Not True. The ONLY way to find your limitation is to exceed them...and in this case, that is never a good thing.You know your limitations, and that's a good thing.
Not True. The ONLY way to find your limitation is to exceed them...and in this case, that is never a good thing.You know your limitations, and that's a good thing.
We will not have any un-moderated areas.
Not True. The ONLY way to find your limitation is to exceed them...and in this case, that is never a good thing.
Allow them.
People should be able to tell the tone of a thread from the subject or the first few posts. If they're easily offended or just don't feel like reading things of that nature, they should click away.
It's like getting offended at things on radio/TV -- just change the channel if it bothers you, don't ban the material.
+1 that can NOT happen!
That is how things get WAY out of hand! This would only lead to serious problems...
I'm of the firm opinion that the OT banter, including political discussion, is one of the cornerstones that make this place enjoyable to frequent---and that eliminating them altogether is NOT the answer.
not to start this discussion here...but this is a privately owned non-governmental non tax funded web site and censorship is 100% acceptable.
The only way for something like this to work is to have a forum that is password only and unmoderated (the mods would be working overtime otherwise).
You have to ask the admin for the password and accept that this forum will be unmoderated and only the thick skinned need apply.
Any complaints to the mods for someone venturing into this forum and getting offended would result in disciplinary action taken against the complainer.
I have seen this type of password only, unmoderated forum work on many other sites that I frequent. Knowing that you are entering "the wild west", so to speak, and that complainers will be dealt with tend to keep the thin skinned out.
On *rare* occasion someone gets banned, but it's only about one a year (notice of banning is made public).
.
No mods...who banns them?
Honest question...not being argumentative.
What do you think would happen if a forum that was moderated was opened to contain such content
...on principal alone I dont believe that content should be monitored on the site...
not to start this discussion here...but this is a privately owned non-governmental non tax funded web site and censorship is 100% acceptable.
and the fact is: Limiting the freedom of either the owner or the designated Moderators to censor the content of a private forum is in and of itself a violation of the first amendment.
The Freedom of speech ONLY pertains to the Government passing LAWS that forbid you to speak your mind. It does NOT guarantee you a Public Forum to do so.
Tell that to the guy who called us pr!cks!
You have confused my point? or I am confused. I am saying that the owner of a site has the right (As long as it's not funded by tax money) to censor what ever they want.
The unofficial unmoderated area is the PM. There is even an ignore feature.
Yes it is one-one-one but that's what these thread devolve into. If people self-moderated and used the PM appropriatly, there may not be an issue.
Gotcha!...and good point.I know what you were going for. My thought is reaching yours by extension of the fact that he didn't like being told what he was saying needed to be toned down. I was just throwing it out there because it was on my mind when I read your post.
That goes against normal group dynamics. If you're at a bar or other social outlet, people start discussions, join discussions, leave discussions, change discussions, and participate in multiple discussions, all in a very dynamic and fluid manner.
What you are suggesting is that as soon as two people get engaged in a discussion that they are passionate about, the both leave the bar and go to a private booth. That would leave behind a pretty boring bar with a lot of empty seats. Kind of like drinking at the public library...
That would leave behind a pretty boring bar with a lot of empty seats. Kind of like drinking at the public library...
...What you are suggesting is that as soon as two people get engaged in a discussion that they are passionate about, the both leave the bar and go to a private booth...
How much sympathy can you really have for someone who is easily offended that voluntarily ventures into a thread about, say, taxation or global warming.
If you are at a bar, people have the option of walking away en-mass continuing the discussion and leaving the bickering two.
A civil, passionate discussion and personal attacks are two different things.
well then maybe they need to take some time off {...} and come back when they've matured a bit.
It wasn't directed at anyone in particular.speaking of people making it personal....
It wasn't directed at anyone in particular.
It's a simple fact -- if someone can't remain civil in a discussion where others have different viewpoints, then that person is immature. We're all adults here, people need to start acting like that.
But I agreed with everything else in your post
...In a high-volume text based discussion, the lines between passionate, personal, and who fired the first shot blur very quickly. As a result, these types of disputes will break out as long as humans are involved.
I know it wasn't, but I was setting up to make a point. Suppose the next guy thinks you were replying to HIS post. And he responds in kind. Now it IS personal. And in his opinion you started it... Who's wrong?
That was my point earlier. In a high-volume text based discussion, the lines between passionate, personal, and who fired the first shot blur very quickly. As a result, these types of disputes will break out as long as humans are involved.
I know it wasn't, but I was setting up to make a point. Suppose the next guy thinks you were replying to HIS post. And he responds in kind. Now it IS personal. And in his opinion you started it... Who's wrong?
That was my point earlier. In a high-volume text based discussion, the lines between passionate, personal, and who fired the first shot blur very quickly. As a result, these types of disputes will break out as long as humans are involved.
Really? I find most of the political discussions to be pretty damn civil around here.
You can wax on all day about the tendency of a "high volume text based discussion" to turn nasty, but I find that that tends not to be case most of the time around here. Sure, there are spats here and there, and those threads typically get closed quickly, but on the whole, I defy you to find a more civil crowd when it comes to things that are typically as divisive as global warming.