Ugliest Baseball Player

[J.R.]

Or is your site policy that a problem only exists if someone actively complains about it, or enough people actively complain?

 

Apparently so. There's a rather detailed discussion of sexuality in Rants that is decidedly adult in nature, yet that goes on unabated.

 

I don't understand why some plainly adult discussions are allowed to flourish while the whole HCP was obliterated, right down to the fracking cartoon edition.

[CoolHandLuke]

http://www.aa2sbu.org/aaezine/images/M/Matsui-APPhoto-6172075.jpg

[Andy]

Or is your site policy that a problem only exists if someone actively complains about it, or enough people actively complain?

 

Apparently so. There's a rather detailed discussion of sexuality in Rants that is decidedly adult in nature, yet that goes on unabated.

 

I don't understand why some plainly adult discussions are allowed to flourish while the whole HCP was obliterated, right down to the fracking cartoon edition.

I don't think it was so much the pictures as the vulgar commentary. Even I thought it was a little graphic and I'm pretty permissive about that stuff.

 

That said, the discussion in the sexuality thread is just as graphic, but its perceived philosophical qualities makes it more allowable.

[Derwood]

Or is your site policy that a problem only exists if someone actively complains about it, or enough people actively complain?

 

Apparently so. There's a rather detailed discussion of sexuality in Rants that is decidedly adult in nature, yet that goes on unabated.

 

I don't understand why some plainly adult discussions are allowed to flourish while the whole HCP was obliterated, right down to the fracking cartoon edition.

I don't think it was so much the pictures as the vulgar commentary. Even I thought it was a little graphic and I'm pretty permissive about that stuff.

 

That said, the discussion in the sexuality thread is just as graphic, but its perceived philosophical qualities makes it more allowable.

 

Are we talking about the homosexuality thread? If so, most of us are discussing it philosophically. I think there are only 1 or 2 posts that desribe anything of a physically sexual nature.

[Diffusion]

That's neither here nor there as regards whether or not mockery of the appearance or others is compatible with your site policy.

Not true. I believe the intent of your first post was to mock the moderators on this forum, which suggests to me that this discussion has a similar intent. I suggest you bring in up with Tim if your concern is an honest one, either via PM or email.

 

The intent of my first post was actually to illustrate the extremely marginal difference between this thread and those that were removed from the site. I have every respect for Brinoch, I don't recall ever having a problem with him, I don't believe he's ever had a problem with me. What I wrote was not targetted at him at all.

 

I didn't pass judgement on what's the right or wrong course of action either in relation to this thread or those that were removed from the site, I still haven't, and I won't, since it's completely unnecessary that I do so. What I think, not holding any position of authority here, is absolutely irrelevant.

 

But either outright, undisguised and unashamed public mockery of the appearance of others is compatible with this being "a family site, welcoming to kids...", or it is not.

 

If it is, and the fact that you've not so far chosen to remove this thread from the site suggests as much, perhaps you could care to reconcile that policy with the same one that led to you removing the other threads from the site?

[Tim]

That's neither here nor there as regards whether or not mockery of the appearance or others is compatible with your site policy.

Not true. I believe the intent of your first post was to mock the moderators on this forum, which suggests to me that this discussion has a similar intent. I suggest you bring in up with Tim if your concern is an honest one, either via PM or email.

 

The intent of my first post was actually to illustrate the extremely marginal difference between this thread and those that were removed from the site. I have every respect for Brinoch, I don't recall ever having a problem with him, I don't believe he's ever had a problem with me. What I wrote was not targetted at him at all.

 

I didn't pass judgement on what's the right or wrong course of action either in relation to this thread or those that were removed from the site, I still haven't, and I won't, since it's completely unnecessary that I do so. What I think, not holding any position of authority here, is absolutely irrelevant.

 

But either outright, undisguised and unashamed public mockery of the appearance of others is compatible with this being "a family site, welcoming to kids...", or it is not.

 

If it is, and the fact that you've not so far chosen to remove this thread from the site suggests as much, perhaps you could care to reconcile that policy with the same one that led to you removing the other threads from the site?

Diffusion,

 

I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but it seems that in this case you are painting everything in black and white. Being a moderator for a site like this is anything but either/or. We do our best to adhere to the guidelines and principles upon which this site rests when determining what constitutes "too much" or "too far". We do our best to be consistent with that decision. It is very hard to write out exactly what meets that filter and what does not. Most of the time, we just have to go by gut feel on those decisions and I feel that we have assembled a pretty good team of moderators and we discuss these things before taking action when things are gray.

 

It may not be the best way to do things. We're open to suggestions on how to do things better. If you feel that you could clearly delineate a set of rules of behavior that is complete and will not have exceptions or gray areas, please give it a shot and share it with us. Until then, we will have to continue down the path we have set.

 

We are doing the best we can. If you have problems with the policies of the board or with how they are upheld, please let me know instead of taking shots at the mods through sarcasm on the board.

 

Thanks.

[Bote McBoteface]

http://www.augustasports.com/images/headlines/082799/randy_johnson__mug_.jpg

 

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ajtaylor/2005/01/20/ostrich.jpg

 

I see no distinct difference.

[Omar]

http://www.augustasports.com/images/headlines/082799/randy_johnson__mug_.jpg

 

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ajtaylor/2005/01/20/ostrich.jpg

 

I see no distinct difference.

 

Conan Obrien'd.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Conan Obrien'd.

 

 

http://conannews.ytmnd.com/

[FloridaCubbie]

http://www.augustasports.com/images/headlines/082799/randy_johnson__mug_.jpg

 

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ajtaylor/2005/01/20/ostrich.jpg

 

I see no distinct difference.

The ostridge has a mullet.