Mar

10

Pledge This! Or, you know, not

Written by

Bwog heard rumors from CCSC higher-ups that President Michelle Diamond has spoken to Dean Colombo about the feasibility of banning Juicy Campus from Columbia’s servers. He informed her that it’s both expensive and impossible to do—though Zach van Schouwen could have told her that weeks ago. Also, Columbia’s lawyers have advised against it—though, of course, the writers of the Constitution could have told her that hundreds of years ago. Mystery: solved. 

Anyway, Diamond is reportedly hoping to kick-start a campus-wide “pledge” against Juicy Campus, which would basically involve its signees agreeing to avoid reading the site. 

It’s really all just PR 101: If you circulate a campus-wide petition against something, it will quietly fade away.  

UDAPTE: Gothamist has a screen shot of Juicy Campus (!), and links to our coverage of the upheaval. You can read about it here

– JNW

Tags: ,

52 Comments

  1. I gave my Word

    To Stop at Bwog?

    Seriously, what happened to Boredatbutler?

  2. Jonah Goldberg  

    This is an obvious example of liberal fascism.

  3. ...  

    at first i thought juicycampus was stupid. i mean come on, it's pretty much just about the ugliest website ever, not to mention slow as molasses. on top of that, the concept is beyond cheesy. postings have a "JUICY" rating? come on! who the hell says "JUICY"? where do these people come from? the whole thing looks like it was conceived and implemented by a 10 year old.

    but now i have a newfound respect for the site. i'm impressed. very impressed. it's basically an invitation for idiotic student leaders to make complete fools of themselves.... AND IT'S WORKING!

    seriously. now we have a feeble minded member of the student government of _one undergraduate school_ calling to institute _university wide_ content filtering policies.

    it's brilliant. absolutely brilliant.

  4. ...  

    michelle diamond and all of ccsc wants it banned because they are the subjects of the posts. god forbid they might not get their future i banking jobs

  5. only reason  

    my friends started looking at this page is because of all the attempts to ban it. nice job spreading the word.

  6. agreed  

    never used to read it, but now i find myself perusing the site when im bored because everyone has made a big deal about it.

  7. meh  

    Where was CCSC calling for a banning of BWOG last year when that skinny gal with the music video was being bashed in the comments section?

    • Well  

      Most hateful comments on bwog get moderated. On JuicyCampus.com you won't be moderated unless you post things that aren't "juicy," such as food recipes, as it says in their FAQ. Vitriol is welcome and encouraged on juicycampus and innocent people are being slandered for no reason. Then all the web 2.0 cheerleaders scream about the first amendment.

      • just saw juicycampus  

        this website is absolutely appalling... there has to be some way to protect people from being placed on "slut" lists, and having the alleged odors of their private parts or whether or not they're sleeping with their friends' boyfriends discussed online for everyone to see. it's completely unfair. everyone who is defending the website would be singing if a different tune if there was something personal and embarrassing about them up there. freedom of speech is not an issue- you can get sued for slander.

        and for all the idiots who are posting on juicycampus, it looks to me like if things got really serious cops would have no problem tracing the IP addresses of posters.

        and otherwise, it's disturbing to me that anyone i see on campus could be one of the morons writing disgusting things. where do these people get off? i hope they all get caught and their names get attached to what they wrote so that if they apply for a job and someone googles them it's the first thing that comes up. that'd serve 'em right.

  8. lol  

    Wow, Michelle Diamond. This makes you look like a complete idiot.

  9. what  

    "Diamond is reportedly hoping to kick-start a campus-wide "pledge" against Juicy Campus, which would basically involve its signees agreeing to avoid reading the site."

    this is the most idiotic idea I've ever heard, and a sure-fire way to make the nasty comments on aforementioned site only increase.

    • meh  

      It is abundantly obvious that CCSC has bought stock in JC, and is now pumping up interest in the site before dumping it. Shrewd.

      • well

        The only hole in your theory, and it's a gaping one, is that it presumes a certain level of intelligence on the part of CCSC. And I've seen no evidence to back that presumption.

        Oh well. At least we give them the benefit of the doubt.

  10. hahaha  

    "slow as molasses" great line

    the pledge idea is beyond lame.

  11. i was supposed to

    take a pledge in high school not to drink before, during or after the prom.

    did i sign the card that was handed out? no. and why? because it was totally thought up by some auto insurance company to reduce liability claims.

    the take home point here, is that pledges, contracts, and covenants are just ways that the man tries to keep you down.

    and remember a contract with god is totally invalid. he is like a child or a retarded person in that he totally cannot enter into contract.

  12. seriously?

    Michelle,

    Your efforts are a bit too earnest here. The attempt to suppress freedom of speech (even though you cant)("remove from columbia servers"?, haha, come on) because it is not following playground rules is a mark of immaturity and of a lack of leadership.

    Seriously talk to students about this on campus. Not your mother. I think you'd find that the majority of people would want to ignore this issue and let the site's popularity die down. Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

    I would also add that since the Spec stopped writing about boredat.net (previously bored at butler), the activity dropped noticeably.

  13. Yeah  

    grow up Michelle. As someone had mentioned before, [email protected] is littered with racism, so why aren't you raging against that? Part of being a campus celebrity, or any kind of status figure, is unwanted attention / obnoxious rumor-mongering, so suck it up.

  14. CLARIFICATION

    First of all, for the record, CCSC NEVER CALLED FOR THE WEBSITE TO BE BANNED. This is a misconception that has been going around for the last couple weeks. It is true that Michelle floated the idea at a meeting. But a bunch of ideas were floated at that meeting from outrage at the idea of a ban to the bizarre idea of suing this website.

    As a member of CCSC who disagreed with Michelle on this, I would appreciate it if people stop saying CCSC tried to ban this.

    Michelle Diamond is the President of CCSC but she is not as an individual CCSC. I for one (and probably most of the council) would have opposed that idea.

    In her defense, even though Michelle floated the idea, I know for a fact that she realized it's a bad idea not long after she suggested it.

    • wrong, wrong, wrong!

      From her Feb. 27th email:

      "At our Council meeting this Sunday, we will be discussing what action we can take to have this site banned from
      the Columbia server."

      Looks like she was trying to ban it. I think she just got shot down 1312459 times before she could.

  15. CLARIFICATION 2  

    No one was talking about banning the website until the idea was raised at a CCSC meeting. (In fact, I wouldn't have even known about the website if you guys - or some of you guys - hadn't made such a big deal out of it).

  16. lol @ stupidity

    I bet this michelle diamond got gangbanged and is afraid it'll show up on the site

  17. hmm  

    first amendment doesn't apply to private instituions, e.g. columbia. even bollinger has said that.

    • Explain  

      I am intrigued

    • ...  

      well sure... if an institution wants to restrict what people can do with their resources, they are free to do so. duh.

      that doesn't make the idea of filtering the internet for content on a college campus any less ridiculous. especially a college campus that is named after a country that bases it's identity on the civil liberties it protects for it's citizens...

    • that's true  

      about public schools too. By enrolling, you give up certain liberties (they can search your locker, for instance, as it is technically school property). That's why lots of colleges have religious affiliations. You agree to the rules of the school when you come. We can just argue that it's un-American or teaching us the wrong values.

    • while

      bollinger has said that legally the first amendment doesn't apply to bollinger, it certainly will under his reign. bollinger as first amendment champion looks like a total douche ever time columbia looks like it is squelching first amendment rights, and he is sick of looking like a d-bag.

      so if you complain loud enough to him (i.e. make sure you or a friend are in free speech and press) you will total be able to do all the soap-boxing and whatever else the first amendment allows you to do.

    • to be clear though

      this is correct


      google 'speech code' if you don't believe it

  18. ...  

    wow neat... number one story on digg right now!

    michelle diamond! kentucky needs YOU!!

    http://www.wtvq.com/content/midatlantic/tvq/video.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2008-03-05-0011.html

  19. oh michelle  

    don't you realize that by doing this you're just adding to your problems? if you were SO offended that your name was popping up all over juicycampus, the best thing you could have done was to just shut up and let it pass. It's the old bully from 5th grade story—they will leave you alone if you just pretend to ignore them. but ohhhh no, you had to be a big idiot and make a huge deal out of this whole thing, and now you're in an even worse position.

    guess what, michelle? Bwog comments are searchable by google, whereas juicy campus comments are not. so now, anyone will be able to search your name and see "I bet michelle diamond was gangbanged" or whatever that other commenter said. No one can google juicycampus posts. basically, you've just given this all so much publicity that you end up looking like a big pro-censorship, first amendment flouting idiot. so please, for all of us, go home and shut up.

  20. M.D.  

    ***
    ATTENTION: THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN INTERCEPTED AND PURGED BY THE CCSC.
    ***

  21. ...  

    haha, juicycampus is slow as molasses. but is it as slow as michelle diamond?

  22. I FUCKING SWEAR  

    if someone else talks about "banning a site from columbia servers" I'm gonna ejaculate right into their fucking eye. you CANNOT BAN A WEBSITE FROM A SERVER. THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE. You can ban access to a website that is ON a particular server, you can even ban access to the server. But unless Columbia is HOSTING Juicy Campus, you cannot ban it "from Columbia servers." Read a fucking book before mouthing off about things you do not have the mental capacity to understand, you motherfucking idiots.
    As a sidenote, the only pledge I'm willing to make is to continue making superfluously profane statements in my battle against global stupidity.

  23. ccsc  

    michelle and AJ pascua are lame for trying to get this banned... just drop it, you're bringing more attention to it than this desrves

  24. yeah

    cause asking people to deprive themselves of something salaciously immoral always works

    if she was smart she'd ask them to pledge to 'spam' the site

    and to post #34..you're wrong..there's no 'moderation' on juicy campus...the juiciest tab is described as following:

    What is the Juiciest tab?

    You can use that tab to organize in order of percent agreement. That sort shows the highest agreement posts first (but excludes any posts with fewer than 5 votes).

    So yeah, you can post that delightful bwog okra episode and as long as you get 10 friends to give it a thumbs up youve made it juicy.

    As for the slandered bit and the non argument argument that the 'web 2.0 cheerleaders scream 1st amendment' do you actually have a rational point or are you just proving youre unhinged?

    • commenter 34  

      My point is that people are quick to argue that freedom of speech should be upheld when it's a dubious claim at best that freedom of speech applies to a site like this. The reason I brought up "web 2.0 cheerleaders" is that many internet users are loathe to part with anonymity, claiming they have a "right" to post whatever they want anonymously, under some battle cry resembling "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my blog comments your right to say it." I won't even defend myself against your question regarding whether or not i had a rational point with respect to my grievance toward the disgusting slander existing on juicycampus because, quite frankly, your opposition to my opinion on this matter doesn't warrant further argument. It is obvious on its face that such vitriol is indefensible.

  25. juicycampus  

    dear michelle diamond,

    thank you for giving juicycampus a platform.
    thank you for increasing our ad revenues!
    we could have never done it without you!

    xoxo
    juicycampus

  26. The King of Spain  

    From Gothamist:
    "the bigger offense is the use of comic sans."

    UNDENIABLE

  27. SEAS Student  

    Actually.... you CAN block a website from a server. They do it all the time. Communist governments do it. Grade schools do it (remember those BLOCKED pages you would get if you tried to get on facebook in high school? Or at least at my high school...) And where I work yesterday they accidentally did it and the IT peeps had to come and undo whatever they did. It depends on what you're using to run the server.

    • SEAS Student #2  

      You know, being in SEAS doesn't grant you immediate authority. It just decreases the probability that you're an idiot. My problem isn't with the concept, it's with the blatantly incorrect terminology. You can block access to a server, or to a website being hosted on a server, or even to a range of IP addresses, corresponding to server(s) hosting websites. The phrase "block a site from a server" makes no technical sense. On top of that, to block a site that is clearly not hosted by Columbia, "from Columbia servers" makes so little sense as to have only originated from the brilliant minds of the CCSC. I'm not asking for much, just the usage of correct terminology when trying to explain your idiotic ideas. Also, when *I* was in HS, we didn't have Facebook, so I am clearly in the right when I pull rank on you based solely on my seniority.

  28. SEAS Student  

    ...Now, whether you can do it LEGALLY or with permission is a whole other issue...

  29. SEAS Graduate

    Mark another SEASer laughing uproariously at people who know so little that they think that Columbia internet access has something to do with mysterious "Columbia Servers". There must be an "Internet for Liberal Arts Majors" book out there you can read that will explain things for you, please find it.

  30. hmm  

    even if they succeed in getting rid of the website, we'll still be stuck with all the trashy losers who write on it.
    it's like curing the symptom without hitting the root of the problem-- which is, how do such stupid people get into columbia in the first place?

  31. sorry

    i never meant to say columbia has a speech code (i'm pretty sure we don't)

    also, any person who wants to make the next tech related comment must know what dns is and what a mirror is

  32. CCSC: FYI  

    DHCP is not a date-rape drug.

  33. Riven  

    site seems to be down at the moment...

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.