Topic: Reviewing the board guidelines: When the magic button people are okay to censor

[_sturt_]

Given that a post disappeared overnight on the forum which is explicitly described as... 

"This is an open, no holds barred forum. "

...I was curious to see if the standards say anything about calling into question how the standards are being applied.

Just the facts, ma'am.... here's what I found....



So, "flaming?"... of course, that post has now disappeared so the magic button people have eliminated the evidence, but suffice it to say, you can almost never find an occasion where yours truly raises an issue in which I use profanity, or in which I'm not raising facts and making an argument in proof of a conclusion.

It's never a willy-nilly shallow specious mean-spirited hate-motivated something as-is commonly intended when we use the term.


"On-topic?"... it was my topic, so by definition.

"Be thoughtful?"... first, God only knows how many unthoughtful posts show up on the main board in any day or week or month, with hardly anyone choosing to read it, yet without any retribution or censorship... but second, that's the main board... by definition, there's not even THAT standard on the Stampede board, and I would... third... assert that it's altogether "thoughtful" to post on the topic I was posting about on that board.

"No threads directed personally?"... again, we have this thing where it happens all the time and the magic button people have given broad latitude in that way historically... there could be a decent debate perhaps whether they ought to have a shorter leash, but all-in-all, I don't really care personally as long as the standard is applied equally... and there was nothing in the censored post that called out a specific person by name... it only described the actions of a specific person, and described him as having a certain level of authority... and importantly even then, it only raised up the facts that might support a theory for why the recent cherry-picking/unfairness has occurred.

As to the rest... anonymous name? no... revealed identities? no... information about recruits? no... vulgar profanity? no... spam? no... hate speech? no... porn? no... politics? no... threats? no.

So what to make of this?

Well, we're left to assume there is one other guideline that just somehow didn't get written into the code yet, but it's there nonetheless...

Don't author a post that puts facts together in a rational order that lead to the conclusion that cherry-picking/unfairness has occurred. That's not okay. Because that just doesn't happen around here, right?...

Okay, but if that's true that it doesn't happen, why then the knee-jerk reaction to censor?

People don't bother to censor unless there is something that irks/bothers/grates them about what was presented, do they?

Growing up in America, I always heard the mantra, "I may not like what you're saying nor like who you're saying it about, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."

Now, I get it, this is not a public board. It is privately run. Ultimate authority rests not with government, but individuals. Yet, while that's all true, it doesn't change the point that we commonly as Americans embrace that we believe people deserve to have a voice unfiltered just out of common basic human respect and a belief that free speech is not only "a right," but that it is, in fact, "right."


===
Edit: By the way, still contend that this...



... is "flaming" AND "directed personally."

Indisputably.

Why it gets a pass? Dunno. Have to ask the magic button people.


 

And that whichever you consider this post to be... on-topic or off-topic...



... then this post...



... because it is echoing that post and pointing out that yours truly has been singing from that same hymnal for years, MUST ALSO be considered as the same on-topic or off-topic that you judge the other to be.

How anyone could conclude differently would seemingly have to be somehow influenced by a bias they bring to that judgment. And bias is associated with this unfairness theme that began this post... AND, the one that was censored.

Begs the question is "integrity" even a value of this board? Sometimes, I'm sure it is. But by definition, doesn't it have to be all of the time? How does integrity mean anything if it's only important when one anecdotally decides "NOOOOW it's important"... ?

In my best Ernie Salvatore voice... pardon me, I'm only asking.

[_sturt_]

Oh yeah. On this same topic...



Now, this guy has always evidently thought himself to be so cleverly Mark Twain-like here, and I don't post this to take that away from him since he evidently needs to have a psychological outlet (otherwise, I would have brought it up years ago when he first thought it important enough to make it his signature line)...

But I only bring it up to further pin down the factual reality that the magic button people here will look the other way and not hold you to the same standard they do others if their prejudices lead them that way.

Fairness schmareness right? Yeah.

You love it when the refs on the field take that perspective, as long as it favors your team right?

I get it.

[_sturt_]

Then again... on second thought, not that any of us should be surprised, I suppose.

It's easy to want fairness for ourselves and for those of our own clique... or political party... or race... or sex... or whatever...

And yet so easy to prefer for it to be denied to people we disagree with and/or have personality conflicts with.

And when a person can cower behind a computer screen, the anonymity makes it that much easier to take that position. All the more so, when a person recognizes they blend in with so many here.

But don't fool yourselves too much.

While it's true, no one may yet have bothered to post outright here to explicitly say they're not okay with it, most people put a high value on fairness and are bothered when they see unfair treatment. I believe that. Don't you?

I have zero doubt whatsoever, you guys who have taken a stand for unfairness through the protests you've posted and through the abuse of the magic buttons are far far far outnumbered here.

People may be fallible, but as a rule, people favor and want what is good. That's why almost universally we want sports competitions to be fair, and on those occasions when they're not, even if the unfairness goes to our own favor, most of us are not okay with that. Because we know better. Even if only out of the self-interest that says, if it happened to them, it could eventually one day happen to me.... which, fwiw now, is a primary point made in the post that was censored.

I don't have to like what you say. I don't have to like your personality. But I will stick up for fairness, whether it's for you or it's for someone else. That's just how I think about it.

[_sturt_]

I don't have to like what you say. I don't have to like your personality. But I will stick up for fairness, whether it's for you or it's for someone else. That's just how I think about it.

Just an observation, several days later....

Came across one of the Mark Twain wannabe's post just now, and I see that the obliviousness on his part remains intact. That's not a surprise, of course.

What is a slight surprise, though, is that by virtue of that being the case, the magic button people still appear determined to cherry-pick as to when they will and when they won't stick up for fairness.

"You would do the same thing if you were in their position, though."

No. I would not.

I not only said what I said, but I've done that, both here and in my personal "real" life.

(Don't challenge me on this, or at least, disable the "search" function on the board before you do so that I can't dig it up. My mind instantly goes to a time when goherd24 was getting some unfair flack, and I called foul... can't remember the specifics, but it happened, and I'm pretty certain it was even more than once.)

And lest anyone misunderstand... no, it's not necessary for Mr. Twain to be compelled to change his sig line. There's another easy solution. Just re-word or remove those standards that are published here, so that you're not expecting one thing of some of your board's participants, and another for others. Right? (Let me answer that. Yes. That's right.)