I do not like the idea of deleting posts. If you have time to delete the post there is time to redact the unacceptable portion with an explanation of why. We learn nothing from deleting a post.
the goal here is to get to the point that the norm is so clear that no posts will need to be deleted. that isn't the case right now, but it's what this process is about.
Go soothingly through the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon.
'67 Trail 90 || '86 R80 G/SPD+ || '97 F650ST || '00 1150 GS || '06 HP2e || '07 Xchallenge || '14 Grom
leave a trail
black belt 8 sigma yoda stuff
if as a moderator you decide to act you should be able to say why.
plus don't take MOA business elsewhere but here and e-mail, other forums don't care...
Deletion of an offensive post, not an entire thread.
I do not like deletions; however, I can understand the deletion of an offensive post in terms of you legal concerns.
Threads should be locked and sent to the dog house with an explination, if they have reached the extreme point.
i agree with you & mark about doghousing... especially in cases where a post isn't pron, a personal attack or other serious violation of posting norms.
i hate deletions, too... and all the moderators take it very seriously.
I have a question regarding the banned topics or topics that lead to flames. How are these topics viewed when they directly relate to motorcycling? I ask for two reasons.
When I put together the Morning Reads I avoid these topics as much as possible. There are things I do or could post that have a political nature. For example a recent post included the newsletter from the MRF. The letter dealt in main with concerns for the road adhesion v. visibility of road markers, the safety of proposed road barriers for motorcyclist and was informational in nature. I fully expect they will urge riders to contact representatives in the future. Under the proposed guidelines where is the line between information and politics. I am looking for discussion and guidance more than a ‘«ˇbright line‘«÷ demarking the foul line.
I am not surprised that guns made it to the proposed banned line. However; I do remember a series of threads dealing with questions for adventure touring into wilderness areas. The topic of carrying weapons for defense came up and was handled well for approximately 100 posts between the threads before at the request of the persons starting the thread urged it be sent to the dog house and the moderator properly concurred. Until it was sent there a good deal of good information and perspectives were aired.
With that as background: is there a way to bring up topics directly related to motorcycling that normally would be on a banned list if they did not have a direct relationship to motorcycling? Are these areas so volatile, even with a legitimate motorcycling connection, which the TOS/Rules can not deal with?
or... (and without reading the thread) it sounds like a discussion that was useful to adventure riders, even though involves a "banned" topic only got shut down because it went awry and the thread starter made a request.
do you feel basically comfortable with that?
ps => guns in tankbags is verbotten in IBMWR and relegated to JoMomma at ADV. for some odd reason i think we can trust our membership to talk responsibly.
Thank you, I can work with that and hope others can also.
Overall we have handled some heated discussions rather well around here in the past. As the forum has grown in numbers and diversity I fully support as needed what your committee is working on. I admit to be willing to take action first and seek forgiveness latter in some situations; I don‘«÷t think that is good form for our forum. As we lay down guidelines I want to ask first before I find myself being stupid and needing forgiveness.