Group Coerced Censorship
 

What's with this whole group coerced censorship? People in here wouldn't be talking about respecting the dead and such if the death of Bin Laden was announced tomorrow. Yeah, I put him in the same category as Bin Laden because he is poison.

I call B.S. on the closure of the Falwell thread.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

What did I miss? I do not understand this thread.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

I think that when you are a public figure, moreover one who has chosen a life of publicity, you kind of forego the right to be respected in death with the same care we would apply to someone more inconspicuous. Whatever your thoughts on the man, Falwell was a character of great historical significance. I was especially saddened to see the thread closed because, while I detest him personally, I wanted to see someone defend him substantively. I was looking forward to that dialogue. Also, I think people have gotten really good at disagreeing respectively about sensitive things on this site, especially compared with the past. Just throwing that out there.

I pm'd sherrif about this and he was cool and humble. He said he made the call and maybe it was the wrong one. So I'm not sure it's censorship Saden. I think the mods would probably consider reopening the thread if we ask nicely and promise to behave.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[QUOTE=angryssg;310437]What did I miss? I do not understand this thread.[/QUOTE]

see the following thread... [url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-warpath-parking-lot/18279-jerry-falwell-no-more.html[/url]

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

I wouldn't neccesarily equate Bin Laden with Falwell, but regardless I believe SGG locked the thread in anticipation of what might become of the thread. Those are decisions the mods sometimes have to make.

Maybe it was the right decision, maybe it wasn't. Either way, although any mod could reopen the thread I think I would leave it up to SGG to decide if he feels it should open again and he can do so if he chooses.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

What is there really to say about him other than the fact that he died? Falwell became irrelevant years ago. His own denomination basically stopped listening to him as other prominent christian figures came to the forefront. Attributing him to someone who was responsible for the mass murder of 3000 innocent civilians is a bit over the top IMO. That thread would have most likely turned into yet another religious debate and ultimately a flaming pile of poo. Kudos to the folks who recognized that and opted to have it closed.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

If Falwell is irrelevant why are so many presidential candidates visiting with him? As for comparison with Bin Laden, Falwell may not kill people physically but he kills minds and poisons souls.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=saden1;310449]If Falwell is irrelevant why are so many presidential candidates visiting with him?[/quote]

His influence has waned over the years. People like James Dobson are much more influential now within the Christian community. That's all I'm saying.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

There is an inevitable truth that every man is going to have to live with his actions (good and bad) throughout his life, and they will even be revisited by many thereafter. While he may have had [B]some[/B] truth in his beliefs, he was also misguided, and mislead people in other ways. When someone admits to error, human nature is to be judgemental and not allow for forgiveness. With that being said. Yes he may have messed up alot, but are you seriously going to sit there and say that a man is poison, and honestly believe that you are so much better than him? Let me ask you this, but keep the answer to yourself, you do not have to tell me. What might you have done in your life that you are so ashamed of, that you will never do again, that maybe yourself or even others may not ever let you live down? Everyone has secrets and embarrassments some just more public than others.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[QUOTE=angryssg;310453]There is an inevitable truth that every man is going to have to live with his actions (good and bad) throughout his life, and they will even be revisited by many thereafter. While he may have had [B]some[/B] truth in his beliefs, he was also misguided, and mislead people in other ways. When someone admits to error, human nature is to be judgemental and not allow for forgiveness. With that being said. Yes he may have messed up alot, but are you seriously going to sit there and say that a man is poison, and honestly believe that you are so much better than him? Let me ask you this, but keep the answer to yourself, you do not have to tell me. What might you have done in your life that you are so ashamed of, that you will never do again, that maybe yourself or even others may not ever let you live down? Everyone has secrets and embarrassments some just more public than others.[/QUOTE]

Let he without a sin cast the first stone?

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=saden1;310457]Let he without a sin cast the first stone?[/quote]

That is exactly what I am talking about.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

i really don't know what to say about this. while i respect Falwell's death, i agree he was definitely one to poison the minds of others. i also thing that sgg wasn't trying to censure, but to avoid what could have been. i also agree that we have been playing very nice around here with some delicate subject matter, so he probably jumped the gun alittle early

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

Falwell was a hate monger, plain and simple. I do agree with the basic point of nobody would be crying over the death of someone like Bin Laden.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

i agree, but I'm not sure with the comparison

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

Forget about the individuals being compared. The simple point is some think that we shouldn't have any thing negative to say about the dead. I think that's wrong, there are plenty of people who are very controversial in life and in death. Falwell was not a very likable person to put it lightly, so it's not a big surprise that his death isn't exactly bringing about kind words from some people.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Mattyk72;310481]Falwell was a hate monger, plain and simple. I do agree with the basic point of nobody would be crying over the death of someone like Bin Laden.[/quote]

Do you say that because (Falwell) , hate is his message, or because he promoted, and championed views that make people feel uncomfortable?

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

And I do support the closing of the previous thread. It was clearly going to spiral out of control very quickly. Good call by SGG.

I'm all for open debate even on touchy subjects, but there are times when some people just can't handle a debate like that in a civil manner. Perhaps we can do it in this thread instead, but the other thread was turning ugly really quick.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Hog1;310491]Do you say that because (Falwell) , hate is his message, or because he promoted, and championed views that make people feel uncomfortable?[/quote]

Sorry, not sure what you're asking exactly.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Mattyk72;310492]And I do support the closing of the previous thread. It was clearly going to spiral out of control very quickly. Good call by SGG.

I'm all for open debate even on touchy subjects, but there are times when some people just can't handle a debate like that in a civil manner. Perhaps we can do it in this thread instead, but the other thread was turning ugly really quick.[/quote]

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?

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

Because civility doesn't drive people away. Because civility is something that forums so often lose right before respect. Because we are all humans and it should be incumbent upon us to treat each other with respect and dignity whether face to face or over the internet. Sitting behind a keyboard tends to help people feel a little bigger and it can lead to even more rancorous discussions. Civility should be held to a higher premium in places like this because of that alone. It is the right way to act.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=FRPLG;310497]Because civility doesn't drive people away. Because civility is something that forums so often lose right before respect. Because we are all humans and it should be incumbent upon us to treat each other with respect and dignity whether face to face or over the internet. Sitting behind a keyboard tends to help people feel a little bigger and it can lead to even more rancorous discussions. Civility should be held to a higher premium in places like this because of that alone. It is the right way to act.[/quote]

But FRPLG, if the thread is off to the side in the parking lot, and 3 or 4 people want to scream and curse and call each other morons over the internet, what's wrong with that? Can't you, as a bystander to the madness, simply skip over the thread just as you suggested should be done when someone creates a dumb thread such as the one suggesting we trade Taylor for Briggs?

I'm of the school of thought that says men can get in a fistfight, and when it's over, pick each other up and go have a beer together. If someone wants to call me an idiot or whatever, I'll call them a moron in return or whatever, but when it's all over there's no harm done in my eyes. Shutting down threads because of "what might become" of the thread implies that the site members are incapable of handling conflict maturely. I'd think the members of this site are capable of getting into a verbal war and not allowing it to carry over into other threads. If you get into a fistfight, you handle it maturely by not trying to beat the other guy's ass every time you see him. You fight, and when it's over, you let it go. If people can do the equivalent here, meaning they don't let the fight spill over into other threads, then I see no problem.

I dunno, maybe it makes sense to draw the line at cursing or whatever. But I think it's really lame when people start locking threads because the opinions expressed look like they're going to be very strong ones. We just end up with mild conversation as a result.

The only thing that forum etiquette should be designed to prevent is preventing conflict from spreading to other threads. I say if people want to fight, let them do it in that thread, but if they start carrying the conflict over to other threads, that's where you have a problem.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[QUOTE=Hog1;310491]Do you say that because (Falwell) , hate is his message, or because he promoted, and championed views that make people feel uncomfortable?[/QUOTE]
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.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

Just to add, the fistfight thing may be a poor example because if you've gotten to the point where you're coming to blows, you've handled it irresponsibly in the first place. I guess the equivalent of that, on a message board, is cursing and making personal attacks.

So it makes sense to draw the line there. But you have to let people have the opportunity to express strong opinions or this place will go stale REAL fast.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;310500]But FRPLG, if the thread is off to the side in the parking lot, and 3 or 4 people want to scream and curse and call each other morons over the internet, what's wrong with that? Can't you, as a bystander to the madness, simply skip over the thread just as you suggested should be done when someone creates a dumb thread such as the one suggesting we trade Taylor for Briggs?

I'm of the school of thought that says men can get in a fistfight, and when it's over, pick each other up and go have a beer together. If someone wants to call me an idiot or whatever, I'll call them a moron in return or whatever, but when it's all over there's no harm done in my eyes. Shutting down threads because of "what might become" of the thread implies that the site members are incapable of handling conflict maturely. I'd think the members of this site are capable of getting into a verbal war and not allowing it to carry over into other threads.

I dunno, maybe it makes sense to draw the line at cursing or whatever. But I think it's really lame when people start locking threads because the opinions expressed look like they're going to be very strong ones. We just end up with mild conversation as a result.[/QUOTE]

Actually I tend to agree. I should have expanded more on what I said.

First off I do believe civility should rule the day in all walks of life. I just think it is right. I was answering a more general question of "why civility?" and should have just stuck to the question as it applies to this situation. Sorry for that.

I do not think that civility should be FORCED but rather fostered. I think there is a fine line there and maybe in this case it was crossed. Intentions were noble but I probably lean toward thinking the thread had not yet reached a point where locking it was fostering but rather forced.

I also agree about the fistfight analogy in theory but I worry that in a place like this the level(or lack of) of true human interaction obstructs, to a point, the depth and quality of relationship needed to overcome interpersonal skirmishes. That leads to fights that only tarnish the site and drive people away and I personally think that is ONLY bad for thewarpath. I am not here to converse with a bunch of syncophantic skins fans who all fall into line on every issue and I fear that by allowing more vitriolic discontent it keeps new people away and potentially rids us not of valueless members but of valueable ones.

I guess in the end though I think civility is the way to go and I hope everyone is able remain safely in the civil zone. But I do not think it should be forced. If there is something that is creating a significant amount of incivility the mods have the right and yes the responibility to rid the the site of it to keep everything moving along positively. In this case? I am not sure though.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;310502]So it makes sense to draw the line there. But you have to let people have the opportunity to express strong opinions or this place will go stale REAL fast.[/QUOTE]

I 100% agree. But "express strong feelings" does not equate to incivility to a reasonable person. I think you'd agree on that. Again I am not endorsing the locking of this thread, nor am I denouncing it. I think you and I probably are pretty close in mindset on this one. You have some good points.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=FRPLG;310507]I 100% agree. But "express strong feelings" does not equate to incivility to a reasonable person. I think you'd agree on that. Again I am not endorsing the locking of this thread, nor am I denouncing it. I think you and I probably are pretty close in mindset on this one. You have some good points.[/quote]

Word. I agree.

As with any communication, you also have to consider your audience when you are dealing with strong opinions. Some people can handle a debate involving curse words and name calling, they just have thick skin I guess. I've seen people call each other idiots and yet they've stayed on topic and continued to debate. Then you've got people who call each other idiots and then it just deteriorates into a back and forth of personal attacks, totally getting away from the topic at hand.

I guess that's what you really want to avoid, a deterioration of meaningful discussion. After all, discussion and the exchange of ideas regarding the Redskins (and other stuff) is why we all come to this site.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

By the way, just putting this message out there for the mods, I've been making suggestions on this and that for the last week or so. I hope it isn't taken as me being critical of the job you do. You guys run a first-class ship around here, so I hope I'm not coming across as a know-it-all or anything like that. Even with my bitching and moaning on a few issues, I keep coming back to this site just as much as ever. If I thought you guys sucked ass, I'd be out of here, but I'm not.

Conclusion: you guys do not suck ass, and I heart the Warpath. Thanks for the work you do.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Mattyk72;310493]Sorry, not sure what you're asking exactly.[/quote]

I was asking if you think "Hate" is Falwell's message, or is he such a religious zealot that his interpretation of the bible does not fit with today's PC world, thus makes many people uncomfortable.

Don't you love the word, thus?

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[quote=Hog1;310537]I was asking if you think "Hate" is Falwell's message, or is he such a religious zealot that his interpretation of the bible does not fit with today's PC world, thus makes many people uncomfortable.

Don't you love the word, thus?[/quote]

Yeah I think hate was his message, whether it was overtly or not.

Re: Group Coerced Censorship
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;310492]And I do support the closing of the previous thread. It was clearly going to spiral out of control very quickly. Good call by SGG.

I'm all for open debate even on touchy subjects, but there are times when some people just can't handle a debate like that in a civil manner. Perhaps we can do it in this thread instead, but the other thread was turning ugly really quick.[/QUOTE]

Don't you think that when you start preemptively closing threads that can get you into trouble?

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