Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Which Forums Should be "Restricted"?

Recommended Posts

Would it be easier (or possible) to have an opt-out/in button in "My Controls" that would let people customize the board for themselves?


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe TV and radio can be art forms in their own right, so I would unrestrict TV/Radio. And since Faith is one half of the board name, I don't see why Religion would need to be restricted.

JMO.


Subtlety is underrated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe TV and radio can be art forms in their own right, so I would unrestrict TV/Radio.  And since Faith is one half of the board name, I don't see why Religion would need to be restricted. 

JMO.

I'm with Ann on TV.

Radio? Major emphasis on the can, but it doesn't come up that often, so--fine. wink.gif

It seems part of the issue is in how individuals browse the board. Since I read by forum, not by "View new posts," restricted or non-restricted forums haven't really been a factor for me. I ignore the threads or forums that don't interest me, that's all.

Having followed some of the Religion discussions, I can see why that forum has been restricted, but IMHO, that hasn't always revealed the best aspects of A&F. Look at the "What I like about this board"--no one seems to be saying "I really love those knock-down, drag-out arguments over doctrinal points and worship styles. Boy howdy!" But if the board is going to have such a forum, it should be open and, as Christians, we should be able to behave ourselves. Call me an idealist, or an optimist, or something smile.gif


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having followed some of the Religion discussions, I can see why that forum has been restricted, but IMHO, that hasn't always revealed the best aspects of A&F. Look at the "What I like about this board"--no one seems to be saying "I really love those knock-down, drag-out arguments over doctrinal points and worship styles. Boy howdy!" But if the board is going to have such a forum,  it should be open and, as Christians, we should be able to behave ourselves.  Call me an idealist, or an optimist, or something  smile.gif

I know that this view is unpopular, but I think that the same can be said of the "Politics" thread. EXCEPT. Except during obviously overheated events like a national election cycle and by that I mean a two year cycle, as opposed to a presidential year. Could we open up them all and with ample warning in advance, restrict politics when we know that it might get a little scrappy? Remember, this forum is more than just a ghetto for political junkies. We actually have a place for folks to go when mods in the Arts areas say, "Take it outside!". I want to go on record as saying that all of those going outside are very welcome in the ghetto. angel01.gif


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be inclined to make everything unrestricted for users, for 2 reasons: 1) we're all grown-ups and can make our choices about what to view and what to ignore, and 2) it will save you (Alan) some hassle.


To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

http://secularcinephile.blogspot.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever is decided is ultimately acceptable to me, but I'd prefer to keep it simple. Again, we're all grown-ups, and if we feel especially frustrated or exasperated by a thread, we can simply ignore it.

I'm not too sure about the 'taking it outside' idea - I'm worried there could be an implicit message in such a forum that we can get a bit carried away with our rhetoric and manners. I'd prefer to have the same behavioral expectations across the board (we can be passionate, but we need to stay civil, whatever the topic might be), and that incivility is not acceptable.


To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

http://secularcinephile.blogspot.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever is decided is ultimately acceptable to me, but I'd prefer to keep it simple.  Again, we're all grown-ups, and if we feel especially frustrated or exasperated by a thread, we can simply ignore it. 

I'm not too sure about the 'taking it outside' idea - I'm worried there could be an implicit message in such a forum that we can get a bit carried away with our rhetoric and manners. I'd prefer to have the same behavioral expectations across the board (we can be passionate, but we need to stay civil, whatever the topic might be), and that incivility is not acceptable.

Yes, whatever we do and whatever we call this thing if it happens, it should be clear the decorum must not suffer. Further, I'd like to see a little more distinction between dealing with a frustrating argument or tactic and an argument or tactic that is out of bounds. Suffering at the hands of one who is deft with the subject in question is not the same as being insulted by that person, or being asked to answer an unfair personal insinuation.


"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUT, if folks do like the idea, it would be fun to have a contest to name this new forum. I like 'The Contention Dimension' (JK). What do they call it at Greenbelt? "The Hothouse" ?

Good idea. Another topic-specific group I've been part of has a spin-off they call the "Open" forum--anything goes, but that's where the political and social controversy usually ends up.


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: What do they call it at Greenbelt? "The Hothouse" ?

They used to do - can't remember what they call it now (perhaps it's just the whole festival)

FWIW I'd be OK with anything that's been suggested so far, on a trial basis.

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That lastest proposal suits me fine. And I agree the film reviewers need not be restricted any longer.

what about the filmmakers? I think not, for simplicity's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One forum called Film, with no subforums. One forum called Not Film.

Not Film could be subjected to password protection. Could be set to be ignored, similar to the way in which you can set things to ignore a user.

I expect no one else will like my proposal.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...