Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Schneed10;310496]Question. Why does everything have to remain civil? I'm not trying to be an ass, but I think sometimes people just want to fight it out. It's just a message board, and the thread was in the parking lot. Why not let them go at it?[/quote]

Because I don't feel like wasting our bandwidth on idiots and it doesn't make for an inviting environment for potential new members.

If people want to duke it out on the internet they can do it by email or IM, just don't waste my time with your stupidity basically.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=ArtMonkDrillz;310501]I don't want to try to speak for Matty, but I think he might be saying that
Falwell used religion and his 'moral authority' to hide his messages of hate.
The guy said that homosexuals and feminists were, at least partially, responsible for 9/11. He said that the Antichrist was "obviously a Jewish male." And he pushed for racial segregation during the Civil Rights Movement.
These are just a few examples of what he did in life that lead me to believe he wasn't as great of a Christan as he wanted to be.

That doesn't sound like a very moral person to me.[/quote]

I really have not paid much attention to him, over the years, but I have to say OUCH to that. It does not sound to moral to me either.
I KNEW Howard Stern was the anti-christ!

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Mattyk72;310543]Because I don't feel like wasting our bandwidth on idiots and it doesn't make for an inviting environment for potential new members.

If people want to duke it out on the internet they can do it by email or IM, just don't waste my time with your stupidity basically.[/quote]

You could create a "No holds barred" forum as a test site?
But it IS your site

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=djnemo65;310539]Don't you think that when you start preemptively closing threads that can get you into trouble?[/quote]

I think it's rare that we close down threads quickly. Generally, the only threads we'll put the clamps on quickly are duplicate threads or spam.

In this case I think it was a good call. Of course it's always a judgement call, but generally speaking I don't think we make a habit of closing threads down quickly.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Hog1;310547]You could create a "No holds barred" forum as a test site?
But it IS your site[/quote]

Again, why should we waste our server on idiots who want to have flame wars?? This is a forum for [I]discussion[/I], not flame wars.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

Let's just remember that Parking Lot doesn't mean the forum rules don't apply. The same rules apply throughout the site.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

That thread was going nowhere except to argue about if you can say something uncalled for towards a person who has passed away. Personally, I don't give a crap about Falwell's death but in no way was it worth server space to argue whether or not he should or shouldn't be bashed, IMO.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Mattyk72;310552]Again, why should we waste our server on idiots who want to have flame wars?? This is a forum for [I]discussion[/I], not flame wars.[/quote]
Just a thought

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=SmootSmack;310563]Let's just remember that Parking Lot doesn't mean the forum rules don't apply. The same rules apply throughout the site.[/quote]

I get that. But where were the forum rules broken in that thread? I just read through it and at no time did anybody call another site member a name. SBF and Daseal expressed strong opinions but were both very respectful of one another.

The last thing you could call that thread was a "flame war."

A discussion was shut down in anticipation of a flame war, which tells me the mods thought the membership was incapable of handling themselves maturely.

I get that you want to grow the site membership, but if you're going to stifle discussions you might want to be mindful of maintaining your baseline membership. After shutting down one thread, I think everyone will get over it. But I don't think that should become a theme, or you could find the existnig membership thinning out.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;310589]I get that. But where were the forum rules broken in that thread? I just read through it and at no time did anybody call another site member a name. SBF and Daseal expressed strong opinions but were both very respectful of one another.[/QUOTE]

From this post [url]http://www.thewarpath.net/310500-post21.html[/url] and talking about it being "off to the side in the parking lot" I thought maybe you and others didn't get that

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

Once again it was a judgement call by a mod. That's what we're here for. You may not agree and I respect that, but in the end we have to make decisions that may not be popular at times for what we believe is for the good of the site. Generally we let the discussions flow pretty freely here, but in this case I can see what SGG was thinking when he decided to shut it down.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=SmootSmack;310594]From this post [URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/310500-post21.html[/URL] and talking about it being "off to the side in the parking lot" I thought maybe you and others didn't get that[/quote]

OK sorry, allow me to clarify.

I respect the forum rules. I realize that I broke them a few days ago in the Sean Taylor Lance Briggs thread. That was BS on my part, and I apologized for it, and still feel that I was wrong.

The post you quoted above was really me expressing dissatisfaction with the rule itself. I feel like if people want to call each other names or curse at one another, then let them, as long as the discussion can remain on topic. This part of the discussion is really irrelevent to the Fallwell thread, because nobody called a name or started any ruckus. But in general, I think passion in the discussion is a good thing, and makes this place more fun to be a part of. What's truly terrible is when a passionate argument deteriorates into a flame war and gets entirely away from a meaningful discussion.

But, I recognize what I think the rules should be, and what they actually are, are two entirely different things. While I might wish the forum etiquette rules were more relaxed, I understand and respect that I must abide by whatever rules you guys set forth. So as long as your policy is in place, I'll do my best to abide by it and avoid the kind of pop-off I pulled the other day.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

I sincerely apologize to anyone who is upset about [I]my[/I] decision to shut down the Falwell thread. It was not "group coerced censorship," it was one mod's censorship. For those of you who are concerned that it may become a theme, let me just say that I can count on one hand the number of threads that I have closed over the past 4 years.

I did not shut down the thread because of the views that were expressed. I personally find it to be in bad taste to talk ill of the dead the day after they died, but that's not why I shut down the thread. Why did I shut it down? I've been a member for years now and I feel like I can spot some trainwrecks before they take place. I saw a trainwreck so I closed the thread....perhaps my vision is bad.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Mattyk72;310597]Once again it was a judgement call by a mod. That's what we're here for. You may not agree and I respect that, but in the end we have to make decisions that may not be popular at times for what we believe is for the good of the site. Generally we let the discussions flow pretty freely here, but in this case I can see what SGG was thinking when he decided to shut it down.[/quote]

I agree. Generally speaking, things are allowed or permitted here without feeling stifled.

I think if two or three people want to duke it out, fine, that's what PM is for.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

And for anyone that doesn't agree with the mods, 3 months for you bitches!