Yet another week has passed, and i have not seen a responce to my questions about ethics and "intellectual eliteism".

Is this because in essence..."whats done is done?" and the administration will brook NO challenges to their decision or authority, and its easier to not respond, which would only give more creedance to these questions? (boy do i sound like an anti-bu#e with this one)

A few more notes

Mackiller says about buying access to the former mudpit,

There are no refunds.

Yes im sure the stated policy for spending points does say this,
BUT
ever hear of bait and switch? Where the "customer" holds up their end of a deal and the "supplier" provides something OTHER than what was offered? While the "no refunds" clause indeed would allow the board ops to avoid a return of points, i think that "customer service" and or the poor impression this act leaves with some members feeling a little duped or taken for a ride.

Majic says,

There is nothing wrong with having a strong opinion on something, however, expressing that opinion in the form of insults directed toward other members, their cultures, ethinicities or nationalities accomplishes nothing more than driving threads off topic and fostering an atmosphere of mutual disrespect.

Use of devicive speech to express one's opinions does accomplish something....it show that poster may be ignorant of the issues, shows that bigotry exists, and ultimatly shows that that persons post is essentially trash. Respect is EARNED not given, and is hard to mandate. If you are a troll and you post crap, your posts will get NO RESPECT, and it deserves to be trashed (verbally debunked/slapped) by other posters as well as moderators.

Denial of speech of this nature, only insulates those that post crap from the admonishment they deserve...how will they ever hope to learn if noone is allowed to challenge their beliefs?
Denial of speech also IS censorship...no 2 ways around it....this censorship denies the non troll posters from seeing that there are really people out there with these devicive views....that some people really need to be exposed to more ideas than just ones that "fit with their views or their approval"
This also raises the spector of uniform definitions and enforcement. Many posters on THIS thread have asked for more clear cut definitions that are clear for everyone....yet putting this to practice is a monumental task....define all cases of acceptable speech eh? good luck.

majic again,

In such a climate, meaningful discussion becomes impossible

NO it doesnt....it might make things a little more challenging,but communications can certantly continue. When im participating in a thread, and a few posters are only slinging one liners, or posting really devicive stuff....i just skip responding to them (unless they really deserve a verbal slap) Why does this end my meaningful discussions with other posters involved? It seems like banning speech for your convienance of not having to read a few dumb posts is a really POOR excuse for infringing upon open, honest, and expressive communications, weather you deem them productive, insensitive, bigoted, or not.

Deltachaos says,

there will be people who are 'enflamed'. Most of these people are that way because they prefer or choose to be anyway. They're not going away.

No they arent going away DESPITE board ops making it SEEM like they are by banning/restricting peoples expressions....this is a whitewash of reality...Yes they might leave ATS behind, but did those ideas vanish, nope, only from our too sensative to tolorate eyes. We blind ourselves by enacting communication divisions.

Flinx says,

I'm somewhat disappointed that the people here are so tolerant of this political content

Which political content should be intolorable? Which group of political thinking is next for censorship? Which ways of expression are next on the chopping block? I personally find those that have made creative pictures and graphics very talented and amusing, but some of them, avatars included are devicive...SO WHAT. I mention this because these graphics can be just as "bad" as just saying it would be. Yet creative pictures are mostly considered artistic forms of expresion. This speech ban should also then apply to "political cartoons/satire" as well.

pineappleupsidedown said,

Just because a person is passionate about politics (or religion, ethics, whatever) does not given them the right to just go on a rant and flame whoever they want however they want.

i know, i know i know already...this is a private board, and i respect that this community has the RIGHT to set boundaries for itself that define it. (sound like a familliar argument from me on other topics?)
BUT,
At what point do you loose your right to express ideas, feelings or critiques? If a person wants to disagree, even in a derrogatory manner, how is it ok to silence this dissent or statements of emotion or even bigotry? Why are you (those pro new restrictions) ok with stifiling speech in any form?
as mirthfulme says,

I fear that name calling and contrived derision is the crux of most arguments, those tools removed, the ability to articulate any meaningful dissent is removed.

Hmm, this thread seems about split along these lines.....no lack of dissention here

Ok, so ive tried to see where this can go discussion-wise, and will probably wait another week until no board admins have responded, to ask the wind again about these issues.


[edit on 22-11-2004 by CazMedia]

[edit on 22-11-2004 by CazMedia]

Originally posted by CazMedia Do you hear that hissing sound? Thats the sound of the energy being sucked out of the now split forums.

Keep in mind that the core mission of ATS is not the debate of political ideologies, just as it was not general chit-chat. When membership expressed a desire for more and more general chit-chat, BTS was born to give such discussion a better place to live than a conspiracy board. Given the current political atmosphere, a new "PTS" board is long overdue, as well as decided upon by senior staff and board ownership. This site is, after all, a private venture, not a public service.

lets talk about ethics for a moment. the idea that "we don't need that type of post here."

Yes, correct, we certainly do not want posts that attack people. Depending on the severity of the attack, moderators tend to want to give gentle nudges than hard warnings.

when it refers to a freedom of speech issue, or open and honest forms of communication, (even non intelligent) it seems most are willing to encourage the stiffiling of this liberty.

We said it before, we'll say it again (and again, and again apparently) -- your "freedom of speech" is not guaranteed here. All to often, our members mistake exactly what is the concept of "freedom of speech" and attempt to apply their own interpretation to a privately owned entity. This site is privately owned, and our staff has been selected by the owner, or trustees of the owner, to promote free and open discussion within the boundaries of the standards defined by our terms and conditions and follow-up policy discussions such as this.

Which group of political thinking is next for censorship?

I don't understand what you feel is being censored? (and again, just as you appear to misunderstand freedom of speech, you seem to misapply the concept of censorship here)

Wow somewhere where for once i agree with proposed change. Even in my mums kitchen i have a problem.
I love this site and although you get the odd paranoid nutcase its better for it because it means everyone else can look at them.
Once apon a time i was thinking of setting up a site just like this, but not only do i not have too but if i did i would probably fail.
You people do wonders for political expression, thought and debate and if you keep it up no one should want to compete with you (unless their greedy and very, very rich). Alex