Yesterday, during down time at work I came into 'Religious Debate Forum' and came across a new topic. I don't remember who the person was who posted it, but 'Wolf' seems to stick in my mind. At any rate this was apparently a gay man in S & M posting web addresses for interested partners and places to buy sex toys. My first reaction was 'this is really rude and crude and this is not the place to be advertising for sex partners and such'. Since I was at work I restrained myself from viewing any of the sites he was suggesting or sending a reply. Since we are monitored at work sometimes, I sure didn't want to be called into someone's office for being on the Web with this kind of address. In between the time I logged out and got home I decided that maybe this wasn't quite as bad as I had originally thought. Maybe he was trying to see what kind of response would come from this group of people. And I was curious myself to see what was going to come up. I was sure no one would openly take him up here, in this subject, but I was interested in seeing the response he got, if any. At any rate by the time I got back on around 8 PM last night his topic had been removed from 'Religious Debate' and I assume completely. I have both male and female gay relatives and friends and I don't feel I'm homophobic, but I still feel this was not the place to do this. But censorship bothers me even more. After all most of us are adults, and even if you are not adult, if you visit this site often you must have a certain amount of maturity. Question: 'Should this have been removed because of the subject material, or should he have been allowed to stay? As I said, I was wondering what kind of response he would receive and I do think his post should have been left alone. I'm new to this site and perhaps there are rules here about this kind of thing? P. S. Give yourself some time to think before you respond. Maybe you'll see it in a different light later on, as I did. [This message has been edited by Zapper (edited December 01, 1999).]
I saw the post last night, chuckled and thought, "This won't last long in THIS forum" and I moved on. It didn't last in this forum and it's Dave's discretion, as board administrator I believe, to make the decisions concerning what stays and what goes. There are plenty of sites with such subject material readily available on the internet if one so chooses to indulge. If we don't like Dave's decision, we can go elsewhere or start our own boards with our own rules. Just my op. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Zap' - Yah, I saw him too. And I did the same thing you did - left it alone because I'm at work. I think it was inappropriate for the forum. This is supposed to be for Religious debate, and he was in no way staying close to topic. Plus, DaveW does have some rules about advertizements and such on these boards, which I agree with. I tattled on that person who was posting those 'make money' blah, blah, blah sites because I think those kind of things just don't belong in this forum. I don't know what those links the "sex" guy went to, I didn't go, but I think they really didn't belong. I DO believe he has the right to be gay, straight, dom, sub, swinger, whatever, and if there was a topic regarding this and he was actually discussing the topic instead of advertizing himself I would probably have posted my feelings on the topic. But I read his post and there was not a whole lot to discuss. Know what I mean? Basically, the fault lies not in the content of the post itself, but rather in the forum he chose to post it. Maybe if there was another forum for 'social debate' or something similar, the post would have been left alone. But since it was left in the 'religious debate' area, I agree with it being deleted.
Hi Zapper, Glad I missed that one. The answer to your question depends upon what the writer's intentions in posting this was. If his intentions were to truly "pick someone up", or engage in cyber-sex or whatever, then I think it's appropriate to censor, only because this is a religious debate forum, and just like we delete the "free money" posts because they are irrelevant, this post is irrelevant too. BUT, if his intentions were to strike up a conversation or debate regarding his sexual practices or practices in general from a religious perspective, then I don't think it's appropriate to censor because it's relevant. That (sex) seems to be a topic that we all choose to ignore pretty much, huh? ------------------ "ET phone home!" "Uh, hello Satan?" "Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"
Yah - Lori, his post had nothing to do with religion. Maybe someone should start a topic like "religion and sexuality" or something... THAT would be relevant, but this Wolfwhatever wasn't discussing, he was advertizing.
To quote the forum guidelines: Now, in my opinion those guidelines are entirely fair. If anyone here would dispute this, this thread is probably the place to do it. (I'm open to suggestions) That said, I've never deleted a message for any of the above reasons (I've never been faced with that situation), including the message in question. If a message is 'sexually oriented', yet contains some relevant, intelligent and genuine thought, then I'll leave it alone. The message in question was deleted because it was essentially an advertisement. The message was copied to both Religious Debate and Aliens & Extraterrestrials and was clearly nothing more than a man trolling for attention. [This message has been edited by DaveW (edited December 01, 1999).]
Zapper - I also saw that post.. once I realized what it was about, I grimaced and hit "back" on my browser, much like I did with the money-making scheme posted at about the same time. I have no problem with him holding those views and participating in whatever activities he may enjoy, however this was simply not the place to be discussing it. It was off-topic, against the rules, and posted in a place where young people could easily access it. I don't particularly think it was censorship, merely a removal of a post that violated the rules he agreed upon when creating an account here. Dave was entirely correct in deleting it. FyreStar
I agree with everyone. This is really not the place to be picking up dates, sex partners, or whatever. I like your ideal SkyeBlue "Maybe someone should start a topic like religion and sexuality or something...". I think it would be interesting and a blast to see what this group has to say about it. As for me, I think we make much too much of a fuss about it. What consenting adults choose to do is their own business and not mine (not kids). Dave W. Sorry to rock the boat. I agree with your stand on this kind of stuff. As you and others have pointed out there are plasses on the Web to go for this kind of game playing. [This message has been edited by Zappers (edited December 01, 1999).]
I agree with everyone here on this point. I didn't see the post in question, but from what I'm seeing here, the post didn't belong on this board according to the rules to which the poster had apparently agreed when he signed up. I would also go so far as to suggest that being a censor is one of Dave's duties here as board administrator. This isn't a bad thing - it is necessary in order for him to enforce those rules he posted. The fact that I didn't see the post tells me that Dave is on top of it - good job, Dave! ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
Zapper, Even if the authur of the post didn't do it as an AD it would upset me. If one wants to start a topic or discusion just do it. There is no reason why someone should be trying to get attention by pissing some one else off. At that point all they are trying to do is get a reaction and move on not contribute to any meaningfull discusion. Even at that If I were in a scientific fourm and some one decided to just start going on and on about reliegon it would upset for only one reason. I go into a perticular fourm to read and discus a specfic topic. It's like some one crashing a party, rude and upseting. On top of all this, the guy who runs the board has the finale say on what gets posted and what dosen't get posted. I think Dave is verry lenient with what he lets get through. [This message has been edited by 666 (edited December 01, 1999).]
