Censoring

[bradwart]

This Forum seems to get more strict by the day.
Just because you express your opinion, you get kicked off the boards. Anyone else think this is unfair?

[wildflower]

No one's been kicked off for expressing an opinion. What are you talking about?

If you mean silencing in chat, expressing an opinion is often extremely silencing-worthy if that opinion is expressed in a manner which is insulting to others. If you're civil and mature about it, there's no need for any sort of silencing or kicking people out of chat (temporarily or otherwise).

As for being kicked off the boards, we've only had a couple of bannings, and neither of them were for expressing an opinion.

[Kathy Li]

I'll second that.

In addition, the bannings that we've had were mostly for not adhering to the board rules that were laid out in the Terms of Service Agreement, or for making the board an uncomfortable/abusive place for others. Not about expressing opinions. We don't demand conformity--we do demand simple courtesy and respect for others.

One of the main reasons this board is stricter than the average in terms of allowed language is that we have to keep it a safe place for young readers. We have have members under the age of 10, and keeping things appropriate for a younger readership (not just a teen one) is completely justifiable, given that these boards are here for the YW series.

If these rules are too difficult for you to adhere to, you may want to find one of the other YW areas that are out there on the web. Powers forfend that we should be the only game in town.

[agfish92]

<feals good/bad i was the first person to be sylenced with alex that is. i think you should sencor more words.

[Agent M]

"if that opinion is expressed in a manner which is insulting to others." I think bradwart needs a lesson in that area, but that's just on a personal level I suppose, because I think that brad is so insulting that he probably shouldn't be allowed on the site, but again, that's just me.

[Wyronth]

You only get in trouble if it goes overboard. *shrugs* I mean, like they said, we've got kids on this board. Plus, there are some people (not me, a year on a public school bus screws that up for you) that have problems with cursing. They don't want to have to put up with that. And politics and religion, even in the real world, have a habit of becoming more or less flame wars.

Accordingly, I fully agree with the mods on this one.

[Agent M]

We need to keep our language at least moderately clean, I can agree with that. And closing the Iraq War topic (and other political topics before it) was probably a good idea. But if we start censoring these topics before we even begin, then I think it's going too far. If we voice our opinions and people get hurt, then it's time to close. But if we can keep it civil, then there's no problem. Now, if there's one person being completely uncivil (non-civil..) and everyone else is trying to keep the peace, and then that same uncivil person continues to be uncivil after the topic is closed, then something needs to be done. Maybe the YW members could vote people out... help Lee out with the suspending or banning...

[Fox]

WOW what a thought, Vote people out. I would be be afraid all the time if that happens but then I'm a worrying person I think some how ive mist out here, I'm following about half of this. It seems to me that some topics have been closed for breaking forum rules, that what rules are for, you break them you reap the results. Be nice though to have a little reminder first though. just in case you forgot that rle.
Fox

[Gryphon]

Brad: That's bull. I'm sorry, but do you think we support you slandering other members? No, we won't tolerate you insulting other people because you have a problem with their beleifs. You will be kicked out, and if you've fouled up a topic, we'll have it shut down.

We will certainly allow you to express your views, but not to the extent of degrading comments.

I think "STFU" and "bitch" should be censored.

[Kathy Li]

Originally posted by Agent M:
... But if we start censoring these topics before we even begin, then I think it's going too far.

Yes, I'd certainly agree. But from my perspective, we are all bound to disagree with each other and have different POVs about a ton of things, and the one thing we can absolutely count on here, is that we all agree the YW books rock. So, talking about YW is where we're going to see the very best this community can offer. Anything else, and you takes your chances.

Maybe the YW members could vote people out... help Lee out with the suspending or banning...

Err... what did you think the "Report This Post" button and Lee's e-mail were for? OTOH, my druthers (obviously) is that we give bradwart the space and the room to figure out what he did wrong and decide whether or not he wants to stay here, rather than just give up on him. If we kick him out without giving him a chance to prove he can be civil, then, from his POV, we prove him right in that we simply can't stand any voices that don't conform with ours.

But if you disagree with me, you always have Lee's e-mail and the "Report This Post" button. And PM. And DD. And your own ability to respond to posts.

We also don't know what a newbie's previous online experiences have been. This board is atypical in its level of civility, (sad to say) and is one of the reasons we like it so much. But there are boards out there that actually reward trolling behavior and mano-a-mano insult-ridden macho-posing flamewars. I can see how this board would be puzzling to someone coming from a board where the approach is much more fists-out knockdowns all the time.

Aside from that, IMHO, every newbie should be given time to prove whether they're incorrigible or a valued new member. I'll admit that bradwart's scales are definitely tipping in one direction rather than the other, but believe me, I've seen a LOT worse, and I think right now we should just wait and see.

I will also tell you the hardest board-fu to master (I still haven't gotten the trick) in a flamewar. Staying civil and agreeing to disagree, of course, (not to mention avoiding the ad hominem attack--refute the argument not the person) is good and goes a long way to cooling things down.

But to put the fire right out, you have to make everybody (both yourself and your "opponent") laugh about it. It's a very hard spell to do: to put together the right words in the right order that can accomplish this feat. I've only seen it done a handful of times in my twenty years on the 'net. But it's like a firehose on a flamewar.

[Sean L.]

go. kathy.

[Cari]

Well, I don't really know about people being kicked out or silenced or anything like that, but I honestly think suff lilke swear words should definately be censored. Oh, and I agree with everyone else!

[bradwart]

Did anyone ever consider the possibility that my posts in the "Iraq War" topic had a greater purpose? Personnaly, I doubt it.

Let's go back to the 1960's. Martin Luther King Jr. His principle of Civil Disobedience.
Did it never occur to you that I was using this tactic for my ends? I got a topic I felt was wrong shut down. I may not have liked the means, but it was considered necessary. The principle definitly has proven itself successful many times. Unless you live in a sardine tin.

Is this, as Gryphon so eleoquently put it, "bull"?
Judging from past experiences on this forum, people will say yes.

Bradwart out.

[Cress]

Closing a topic was necessary? So basically, you were attempting to censor what we were talking about? You didn't like the conversation, the topic, or you didn't think it should be discussed, so you used your own methods to censor it? Well then yes, I do agree with Gryphon.

[Kathy Li]

Bradwart, obviously nobody considered that, because around here, there are moderators and admins who shut down topics. I really don't believe that disruption = civil disobedience. Breaking rules/laws to get something done or to change an established point of view only really makes sense if the official channels didn't work for you, first. Otherwise, you're just an anarchist who thinks he's above the law.

I don't recall ever getting a message from you stating that you wanted that topic shut down or why. I freely admit, though, that I probably wouldn't have agreed with your definition of what constitutes "needs to be shut down"--because a POV I don't agree with isn't enough (e.g., this very thread). Rudeness and namecalling and hurt feelings is.

What you did was the equivalent of lobbing in a conversational grenade. Civil disobedience, iirc, advocates non-violent means, and only defending oneself, never attacking, to prove your moral superiority--i.e., Gandhi and his guys allowed themselves to be beaten up without ever raising a fist to retaliate. By that judgement, what you did was not civil disobedience.