Vulgarity, Personal Attacks, Anarchy - Allow All, Nothing, or Somewhere In-Between?

I have seen comments removed that I felt were scathing but not personal attacks. I have seen comments removed that were sarcastic, or condescending, toward another poster, but didn’t seem very vicious.

I have also suggested that some comments be removed, and they were not, even though I thought they were accusations of illegal or scandalous behavior, etc.

I guess my point is that none of us agree on everything and there will be times when something is removed, and something else is left, and we will scratch our heads and wonder why?

If there is a possible way to leave the moderated comments available, but only by link, we have a way to see them if we want to, or not see them if we choose to accept the site moderators’ judgment calls. I don’t know if this only serves to emphasize the bad behavior, or reward it, but it would still allow for free speech while chastising the commenter if that is appropriate…

It’s so subjective, and difficult, because the reality is that you can’t please us all (and you shouldn’t try…)

we will not all be anonymous if you are required to log in to comment as in Q/A .ridiculous

I also think that the guidelines suffice.

I was amused with all the complaining about not allowing religious debate here, when I checked out the religion debate site and saw how little activity it got.

I think the site rules are fine the way they are. I wouldn’t mind having a “no holds barred” type of site (minus the vulgarity of course) but that would never fly here because there are too many “sensitive” people that take things too seriously. Even with the current rules, people all too often get their feelings hurt, which has been a major issue lately. I think we all need to relax more and just continue the site “as is”. It’s worked fine for the past 2+ years, but for some reason, people are complaining more than they used to. We have rules in place for a reason and as long as people follow them, there shouldn’t be a problem. If anything it’s the “sarcasim” that many of us use, that often hurts the “sensitive” members feelings. As long as we can continue to debate and not hurt each others feelings intentionally, I think sarcasim is fine for the most part.
I say keep the site as is and continue with the rules we already have in place. Enjoy the discussions and don’t get so caught up in sometimes frivolous comments that occasionally get thrown in the mix.

Many of you mention that you’d like free speech, except any vulgarity. Well, I LIKE vulgarity. So deleting my vulgar comments would be flying in the face of free speech, and deleting others’ vulgar comments would be keeping me from reading their free speech statements.

Do you see what I mean? So we really don’t have free speech, after all. We have some reasonably vague rules, and sometimes the moderator is offended by the comment, and sometimes not, because the moderator is as human and subject to human feelings and errors as the rest of us.

I maintain that the site is as safe and sane as others out there today, and when the personal attacks are kept at a minimum it’s an enjoyable forum. (I guess I can live without my precious vulgarity!)

There have been a few posters who have had their feelings hurt and have complained to the administration. I say – if you are passionate enough to contribute an entry on a subject you have interest in, don’t take offense when someone with an opposing view attempts to point out the fallacy of your argument. And if someone uses a moral tenet to bolster his position, you should not be censored (ban on discussing religion) for quoting the same religion that authored the basis for his argument.

Mohandas K. Gandhi said, “The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.” If we are to have real freedom of speech here, we must eliminate the ban on discussions concerning religion and/or its consequences on society. A nation that fought a war of independence to insure the freedom of/from religion also fought for the freedom to discuss those rights with an unfettered, free press. Frank and open dialogue should be embraced here, not discarded because someone gets his feelings hurt. Buck up! If you disagree with a comment say so, but say so after you’ve done the homework necessary to come back with an intelligent rebuttal.

Nemesis is right. Some vulgarity should be allowed. As Mark Twain said, “Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” I’m not talking vulgar, lewd suggestive stuff, just good old cursing when circumstances demand.

Joe, as you might have noted from any of my other posts, I am all in favor of lifting the ban on discussing religion whenever that discussion becomes pertinent to any given topic. Ben Franklin said, “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” We should be free to express such sentiments when the occasion warrants.

This site is the modern version of the town hall meetings in the old school house. Open and frank discussions about every aspect of this democratic experiment should be debated and discussed here. Free speech is already encumbered enough. As long as participants don’t slander, don’t threaten and don’t post articles that can’t be substantiated…I say let’s take the gloves off and have a bloody go at each other (intellectually of course).

I do wonder why some folks feel such a need to comment on religion in particular.

Religion is such a personal issue, it’s more personal than politics, even. I am an atheist, but I hold very firm to the right of everyone to believe how they want, and I hope their religion (or lack thereof) brings them comfort and joy. I think it’s an affront for one person to try to poke holes in another person’s belief system…

The interesting thing that I see is that there is a part of this site where religious discussion CAN be made…yet no one bothers to comment there. Is it because no one really wants to have these discussions on this site, after all ? Obviously not. So I wondered if the reason it must not be so popular is that the real need is not to share the joy of one’s own faith, but to make a public spectacle of the attempt to shred someone else’s faith.

However, my daughter looked at the rules and had a different idea. She was wondering if folks didn’t go to that blogspot to discuss religion because they didn’t realize it was solely for the folks who normally visit this site. (Not wanting to join a different, strange forum.) She suggested that rule #7 be reworded to say:

“No religious discussions (for or against). IFz has a set up a separate site for our commenters who desire religious discussion. You can find it at http://religiondebates.blogspot.com“.

Nemesis,

Guest of Guest said it best. Religion has a way of creeping into many conversations on this site. An example of which was the HJR2 thread. When a poster used the morality issue, I countered with a quote from Christ, hoping to refresh his memory about what that spiritual head of his church said concerning the treatment of some of our lesser brethren. My entry was censored.

This community and indeed the entire state feels the effects of religion in our daily lives from blue laws that prohibit hard alcohol on Sunday to zoning laws that mandate the types of businesses allowed.

Nemesis, religion may be a personal issue with you but I feel I’m not alone when I say to you that those religionists have no more right to dictate their lifestyle on me or on the rest of society than their witch burning counterparts did in Salem, Mass.

The reason nobody goes to the web site set up to discuss religion is mainly because of it’s inacessability and complete lack of notoriety on the new comments postings site (should a new post ever appear).

See what I mean? It’s comments like ISJ’s that blow these conversations completely out of proportion. Nemisis, Meso and myself just had a civil conversation regarding OUR views on the topic (or lack thereof) and you come on here and say we’re “arguing” or taking “pot shots” at peoples religious beliefs. THAT my friend, is why “religious discussions” get such a bad rap on this site. People like you get so bent out of shape over nothing.
Unbelievable!

Those folks who are uncomfortable discussing religion need to explain why religion must be singled out for particular protection. Why isn’t it okay for non-believers to question the basis for belief? We can question the basis for conservative views, liberal views, cultural views, lifestyle views; why is religion to be treated with kid gloves & relegated to a cobwebbed corner in the dark somewhere?

If organized religion were truly separated from the rest of society’s influences in our lives, I wouldn’t care a bit. But when it’s placed on the table as a reason for society to interfere in my life, please don’t then remove it from the table just as quickly when I want to examine the contents of the spiritual plate.

I have to disagree, 007, because of the language used to argue these positions, not even because of the positions themselves. Joe posted a link in Q&A, tips for new users, that we could all stand to read. When I read “People like you” that is a big red flag for me that debate is degenerating into something less noble.

yeah, that sounded like baiting to me, too….thought that was a “no no” here….

handsome devil icon?

Than why didn’t you just disagree with Guest_House? Why would you disagree with ME agreeing with someone else? That makes absolutely no sense which led me to believe you were baiting. And I think you should really relax on the whole “language used” issue. Joe has stated time and time again that we have the ability to use “free speech” here. It’s not your position to tell us how we should word our sentences.

So instead of arguing about how somebody SAID something, why don’t you argue the actual TOPIC. Stop nitpicking every single word in everybodys comments. I think this is what bothers so many posters. (but I could be wrong)
The fact is, you’d rather pick apart somebodys “wording” then argue the actual topic at hand.
And just so we all understand, by “arguing” I mean debating, discussing and otherwise talking about said topic.
Thank you & have a marvelous day!

Well said 007.

As for baiting, I do consider it baiting when one user posts negative comments in multiple threads solely in response to one other user’s comments, while failing to add anything to the conversation other than their negative and personally directed comments, as galpalguy has just done in this thread, in Escape from Idaho Falls, and in Discipline Debate, Should Spanking be Outlawed, and I believe in the Chatbox last night.

Statements by the baiter that their comments do not intend to bait, in the course of baiting, do not disqualify their baiting as such, end of de-bait.

ditto to 007: “So instead of arguing about how somebody SAID something, why don’t you argue the actual TOPIC. Stop nitpicking every single word in everybodys comments. I think this is what bothers so many posters. (but I could be wrong)
The fact is, you’d rather pick apart somebodys “wording” then argue the actual topic at hand.”

Wow this is making my brain dizzy LOL.

I think we should just allow people to say whats really on thier minds. I gues some vulgarity should be allowed some times I would love to tell someone they are being an (sensored) and a mother (bleep) stupid smart (sensored) see it just doesnt look right like this I wish we could just fill in the blanks and let it out lol. The other person could just say no im not. I mean its so sad we can’t do the American thing and just tell someone they are a stupid (sensored) moron and just use the english we learned in school as children I mean really the 1st amendment is geting erased by our society and totaly desacrating our constitutions words. Crystal you are awsome and I do not care what losers say about you. Your ok in my book.

I’ve been posting on internet forums for a long time. Religion & Politics are banned from many special interest forums, like the ones that are devoted to old cars, musical instruments, home decoration, etc. because they have a way of veering out of control and getting viciously nasty.

Religion and politcs are both matters of faith, and faith, by it’s very nature, cannot be proven or disproven. One either has faith or not; the problems always arise when someone attempts to ‘prove’ matters of faith by using objective methods like science. Those waters are deep and tend to run very hot.

I’ve also found that cursing and obscenity always closes off rational discussions, especially for the one who posted the swear words. Ironically, the most heavy put-downs I read are those that don’t incorporate any swearing. My dear old Mom always said cursing is the sign of a lazy mind, and she’s right.

The net being what it is, there are always going to be people who are very sensitive to perceived insults from another, even if there was no insult intended. Some people can express themselves in words better than others, just as some can speak fluently and some can’t. I found a long time ago to think and re-read before everything I write before I hit the Submit button. If I’m going to ruffle some feathers, I want to make sure it’s intentional, not accidental.

There are always going to be folks who feel some deep need to convince all others, and can’t tolerate any other’s opinions. Opinions can be changed, but the change never happens immediately. The more the issue is forced, the more opposition it will gather.
Disagreement is just fine- there’s nothing wrong with simply stating so and leaving it at that.

and… there’s nothing wrong at all in saying I’m wrong if I am wrong. The net is a great way to expand your horizons, and learn a lot of new stuff. All it really takes is a few of the good manners you would have if you were talking to someone face to face.

Is that a personal attack?

I’m trying to provide constructive feedback for anyone who feels it might apply to them, as other posters have already directly commented/laughed about certain posts, within threads and in the chatbox. If you reread the original start of this thread, I believe it is appropriate.

A personal attack is much more personal. My post could apply to several posts I’ve read on ifz and other blogs over the past 2 years.

Another favorite saying of mine:

“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt!”

I’m not baiting or attacking, I’m staying on topic and being polite. No euphemisms or religious comments here by george!

Moderation, in all forms, is only a tool for community agreeance to converse or communicate ideas, opinions and information. I know we can’t please everyone all the time, and only rarely do we accomplish the compliance and agreement of the majority on open discussion, however we must try as our society depends on community strength, which comes form individual input and co-operation. Diversity builds stronger community, and open minds gather many thoughts and are benefited in the information and observations of many.
I am not an Idaho native, and I have lived in many states, but these facts do ring true. No, we can’t always get along, but we can agree to disagree. I have taught this to my children, and live by it always and it has helped me communicate and converse with many people from all walks of life.

Joe, past and present, I just wanted to make sure you saw this so I snagged it from the chatbox before it disappeared…..don’t know if Nemesis saw it yet; I know how sad she will be, also:

“CR67 : I give up. Like Mike, Babs, Ok4Now, OohChild and the countless others before me, I’m through with the constant bickering on this site and am moving on. Thanks Joe Eagle for everything and I wish you the best. I don’t need this negativity in my life. Goodbye to those friends I’ve made here. (you know who you are)”.

Sigh.

Here’s what I think - CR67 and I discussed the article on abortion. He decided to research the issue, and we were both excited that it sounded like a good article to write. He worked at the article, did a GREAT job, (KUDOS AGAIN CR67) got it submitted and posted and lo and behold, the first thing that happened was Crystal posted three posts with the same stuff that she told me a few days ago, she recognized she shouldn’t do and stated that she “learns from constructive criticism”.

I think CR67 felt that the article he worked hard at was about to be blasted and ruined. I can see how he would feel dissapointed by that. I was a bit dissapointed myself to see that but chose to ignore it.

A few of us have very politely asked that Crystal not bomb the posts and she agreed not to. Do you recall this Crystal? Why now did you start up again Crystal, after CR67 writes such a great article? One post at a time Crystal, go ahead and create links, but post an opinion too .This is a blog site. It was created to hear the opinions of the users. If you want to throw in a link or two to verify your comments, great, but otherwise, stick to your opinions, YOUR knowledge on the issue.

By the same token, I do think people really have a tendancy to pick on Crystal which I also think is wrong. In turn she fights back. It’s a vicious circle and it all sounds childish. The reality is, everyone is ruining the posts between her bombing them and everyone else posting their little nikpicking at her. It seems anymore I click on a link at the top only to find some ongoing fight between users and Crystal. THAT annoys me! It’s gotta give!

I for one have asked Crystal to ignore the ones who comment about her posts if she doesn’t like them. I think I’ve also asked that others ignore her posts if they don’t like them. I agree that scroll key is awesome. I also agree that some of her posts are very annoying. But the constant nikpicking is also annoying.

I woke early (can ya tell?) and was looking forward to the responses on that article, and decided to come in here and take a look before going back to sleep for a bit, and it seems it all turned to disaster. I read the chatbox and OMG, this IS a disappointment!

CR67, you can’t leave, end of story. You are a great contributor and you can’t let Crystal or anyone else here get to you.

Crystal, CHILL!

And everyone else, will you kindly just ignore her if she annoys you so much? Sometimes her contributions are good, often they are annoying, but give it a rest. Please?

I have tried to refrain as of late, but this is totally out of line. I think Joe needs to step in once in awhile and calm everyone down. Vandal used to do that and we need that.

In the meantime, think of that employee at work that really irks your spine. In order to maintain civility at work (and keep your job) you ignore him/her and try to stay away from them. Can we do that here?

The board is being ruined by the constant fighting. That is very sad because it really is a great blog site.

And please, can we all put our irritations aside and get back to our opinions on the article that CR67 worked hard to make so interesting?

Thanks.

It sounds to me as if you admitted to something and are now denying it. Take some responsibility. I agree you didn’t chase off all the posters, but I also agree that your posts can get pretty annoying with everyone’s opinion except your own (ie., all the links and cuts and pastes). This isn’t a link site, it’s a discussion board. Discuss the issue like we’re supposed to. I also think CR67 is above leaving because of you, prove me right CR67,

There is some picking on her, there’s a lot of fighting around here. I find myself spending a couple minutes browsing the fights anymore and then leaving. But admit to wrong doing, apologize to CR67, and move forward. Then maybe some will apologize to you.

You obviously didn’t read comment 52. The fact that you have continued to argue with posters on this site just for arguments sake, is the main reason you’ve turned so many posters off of this site.
I would suggest you re-read comment 52 and learn to accept “constructive criticism”, like you once mentioned and agreed to Hmmm. The fact that you continually put down other posters imo is a “cancer” and one must wonder why you feel the need to do that.
I also might add that CR67 never mentioned anywhere that he “owned” that topic, so I have no idea where you got that from. I just don’t understand why you felt the need to put him down. Comment 16 in the abortion post says alot and I would urge you to go back and read that one as well.
The fact is, quite a few long time members have left because of you and that is too bad, but it is something that Joe will have to deal with. And as always, YOU are right and ALL those other people are wrong. I wish Joe could print out the chatbox at the end of each day for the past month and let you read how you argue with people on a daily basis. THIS is what turn people off, not your opinions or lack thereof.
But this of course is merely MY opinion. FWIW

Making the chatbox comments a permanent and available record is an excellent idea. That is where most of the attacks go on, and I am not the only target. That is where CR67 told me not to comment on HIS topic.

I vote to make the chatbox dialogue available, and I would like to see it go back so folks can see what has really been going on here.