Lets be Fair...

[lmj301]

I wasn't trying to or asking for anything to be changed in this thread. I was stating that it has been discussed before and that the mods will not budge on this type of issue from my experience.

I honestly prefer the idea that we hold ourselves to higher standards then others might, it speaks to character.

I don't think censoring a government official's words makes us better than them.

I understand about not going on rants like I have seen on other sights. I have issues with sensoring quotes of government officials. I have also seen news reports with words removed or changed by the filters. KSL, Deseret News and the like are considered family friendly too. The FCC creates rules so that communications are up to a family friendly standard. The speech and link standards are MUCH more strict than the public at large considers acceptable.

I did contribute last year to keep this site up and running. Then not long after I contributed I asked a question about the rules and was harshly and rudely (in my opinion) treated about it. I will not contribute again. Thomas has his rules. This site is the best UT specific site in my opinion for information. But I will not contribute financally again.

[Snurd]

The FCC creates rules so that communications are up to a family friendly standard. The speech and link standards are MUCH more strict than the public at large considers acceptable.

I'll have to disagree with this. The FCC allows a lot of stuff that is not family friendly. Just as one example, look at Desperate Housewives. A show dedicated to adultery is in now way family friendly. It shows that pulling the family apart is totally okay. It's not okay. They used to be much better, but have fallen hard.

[lmj301]

The FCC creates rules so that communications are up to a family friendly standard. The speech and link standards are MUCH more strict than the public at large considers acceptable.

I'll have to disagree with this. The FCC allows a lot of stuff that is not family friendly. Just as one example, look at Desperate Housewives. A show dedicated to adultery is in now way family friendly. It shows that pulling the family apart is totally okay. It's not okay. They used to be much better, but have fallen hard.

We are talking vocabulary not subject matter.

[Snurd]

They deal with both. I wouldn't doubt they have failed in the text area as well. There is a bunch of junk on the radio too.

[Daeyel]

Lets not attack the poster - his question is in good faith.

I am a member of another forum, dealing with college football. I almost never visit, because I like to intelligently discuss football, the weaknesses and strengths of this team vs that team, or even better, my team vs your team. However, due to the rules of the board, a thread generally goes like this:

Poster Y: My team rules because we beat A, and your team sucks because it lost to B.
Poster Z: Actually, B whipped A and you (stink)
Y: No, you (stink) and (your mama wears army boots)
Posters L - U chime in on either side with insults, meaningless points and general ugliness ensues until:
Mod: Calm down or I'll suspend people!

Whereupon the insults move to 10 other threads.

It's no fun and I never go there. Here, speech is certainly restricted. The only thing you can talk about id the point at hand, helping to keep the debate moving, rather than stalling with personal attacks and garbage that serves no purpose. While you may call it a restriction of free speech (and I will not argue that) compared to the other board, it actually fosters a positive atmosphere and encourages people to stay, and even better, participate. Its no fun on the other board to post something relevant and valid, only to have someone with a ridiculous numbers of posts say 'STFU noob, you don't know what you are talking about.' It is much more pleasant to watch Divegeek say that in a way that you actually respect and like him for the way he so eloquently and nicely puts you in your place

[Sam Fidler]

It seems that the OP and many others fail to understand the difference between speech and behavior. This forum has never limited the free flow of ideas that constitutes free speech. The degradation of an environment through slander, libel, and vulgarity is behavior and has nothing to do with speech. Since this forum's rules limit only the method of expression and never the content, I see no contradiction.

Is that fair enough?

[divegeek]

I think everything has been covered, but I just want to throw my support behind a couple of points.

The first is that mqondo (I think) laid down the bottom line: This is Thomas' house, and so it's his rules. Even if I completely disagreed with the rules, I would absolutely have to respect that. The public is invited to read all they like here, but it's made very clear that in order to post you have to follow Thomas' rules.

I see that as analogous, not to typical open-to-the-public businesses like Wal-mart, but by-membership clubs. In order to shop at Costco you have to buy a membership and sign an agreement to abide by the rules, and you then have a contractual obligation to obey the rules. Should you choose not to, your membership will be terminated, and Costco has every right to do that, where Wal-mart, due to their open-door approach that doesn't give them the contractual leverage, is more limited in what they can do.

Really, that ends the discussion. Thomas' house, Thomas' rules. Period.

That said, we can certainly debate whether or not we think this rule fosters or restricts open discussion, either in an effort to get Thomas to change his mind or even just because it's fun to debate it.

My position on that debate is: The rules are awesome, and I think I have a significant basis of experience on which to draw in arriving at that conclusion.

I've been debating and discussing things on on-line fora since 1985, when I first got into the BBS scene using a 1200 baud modem and my dad's Leading Edge PC compatible. I BBS'd for hours per day until I got to college in 1988 and discovered USENET. I was on USENET daily until the late 90's (excepting during my mission). Eventually I transitioned to web fora. Anyway, the point is that I'm a pretty old hand at this, having 26 years of experience with it, and having participated in dozens (at least) of different fora.

What I've observed over those nearly three decades is that fora live and die by their signal to noise ratio. Some that serve sufficiently large populations can survive in spite of a low s/n ratio, but UCC is a forum that caters to a small subset of a small region.

This means that the core reason why UCC is such a strong, vibrant forum is because the "noise" is rigorously excluded. In and of itself, profanity/vulgarity is not noise. People can and do communicate in very foul ways. But what is pure noise is interpersonal conflict, and for most people, once they start throwing around profanity the personal attacks quickly follow. Forcing people to keep it clean -- even to the extent of banning quoted profanity -- is kind of like making people dress up in their sunday best. It affects how they behave. That, in turn, helps to minimize the noise.

In my opinion and based on my experience, without the strict moderation UCC would be a less useful, less interesting and, ultimately, less popular forum.

[Digigdawg]

Thank you for everyone for your responses and input. I do not know why so many people think I am trying to promote cursing or attacking people or the such. I strongly disagree with the notion that you cannot have a family friendly forum and free speech. Sam Fidler I think hit the nail on the head with a very good point -The forum makes rules to restrict certain types of behavior (which is not speech though some may argue), not necasarily content or ideas of an individual. Looking at it in that lens makes sense, unlike some others' outlook. Divegeeks analogy of store types is a good way to look this forum. I signed up to the forum knowing the rules, and agreed to follow those rules just as I would sign a contract to follow Costco's rule if I were a customer there.

With that being said, I really do enjoy this forum. I meant no disrespect (as some seemed to take this personally) but was simply trying to figure out the differences in my simple mind and sought the counsel of the forum.

[Kloutier]

Agreed. If you want that kind of convo go to usacarry.com Seems to be a bunch of guys who would love to cuss with you.

[JoeSparky]

The point is that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution restricts the government not generally businesses or this forum. The government can't restrict free speech,but I regularly restrict or limit the type of speech I hear at home or while at work!

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Snurd]

I do not know why so many people think I am trying to promote cursing or attacking people or the such.

Maybe it is because of your own words. Highlighted in red below.

I feel that the forum can have a "family friendly" atmosphere while not purposefully limiting an individuals right to free speech. Why not have the ability for members to rate/give feedback on posts/individuals so we can police ourselves. Maybe have a rating for content and vulgarity pertaining to what the forum defines as "family friendly". This way the members of the forum can see if an individual poster uses less than "family friendly" tendencies and have the membership decide for ourselves if we wish to view that particular individual's posts.

From what you said you are wanting vulgarity and the ability for members to rate it. Cursing and the other items are in the same family.

I'm not taking what you are saying personally. I am just pointing out that in this thread you are being inconsistent with what you are saying. And I made sure to explain that in detail.

Where is CarKnocker when you need him?

[Car Knocker]

Where is CarKnocker when you need him?

Hello? You rang?

[Snurd]

Hello? You rang?

Well, you are the thread locker of the group........

[divegeek]

Thank you for everyone for your responses and input. I do not know why so many people think I am trying to promote cursing or attacking people or the such. I strongly disagree with the notion that you cannot have a family friendly forum and free speech.

I guess I don't understand your point then.

What are you arguing should be allowed that is not presently allowed? The only restrictions on your speech on UCC are that you can't curse or say other non family-friendly things, you can't attack people and you have to stay on topic -- but the last isn't a restriction, really, because you can always start a new topic.

So, if the only restrictions are those you agree with, why the concern about restrictions?

[Car Knocker]

Hello? You rang?

Well, you are the thread locker of the group........

The thread is going along well and hasn't got to the point that it's merely repetitions of earlier arguments. Is see no reason to take any action at this point.