Filter Out Political Words?

happybrew · 10-18-2003, 05:24 PM

Should political words be filtered out by the naughty word filter, in order to prevent rancorous political discussion? Examples would be "conservative", "liberal", "Bush", "Clinton", "Republican", "Democrat", etc.

[ 10-18-2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: happybrew ]

Thumper · 10-18-2003, 05:33 PM

Way too far, too PC. I am a conservative and proud of it. I suspect the liberals are proud of their views too. What is wrong with a little disagreement? That is what makes the world go around.

In my opinion there is too much moderation already. Witness the removal of the aborted fetus photo. Reality bites sometimes. We are mostly adults and need not be sanitized any more than we are already.

happybrew · 10-18-2003, 05:43 PM

If people consider political discussion too rancorous, and don't want to see it on the board, this is the only way I could see it being done. Given the political bent of our esteemed moderators, I can certainly see the conservative side getting their topics locked far more than liberal topics getting locked. This would simply put everyone on a level playing field, and ease the work on our moderators. Win-win all the way around.

happybrew

crabbait · 10-18-2003, 05:45 PM

Happybrew - Please allow the administrators and moderators of the board to determine what should or should not be allowed on ifish. While th opinions of members are valued, we do not allow or disallow things based on the results of polls.

If people discuss/debate within the acceptable use policy (AUP) we will have very few problems even with fairly contentious topics.

Healthy discussion and even heated debate is encouraged. Personal attacks, inflammatory statements and disrespectful posts are not allowed. We are as objective as possible with this very subjective material and no one will agree with all of our decisions, but that is just the way it goes.

happybrew · 10-18-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Happybrew - Please allow the administrators and moderators of the board to determine what should or should not be allowed on ifish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I fail to see how I could do otherwise than that.

Just throwing an idea out there is all.

happybrew

Freakwater · 10-18-2003, 06:16 PM

I don't understand why people get bent out of shape over the political discussions/arguments on this board. If you don't enjoy them, don't read them. They are not forced upon you.

10-18-2003, 06:44 PM

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

10-18-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Freakwater:
I don't understand why people get bent out of shape over the political discussions/arguments on this board. If you don't enjoy them, don't read them. They are not forced upon you.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You are absolutely right FW. However, why shouldn't a person be able to express his/her politcal view without getting attacked and called names? Or ridiculed for having an opinion differing from the person doing the ridiculing?
I'm pretty sure the name calling we have seen here on LIG is not what Jennie had in mind when she started this forum.

Chromaflage · 10-18-2003, 06:51 PM

This is applicable here as well as other threads:

Abstinence works 100% of the time. So if one does not desire to experience the potential consequences of an action, one should abstain from that action. So, one can choose not to participate in any or all discussion.

ORS

[ 10-18-2003, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: OregonRedside ]

Jennie@ifish · 10-18-2003, 06:54 PM

The problem we have is not discussing politics... It's the way in which opinions are delivered, occasionally.
Spend one day in a moderators shoes, and try to figure out whose alerts are to be acted on, and whose aren't, and I think you would see things very differently.
Your "esteemed" moderators have no political "bent" that I am aware of, although it is fun to blame it on that, isn't it? :smile:
...and as far as "don't go there"... You bet you won't go there. Not on my board. Simply because I won't allow it.
I have been more than lax about some of the awful things people say to one another. It's not what I had in mind. Period. Sorry... I just can't please them all, and if that's what you want in a forum...(I sound like a broken record) there are plenty of sites that do allow it.

I feel that this is what makes ifish work.

The moderators and the members, forever striving to see that we work towards peace, and find those things that we share in common.

FISHFISHFISHFISHFISHFISHFISH!

Jen

[ 10-18-2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

ampersat · 10-18-2003, 06:58 PM

if you want to have a free and unfettered discussion of presidential politics, abortion or what have you, there are forums out there where you can express yourself with less moderation. the LIG board is here as a service to the ifish community. in fact, you should consider yourself lucky to even have it much less complain about how it's moderated.

Chromaflage · 10-18-2003, 07:13 PM

I might point out a couple things:

1. When you bring nearly 6000 people together to "discuss" various topics, there will undoutbtedly be occassional disagreement, regardless of the topic. This is one way we learn from each other.

2. I realize the this is Jennie's baord and she makes the rules. However, when you start talking about censoring political discussion, where do you draw the line? And who decides where the line is drawn? It's a slippery slope. Because of the culture within our state, a lot of fishing/hunting issues are by nature very political.

3. If there wasn't an LIG forum, these subjects would still emerge elsewhere (see #1 above).

4. If we ALL present our views respectfully, as mature adults, we can have differing opinions without inflammatory escalation. THIS is what the moderators should be concerned with - abiding by the AUP.

As for me, I can have political disagrements with anyone on this board, but when it comes to fishing, nearly anyone would be welcome in my boat.

ORS

[ 10-18-2003, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: OregonRedside ]

Freakwater · 10-18-2003, 08:57 PM

Stew,

Ahh! You are absolutely right as well! I think this board is fairly and well moderated. It would be a shame to completely sensor political discussion on this board. To me, one of the most interesting things about ifish is that I share a passion with people that have a completely different political view than I do. It reminds me that people are not one dimensional. I love to hear stories of people on this board that have differences, then get together, have a great day fishing, and walk away with a mutual respect. I don't mean to be cheesy, but this is one of the reasons I dig ifish.

Freak

[ 10-19-2003, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Freakwater ]

10-18-2003, 09:48 PM

No need to ban any of those words.Just one word comes to mind that I would like to see banned....
Thumper

:tongue: [img]graemlins/hearton.gif[/img]

of course not before he takes me fishing in his new boat that is :grin:

[ 10-18-2003, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

happybrew · 10-18-2003, 11:23 PM

I really like this poll thingy. As of right now, only one person other than myself thinks it's a good idea. Furthermore, my idea is vaguely annoying to some. This is the usual state of affairs for me whenever I wish to express an opinion.

By doing a poll, however, I can find out what people think, and only express opinions that people like! [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

happybrew

crabbait · 10-18-2003, 11:36 PM

Yreka!!!

Thumper · 10-19-2003, 04:43 AM

Eureka!? :grin: "Used to express triumph upon finding or discovering something." As opposed to Yreka --- "Small boring town in N. California."

[ 10-19-2003, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

Jennie@ifish · 10-19-2003, 05:46 AM

Quote:

And who decides where the line is drawn?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That would be me and the mods!! :smile:

Whose idea was it to ban those names, anyhow? :smile: When I read the poll I laughed!?

It's not so slippery, really... I just keep adding to the AUP.

Jen

happybrew · 10-19-2003, 07:07 AM

A review of locked topics on LIG since the middle of August reveals that none were locked because they were political in nature, although I'm still fuzzy about why the late term abortion thread was locked. This would indicate that any fear on my part about conservative threads being locked more than liberal is ungrounded. My apologies to Crabbait, who was concerned that I was slighting the moderators. I have stood up for the moderators before, and although I may disagree with their politics, I think that they do a fine job. I was completely serious when I said "esteemed moderators".

happybrew

Pete · 10-19-2003, 07:44 AM

The "Late term abortion" thread was locked because the discussion wasn't progressing. The process and reasons are posted at Life in General: Emotions and rhetoric escalate and no progress towards any resolution or conclusion was evident. Highly polarized discussions such as that require significant effort to moderate and run counter to the point of Ifish; maintaining a fishing related community. Certainly there can be value in non-fishing related discourse, but once the battle lines are drawn and people's positions are evident, if there is no sign of any mugually satisfactory agreement on a desirable resolution, what's the point? We provided the final window of opportunity for last thoughts and a notice that it would occur to let the discussion come to conclusion.

happybrew · 10-19-2003, 04:11 PM

Well, since few seem to like the idea, and most importantly the mods don't like the idea, I think that we four who are in favor of the idea ought to voluntarily censor our own political speech. So when we talk about the *********, and how that lousy **** before ******* is going to ruin the country, we can, at the same time make a point about how much we disapprove of ******** speech in this forum. :grin:

In fact, since few like my ********* beliefs anyway, nobody can be offended when I talk about ********. The ******** will be happy, and I can rant on about that and the *** in **** as well. :grin:

See? It works! No [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] , just :whazzup: and [img]graemlins/hearton.gif[/img] .

happybrew

pdxkevin · 10-22-2003, 06:25 AM

If you take away the word, they will use or invent another one to fill its place.

CATCH AND EAT · 10-22-2003, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thumper:
Eureka!? :grin: "Used to express triumph upon finding or discovering something." As opposed to Yreka --- "Small boring town in N. California."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Jack???? or is it Brion?

Actually it is a vaccum cleaner boys. You're both wrong. :grin:

[ 10-22-2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]