Freedom of speech
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
- Status
Being nice AND obeying mods/admins.Ingenu said:
(It took me a while to learn that second part...
digitalwanderer said:Being nice AND obeying mods/admins.
(It took me a while to learn that second part...)
Ish, such a word. There's a reason they took it out of the marriage ceremony, y'know. I've never obeyed a mod in my life --tho I've often cooperated with them for the greater good of the community, and more than occasionally humored them out of respect for the difficult job they do for small reward.
Tho generally if I find myself too often the attention of mods in their official capacity, I would consider it a sign it is time to move on anyway as clearly there is a basic disconnect going on.
What's the difference, you say? Al Haig used to like to say that when he smoked Cuban cigars he thot of himself as "burning Castro's crops". I like boards where the mods appreciate cooperation, and probably am not going to be too pleased for too long where they demand obedience. It's a mindset thing.
Hmm.
If a registered forum participant adheres to the following :
1) Do not regularly post OT in threads
2) Do not regularly abuse/flame ANYONE via forum posts
3) Do not regularly criticize any of the staff of a forum via forum posts
4) Do not regularly criticize the forum/site itself via forum posts
... BUT provides a link to a site, in his forum signature (i.e. you see the link in every post he makes), that has contents that may be perceived -- whether by the forum's owner or by the general public -- as "damaging" to either a forum's owner reputation/integrity or the forum/site itself, contents which will eventually be archived (i.e. doesn't stay on the "front page" 24/7) but may be provided as "archived links"... is that forum participant doing anything wrong?
Would it be right/wrong for a forum owner to edit such person's signature to remove such a link in his signature? I am not talking about whether it is "understandable" but whether it would be right or wrong. Does a registered forum participant have a right to voice -- via a site, not by consistently saying so in every forum post he makes -- his disatisfaction with a forum owner (but not the site) via a link in his signature? Bear in mind the numbered points above. Such a person adheres to #1, 2 and 3 in any/all of his forum posts. Bear in mind also the title of this thread. And bear in mind we're not talking about any possible "ethics" or "etiquette" matters involved here but the subject title of this thread.
If a registered forum participant adheres to the following :
1) Do not regularly post OT in threads
2) Do not regularly abuse/flame ANYONE via forum posts
3) Do not regularly criticize any of the staff of a forum via forum posts
4) Do not regularly criticize the forum/site itself via forum posts
... BUT provides a link to a site, in his forum signature (i.e. you see the link in every post he makes), that has contents that may be perceived -- whether by the forum's owner or by the general public -- as "damaging" to either a forum's owner reputation/integrity or the forum/site itself, contents which will eventually be archived (i.e. doesn't stay on the "front page" 24/7) but may be provided as "archived links"... is that forum participant doing anything wrong?
Would it be right/wrong for a forum owner to edit such person's signature to remove such a link in his signature? I am not talking about whether it is "understandable" but whether it would be right or wrong. Does a registered forum participant have a right to voice -- via a site, not by consistently saying so in every forum post he makes -- his disatisfaction with a forum owner (but not the site) via a link in his signature? Bear in mind the numbered points above. Such a person adheres to #1, 2 and 3 in any/all of his forum posts. Bear in mind also the title of this thread. And bear in mind we're not talking about any possible "ethics" or "etiquette" matters involved here but the subject title of this thread.
This is like a f'in soap opera. Good god, I'm expecting Susan Lucci to rear her aged head in this forum soon looking for another Emmy.
Christ on a crutch, Rev, are you still looking for people to approve of your handling of the whole damn affair? Some people will. Some people won't. The vast majority simply do not give a shit.John Reynolds said:
Get over yourself. Jesus, I thought that maybe you would have figured out that your ego has been the cause of all of your recent problems.
- Status
