Those power-mad fascist pricks that we call "Ningmasters"

[Kenny]

Rather than go into a long winded rant about how the ningmasters make me want to find a dolphin and punch it in the mouth, I think for now I'll simply ask a question and see how you all respond. 

So, do you think that as a community nerdfighters.com is capable of regulating itself and our only need for moderators is to remove spammers, or do you feel that we need a group of babysitters to hold our hands and make sure we all play nice with the other kids?

[dozzzier]

UMBRELLAS! GET YER UMBRELLAS RIGHT HERE! NINE BUCKS A POP! GUARANTEED TO PROTECT YOU FROM THE SHITTIEST OF STORMS! UMBRELLAS!

**waits for the cash to roll in**

[Michelle]

There's a way to become a bajillionaire.

[QuantumTuba]

Your argument is basically "feelings might get hurt," especially those of weak children, and thus it is legitimate for us to have rules regarding civility. Forgive me for not directly quoting your opinion, and please correctly if I have taken it out of context.

Now, permit me to explain why I consider that opinion to be invalid and irrelevant. We can't speak of this purely in terms of rights violations, as forums are private property, and thus, as they are non-governmental, they have the authority to set whichever rules they desire. This is why I don't object to, say, PhysicsForums having rules of discourse, as their purpose is serious discussion of physics and related fields.

This forum, on the other hand, was created with the very loose purpose of providing a place for those who consider themselves Nerdfighters to discuss things among themselves. As Nerdfighters is such a nebulous term that anyone can post here, it would be preposterous to set rules regarding which topics or opinions are up for discussion. Thankfully, that is at least not what you suggest.

Instead, you suggest that there exist rules governing insults, profanity, and other potentially hurtful speech. But setting such rules, in addition to defying what the Ning always has been, would allow people to deal with their hurt feelings through punishment rather than honest discourse about what hurt them. Provided that philosophically inept despots don't take over, we're going to need to share the world with people who offend us. In a reasonable order, I can't ban Fred Phelps, Dick Cheney, Kent Hovind, or anyone else who rudely tells me that I deserve to be tortured for eternity because of my opinions and sexual orientation. I can't ban someone who calls me names, and I can't ban someone who writes hate mail. I've been told plenty of hateful things on this website. I've been dismissed on a basis of my age by people who refuse to listen to my arguments. I've encountered people who say that on a basis of sexual orientation I and my friends are evil faggot vampires who deserve to go to hell. Did these things hurt? Sure. But did it even cross my mind that people should not be allowed to say such things to me? Of course not. Rather, on such a broad forum which caters to diverse opinions and rhetorical styles, I felt I should use it as a microcosm of society itself, and either ignore those who offend me or respond to their points.

You took the same reasonable approach I do. When I insulted you, you quite correctly didn't call for me to be banned, but rather responded to me reasonably. And on a forum which caters to a wide swath of people, disagreement, even of the most heated and hateful sort, should be accepted for what it is. Yes, people will get hurt. But there should always be those who are willing to come to their defense with the only valid response to "bad" speech, which is not censorship, but rather "good" speech. Sometimes, the person who caused the hurt will apologize. Sometimes they won't. But we'll always learn more by this method than by simply silencing those who make us uncomfortable. Further, I think it's ageist to assume that 13 year olds can't handle such a free approach to discourse. As someone who has had my intellectual and emotional faculties criticized purely on a basis of age, I don't think that age is relevant to whether someone should be able to deal with uncensored criticism.

Finally, I would like to apologize for my intellectually vacuous initial response. I've just grown rather tired of quoting John Stuart Mill and Christopher Hitchens repeatedly, posting my reasoning behind there existing no "right not to be offended," and otherwise defending my absolutist views on free speech. So I finally snapped, and I apologize for that.

[Rick]

Where do you draw the line though, or should there even be a line drawn at all? If the insults you are throwing out are so hurtful and demeaning that it drives people away from a forum that is supposed to be about tolerance and welcoming all people and opinions in, does that warrant a warning to the insulter? Then what if the insulter doesn't care, and keeps driving people away with more insults, does that warrant a higher punishment? What if the people being insulted try to have an intellectual conversation with the insulter, and they are just met with more insults? (sorry if that got confusing)! Yes, I believe that there should be rules set up so that the Ning is a more welcoming environment to people, and so that people are not driven away by being hurt and demeaned. You and Me can handle insults, but as intellectuals we can also recognize that not all people can. What is so bad about creating an environment where there is a limited number of them? Does taking away insults, which have no use in an intellectual discussion take away from the intellectual discourse of the Ning? I don't see how it does. It is an interesting dilemma. Do we ban the person driving people away, and lose the essence of the Ning(tolerance for all people) that way? Or do we let the person keep driving people away, and lose the essence of the Ning that way? Either way, I think the essence of the Ning has been lost. So if it comes to it, I say we lose the insults, and add more intelligence to our conversations.

[QuantumTuba]

But even then the only reasonable approach becomes deleting comments. Otherwise, you might end up banning people for a few offenses when the bulk of their posting is intellectually legitimate, in which case you could completely kill off a valid contributor to the forum. Plus, which insults are most hurtful? Once we get to the point of deleting insults, doesn't it become possible to ban someone for espousing a position that we deem "insulting"? Is there any way to express the view that homosexuality is wrong without insulting gay people, or the view that Mexican immigrants are destroying the American economy without insulting immigrants? As vacuous as I think such positions are, people should be able to openly disagree with me on them.

Edit:

You need to look at the history of censorship in this country. The analogy "shouting fire in a crowded theater" originated in the legal opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case Schenck v. United States. What he was doing in that case was deciding that it was constitutional to jail a group of socialists for publishing literature protesting the draft and American involvement in World War I. Hardly an innocuous limitation on free speech.

Similarly, obscenity laws, which today only impact hardcore pornography, but which I still think should be abolished, were originally used to censor free expression on sexual issues. Obscenity laws led to the jailing of many feminists for advocating that marital rape be banned or that birth control techniques be used.

Today, in the United Nations, people are advocating resolutions condemning "defamation of religion." While the intention is to foster respect between faiths, the reality is that theocratic regimes use the resolutions as justification for their already existing blasphemy laws, which result in the jailing and often the execution of those who openly disagree with religious orthodoxy.

Now, this is a private forum, so the consequences obviously won't be that severe, but you should consider that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, especially when it comes to censorship.

[QuantumTuba]

I personally even think that is too much, but by Rick's rationale, that might be perfectly legitimate.

[Michelle]

I feel like it's just sort of silly. It just seems like we're all five and need time-outs to think about what we've done or something.

[Gabrielle]

Well, to play DA again, if people act like five-year-olds and resort to shouting "Fart-face!" back and forth... Maybe it's at least somewhat deserved?

[Michelle]

Yeah, but at this point I don't think we need to go running to the teacher to proclaim our grievances. I think we should be able to settle disputes ourselves. And then, if the problem persists and it turns into harassment, THEN we can get the teacher.

[Gabrielle]

Well, we're in agreement, then! Honestly, I don't think we should go running to Ningmasters the moment we're offended. I thought I said that already...

:/

[Michelle]

Haha, okay, well that's good then. (:

[Rick]

If it were up to me I would go as such:

1st offense: Warning
Second Offense: Few Hour Suspension
Third Offense: Few Days Suspension
Fourth Offense: A Month Suspension
Fifth Offense: Ban

That is just me though.