I protest censorship on this board

[ColumbiaCowboy]

First, because hard questions were being asked of the anti-gay crowd, a thread gets locked. I raise legitimate questions about this, and both the original thread and the one raising the questions get deleted altogether.

What the heck is the deal? Is the subject just not allowed? Or are only posts which are anti-gay (many of which were on this board for WEEKS) allowed? Why were these threads removed? Why was no explanation offered?

If the policy of this board is that only homophobes are allowed, you should post this policy a little more prominantly and at least save us some time. I put a lot of effort and research into what I post, I don't just fly off the handle and scream and cuss, and I highly resent these thoughtful and important posts being deleted hours after they were posted solely because some didn't like what I had to say.

Censorship stinks.

[PUGalicious]

For the record, neither of the two threads you are referring to were deleted. The "Focus" thread was indeed closed, but the second thread still remains open.

You have assumed that the reason the thread was closed was because "hard questions were being asked of the anti-gay crowd." That is not the case at all. It was closed because, in the opinion of the moderator team, the thread was degenerating in TONE. We wanted to allow a cooling off period before the discussion resumed.

The staff is working on setting up special areas within the forum dedicated to more controversial discussions. We are working on the ground rules to try to ensure a civil discourse that will allow for fair, reasonable and respectful debate and that attempts to eliminate personal attacks, name-calling, slurs, hate speech and the like.

We appreciate your concerns, but I assure you that censorship of ideas was not the reason for shutting down those threads. It was a policing of the tone of the comments. With any place, there are standards of decorum and decency. That's not censorship, that's civility.

I hope that you can bear with us as we work on getting these new forums set up in the next day or so. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

[Todd]

ColumbiaCowboy,

I agree censorship does stink. So does prejudging the motive of this forum. I am in the process of establishing a forum for just such hot topics. I made a post yesterday in regards to this matter. Censorship has nothing to do with maintaining a family friendly forum. If you cannot understand my position I can close you account or we can all chill out and give me the opportunity</SPAN>to establish the "Hot Topic" forum and move forward.

[Winterhawk]

If you cannot understand my position I can close you account or we can all chill out and give me the o[/size][/color]pportunity</SPAN>to establish the "Hot Topic" forum and move forward.

Would that really be necessary for someone who is simply voicing an opinion on how something went down in terms of management of this forum?

I have made my opinion on it known as well and, well, I just don't see the point of threats.

[PUGalicious]

I have to take Todd's side on this one. If people are so unhappy with the management of the forum and cry "censorship" at the drop of a hat when the staff is exercising their best judgment, then people are welcome to leave this voluntary-participation forum.

The comments by Todd are based on repeated complaints when people aren't paying attention to staff responses and allowing the management time to make changes to accommodate people's wishes.

The threat was directed at the original poster, not to you, Winterhawk.

[mranderson]

Scribe: We may not often agree, however, on your comments here...

[Karried]

I don't necessarily consider it a Threat - I consider it an Option and a chance to regroup. I think Columbia Cowboy knows that there are many people on this forum that welcome his thought -provoking posts.

[Winterhawk]

I have to take Todd's side on this one. If people are so unhappy with the management of the forum and cry "censorship" at the drop of a hat when the staff is exercising their best judgment, then people are welcome to leave this voluntary-participation forum.

The comments by Todd are based on repeated complaints when people aren't paying attention to staff responses and allowing the management time to make changes to accommodate people's wishes.

The threat was directed at the original poster, not to you, Winterhawk.

Oh I agree that it is the function of a forum's mods and admins to do what they think is best for the future development of the community and I am waiting patiently for the new forum.

However as an administrator of my own Forum, I just find it pointless to levy threats against other members. It doesn't encourage growth.

[mranderson]

Oh I agree that it is the function of a forum's mods and admins to do what they think is best for the future development of the community and I am waiting patiently for the new forum.

However as an administrator of my own Forum, I just find it pointless to levy threats against other members. It doesn't encourage growth.

Todd did not threaten him. He gave him a choice.

[Winterhawk]

Todd did not threaten him. He gave him a choice.

If you cannot understand my position I can close you account

Reads liek a threat to me. Fall in line or lose posting priviliges.

Interpretation is in the eyes of the reader.

[PUGalicious]

Thank you for your perspective. I think we can move on now.

[Patrick]

I have stated this before, but now I make it official. Any opposition to a decision made by a web admin or a moderator shall be dealt with privately via email or PM. Dragging this onto the public forum is inappropriate. This forum is for discussing issues, not for discussing the way this forum is run.

[Patrick]

A new rule concerning this has been added to the General Forum Rules of the TOS. Any further debate regarding administrative decisions made on this forum, shall be discussed via email or PM.