Replies to post #29331 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Mattu]

I obviously like SI, but I have to tell you. There is simply no community like IH.

I bring up an idea, everybody offers excellent insight into the issue. All, in a respectable manner.

I've got a truckload of PMs and I've read most of the public replies. I'll try to respond to them tomorrow. I've made no decision on the issue yet, that's why I brought it up. And, as everybody knows, I can be persuaded if it's best for the community.

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

Troy,

The key words you used are "certain rules" and "able to control the posts according to those rules." The key words are not, and in my opinion should not be, "any rule they want" and "able to control based solely on what or who they like or dislike on any given day."

The discussion on the RANTS board started over the rules and spilled over to the posters. The discussion should not be centered on the content of the posts.

The difference in what I am trying to point out is found in the post you linked. You begin the discussion saying you do not like book length posts with no individual commentary. That, in my view, is not an unreasonable rule and is pretty easy to objectively gauge and enforce. However, after discussing that, you then conclude "Just don't storm the party and attempt to cram your opinion down our throats." This is not a rule, it is an opinion. You might as well just say, you cannot post here if I think you disagree with whatever I believe. This is not a rule, much less one that can or should be one.

Matt agreed that my request for the participants to not post "book length" posts was reasonable.

The reference to "cramming" was my interpretation as to what the posters were doing.

One final disagreement with your statement "This is Gary's and my house. This is our party." Actually, it is not, unless you two have become owners of IHUB. It is Matt and Bobs party and house. You may have the non-exclusive use of a room in the house, but it is not your house. Those who pay to enter the house have been told they can enter any room in the house so long as they follow the house rules. They have not been told, "you may only enter those rooms where someone else decides they want to let you enter."

That is plainly and simply legal terminology.

OK, let's call it Gary's and my "room", instead of our "house".

The point is still the same.

If you choose to enter my "room" and post, play by my rules.

If you choose to set up your own "room" and set up your own rules, I will be forced to comply with them.

What is wrong with that concept?

My understanding of the basic philosophy of this site has always been that all discussion, views, and people were welcome so long as it and they were civil. I do not recall the philosophy of the site being you and your opinions are welcome only if liked, agreeable, or approved by someone else. The basic philosophy of this site was what made and makes this site unique. Abandoning it will abandon the uniqueness of this site.

I know this concept is over almost everyone's head, but hopefully not over your's. My "rule" was concerning the copy and pasting of book length articles and posting them with no commentary as to why they were posted. Over and over and over.

It was never about content. Or the opinion of anyone.

Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?

I don't get it.

Have fun,
Phil

[BullNBear52]

Troy, Correct. The matter is quite simple. Let IHUB's TOU apply across the boards and lose the rules in the IBOXs.

[ONEBGG]

Troy...One cannot dictate how one thinks or feels. I don't like particularly like porno (adult) stores, the fact that it is stated ‘adult store’ on the building gives me the option of entering or passing by, I find passing by quite simple and in fact am I happy I was made aware of the fact that it was an adult store so I could pass by.

Stocks threads are different beast the OT boards here, I was under the impression that they like clubs for us posters to have fun with, a great idea IMO. As long as the rules of the board are clearly stated I would think any mature learned poster should be able to decide if they wish to participate or not, it is a choice and not a right to read or post there.

I find it rather controlling and a lack of control to attempt to squash or remove the store simply because it is not to my liking.

There are two kinds of people here on IH IMO. The first is the one who is mature enough to hit the next button and ignore what they don't like. The second is the one who thinks their opinion is more important than others and attempts to control or bully that which they disagree with. Unless it is a privacy violation or a clear case of moderator abuse I see no need for Matt Bob to moderate an OT board.

JMHO!!!

Gary