Thunderbird wrote: |
Due to constant complaints from some IFians regarding what may and may not be posted in the Open Forum, I have determined that unless we can come to some definitions of what is and is not acceptable and clearly express those definitions, we will not have an Open Forum as it seems only to breed discontent to allow free speech on this site.
Additionally, as debates often take a personal tone, the Hall of Debate is locked until this is sorted out. And the City section is locked as well, since that is obviously a place where posts of a personal and often frivolous nature are even encouraged. I'm asking you, all of you, to now define what is and is not acceptable discussion matter. Where can we draw the line? |
Thunderbird wrote: |
Due to constant complaints from some IFians regarding what may and may not be posted in the Open Forum, I have determined that unless we can come to some definitions of what is and is not acceptable and clearly express those definitions, we will not have an Open Forum as it seems only to breed discontent to allow free speech on this site.
Additionally, as debates often take a personal tone, the Hall of Debate is locked until this is sorted out. And the City section is locked as well, since that is obviously a place where posts of a personal and often frivolous nature are even encouraged. I'm asking you, all of you, to now define what is and is not acceptable discussion matter. Where can we draw the line? |
Thunderbird wrote: |
@IF as a whole:
My problem is not with one person. It is with every admin/user who feels they have had a right to prune the forum just because there seems to be some unspoken rule of decency that has been breached. For years, I have silently stood by knowing it was not my place to stand up and shout about how hypocritical it was how Masterweaver and others have been treated here, but I have had vast disagreements neveretheless. I am enraged by the very thought that anyone thinks they have the right to say what can and should be allowed and what should not. SGs will always be what the site revolves around - everything else is superflous and doesn't do anything to hinder the core. So why should we allow one person's opinion, be it mine or anyone else's, to claim something should be removed or that it 'isn't what IF is about'? Many such comments have been made on a great many topics over the years to shut those topics down. I have always found them to be more offensive to me than the topic matter of the 'offending' post, even if I agree that the topic matter WAS worthless... it is more important to me to honor the right of the IFian who posted it to have done so. So if we can't DEFINE what is ok and what is not, I do not feel I or anyone else will EVER have a right to say what can or cannot be deleted due to stepping on someone's sense of sensibilities. I guess I feel like saying what they said on a very poignant episode of South Park: Its either ALL ok or NOTHING is ok. We either have an open forum where anyone can post whatever the hell they damned well feel like posting (with the exception of whatever RULES are DEFINED - such as no sexually explicit material) or we shut down the Open Forum entirely. There IS no easily defined unwritten rules of decency and nettiquette online and if we really tried to define it I think we'll find we can't. Therefore, we cannot logically allow to be arbitrarily determined what can or can't be allowed, otherwise we open the door for personal attacks between members. And I won't be having that. Not on my watch. Nor will I take part in making personal attacks on IFians simply because I don't like the subject matter they choose to post. |
Quote: |
Shutting down the open forum got our attention nicely, but we're for the most part reasonable individuals with brains that we can use to rationalize. You have a good idea and good will behind it...but now that you've done this how can we be sure that it won't be used by someone throwing a temper tantrum in the future. And you're telling us that you're honestly just going to remove a chunk of the site people have put time and effort into...did I really come back for this? |
Quote: |
On my watch, I let things be to the point where the posts spoke for themselves - making it clear to all who the idiots and trolls were. |
Quote: |
As long as the discussions keep themselves to the site's maturity rating, which I believe is PG-13 |
Thunderbird wrote: | ||
And this was the only fair way of going about it. Why should this change? However, I'm seeing that we, as a community, are beginning to feel this isn't enough. This is because some don't seem to get the point when they are ignored and hassled that they need to get back onto the main subject (SGs) a bit more or be a parriah. So how can we make the point clear that such a user has gone too far without violating basic liberties? |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT - 8 Hours