I have no problem with your placing limits on what people say. You are already doing that and I support that. What I don't support is the lack of integrity shown by an unwillingness to take responsibility for the fact that you already do control the content here, yet are trying to beg off such responsibility by claiming you are supporting some ideal your very role here contradicts.
You are trying to have it both ways. If you are so commited to free speech, then show it by your actions. Eliminate the moderation here entirely and turn it into a free for all. If you are commited to eliminating interboard squabbling, though,then do that. Place limits on people's abilities to engage in such just like you place limits on people's abilities in other regards. You aren't being at all consistant when you do not exhibit actions that flow logically from the stances you say you are taking.
There are unmodded areas on our forum. Perhaps you have forgotten your request for us to squelch those?
This is a forum friendship commitment thread.
Please keep it that way. Else you ensure publically that the integrity of this commitment is compromised by the forum you are representing.
I am not representing any forum here, Vauge. I am speaking only for myself, and speaking for myself I would say that the best way to ensure friendship between any two forums is to try to put one's money at least in the general vicinity of one's mouth rather than creating loopholes to avoid personal responsibility.
I support a commitment to friendship, and that is why I am trying to encourage you to take the steps necessary to ensure it. I am certainly no stranger to discussion groups and have seen more than one forum split into two or more. The interboard wars at these went on for months, stretching into years, and the reason for this was the fact that people did read both boards and webmasters at each site allowed their members to flame each other.
If you allow people here to flame other boards, then you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution if your stated objective is friendship.
Unsure if you realize it or not, as a moderator - you are indeed "representing" the other forum. It is part of your commitment for the other forum. Mods here are equally representing DP when it is realized.I am not representing any forum here, Vauge. I am speaking only for myself, and speaking for myself I would say that the best way to ensure friendship between any two forums is to try to put one's money at least in the general vicinity of one's mouth rather than creating loopholes to avoid personal responsibility.
How do we do that without vendicating bias?If you allow people here to flame other boards, then you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution if your stated objective is friendship.
Unsure if you realize it or not, as a moderator - you are indeed "representing" the other forum. It is part of your commitment for the other forum. Mods here are equally representing DP when it is realized.
.
No sir, I am responding to your concerns. You said we were "inconsistant" and we had "no such thing as free speech here". I let you know that your observation was incorrect. Again, every post has it's place.I have assiduously avoided any direct comparisions. You seem bound and determined to frame this in terms of us vrs. them, however.
I see what you are saying and understand.Heaven forbid that anybody should actually utilize a little bit of reason at a political debate forum, but I am simply trying to point out the logical inconsistancies of offering a friendship treaty, but also offering a place on your site for those people who wish to wage war.
I have assiduously avoided any direct comparisions. You seem bound and determined to frame this in terms of us vrs. them, however.
Heaven forbid that anybody should actually utilize a little bit of reason at a political debate forum, but I am simply trying to point out the logical inconsistancies of offering a friendship treaty, but also offering a place on your site for those people who wish to wage war.
So are the two boards friends or not?
davideyoung said:I just abide by the rules of the site I am in at the moment and enjoy a good debate.
What a small world. Your avatar is exactly the same as that of a certain Moderator at HP. Regardless, welcome to Debate Politics.So are the two boards friends or not. I have a feelin not.
Oh the drama.
Same person, i change my name at every new board I join. Heard mention of this drama over there and can looking for it over here to see if I could find out more. I wasn't playin on thus board when all this went down so don't know nothin about it, or didn't.What a small world. Your avatar is exactly the same as that of a certain Moderator at HP. Regardless, welcome to Debate Politics.
What's up with the micro-management? On the one hand, I agree with you on this point:Originally posted by Gardener:
Well, first of all, there is no such thing as complete free speech here. There would be no mods and no modding were this commitment to free speech treat such as inviolate. There are limits, obviously so, and so if you were to apply reasoning to the situation, you would have to acknowlege these limits as a basic fact. Since you do place limits upon what people can and cannot say, and this is born out but the fact that you have even removed people from the site because of the things they say, then you are hardly in a position to argue that it is your unflinching loyalty to free speech that motivates you to treat it as inviolate. You don't. Not by basic design nor action, you don't. There are rules here, you (collectively) supply these rules and you enforce them.
All you have done in this case is to say "it is acceptable to say these things here, but not there", and since the notion of free speech is at odds with the notion of preventing attacks upon other sites, then your creation of special places on your site where you allow such is just a device where you have created your own loophole in order to justify the hypocrisy inherent in saying you support these mutually exclusive objectives. Logic dictates that since you already do place limits on what people say here, and the content of this site is completely at your discretion, then the fact that you are avoiding placing limits upon what people say in one instance but not another is by conscious design. It is the nature of that design that I question here, since my bullshite detector has been ringing off the hook.
I have no problem with your placing limits on what people say. You are already doing that and I support that. What I don't support is the lack of integrity shown by an unwillingness to take responsibility for the fact that you already do control the content here, yet are trying to beg off such responsibility by claiming you are supporting some ideal your very role here contradicts.
You are trying to have it both ways. If you are so commited to free speech, then show it by your actions. Eliminate the moderation here entirely and turn it into a free for all. If you are commited to eliminating interboard squabbling, though,then do that. Place limits on people's abilities to engage in such just like you place limits on people's abilities in other regards. You aren't being at all consistant when you do not exhibit actions that flow logically from the stances you say you are taking.
But then you right into a couple of statements that smacks of hypocrisy.Originally posted by Gardener:
there is no such thing as complete free speech here. There would be no mods and no modding were this commitment to free speech treat such as inviolate.
Statement No.1:
Originally posted by Gardener:
If you are so commited to free speech, then show it by your actions. Eliminate the moderation here entirely and turn it into a free for all.
Let me just say on the free speech issue, that any forum that can put up with my a.s.s is prima facia evidence it values free speech. As far as the Basement is concerned, it provides a place for some of us to go blow off a little steam. Where you are not hampered by all the good manners and moderation you have upstairs. Where you can say whatever is on your mind (with the exception of the obvious against the law statements in the area of direct threats to another poster). Sometimes I get so pissed-off with some people, I have go downstairs to get my funk out. Then I can come upstairs and tolerate innocuous posts, such as yours.Statement No.2:
Originally posted by Gardener:
I have no problem with your placing limits on what people say. You are already doing that and I support that.
And for some reason I have an inexplicable hatred for gardener now too. I bet he molests puppies. with cancer."
:shock: Please don't go there lol.And how exactly does one use cancer to molest someone? :mrgreen:
And how exactly does one use cancer to molest someone?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?