BooBan

[Woody]

Eric Anderson on Fox News reports that Washington State may Ban Booing at High School sporting events. When the students were told about this they booed.

Is a BooBan something that we on CA should consider?

[Gail]

Hmm...

On the forum that my daughter frequents, they have a little red smiley which smacks another one on the head with a hammer. There have been many times when I wished for something like that here.

Is that better than booing? I don't know. If there wasn't that there would be something else. People will show their disapproval or disdain one way or the other.

It's kinda like bad language- You can say "CANDY!!!" when you hit your thumb with the hammer, instead of the stock swear words. At that point "candy" becomes a swear word.

Would a ban boo be a form of censorship?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I don't know...I've always kinda liked this one:

and you can pick your choice of pie flavor...

[Gail]

I love it!

Pam, you always have awesome smileys!

[Woody]

OK ... Does this mean that you are Booing the BooBan?

[Gail]

Not necessarily, but I'm wondering what good it will do.

[Gail]

I think I like the smiley idea better. A good-natured "Boo" smiley works for me

I have my doubts about censorship. I like it for some situations but I would rather see people work things out between themselves.

[Woody]

You are right about that .....

[olger]

"The students booed" You gotta love it..

olger

[Dottie]

So, will the students give a Bronx cheer instead, and will that have to be banned?

[Dottie]

Or what about a plain old hiss?

[Woody]

Quote:

I have my doubts about censorship

What do you have your doubts about it?

Personally I think it is just fine so long as you trust the person doing the sensorship. AND from my observation of Stan ... I think he has done a good job over all.

And I would actually encourage more. I find some of the things on here very disturbing at times. Particularly when people start trying to be humerous at the expense of another.

And just incase you were wondering if we have sensorship or not ... I will give you one recent example.

Earlier this year there was a thread on "Things to Avoid" it was in Townhall placed by a member. I was the very first one to post. I said two words ... "being dogmatic" . A day or two later ... Stan decided independantly without the permission of anyone to restrict the discussion of things to avoid to just food items. By this time I had already listed two nonfood items ... And after Stan switched the Forum to a Food category I received complaints about me listing nonfood items in a FOOD category. I had listed the nonfood items ONLY when it was in a nonfood item forum. But they did not realize this so I got several complaints.

I would like to promote censurship but I would hope Stan does it in a manner that does not open us up to criticism. Switching the Forum in midstream and restricting discussions does not seem like an appropriate use of censurship. I would hope it could be done for more severe cases. And then make it clear what is being done so the legitimate contributors are not criticized.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

redwood said:

Quote:

... Stan decided independantly without the permission of anyone to restrict the discussion of things

**raises eyebrows**

Stan can do whatever he chooses here. This is HIS forum. It isn't polite to go to someone's *home* and tell him how to arrange the furniture.

[Woody]

Like I said above ....

Quote:

AND from my observation of Stan ... I think he has done a good job over all.

I think perhaps you did not read the entire post or else you just took my words out of context. I gave the above as an example of censure. Not as an example of furniture that needed moving. I think you will see my intent if you read the post. But if you still have questions you can send me a PM to clarify. I would appreciate that rather than making false accusations and raised eyebrows.

In the context of my post I think you will see that I support censure. I would promote it even more than what Stan is currently doing. But I would propose specific guidelines as I have outlined.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I had no questions as to your post. I read it all. I can raise my eyebrows if I like.

I made no false accusations against you.

Here...have a pie:

[Stan]

Well I do want to say somethings... the main one is this...

I have make a lot of mistakes, do not see that changing a lot in the future...

Am not that bright

"free speech" is sometimes the enemy of a community... I do move somethings, ban others, but try and do it in the best interest of the over all community.

I can tell you, that some of the threads that are active right now, have cost us members, as well as their financial support.. Is 'financial reasons' the main indicator....?? NOPE...

Maybe I am a 'virtual' dictator, as I have been told, I only want to do what is best, and do not always know that.

I do know that it was best to close the 3abn slander...

[darlene]

And you do have a right to close that thread, Stan. There were things posted there that could create a legal problem. There were things said there that were definetly not Christ-like.

And there are still things posted in this forum that are definetly not Christ-like. Why is it that the first thing that comes out of our mouths is critism? Isn't it critism what caused Satan to fall in the first place? And isn't it a critical spirit the number one thing we are to guard against?

Am I being critical? Yes and no. However, that is the reason I rarely post anything on this forum anymore. As soon as one makes a post some here jump all over you. It's not a good feeling.

[Bravus]

I would like to 'censor' the spelling of those who have trouble with spelling 'censorship' correctly. And to note that to 'censure' someone is a different action compared to 'censoring' something they write. (not poking fun, Redwood, trying to be helpful in a fun way)

Let me just note that it's not just Stan - there is a large community of moderators on this forum that (a) monitors particular subforums and ( discusses issues around the appropriate balance of openness and moderation. That is an on-going and difficult discussion, and naturally will (in the opinion of the very wide range of people who post here) err in one direction or the other from time to time.

Stan has worked strongly toward a policy of openness, which places most of the responsibility for posting appropriately on the members, and provides guidance first and censorship as a last resort. I strongly support that policy approach. Others' milage may vary.

[Woody]

Let it be known that the purpose of my post was to tell Stan that I have approved of the 'Good' job he is doing. And then I wanted to encourage him to go a step further in censorship of CA. Not censurship. But I do support him doing more censorship but with some protections as my concerns outlined.

I am not going to his home and telling him how to arrange his furniture as accused. I was encouraging him in the good job he was doing and saying I would encourage him to do even more of his good work. I am behind it ... if that matters. But then it is just my humble opinion. Some here seem to object to my support of Stan. I suppose that is their right also.

From the beginning I've been a strong advocate of censorship. IF you recall ... I was the first one to suggest Stan do away with Annonomous postings. I supported dropping the 3ABN hate posts. And I support censorship of mean and disruptive posts. I even support a BooBan. Back to topic.!!

[Woody]

In Light of what Neil has posted ... I think that a return to the BooBan discussion would be helpful.