Though technically, isn't this thread more suitable for General Discussion? I mean all threads about orgers stay there, so why is this any different? It wasn't my intention to make it about site rules, mods, or whatever.

EvilWhiteMale said:

you're talking about how people use and respond to the site. you're discussing what leads to the locking of threads on this site. sounds like site discussion to me.

Anxiety said:

Yeah, but it's kind of a gray area type of thing. I guess I was hoping it would stay there cuz this forum is kind of a graveyard. I don't think too many people who I would like to be involved will be visiting here to participate.

EvilWhiteMale said:

but maybe they should..


i dont do the gd...and i doubt ben has the time to do the gd....so, keeping these types of discussions really help the mod squad have a sense of perspective for whats going on....if people have that much of an issue with the way things are going down the least they can do is head over the site discussion forum to air their dirty laundry...

or is it people simply want a chance to ?

sosgemini said:

pffft.

AsianBomb777 said:

im sorry, who are you?

sosgemini said:

sosgemini said:

Well, if my idea for the shortened "edited" mark can be accepted, then maybe other things can go through as well.



.
[Edited 3/2/05 17:22pm]

So anyways Evil.

Isn't there always a line?
R do U honestly feel there should never be a line, and that we should just self govern ourselves to bow out of things that disturb us?


I think ignore the damned thread, in my opinion, but I do feel there some weird thin grayish line out there somewhere.

AsianBomb777 said:

[Edited 3/2/05 17:24pm]

EvilWhiteMale said:

Why must you protest every single decision?

EvilWhiteMale said:

I think you're views are unpopular to alot of folks so you face more scrutiny beucause of it. It's always easy to censor what you're to unwilling to debate or ignore--that's the option lots of folks take.

EvilWhiteMale said:

so, just what is it that your proposing? i think ben has always ben open to improving the site.....what are you invisioning?

sosgemini said:

okay, so, if we're going to model this site after the non-existent 'democracy' that has been repeatedly pointed out as 'not the way this site is run' (but for the sake of argument, let's say it is), shouldn't we then base the content of this site on the standards of the relevant community?

what may be considered normal subject matter on a fred phelps site may not be considered appropriate to people on a marilyn manson site. what's considered appropriate on a MM site may not be considered appropriate on a prince site.

i mean, that happens in a democracy, right?

AsianBomb777 said:

Just as I'm into smaller government control, I'm also into less managment of threads.

I'll go back to an earlier point which is, what's the difference between reporting Howard Stern or South Park to the FCC? So may people enjoy them, but some people always have to make a stink and try to spoil the fun for the rest. If you don't like it, change the channel.

I wish more people would let others have some fun around here and not be snitches.

2the9s said:

The original intent of this thread was not a protest of those in power.

It was simply to say: WHy would you stifle someone's voice if you don't like what they have to say. If you can't contribute, why not ignore?


Good point actually--I just wonder if there isn't a line somewhere in that.

AsianBomb777 said:

Unfortunately people have given me a bad reputation around here, but what's done is done.

And sometimes it's easier for people to file a complaint and run instead of discussing an issue rationally.

EvilWhiteMale said:

but shouldnt the initial statement thats supposed to encourage debate also be "rational"?

you cant scream fire and then expect people not to run.....

ughh...allnotthereedit...
[Edited 3/2/05 17:34pm]

EvilWhiteMale said:

LOL. U're trying to tell me U take no credit for your rep?
LMAO.

That's like me saying I have no clue why people roll their eyes at my threads.

EWM, I thought it was only "liberals" and Democrats who were crybabies? What's happening to you?!

sosgemini said:

I'm proposing less locks and deletions of threads. I think as long as people enjoy posting on them (for whatever reason) the threads should remain. I can understand if there are 10 MJ threads on the same subject, but that's not the case with threads that many people post. The only other situation I can think of where a thread should be shut down is if there is personal information about other members on there, or if there is something on there that could be a legal issue. But outside of that, I see no problem with a thread that asks what Prince would be like under the influence of drugs. With all the ridiculous threads that are posted on here daily, it amazes me that they can stay when others have to go.

So why not just allow the threads to remain? No one is hurt by them, and if they are, then they can relieve their pain by ignoring them. And if enough people dislike the threads and ignore them, then they will go away on their own. But they stick around cuz people enjoy them. I think allowing more threads to stay will make more people happy.

And if you guys get complaints about why certain threads don't get the axe, simply tell them to ignore them and move on, just like you tell them to ignore orgers who they fight with. Sometimes we invest a fair amount of time in discussions on these threads, and because a few people want to make a stink, all that goies down the drain. I see nothing fair about that.

EvilWhiteMale said:

The drug thread was shut down?

I've always wondered what he would sound like under the influence.
It's got to be better than the shit he's doing now.

Was that thread really shut down?

sosgemini said:

Look at 90% of threads posted around here. They're far from "rational."

Should they all get the axe?

AsianBomb777 said:

I've always been nothing but honest. It's others who find problems with that. I don't come here to be the villain.

AnotherLoverToo said:

Can't you be tolerant of other people's intolerance??

AnotherLoverToo said:

I'm not crying, just making a point.

2the9s said:

You just gave me a nasty flashback!

AsianBomb777 said:

Yeah, it got locked up cuz some people found it "offensive" or "ridiculous." That thread was on fire, but I guess it mattered not.

EvilWhiteMale said:

Maybe I'm getting lost in Semantics.

DO we mean rational as in "can be understood" or "rational" as in normally agreed upon as the right way to view things. (Go ahead guys, break out the dictionary and shoot me down--I don't care. )


Becuase if Evil posts something that is not normally agreed upon, so what of it?
I seldom ever agree with Evil on politics (not that I hang out in the political arena) but I'm not the tought police.

As far as what is offensive--well, it takes alot to offend me, but (sounding like a broken record) I personally do have a line.