Group Coerced Censorship

[FRPLG]

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[724Skinsfan]

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.