Good-by to all

[GordMay]

It would be inappropriate, at this time*, for me to reveal the details of the present situation, but in general:

Another member posted offensive remarks, which were deleted for “cause”.

Chuck had, in the meantime, posted a mature & thoughtful rebuttal to the original affront, which was deleted for “continuity” - not because he did anything wrong (quite the contrary, his comments were responsible & welcome).

A series of escalating misunderstandings has ensued, resulting in Chuck’s dissatisfaction & departure.

I think I speak for the vast majority of members & staff, when I appeal to Chuck to reconsider, and continue his very valued participation on the CruisersForum.

* Chuck has asked for “full disclosure” (post the various communications, including his reasons). I will ask the staff to consider this request; but note that it would be a breach of normal policy.

Please do NOT use this Forum to solicit traffic to other forums.

[Sandero]

I'd like to know the rule(s) that was violated which led to a deletion of a post.

[Pelagic]

Thanks Gord.

I mean this in the most constructive manner;

Perhaps the “normal” policy of surgical deletions of an offensive post and along with that, a valued member’s considered reply does a disservice to the spirit of a Forum that encourages a free exchange of ideas and the implied promise that it will be heard.

Replacing a truly offensive word with “deleted” allows us all to follow the context and understand why you might warn us that it will be closed.

Many times we self police CF so that Mods don’t have to always be heavy handed (by closing a post) with those who get carried away or are new and don’t know any better.

We think in return, you should trust us to understand that sometimes crap happens and we can supportively deal with it instead of taking away the liver along with the bile.

[Maren]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Thanks Gord.

I mean this in the most constructive manner;

Perhaps the “normal” policy of surgical deletions of an offensive post and along with that, a valued member’s considered reply does a disservice to the spirit of a Forum that encourages a free exchange of ideas and the implied promise that it will be heard.

Replacing a truly offensive word with “deleted” allows us all to follow the context and understand why you might warn us that it will be closed.

Many times we self police CF so that Mods don’t have to always be heavy handed (by closing a post) with those who get carried away or are new and don’t know any better.

We think in return, you should trust us to understand that sometimes [deleted] happens and we can supportively deal with it instead of taking away the liver along with the bile.

Good post (except for that word)

[Sandero]

Maren,

You gotta be kidding. Or joking. You consider that word offensive and would render a post unacceptable?

That's going beyond the pale. Even the FCC in it's decision about offensive words not to be on radio and TV did not include this word.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by defjef

Maren,

You gotta be kidding. Or joking. You consider that word offensive and would render a post unacceptable?

That's going beyond the pale. Even the FCC in it's decision about offensive words not to be on radio and TV did not include this word.

Dejef.......she was joking!!!!

[Sandero]

I sail corrected. Do not raise the anchor or live the harbor for 24 hours.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by defjef

I'd like to know the rule(s) that was violated which led to a deletion of a post.

As noted in the subject thread: "This message has been deleted by xxx - Reason: Nation bashing"

Originally Posted by Pelagic

... Perhaps the “normal” policy of surgical deletions of an offensive post and along with that, a valued member’s considered reply does a disservice to the spirit of a Forum that encourages a free exchange of ideas and the implied promise that it will be heard.

Replacing a truly offensive word with “deleted” allows us all to follow the context and understand why you might warn us that it will be closed ...

True - but sometimes “continuity & context" require a complete redaction.
Eg:
Member ‘A’ observes:
"GordMay is an overbearing, dictatorial, despotic tyrant, and an *******."
Member ‘B’ responds:
"There’s no need to call Gord overbearing."

Were member A’s remarks removed (entirely), member B’s would then seem to be a ‘non sequitor’, and out of context.

[Sandero]

While I don't agree with the characterization of Gord in the example, I don't think it needs to be removed. Better to post that this is not the type of language we want in the forum.

As far as "nation bashing" - if there was every a dumb reason to censor/delete a post that might be up at the top. Really who cares?

Do you think the nation of Zimbabwe will sue you for "bashing them" or perhaps the crown for slamming "colonialism" which was a viscous part of British history?

Who are you protecting here? That rule is just plain silly.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As noted in the subject thread: "This message has been deleted by xxx - Reason: Nation bashing"



True - but sometimes “continuity & context" require a complete redaction.
Eg:
Member ‘A’ observes:
Deleted is an overbearing, dictatorial, despotic tyrant, and an *******."
Member ‘B’ responds:
"There’s no need to call Deleted overbearing."

Were member A’s remarks removed (entirely), member B’s would then seem to be a ‘non sequitor’, and out of context.

"Where there is a will........" Gord

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by defjef

... As far as "nation bashing" - if there was every a dumb reason to censor/delete a post that might be up at the top. Really who cares?
... Who are you protecting here? That rule is just plain silly.

You’re not alone in that sentiment, and the subject is under back-room discussion on the Mod Forum.
I take being nice very seriously, and believe that we are protecting everyone.

***

President Bush was visiting a primary school. One of the classes was in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meaning. The teacher asked the president if he would like to lead the discussion of the word "tragedy." So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a tragedy.

Little Jimmy stood up and offered, "If my best friend, Johnny, who lives on a farm, were playing in the field and a tractor ran him over and killed him, that would be a tragedy."

"No," said Bush, "that would be an accident."

Little Suzie raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."

"I'm afraid not." explained the president. "That's what we would call a great loss."

The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searched the room.

"Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of tragedy?"

Finally at the back of the room little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: "If Air Force One carrying Mr. and Mrs. Bush was struck by a "friendly fire" missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."

"That's right!" exclaimed Bush. "Can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?"

"Well," says little Johnny, "it has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."

[S/V Antares]

Perhaps CF could move controversial threads or responses to a separate link noted as "Controversial " or "Removerd for violations" and still allow comment. Purposly entering this link should resolve liable issues. Just a thought.

"Can't we all just get along?" ....Rodney King

[orion1]

Thank you Chuck, you have been a great help to us. We will miss you and we still are hoping to find you out there as we do have that beer and sunset appointment. Should you find yourself near our area, we have dock space for you!

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by defjef

As far as "nation bashing" - if there was every a dumb reason to censor/delete a post that might be up at the top. Really who cares?

Do you think the nation of Zimbabwe will sue you for "bashing them" or perhaps the crown for slamming "colonialism" which was a viscous part of British history?

Who are you protecting here? That rule is just plain silly.

I think it is less about protecting anyone, more about (trying ) to maintain peace and harmony on CF.com.

Whilst you and me may (??!) be able to live with "Nation Bashing" of Zimbabwe and Britain and other places - a lot of folk from a certain former Colony......no names mentioned (cough, south of Canada and north of Mexico, cough ).......don't take that sort of thing well, which leads to others baiting them . Some of the attitudes I read I do let go, either after biting my tongue or after rolling on the floor laughing my ass off as an "exchange" of frank views would not really add to the atmosphere of CF.com.......even if later deleted by the Mods.

I have mentioned before having a "Social Area" for shooting the sh#t, including Politics, Guns and Religion ("What sort of gun should I use to shoot a Gay Nazi Pope?")......and also maybe to include a "Davy Jones' Locker" where deleted posts and threads can be collected (in one ginourmous nonsensical thread?) only accessible to members of 3 months or more so those who are interested can judge for themselves and maybe contribute to that thread.....and being 50 subjects welded together in one nonsensical thread should prove to be fairly self-regulating.

No doubt this thread will be cleaned up and then locked before long..........

[Sandero]

Dave sounds too sensible to be a sailor.