dealing w/objectional posts...
Food for thought -
I think people should be accountable for their actions and words.
By deleting objectional material, the the admins/mods in effect, 'excuse' the behavior.
putting a spoiler around the offensive verbiage, with a warning/disclaimer as to the nature of the contents?
This would allow all to judge for themselves exactly what kind of an idiot we are dealing with.
Once this is done, that post should be 'locked' to the poster, least he/she attempt to alter the offending verbiage.
I think it would all depend on the circumstance, personally. I don't think slapping a black spoiler bar would work everytime, as there are instances posts deserve to be either deleted or edited out right by mods. I'd hate to say they have to do it one way all the time, cuz you never know what's going to be posted by somebody who doesn't know the rules or disregards them.
I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.
“If I had to live my life over again, I would treat women worse. The women who I treated nice always turned around and treated me bad and the women who treated me bad didn’t deserve to be treated nice anyway.”
But sometimes people might get overemotional and make a mistake. I dont think we should hold it against people for making a mistake. And sometimes maybe newbies just arent aware of what's within boundaries.
I think it's ok the way it works now, they get their posts edited, but they also receive a warning from a mod. After x amount of times they probably get kicked off the boards. It seems fair.
Dave, you are assuming that offensive comments are made through acts of foolishness and that leaving the comments in place ( possibly with a note of repremand?) would embarass them. But often the objectionable comments are done intentionally in an attempt to offend or to get a reaction. If you leave the comment in place the "offensive" person will feel quite pleased with themselves and think they had won. Trolls want the attention and highlighting their "bad" posts will just draw more attention to them - which is exactly what they want.
I prefer the way they have handled these situations in the past - remove the offensive material, warn the offender and ban them if they continue to offend.
It's a very difficult decision. I hate to act like a censor and edit people's comments, but there are some things that just don't need to be said, or at least not on the boards here. Extrememly off-topic stuff has to get deleted, too, not because it's offensive but because we have to keep the boards relatively geared toward the subject matter. I'm generally pretty lenient with it, because I enjoy some of the interesting off-topic things, but when I deleted a post of yours the other day, for example, it wasn't anything personal against you, just what I'd do for anybody. Keep in mind that it's all up to the moderators which off-topic or offensive posts are left in and which get the axe...just by being off-topic they are fair game for removal anyway. I don't like inflammatory or offensive posts, so I just delete those without a second thought. With the off-topics I consider what they're about, if it's something that could cause trouble, I get rid of it. If you're upset about that post I removed the other day, Happyheathen, don't take it personally.
actually, I would have liked to see the post which caused such a flurry of activity (re. agincourt).
and, as a matter of simple courtesy, I request that anyone who wishes to complain about any comment I make cc me on the matter - if I offend anyone, I would ask to be informed.
(in law, this is known as the right to confront one's accusers - a conerstone of English Common Law)
of the 51 jurisdictions in the US (50 states + District of Columbia), 50 have legal systems based on ECL - which is the exception, and on what is it based?