THe "Ignore" Button is the greatest thing ever...

[marty]

no one is trampling on free speech ... the mods modderate the clue is in the title and they are moderate

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Playing the censorship card referred to banning, not the use of the "ignore button".

 

[NorthStar]

Wow. You are out of town on business for a few days and you not only miss replying to a thread, but the thread is closed! (I refer to the "do we want WBF to become an AVS forum"). But this thread is basically a continuance of the same material. From my perspective, the correct word to describe the material being discussed in both threads is "censorship". Banning people from threads is a very slippery slope and is no different than the disgusting events last fall that have occurred in the real world such as the demands by Columbia University students to ban material being taught in their courses because it does not make them feel "secure". While academic freedom is somewhat different than audiophile blog freedom, the principles are the same. Personally, I feel the WBF has suffered as a result of having some folks leave (not necessarily banned) for various reasons including banning. Myles Astor comes to mind as I genuinely appreciated his contributions. In the post now closed, I thought there were some particular voices of wisdom (posts #24, #17) and would encourage the moderators to allow free discourse despite the fact some are offended by the content. That is the price of journalistic freedom. You may not always like what you read. However, no one is forcing anybody to read anything. The use of an "ignore button" is always an option but at least using it might say more about the reader than the administrators of the WBF, and of course, individuals are fee to use that resource if they are duly offended by certain individuals. However banning people is a very pernicious event and would be the direct responsibility of the administrators. One can never prevent grandstanding or idiocy, but you can certainly use your judgement to decide what to read and respond or not respond as you wish. There is simply no need to trample on free speech by playing the censorship card.

Great post Marty...on the state of the affairs. :b

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

No need for banning...people leave on their own or at the very least greatly diminish their participation. I could name many, but I'm sure you're all aware of who those individuals are.

 

[treitz3]

Wow. You are out of town on business for a few days and you not only miss replying to a thread, but the thread is closed! (I refer to the "do we want WBF to become an AVS forum"). But this thread is basically a continuance of the same material. From my perspective, the correct word to describe the material being discussed in both threads is "censorship". Banning people from threads is a very slippery slope and is no different than the disgusting events last fall that have occurred in the real world such as the demands by Columbia University students to ban material being taught in their courses because it does not make them feel "secure". While academic freedom is somewhat different than audiophile blog freedom, the principles are the same. Personally, I feel the WBF has suffered as a result of having some folks leave (not necessarily banned) for various reasons including banning. Myles Astor comes to mind as I genuinely appreciated his contributions. In the post now closed, I thought there were some particular voices of wisdom (posts #24, #17) and would encourage the moderators to allow free discourse despite the fact some are offended by the content. That is the price of journalistic freedom. You may not always like what you read. However, no one is forcing anybody to read anything. The use of an "ignore button" is always an option but at least using it might say more about the reader than the administrators of the WBF, and of course, individuals are fee to use that resource if they are duly offended by certain individuals. However banning people is a very pernicious event and would be the direct responsibility of the administrators. One can never prevent grandstanding or idiocy, but you can certainly use your judgement to decide what to read and respond or not respond as you wish. There is simply no need to trample on free speech by playing the censorship card.

Hi, Marty and good evening to you. First off, I like your post. With that said, as a moderator on the WBF, I don't recall the management team within the past year banning anybody. If (if, I don't remember off the top of my head that we did) we have banned anyone during this time period, it was a team decision and based upon my experience with the team, it was justly applied. I would like to think that the management team here does allow quite a bit and that we do not censor members unless certain posts fall under violations of the Terms of Service of the WBF. We welcome feedback and we do listen to what the membership has to say.

I will say this, I have noticed that many a time when threads are closed it is due to the thread no longer being productive. One member says something, another member chimes in with a controversial or opposing view, things that aren't so polite are said, the anger builds and builds, posts get personal and heated and in the end, all hell breaks loose between the members. This isn't what we are about. This is the WBF and we are better than that. We are proud to hold ourselves to a higher standard than "normal" forums. Once threads get to a certain point, it's better that the thread be closed so that members and guests reading don't think that behavior is acceptable and the norm on the WBF. Many times, when a thread is closed a new one opens up (just like this one) and the discussion does continue albeit much more cordial in nature, less personal and without the angst and heated arguments of the old thread.

So long as everybody participating in threads follows the WBF TOS, there is no need to close any thread, no need to even consider bannning anybody and no need to issue administrative actions to any member. I will tell you this, it sure would make our duties here on the forum a whole lot easier! Regardless, thanks for your input sir.

Tom

 

[NorthStar]

Hi, Marty and good evening to you. First off, I like your post. With that said, as a moderator on the WBF, I don't recall the management team within the past year banning anybody. If (if, I don't remember off the top of my head that we did) we have banned anyone during this time period, it was a team decision and based upon my experience with the team, it was justly applied. I would like to think that the management team here does allow quite a bit and that we do not censor members unless certain posts fall under violations of the Terms of Service of the WBF. We welcome feedback and we do listen to what the membership has to say.

I will say this, I have noticed that many a time when threads are closed it is due to the thread no longer being productive. One member says something, another member chimes in with a controversial or opposing view, things that aren't so polite are said, the anger builds and builds, posts get personal and heated and in the end, all hell breaks loose between the members. This isn't what we are about. This is the WBF and we are better than that. We are proud to hold ourselves to a higher standard than "normal" forums. Once threads get to a certain point, it's better that the thread be closed so that members and guests reading don't think that behavior is acceptable and the norm on the WBF. Many times, when a thread is closed a new one opens up (just like this one) and the discussion does continue albeit much more cordial in nature, less personal and without the angst and heated arguments of the old thread.

So long as everybody participating in threads follows the WBF TOS, there is no need to close any thread, no need to even consider bannning anybody and no need to issue administrative actions to any member. I will tell you this, it sure would make our duties here on the forum a whole lot easier! Regardless, thanks for your input sir.

Tom

That's a very good reply Tom. ...And we're in a brand new year now too.