Group Coerced Censorship

Because civility doesn't drive people away. Because civility is something that forums so often lose right before respect. Because we are all humans and it should be incumbent upon us to treat each other with respect and dignity whether face to face or over the internet. Sitting behind a keyboard tends to help people feel a little bigger and it can lead to even more rancorous discussions. Civility should be held to a higher premium in places like this because of that alone. It is the right way to act.

But FRPLG, if the thread is off to the side in the parking lot, and 3 or 4 people want to scream and curse and call each other morons over the internet, what's wrong with that? Can't you, as a bystander to the madness, simply skip over the thread just as you suggested should be done when someone creates a dumb thread such as the one suggesting we trade Taylor for Briggs?

I'm of the school of thought that says men can get in a fistfight, and when it's over, pick each other up and go have a beer together. If someone wants to call me an idiot or whatever, I'll call them a moron in return or whatever, but when it's all over there's no harm done in my eyes. Shutting down threads because of "what might become" of the thread implies that the site members are incapable of handling conflict maturely. I'd think the members of this site are capable of getting into a verbal war and not allowing it to carry over into other threads. If you get into a fistfight, you handle it maturely by not trying to beat the other guy's ass every time you see him. You fight, and when it's over, you let it go. If people can do the equivalent here, meaning they don't let the fight spill over into other threads, then I see no problem.

I dunno, maybe it makes sense to draw the line at cursing or whatever. But I think it's really lame when people start locking threads because the opinions expressed look like they're going to be very strong ones. We just end up with mild conversation as a result.

The only thing that forum etiquette should be designed to prevent is preventing conflict from spreading to other threads. I say if people want to fight, let them do it in that thread, but if they start carrying the conflict over to other threads, that's where you have a problem.

Do you say that because (Falwell) , hate is his message, or because he promoted, and championed views that make people feel uncomfortable?
I don't want to try to speak for Matty, but I think he might be saying that
Falwell used religion and his 'moral authority' to hide his messages of hate.
The guy said that homosexuals and feminists were, at least partially, responsible for 9/11. He said that the Antichrist was "obviously a Jewish male." And he pushed for racial segregation during the Civil Rights Movement.
These are just a few examples of what he did in life that lead me to believe he wasn't as great of a Christan as he wanted to be.

That doesn't sound like a very moral person to me.

Just to add, the fistfight thing may be a poor example because if you've gotten to the point where you're coming to blows, you've handled it irresponsibly in the first place. I guess the equivalent of that, on a message board, is cursing and making personal attacks.

So it makes sense to draw the line there. But you have to let people have the opportunity to express strong opinions or this place will go stale REAL fast.

But FRPLG, if the thread is off to the side in the parking lot, and 3 or 4 people want to scream and curse and call each other morons over the internet, what's wrong with that? Can't you, as a bystander to the madness, simply skip over the thread just as you suggested should be done when someone creates a dumb thread such as the one suggesting we trade Taylor for Briggs?

I'm of the school of thought that says men can get in a fistfight, and when it's over, pick each other up and go have a beer together. If someone wants to call me an idiot or whatever, I'll call them a moron in return or whatever, but when it's all over there's no harm done in my eyes. Shutting down threads because of "what might become" of the thread implies that the site members are incapable of handling conflict maturely. I'd think the members of this site are capable of getting into a verbal war and not allowing it to carry over into other threads.

I dunno, maybe it makes sense to draw the line at cursing or whatever. But I think it's really lame when people start locking threads because the opinions expressed look like they're going to be very strong ones. We just end up with mild conversation as a result.

Actually I tend to agree. I should have expanded more on what I said.

First off I do believe civility should rule the day in all walks of life. I just think it is right. I was answering a more general question of "why civility?" and should have just stuck to the question as it applies to this situation. Sorry for that.

I do not think that civility should be FORCED but rather fostered. I think there is a fine line there and maybe in this case it was crossed. Intentions were noble but I probably lean toward thinking the thread had not yet reached a point where locking it was fostering but rather forced.

I also agree about the fistfight analogy in theory but I worry that in a place like this the level(or lack of) of true human interaction obstructs, to a point, the depth and quality of relationship needed to overcome interpersonal skirmishes. That leads to fights that only tarnish the site and drive people away and I personally think that is ONLY bad for thewarpath. I am not here to converse with a bunch of syncophantic skins fans who all fall into line on every issue and I fear that by allowing more vitriolic discontent it keeps new people away and potentially rids us not of valueless members but of valueable ones.

I guess in the end though I think civility is the way to go and I hope everyone is able remain safely in the civil zone. But I do not think it should be forced. If there is something that is creating a significant amount of incivility the mods have the right and yes the responibility to rid the the site of it to keep everything moving along positively. In this case? I am not sure though.

So it makes sense to draw the line there. But you have to let people have the opportunity to express strong opinions or this place will go stale REAL fast.

I 100% agree. But "express strong feelings" does not equate to incivility to a reasonable person. I think you'd agree on that. Again I am not endorsing the locking of this thread, nor am I denouncing it. I think you and I probably are pretty close in mindset on this one. You have some good points.

I 100% agree. But "express strong feelings" does not equate to incivility to a reasonable person. I think you'd agree on that. Again I am not endorsing the locking of this thread, nor am I denouncing it. I think you and I probably are pretty close in mindset on this one. You have some good points.

Word. I agree.

As with any communication, you also have to consider your audience when you are dealing with strong opinions. Some people can handle a debate involving curse words and name calling, they just have thick skin I guess. I've seen people call each other idiots and yet they've stayed on topic and continued to debate. Then you've got people who call each other idiots and then it just deteriorates into a back and forth of personal attacks, totally getting away from the topic at hand.

I guess that's what you really want to avoid, a deterioration of meaningful discussion. After all, discussion and the exchange of ideas regarding the Redskins (and other stuff) is why we all come to this site.

By the way, just putting this message out there for the mods, I've been making suggestions on this and that for the last week or so. I hope it isn't taken as me being critical of the job you do. You guys run a first-class ship around here, so I hope I'm not coming across as a know-it-all or anything like that. Even with my bitching and moaning on a few issues, I keep coming back to this site just as much as ever. If I thought you guys sucked ass, I'd be out of here, but I'm not.

Conclusion: you guys do not suck ass, and I heart the Warpath. Thanks for the work you do.

Sorry, not sure what you're asking exactly.

I was asking if you think "Hate" is Falwell's message, or is he such a religious zealot that his interpretation of the bible does not fit with today's PC world, thus makes many people uncomfortable.

Don't you love the word, thus?

I was asking if you think "Hate" is Falwell's message, or is he such a religious zealot that his interpretation of the bible does not fit with today's PC world, thus makes many people uncomfortable.

Don't you love the word, thus?

Yeah I think hate was his message, whether it was overtly or not.

And I do support the closing of the previous thread. It was clearly going to spiral out of control very quickly. Good call by SGG.

I'm all for open debate even on touchy subjects, but there are times when some people just can't handle a debate like that in a civil manner. Perhaps we can do it in this thread instead, but the other thread was turning ugly really quick.

Don't you think that when you start preemptively closing threads that can get you into trouble?