GS up for sale again?

[Michael Dorosh]

Neither does music, television or sports.

Yet here we are...

You've never heard a song, saw a TV show, or read a book about military history? How many ASL scenarios have been inspired directly by a film or documentary?

Put another way, music and sports bring people together. Politics divides them. That's the difference. People who support different teams or different bands can still talk with civility about their common love for the sport or the genre. Increasingly, there is no such common ground for political discussions.

 

[JoeArthur]

German Army reenactors, for example, routinely have their FB groups deleted

The local Amnesty Group here had its FB account suspended.

 

[JimWhite]

Are we adding forums for music, television or sports?

Ummm...GameSquad already has them...despite the fact this is a 'gaming' forum at least according to some.

...insisting on a Politics section in a Gaming site...

...but giving this place its true meaning: speaking of games.

Not really sure what they have to do with 'gaming'...but I guess some sub-forums are more equal than others.

 

[JimWhite]

You've never heard a song, saw a TV show, or read a book about military history? How many ASL scenarios have been inspired directly by a film or documentary?

Put another way, music and sports bring people together. Politics divides them. That's the difference. People who support different teams or different bands can still talk with civility about their common love for the sport or the genre. Increasingly, there is no such common ground for political discussions.

According to some this is a "Gaming" site...if people want to chat about music, television, sports etc...they can do so on those types of forums. No?

DISCLAIMER: I could care less what sub-forums there are. I visit the ones I like...I ignore the ones that don't interest me.

Kind of like if I do not like what is on television I change the channel. The radio? I change the station. Forums I do not like...I just don't click on them. You know...take responsibility for my own actions...I don't try to shut down what other people may want to see or talk about just because I may not like it.

But these forums are owned by somebody else...so they have every right to provide content that they want and/or censor people as they see fit.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Kind of like if I do not like what is on television I change the channel. The radio? I change the station. Forums I do not like...I just don't click on them.

Correct : with your logic: If you don’t like the GS forum not carrying politics. Change to another forums!

GS never censor the folks in other forums (read: “channels”) from saying whatever they want. The internet, like tv or radio is a big tent!

 

[JimWhite]

Correct : with your logic: If you don’t like the GS forum not carrying politics. Change to another forums!

Read my disclaimer...I don't complain about stuff I don't like to view...I just don't view it. It also doesn't mean I should be able to stamp my feet and try to get it taken away from others who might want to view it.

BTW...I don't recall ever mentioning politics...although I could be mistaken.

GS never censor the folks in other forums (read: “channels”) from saying whatever they want. The internet, like tv or radio is a big tent!

Then why do some posts get edited by owner/mods?

Regardless....owners of these types of forums can make all the rules and policies they want...and while I may disagree I just live with it.

Simple.

 

[GeorgeBates]

Let's be clear: However arbitrary or heavy-handed, the moderation of statements made in a privately-controlled space is not censorship.

 

[bendizoid]

Let's be clear: However arbitrary or heavy-handed, the moderation of statements made in a privately-controlled space is not censorship.

What is it then?

 

[Bill Kohler]

Let's be clear: However arbitrary or heavy-handed, the moderation of statements made in a privately-controlled space is not censorship.

What is it then?

IMO, it's like walking into someone else's house. Inside their house (inside their forum), the owner can establish what types of conversation they allow and what types they prohibit. When someone's a guest in someone else's house, they should be polite and abide by the owner's rules, or they and their conversation could be shown the door.

In the U.S., people have freedom of speech. But the flipside is also true: U.S. citizens also have freedom not to have to listen to stuff they don't want to listen to--to me, that's an even higher freedom. But either way, one person's freedoms should not trample on another person's freedoms.

If I build a forum, I should have the right to prohibit any conversation there that I choose to prohibit. If anyone doesn't like it, they can build their own forum and set up their own rules there. And guests can go to either forum or avoid either forum, wholly at their own free will.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[bendizoid]

IMO, it's like walking into someone else's house. Inside their house (inside their forum), they can establish what types of conversation they allow and what types they prohibit. When someone's a guest in someone else's house, they should be polite and abide by the owner's rules, or they and their conversation could be shown the door.

In the U.S., people have freedom of speech. But the flipside is also true: U.S. citizens also have freedom not to have to listen to stuff they don't want to listen to--to me, that's an even higher freedom. But either way, one person's freedoms should not trample on another person's freedoms.

If I build a forum, I should have the right to prohibit any conversation there that I choose to prohibit. If anyone doesn't like it, they can build their own forum and set up their own rules there.

What do you call it then?

 

[Bill Kohler]

What do you call it then?

Standards.

Forum focus.

Maintaining decorum, civility, etiquette, comity.

Any number of things.

What do you call the opposite, when people derail forum threads, or bring up controversial politics, or verbally abuse others? Is that called "freedom of speech"--or something else?

 

[GeorgeBates]

"House rules" springs quickly to mind.

 

[bendizoid]

How about ‘righteous censorship’ ?

 

[Bill Kohler]

How about ‘righteous censorship’ ?

A similar argument can be made about Laws. Laws prohibit certain types of behavior that are deemed bad for the society that is making those Laws. I'm sure anarchists decry that as "righteous censorship" too--for, after all, shouldn't they be able to steal and murder and drop doodoo wherever they wish?

When it comes to the social intercourse of people, shouldn't a given group be able to establish a minimum level of decorum for interactions between them if they want to? Maybe they don't want to see pictures of pornography, or comments demeaning to races, or attacks on religion. And maybe they want a space where they can discuss "ASL"--don't they have a right to do so? Or must they always be forced to allow pornography and racism and anti-religion rants, or risk being accused of "righteous censorship"?

 

[GeorgeBates]

How about ‘righteous censorship’ ?

How about not?

How else to put this, Bob? People can't do as they please with things that do not belong to them. As children, the adults around us were quick to disabuse us of the wacky notion that, "I can do what I want." Stop confusing the private with the public.

You and I are permitted to use this forum by the consent of its ownership. This grace may be suspended at any time.

This is a non-issue. Try and find something more interesting to talk about. Or, walk out into the middle of your street and shout, "GameSquad infringes on my rights!" You are free to do that, but watch out for payback from your neighbors.

 

[21Z5M]

Why couldn’t there be a section where people can get into whatever disagreement they want to as long as they keep it civil and stay within that section.

 

[GeorgeBates]

Why couldn’t there be a section where people can get into whatever disagreement they want to as long as they keep it civil and stay within that section.

Uh, because the owner doesn't want one?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Why couldn’t there be a section where people can get into whatever disagreement they want to as long as they keep it civil and stay within that section.

There is. You can PM anyone on the site you like and discuss it on your personal page.

 

[bendizoid]

A similar argument can be made about Laws. Laws prohibit certain types of behavior that are deemed bad for the society that is making those Laws. I'm sure anarchists decry that as "righteous censorship" too--for, after all, shouldn't they be able to steal and murder and drop doodoo wherever they wish?

When it comes to the social intercourse of people, shouldn't a given group be able to establish a minimum level of decorum for interactions between them if they want to? Maybe they don't want to see pictures of pornography, or comments demeaning to races, or attacks on religion. And maybe they want a space where they can discuss, I don't know, say "ASL"--don't they have a right to do so? Or must they always be forced to allow pornography and racism and anti-religion rants, or risk being accused of "righteous censorship"?

Ok, it’s anything but censorship.

 

[21Z5M]

Being civil is the key at the end of the day. Respecting people and their view points without throwing personal insults.