Serious topic: Tone, moderation, etc.

A few thoughts about recent threads discussing the tone of the discussion board and (at least for some posters) calling for moderation:

1. MODERATION: Shadowcat spoke against moderation and cited the 1st amendment. Chill Palmer disagreed, stating that the 1st amendment was irrelevant. Although CP is of course correct (a. This is not exclusively an American board [not stated] and b.the first amendment doesn't give people the right to use any platform for their speech [e.g., a privately owned discussion board]). Nonetheless, I would contend that Shadow was correct from a philosophical standpoint. This board focuses on a type of expression that many cities try to shut down. We should take a philosophical position stating that people have a right to express themselves in an unfettered manner. So my vote is with Shadow...NO MODERATION.

2. TONE: Some have decried the tone as too combative and insulting. Well...it is combative and insulting. But is it TOO combative and insulting. Perhaps some of the loudest voices in this camp should take a look at their own posts. I don't want this thread to degenerate into name calling but I would like to cite a exemplar. Specifically, I'll highlight Chill Palmer. After seeing the comments regarding moderation I scanned old posts wondering if he had been consistently civil in tone. I would say that many of CP's post have indeed been civil. Too be perfectly frank, I would characterize them as rather uninteresting, uninspired, and not very insightful or memorable (i did have to click on the link because I couldn't remember!). But that is my opinion. CP has every right (in the model I advocate) to post whatever he wants. I have the right to ignore him.

However, I noticed some CP posts directed at me. I had forgotten that CP was associated, at least to some degree, with the "23camby-crew". I was referred to as a Juice sycophant and CP stated that I didn't have the intelligence to express my own personality. Arguably more biting insults than simply calling somebody a "fag". Now I honestly don't care what CP's opinion of me is. As I said I hadn't even remembered him. But I am pointing out his behavior because he appears to be implicitly saying "I want a more civil tone...except when I want to insult somebody".

So I would recommend that the "tone police" start by policing their own tone. And perhaps simply ignore those they dislike or find irritating. There is an ignore list feature after all.

1. INTELLIGENCE: Let's face facts. TUSCL isn't the Algonquin round table. I happen to find some of the stupidity humorous. If we take Juice as an example I know his posts are often stupid. But I'm also certain he knows he is being stupid. It is all a JOKE my friends. Some of us are entertained and others aren't. It seems to me that there is a solution if you aren't entertained. And it isn't saying "people should only post that which I find funny" (substitute some other term such as insightful, informative, useful, etc. if you wish).

Now, if we assume our new friend Pootie is Juice then Juice has hit upon a not very inspiring joke. Personally I'd like Juice to get back to some of the stuff I found funny. But that is his choice. If he wants to do th "Pootie speak" thing he can. If Pootie is a new guy that just happened to show up...well, I don't find him as funny as classic Juice. How to deal? Don't respond if you don't like it. Everybody wants responses if they post. Don't give that to those you genuinely dislike. A few thoughts about recent threads discussing the tone of the discussion board and (at least for some posters) calling for moderation:

1. MODERATION: Shadowcat spoke against moderation and cited the 1st amendment. Chill Palmer disagreed, stating that the 1st amendment was irrelevant. Although CP is of course correct (a. This is not exclusively an American board [not stated] and b.the first amendment doesn't give people the right to use any platform for their speech [e.g., a privately owned discussion board]). Nonetheless, I would contend that Shadow was correct from a philosophical standpoint. This board focuses on a type of expression that many cities try to shut down. We should take a philosophical position stating that people have a right to express themselves in an unfettered manner. So my vote is with Shadow...NO MODERATION.

2. TONE: Some have decried the tone as too combative and insulting. Well...it is combative and insulting. But is it TOO combative and insulting. Perhaps some of the loudest voices in this camp should take a look at their own posts. I don't want this thread to degenerate into name calling but I would like to cite a exemplar. Specifically, I'll highlight Chill Palmer. After seeing the comments regarding moderation I scanned old posts wondering if he had been consistently civil in tone. I would say that many of CP's post have indeed been civil. Too be perfectly frank, I would characterize them as rather uninteresting, uninspired, and not very insightful or memorable (i did have to click on the link because I couldn't remember!). But that is my opinion. CP has every right (in the model I advocate) to post whatever he wants. I have the right to ignore him.

However, I noticed some CP posts directed at me. I had forgotten that CP was associated, at least to some degree, with the "23camby-crew". I was referred to as a Juice sycophant and CP stated that I didn't have the intelligence to express my own personality. Arguably more biting insults than simply calling somebody a "fag". Now I honestly don't care what CP's opinion of me is. As I said I hadn't even remembered him. But I am pointing out his behavior because he appears to be implicitly saying "I want a more civil tone...except when I want to insult somebody".

So I would recommend that the "tone police" start by policing their own tone. And perhaps simply ignore those they dislike or find irritating. There is an ignore list feature after all.

1. INTELLIGENCE: Let's face facts. TUSCL isn't the Algonquin round table. I happen to find some of the stupidity humorous. If we take Juice as an example I know his posts are often stupid. But I'm also certain he knows he is being stupid. It is all a JOKE my friends. Some of us are entertained and others aren't. It seems to me that there is a solution if you aren't entertained. And it isn't saying "people should only post that which I find funny" (substitute some other term such as insightful, informative, useful, etc. if you wish).

Now, if we assume our new friend Pootie is Juice then Juice has hit upon a not very funny joke (in my opinion). If Pottie is genuinely new (I know...unlikely) I would also say the posts are tiresome. But that is my opinion. I can ignore that which I dislike. You should too. When people post they want a response. If you give it you're you're providing exactly what the poster wants. If you don't like the post, why are you doing that!

And -- with respect to tone -- I would add that the Algonquin round table was hardly know for its civil tone. So intelligence =/= civility.