New moderator: Kirk Gittings

[BarryS]

Kirk--you're doing a great job so far. As a mod on another large forum, I can tell you that no matter what you do, some people will complain. If you're only getting infrequent complaints, consider yourself successful. I couldn't agree more with maintaining the uniqueness and civility of the forum. The trouble with the lounge is that sometimes the fights and bad feelings spill over into the main forum. The lounge is a good forum for off-topic discussions, but trolls should be bounced and personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated anywhere.

[poco]

Kirk,

Personally I'd probably just let anything fly so long as it doesn't present some kind of existential risk to the board ...which only shows why I'd be a crappy moderator.

Don't sweat the comment.

-Michael

[Jim Graves]

I'm with Poco ... we're all big boys and girls here ... too much censorship is VERY rarely a good thing. And, it is censorship ... no matter what pretty name you use.

This site provides an important, and popular public forum ... and with that position comes a very real responsibility not to intrude more than is necessary with the free flow of information and opinion.

Sure, you can get a majority of the members on your side for a particular censorship ... but that parameter would have excluded Thomas Paine, Mahatma Gandhi, Alexandre Solzhenitsyn, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, sure, there's nobody of that weight on this forum ... but, that is all the more reason to tread lightly on the censorship, banning, and suspensions.

Generally, we learn way more from discord than band-wagon agreement. And, what is the harm in a little discord ... it is what generates reflection and thoughtful review. And, if the comments fall a little out-of-bounds ... I think we're all capable of making that conclusion for ourselves ... and we certainly have the ability to just ignore the poster in question.

With power ... even with power as insignificant as being a moderator on this board ... comes the temptation to impose one's own value system ... but also the greater responsibility not to do so.

[D. Bryant]

I'm with Poco ... we're all big boys and girls here ... too much censorship is VERY rarely a good thing. And, it is censorship ... no matter what pretty name you use.

This site provides an important, and popular public forum ... and with that position comes a very real responsibility not to intrude more than is necessary with the free flow of information and opinion.

Sure, you can get a majority of the members on your side for a particular censorship ... but that parameter would have excluded Thomas Paine, Mahatma Gandhi, Alexandre Solzhenitsyn, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, sure, there's nobody of that weight on this forum ... but, that is all the more reason to tread lightly on the censorship, banning, and suspensions.

Generally, we learn way more from discord than band-wagon agreement. And, what is the harm in a little discord ... it is what generates reflection and thoughtful review. And, if the comments fall a little out-of-bounds ... I think we're all capable of making that conclusion for ourselves ... and we certainly have the ability to just ignore the poster in question.

With power ... even with power as insignificant as being a moderator on this board ... comes the temptation to impose one's own value system ... but also the greater responsibility not to do so.

I'm with Jim in regard to moderation. I don't want to see the LF Forum become an Ada boy club or have over moderation like APUG has drifted to. This seems to be the direction that Kirk's recent censoeship has taken.

Heated debates are good in my opinion along with expressions of strong disagreement.

Don Bryant

[Greg Lockrey]

I think that the moderation lately has been pretty moderate.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I agree with Greg.

I am all for heated debate and for letting those run their course, but over the past several months I have noticed that often these debates spiral into personal attacks. I don't think this should be allowed as it not only is offensive to those being attacked but reflects poorly on the forum as a group. In fact, this trend is one reason I don't visit or partcipate as much as I once did. One can debate and disagree with respect.

Keep up the good work moderators.

[sanking]

After some thought I would suggest that some moderation is needed in the Lounge for the sake of community.

Perhaps with the upcoming elections things people are more tense than usual, but the blatantly sexist comments in a thread there today on Sarah Palin just goes beyond what should be allowed on a forum of this type, IMO.

I participated in the thread for a while, even though the title itself indicated considerably sexism, but after a comment in which the OP started talking about republicans and $20 whores I left, with one final comment that I would complain about the thread here.

Threads that are overtly sexist are an embarrassment to me, and I hope to other decent men and women on this forum. I am all for the uncensored exchange of information, but when the level of blatant sexism is so extreme something should be done to stop it, either by moderation or by banning the offending parties.


Sandy King

I agree with Greg.

I am all for heated debate and for letting those run their course, but over the past several months I have noticed that often these debates spiral into personal attacks. I don't think this should be allowed as it not only is offensive to those being attacked but reflects poorly on the forum as a group. In fact, this trend is one reason I don't visit or partcipate as much as I once did. One can debate and disagree with respect.

Keep up the good work moderators.

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm on the opposite side from Sandy in the political debate, but respectfully so. And I think I must agree with him on this issue, given the start of post 141 in that thread.

[Jim Graves]

Either have a Lounge or don't. I could go either way. It is obviously not essential to this forum. As for censorship, I have no problem with expelling members who repeatedly make personal attacks ... but I object to exclusion of content unless it is clearly obscene or markedly inappropriate.

I have gone back and read the entire Sarah Palin thread ... as of now that is 218 replies (with 3641 viewings in less than 3 days.) The replies with questionable content were quickly called to task by other posters.

Some of the posts that were deemed objectionable by other posters were misconstrued (e.g. the $20 whore comment that clearly referred, not to Sarah Palin, but to true-believers that were willing to sell out their principles for some kind of gain.) Yes, the term whores is sexual in nature. Yes, many people are uncomfortable with it. But, it is a common non-sexist term with a long history of use to describe selling out ... that is how it was used. The post was objected to by a few, the poster explained and defended his usage in a subsequent post ... that is the way it should work.

As for the credibility or honor of the entire forum being threatened by this thread ... I don't see it. And, I have no idea why anyone who frequents this forum would feel that another's post somehow reflects poorly on their own character.

I found the thread topical, interesting, and pretty good drama. I disagree with a lot of what was posted but found a lot to agree with. I didn't like some of what was written but I wasn't offended by it. That it is popular reading is clear from the huge number of views in such a short time (3641 in less than 3 days.)

[David A. Goldfarb]

The reason the Lounge is good is that it keeps most of this discussion to the Lounge, so that people who aren't interested can put the Lounge on ignore, as I do, so it doesn't have to be part of their LF Forum experience.

I think the moderators should be more aggressive about deleting spillover from the Lounge, like some of the discussion here, because it defeats the purpose of the Lounge, which is to contain off-topic discussion.