment policies. But there’s no point in announcing a comment policy if you don’t intend to enforce it at all. If you do make exceptions, then it is usually a good idea – though not required – for you to follow those exceptions with comments of your own stating explicitly that you’ve made an exception and why, so that other onlookers don’t assume they have carte blanche to break your stated rules.“
What I like is not to make too many own detailed rules (yours are more than enough complex) but solely disclaimer about possibility of making by me exceptions or decisions au currant. Each situation is different and it’s hard to foresee all possibilities and I like to feel free to act as I wish without being limited by previous stated rules. I realize that is definitely not the best behavior toward potential commentators. Solid rules give them clear view on my own policy but by that so to say I give them too much power and possibility to appeal to rules which in certain case could be limiting or not well formulated. Like I said I’m bossy person and like to have all strings in my hands as far it’s possible… but it doesn’t mean I like to misuse it. I rather let as much freedom as feasible and will act only in more extreme cases (at least in theory, how it would look like in practice I don’t know yet but definitely I don’t like to censor people in any way but realize it’s sometimes necessary). But I’m talking here rather about additional disclaimers of blog owners. Now when I understand your motives better it is easier to accept your guidelines as reasonable solution and moderate according to them.

Diane
“[...]A pingback can effectively serve as, for example, a way of adding a political response to a nonpolitical discussion without derailing the original comment thread, or a way that a Christian can respond to a discussion otherwise limited to Satanists, Pagans, and occultists, again without derailing the original thread. (But it’s a good idea to reject even pings from blogs that advocate criminal activity, or that are otherwise in flagrant violation of the terms of service.)“
I’m not sure if I understand the idea of pingback. When you responded to my post on your journal I received (automatic?) pingback WorPress mail notification about it. My question is: does this happens automatically every time somebody places a link to message (on WP) from other entry of WP member? Do I need to do something additionally besides placing a link?

5. Topics to be avoided under some tags, but allowed under others
The most complex and treacherous tag or topics would be Satanisms and society – exactly as it is with TS-eth-pol now. I’m glad you explained broadly what topics are to be placed under this tag but I don’t agree with the rule about even not mentioning some topics (I mean in comments, I assume blog owners will show more carefulness in main entries). If the main content holds the borders and just slightly (I know it’s very unspecific) goes beyond them I don’t see need to undertake any special treatment (like creating a new entry with forwarded part) but only if someone would want to go further in that subject then new thread with an appropriate tag would be set. The problem is that in many posts people tend to mention some topics which according to you belong to TS-eth-pol/Satanism and society and they do it unaware. It’s quite pissing to write a post in a good will that it holds to rules and to find out that just one sentence or short fragment violates the rule and moderator cuts the post, place it elsewhere and so on. It could be felt as humiliating or be too catchy about “stupid” rules. I think it would be sufficient to add disclaimer that socio-political topics (or particular one mentioned in post) should be avoided but if some wants really to discuss it further a new thread will be created after responding on that subject. If there would be no further interest in that direction it would be not necessary to move original comment. What I want to tell is that only by clear development of discussion in that direction it would have sense to create new entry with forwarded fragment and it’s not necessary to enforce it every time it appears. It had point on your Yahoo groups but on blogs to forward new entry every time when someone goes beyond permissible topic seems to create “empty” entries waiting for response but without having one. So act only by response not by mentioning. Maybe I’m wrong about that? It’s anyway just theorizing and one must see it in practice so maybe it’s pointless to consider it now.
Probably I won’t have too much trouble with managing tags because it’s quite possible there will be not much traffic on my journal. I don’t post too often and feel much better in answering, responding and my original posts here, as you probably noticed, lack of substance. I’m not a writer type or diary type so I don’t feel much need to start threads, write my thoughts etc. I’m used to keep it in mind, besides writing takes me too much time. Posting an entry without clear addressing seems strange to me, unnatural. I accommodate myself and my responses to the person I talk to (so I don’t like crowd, I feel much bester by personal discussion than by group discussion) and I have clearness what I should write. Maybe it will change in the future and I develop myself in other area as well?

How would you manage appropriate tagging or other moderation problems? Via personal email or maybe through forum or blog? I recall you mentioned a special yahoo group for it. Is your idea still current?

Diane provided link to proposed rules page of her Theistic Satanism Network:
http://www.theisticsatanism.com/net/rules.html
I tried to red it very carefully but after a while I gave up. Is it a joke?!
Diane, your TS Blog Network was for loosing rules and new ones are even more confusing – dozens times more as the old ones which were in my opinion not so complicated! Lot of people complained about old ones so I can easily imagine how they will feel now. You recognized many problems to apply your rules by using blog network in comparison to yahoo groups and propose solutions but it makes everything more complicated. Maybe characteristic of this Blog Network simply doesn’t allow for such strict general solutions? That was actually the base of this idea. To give us more freedom and more time for you and now it looks like you want us to dance as you play even using blogs when you’re not in the same position… Do you like to struggle continuously with TS BN members about properly using of tags or any so complex rules as you propose? It sounds like a more troubles for you as it was before.
The thing is that the journal is mine (so to say, apart of provider policy and so on) and I don’t let so easily other to tell me what I should do. It’s a different situation. Diane, you can enforce only very few and general rules but nothing like that! I liked the primary idea of division on Theistic Satanists and Interfaith and maybe one more. I think Troll playground would be ok for some. Topical limitation rules are pointless or at least I don’t understand their purpose. Why every one of us should think all the time, along with discussion, about changing tags because of someones commentary which we want to keep and now the thread doesn’t past to your TS BN topic policy (assuming I don’t want it in that particular case)? It should be mine decision how to manage particular topics not yours! I’m supporter of following model of managing: just few strict general rules and that’s it. Every case I consider separately according to my personal judgment. if I want to avoid some subject it’s up to me. If I’m interested to develop discussion on my blog in particular direction then why not?
For instance if I start thread for theistic Satanists only and among many topical and personal proper posts there will be one interesting comment from non Satanist, should I not let it through? Changing to interfaith tag will be anyway strange because most of the thread is for Theistic Satanism only and I want to stay that way. Exceptions are for me always allowed, if they’re not annoying tendencies. The thing is that discussions are lead or will be lead on particular personal blogs so topical rules would be strong unrecommended IMO. Dancing between tags and commentaries like “please to avoid topic X” (maybe in particular case I don’t wish to avoid that topic?) are unpleasant and I can’t imagine that majority of TS BN members will like it too. You fall in the same trap. You have your reasons for topical limitations but do they apply for such blog network? I can understand that you want us to avoid some political/ethical and other issues so your “Things we must avoid under all tags” are acceptable, also recommended guidelines are reasonable. That is fine but the topical limitations are disturbing. Maybe you have right about them, I can’t tell for sure but something inside me screams NO! Unless they’re only very general ones and that what is on your TS BG rule page is not fully acceptable. It doesn’t mean I intend to violate them on purpose but only that I will try keep them generally but hold rather to my judgment without too strict thinking about your detailed rules and will see what happens.
I’m very curious what other think about it…

P.S. You have clear ideas what you want to accomplish hence the rules but for others it’s vague so the rules seem to be superfluous or unnecessary complicated. And even they’re would be needed you won’t be loved for it either.
And one more thing. I understand that any rules apply only for entries with TS BN tags and others stay apart of it have more private, loosely character. Right? I do realize that many of your most general rules are for us to keep us safe from trouble so it would be wise to follow them beside Blog Network as well.