Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
Yeah, it's too common.
You want the moderators, all two of them, to manage other people's opinions and freedom of expression? I'm not sure what the solution would be to fit your wishes. It would take all of 3 seconds for the member who had his opinion censored to be accusing the moderator of bias. Let's just ban topics on politics and religion.
I will give you an answer, as best I can, as to the priority of moderation: We can discuss topics we feel strongly about, trying to make our point without attacking the person we are engaging. Attack the member's argument, not the member. That's always been my goal. Allow as much freedom to express opinions as possible and still maintain as much civility as we can.
But please, don't ask me or the moderators to clamp down on every expression you do not like. This is not a college safe space. There are a lot of members here, in addition to you, and you have to know that is too much work, and impossible at any rate, to make everyone happy. |
Yep, works for me and I'll be as simplistic as I can if I may....
I draw the line when name calling occurs or insults start getting exchanged but still try to allow a little bit of give and take.
'Damned if you do' and 'Damned if you don't' often springs to mind.