Saffron ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
I think we're just going to say "sorry. you can bring it up all you like but nothing's going to happen for 6 months, see this link".
And if they keep bringing it up? Keep doing the same, and then ignore? I mean, that's a reasonable response, but someone who is determined enough can keep bringing it up, and will.
What is insulting or offensive about it?
Oh, is that a word I'm not allowed to use?
You can use any words you want.
I think we're just going to say "sorry. you can bring it up all you like but nothing's going to happen for 6 months, see this link".
But this is what's going to happen.
See, the idea of telling someone that THEY CANNOT SAY SOMETHING is utterly and absolutely abhorant to me. Browbeating them is fine, I have no problem with that, but free speech is fairly important to me, strange as that might seem.
You know if I were Nilly I could pull up literally thousands of posts among the Buffistas defending free speech. Can you trust me if I say this is so? You're not the only person on this board with a passion for this subject. We're talking about how to convert that free speech into functionality. We're balancing it against the meta.
Balance. Moderation. Good things.
Oh, is that a word I'm not allowed to use?
Use it if you want, Gandalfe. You won't be banned for using the word "banned", even if you are literally--if jokingly--asking to be banned. Just realize that rhetorically, it is not very effective unless the desired effect was to anger others.
Likewise, I have a similar reaction to someone saying that the board is squelching their free speech. This is a private board with an international membership. We are not constitutionally bound to uphold the 4th Amendment.
What is insulting or offensive about it?
The implied presumption that you're the sole defender of free speech here.
Gandalfe, I think the issue is not whether or not someone brings it up, but whether or not the community feels compelled to act on it.
Also, using words like banning here is akin to using the word lynching in order to scour up an emotional response. It's, to quote you, "absolutely abhorant" and a weak rhetorical device.
In discussions where someone waves the first ammendment flag, I'm always intrigued by the lack of understanding that a freedom to do something is hogtied with a responsibility. In the case of free speech, IMO, the freedom to say what you want is tied to the responsibility of understanding what impact your words and your desire to ram something down the throat of the community will have on the community itself.
Freedom comes with responsibity. And I'm not just saying that because I have a Spider-Man phone.
ETA: Or you know, what everyone else said cause they're always less longwinded than I.
What is insulting or offensive about it?
Because you made a banning crack earlier this evening and you saw, first hand, that the reaction was not one of amusement. So choosing to poke people again and continue this implication that we ban people willy-nilly insults this community and offends me, one of its members.
The implied presumption that you're the sole defender of free speech here.
Where is that? Show me where my use of the word ban implies that I think I'm the only one who cares about it?
Can you trust me if I say this is so?
Certainly. I'm merely stating my point, and arguing it. Doesn't mean that other people don't have the same feeling, and I apologize if anyone took it that way.
I made the crack earlier after being told that, because I wasn't on World Crossing before, I shouldn't be allowed to
make any decisions (or) vote on any topics.
As far as my statement earlier in this thread, I was asking a serious question. What are the consequences? The general feeling seems to be that there aren't any, really, which is a valid answer to the question.
and I apologize if anyone took it that way.
Let's go from here then, and get this back on track.
Don't you think? The issue, not the personalities, not the flareups, not the friction? More light less heat?
I vote that Kat has the coooooolllest cell-phone.
Oh wait...we're not on that one.
Six months! It is the only right answer (henceforth, the Jesse approach).