New Poll - Shot On Site
Thu, 1 July 2004, 11:48 pmcrgwllms11 posts in thread
New Poll - Shot On Site
Thu, 1 July 2004, 11:48 pmNew Poll topic:
A recently contentious issue, and line of discussion, has prompted me to enter this new poll.
What do you think of censorship when it comes to totally offensive, unnecessary posts?
The Poll-tergeist.
[%sig%]
A recently contentious issue, and line of discussion, has prompted me to enter this new poll.
What do you think of censorship when it comes to totally offensive, unnecessary posts?
The Poll-tergeist.
[%sig%]
Re: Shot On Site
Fri, 2 July 2004, 06:05 pmCraig wrote;
>
> I would imagine virtually everyone's standards (including
> the author's..!) would categorise these as highly offensive;
> and in the context of relevance to theatre or any prior
> discussion, they seem equally unnecessary.
I think those posts are offensive too, but I'm sure there aren't a lack of people on this board thinking "it's just a kid trying to get a rise out of us, just ignore it, it's not worth it". This case may be (as far as you and I are concerned) pretty black and white, not all the cases are going to be like that.
Start taking down posts down and you start a flood of people wanting to take down posts, a bad position for Grant (and one he has been in before) and a worse position for the free flow of ideas on this board.
>........... but if it's a post that the majority agree upon
> and complain about, should someone then be permitted to chuck
> it out?
Ah yes, the fabled majority. How the heck do we tell what the majority think? The majority of people on this board don't post, or not regularly. They read, they get the info they need, and they leave. This board is mostly posted on by a small vocal group (ie you and me). We have no way of knowing what the majority think.
Your suggestions as to rating posts etc are (for the most part) great, and in a perfect world where Grant gets the time, resources and wage to give us this amazing service, those things might be able to be put in place, but it's just not tennable.
And I have to say I completely disagree with having to have your opinions veted and deemed worthy before they are let onto this site (again, who judges what is worthy). And if we insisted people leave valid email addresses, we'd scare off some of our best reviewers, and some of our contravesial posters who spark some of our best debates.
I agree a way to deal with the teens is Grants FAQ idea. I also like the idea that anythng illegal should be taken down, but then we put Grant in a position that he should monitor all imput on this board for legality (and I know who would end up checking that, which is cool, but there are an awful lots of posts to look at) and making him repsonsible in some way for the content on this board which should never be the case.
It's difficult, but this board has managed a free flow of ideas in the past, we are having a couple of problems now that can, hopefully, be fixed with Grants suggestion that we do not feed the trolls.
Any counterpoints welcome.
LLM
>
> I would imagine virtually everyone's standards (including
> the author's..!) would categorise these as highly offensive;
> and in the context of relevance to theatre or any prior
> discussion, they seem equally unnecessary.
I think those posts are offensive too, but I'm sure there aren't a lack of people on this board thinking "it's just a kid trying to get a rise out of us, just ignore it, it's not worth it". This case may be (as far as you and I are concerned) pretty black and white, not all the cases are going to be like that.
Start taking down posts down and you start a flood of people wanting to take down posts, a bad position for Grant (and one he has been in before) and a worse position for the free flow of ideas on this board.
>........... but if it's a post that the majority agree upon
> and complain about, should someone then be permitted to chuck
> it out?
Ah yes, the fabled majority. How the heck do we tell what the majority think? The majority of people on this board don't post, or not regularly. They read, they get the info they need, and they leave. This board is mostly posted on by a small vocal group (ie you and me). We have no way of knowing what the majority think.
Your suggestions as to rating posts etc are (for the most part) great, and in a perfect world where Grant gets the time, resources and wage to give us this amazing service, those things might be able to be put in place, but it's just not tennable.
And I have to say I completely disagree with having to have your opinions veted and deemed worthy before they are let onto this site (again, who judges what is worthy). And if we insisted people leave valid email addresses, we'd scare off some of our best reviewers, and some of our contravesial posters who spark some of our best debates.
I agree a way to deal with the teens is Grants FAQ idea. I also like the idea that anythng illegal should be taken down, but then we put Grant in a position that he should monitor all imput on this board for legality (and I know who would end up checking that, which is cool, but there are an awful lots of posts to look at) and making him repsonsible in some way for the content on this board which should never be the case.
It's difficult, but this board has managed a free flow of ideas in the past, we are having a couple of problems now that can, hopefully, be fixed with Grants suggestion that we do not feed the trolls.
Any counterpoints welcome.
LLM