If <hmm> can say "White trash", then the N-word is allowed.

Does the Lurking Reader see the problem here? The problem is, if you start banning words and criticisms, then you have to do so evenly on all sides. This encourages a spirit of censorship and political correctness (which is lib-speak and thought policing) rather than free speech.

That might well have happened a while back, but what is so special that he should get muzzled now? So far as I have seen, his content has not changed in any significant way--it is the same banal nothingness.>

This is a community of users. There are no Lords, no primadonnas, and racism is not allowed.

Will <CG> let this obvious contravention of guideline #7 stand?

Mr Steve has had a sudden family tragedy today. Please respect his privacy.

As re all these suspensions.........I am close to eliminating ALL posting guidelines and just let this be the wild west.

Re Rogoff.....I do not see it was renamed. Some of the old posts have been archived to speed it up, as was suggested.

Obviously, the powers of moderators have been misused, and it has to stop.>

I strongly disagree with eliminating posting guidelines and moderation. IRL, if someone goes in to a crowded theater and yells "FIRE", emptying the place out, then says, "just kidding, it's just a word", you can bet there will be consequences. "But my free speech rights, blah blah..." Public speech comes with rules and consequences. Train your moderators with clear protocols and you won't have this problem, and the site will be much nicer.

I don't think that part of it would be so easy to automate.>

<Susan>, while you're here, how about unbanning poor, singled out, <George Wallacee>, who's been banned for an outrageous 168 hours?

<Obviously, the powers of moderators have been misused, and it has to stop.>

Obviously. It's way out of control. How did it get like this again?

I think deleting all of these ridiculous guidelines is a commonsense solution. All it does is create headaches for the owner, the moderators and the posters.

I'm glad to see that <CG> is still a Free Speech Zone.

If you want to lose more members, this a good idea.>

Gotta love how the libs start with their ultimatums. Do <this> or else...I'm leaving! Do <that>, or else - we're all going to leave.

Shove it up your prolapsed rectum!

The fact is, we have an ignore button. The other fact is, there's a group of whiners on this site that really just like to complain and cry and gripe - rather than use the button.

What it really is, is they just want to have their way. It's not about "not seeing the posts" or not having to read a poster's comments. No. It's about control freaking.

Let's get something straight here. Taking the Lord's name in vain is far, far worse and more offensive than any name-calling, including "racial slurs."

The old "racial slur" trick is just another way to get free speechers to bend the knee at political correctness.

<HMM> says "white trash" all the time and I don't see the libs running here to tell on him and get him banned. I don't see the libs threatening to leave the site for that.

That wouldn't be the worst choice, as long as the Ignore feature can be used.

But I think the best solution would to set aside ONE forum, and only one, where the guidelines are not enforced, where anything goes. Call it the Shark Pit or the Snake Pit or something more original. No one who wants to stay out of the fray would have to go there. Then enforce the guidelines (preferably, with more consistency than has been the practice heretofore) on all the other pages, including the Rogoff page, where only chess-related comments would be allowed.

In the past, in connection with Holiday Present Hunts, but possibly on other occasions as well, I believe some members have downloaded the whole database, including the posts. If this has been done recently and the downloaded files include most of the comments lost from the old Rogoff site and its archive, that might be a way to recover them.

Then, since almost none of them have any connection with Rogoff or his games, they could be relocated in the no-holds-barred arena.

I strongly disagree with eliminating posting guidelines and moderation. IRL, if someone goes in to a crowded theater and yells "FIRE", emptying the place out, then says, "just kidding, it's just a word", you can bet there will be consequences. "But my free speech rights, blah blah..." Public speech comes with rules and consequences. Train your moderators with clear protocols and you won't have this problem, and the site will be much nicer.>

Nothing that can be said on this website equates to yelling fire in a crowded theater!

LOLZ!!

What a hysterical control freak!

<Susan>, you'll notice most of these anti-free speech people are not American. They don't get the culture at all. It's not their fault. It's just that they grew up elsewhere and, well, they don't get it.

Shove it up your prolapsed rectum!>

<'N-Word' Should Not Be Banned, Harvard Law Professor Argues>

Glad to see this.

It's true. This is just the thin edge of the wedge that people use to enforce Political Correctness, which is really nothing more than lib-speak and thought policing. This was unheard of not that long ago (but warned against in the book 1984).

And as far as the libs who "leave the site" because the guidelines are eliminated, I will replace their premium memberships with gift memberships.