Clarifying The Magic Cafe's Content Policies
/The Magic Cafe's rules can often be a little inscrutable. The only reason this site exists is because twenty-two years ago they deleted a post I wrote that said, "Sponge Ding-Dong."
Apparently that old Al Goshman effect was simply too erotic to be mentioned on the Cafe, so it just needed to be removed.
In actuality, no one would find that innocuous comment offensive. It was just one of the Cafe's dull moderators—someone living a life feeling powerless and impotent (figuratively) (oh… who am I kidding, probably literally too)—who got off on wielding this tiny amount of power.
At the time, I'm sure they were like…
Which quickly turned into…
As I set the place ablaze for the next year or so on the blog I started in response.
That blog led to thinking about magic more, which led to performing magic more, which led to this blog, which led to eight books, which led to even more opportunities in writing and magic and working with almost every big-name magician I have any respect for.
So, I came out of things alright.
But even after 25 years, people still don’t quite know what they can or can’t mention on the Cafe.
Fortunately, they have me—Friend of The Magic Cafe, Andy at The Jerx—to help you understand the rules.
Here's a post and Dave Scribner’s (“Assistant Manager”) response explaining their policies regarding why they're deleting any references to Ted Karmilovich's conviction for sexual assault. I thought I’d help the Cafe out by amplifying their message here.
See guys? It’s just that they don't talk about “sexual activity” on the site. The problem with the Ted K. story is that it's simply tooooooooo sexy!
When I read the newspaper articles about him taking advantage of a 15-year-old as her teacher, I was like, "What is this, The Asbury Park Press or the gosh-dang Penthouse Forum!"
So please, don't mention his conviction on the site. Scribner's worried you might get people too turned on.
Now, some people might say that talking about someone's sexual assault conviction isn't exactly "discussing sexual activity"—it's discussing criminal activity. They would contend that calling statutory rape "sexual activity" minimizes what happened. It erases the victim and the crime. They’d say, "sexual activity" implies consent, and a 15-year-old can't consent. That's literally why it's illegal.
Oh, pish-posh, I say!
I'm with Scribby on this. Nothing even hinting at the existence of sex should be allowed.
In fact, can we also ban mentions of “my wife's having a child" and things like that? Do you know how that thing got in there? You might as well just say, "You know what I did nine months ago? I stuck my throbbing cock into my wife's quivering gash and filled it with pump after pump of my hot, creamy load." It's the same thing! The same exact thing!
Come to think of it, should they even allow discussion of the sponge bunnies trick? I suppose it’s okay, just so long as you say the baby bunnies were adopted.
The other great point Scribner makes is this: "Posts defaming someone else are considered flaming which is definitely against our rules."
Is that clear enough for you? Don't "defame" people by pointing out factual things that they did that are in the public record. Have some decency, won't you?
The rules are plain and simple. If Craig Petty rips off Bob King's effect, New Wave Prediction, then we must have a 50-page thread on what a piece of shit he is. Craig's in the wrong, and he deserves that.
If Craig was smart he simply would have raped Bob King because then it's mum's the word!
I think that all makes perfect sense now.
I’ll pre-emptively say, “You’re welcome,” to the staff at the Cafe for helping them out by explaining their perfectly rational rules and regulations.
Look, here are my genuine (and hopefully final) thoughts on this issue:
Does the Magic Cafe really have a policy to cover up sex crimes because they "don't allow discussions of sexual activity"? I doubt it. The issue was that the story broke on my site, so that dunce, Scribner, had to fumble around and come up with some sort of rationale for why it couldn't be mentioned.
And the best he could come up with was, essentially: "The Magic Cafe is a safe space for sex criminals."
I understand not wanting that review thread to devolve into endless discussion of this topic. But censoring this story completely isn't the way to handle it
There's nothing wrong if you want to purchase the new book (in my opinion). Ted's dead. You're not giving him any money. But it's also completely valid that there are people who might not want this sitting on their bookshelf regardless. And those people should have the information to make an informed decision.
I've heard from a few people who are featured in the endorsements for the book who are regretting that they're now associated with it. I wouldn't worry too much about that. Somehow this story was lost for decades. I think people understand your endorsement only goes so far as the material in the book and not everything the man did.
I'm not even trying to paint Ted as some evil person. Yes, he could have been some conniving predator. Or he could have been a sad, lonely, pathetic 33-year-old who acted on his worst impulses in this situation and ever afterward was a perfect upstanding citizen. I have no clue.
And I don't care. That's not why I talk about these stories.
My point isn't, "We must shun these people! We must drum them out of society! They're irredeemable!" This is not some crusade of mine. It's just transparency.
Everyone has a different level of acceptance and forgiveness for these types of situations, but you can only use your own moral judgment when you have the information to judge. So I make the information available.
Magic has an issue (if nothing else, at least a perceived issue) with creeps, pedophiles, perverts, etc. Exposing these stories is what a healthy community does. Covering them up, sweeping them under the rug, waving them off is what a complicit community does.
