22 replies to this topic

[etwo4788]

Just wondering what the "Warning" bar is all about. It appears under my Avatar when I post. I do not see this on other posts??? Have I done a "Bad" of some variety???

Elizabeth

[Cyberdave]

Just wondering what the "Warning" bar is all about. It appears under my Avatar when I post. I do not see this on other posts??? Have I done a "Bad" of some variety???

Elizabeth

It is an admin tool and is only visible to the that user and is not visible to other members. I don't know if it used or not. I would imagine Kirk can fill in the rest of the details.....

[Dennis M]

You said something that raised the ire of an admin. I've got one also , no idea why, but mine was probably a political comment - I don't suffer fools gladly

[etwo4788]

Hmmmm.... Thanks for the comments. There is no comment, just the blank bar.... It would not surprize me to find that an administrator does not agree with me. That has always been "normal" for me.

I would like to see a comment from an administrator.....

[GregCarr]

It's an admin tool. All users have one and see their own, but no one elses. If it is completely white then it means no warnings have been issued to your account. When a warning has been issued to your account it starts to fill up in a blue-ish color.

[etwo4788]

Hey! Thanks Greg! It is good to know I have been a good girl! Either that or the adminz are pretty easy going?

Elizabeth

[GregCarr]

We're pretty easy going around here, the one thing that will increase your warning meter with extreme predjudice however is politics. I suggest this one little piece of advice to everyone, treat all political postings/topics as troll bait and avoid it like the plague. Nobody and I mean nobody but one person that lives here in the park has taken my advice on this though because for some reason, the folks around here just can't help themselves.

Some of our long time posters are the guiltiest of not staying out of political topics and I'm certain that this community will say goodbye to few people who "just can't help themselves." /rant

[Rif]

Greg,

Just a suggestion, but is it possible the warn bar could be modified so it only shows up if it is not blank? This "feature" raises more questions than any other on the board. If it only showed up for those who had been warned, it would eliminate most, if not all the questions.

[etwo4788]

GREG.... Yes, politics would be a subject that would qualify as potentially "antagonistic." Perhaps you might want to consider placing racisim, sexism, and religion as no no subjects as well?

Having just read "RIF's" suggestion.... That would solve the problem completely, IMO....

I do appreciate all the responses.... People do get a bit "carried away" in several areas. I will vote for the solution suggested by RIF.....

Elizabeth

[Mike]

Ah, but warning can lead to censorship and that is indeed a slippery slope that the good administrators must traverse if they choose to do so. Especially when one of the stated goals of the Escapees is RV advocacy; clearly a political subject. Actually that is one of the reasons I pay my dues to the Escapees. There is even a sub-forum for the political subject of RV advocacy. I assume RV advocacy includes that political subject of voting. And veterans affairs will ripple over easily into politics. So can health care issues and finance.

Then again, I assume based on past experience, as well as my own "empty" warn bar, that a degree of latitude is present and if the discussion is respectful and doesn't denigrate into name calling, much will be tolerated by the benevolent providers of the forums.

[Dutch & Di]

Since so many posters questions this, as I did way back when, I'm wondering if maybe there should a "sticky" that stays on the top of each topic to explain this? That way posters could click on it and have their answer instead of worrying if they are in "trouble"!!!!! Hugs, Di

Just wondering what the "Warning" bar is all about. It appears under my Avatar when I post. I do not see this on other posts??? Have I done a "Bad" of some variety???

Elizabeth

[sandsys]

Since so many posters questions this, as I did way back when, I'm wondering if maybe there should a "sticky" that stays on the top of each topic to explain this? That way posters could click on it and have their answer instead of worrying if they are in "trouble"!!!!! Hugs, Di

I don't like this solution. Some stickies stay long past their usefulness and make it harder to get to the current questions. Besides, how many newbies would read the sticky instead of just posting their question?

I prefer the solution of not having the warning bar appear until you are actually being warned.

Linda Sand

[Dutch & Di]

There are always many solutions to posters questions. I do believe that most newbies would read stickies, as long as they knew what a "sticky" was, as it's part of a learning process. If you get used to looking for them they do help answer lots of questions that wouldn't then have to be posted. I know a lot of long timers that also look at stickies on different forums but to each his own. I'm sure the powers to be will do what they think is best. Hugs, Di

I don't like this solution. Some stickies stay long past their usefulness and make it harder to get to the current questions. Besides, how many newbies would read the sticky instead of just posting their question?

I prefer the solution of not having the warning bar appear until you are actually being warned.

Linda Sand

Edited by Dutch & Di, 03 June 2011 - 01:57 AM.

[HamRad]

It has been awhile since I had to register to get onto these Forums and thus do not remember all the verbiage that is involved with that process but if it is going be be changed perhaps a prominent sentence or two should make it clear in their minds. Just a thought.

As far as I am concerned it is fine the way it is. Believe me when I say that you will have no trouble knowing when a line has been crossed and a warning showing up. All is made very clear when the normally empy bar has some color added to it alnog with a number! Don't ask how I know.

Dennis

[Cyberdave]

Ah, but warning can lead to censorship and that is indeed a slippery slope that the good administrators must traverse if they choose to do so. Especially when one of the stated goals of the Escapees is RV advocacy; clearly a political subject. Actually that is one of the reasons I pay my dues to the Escapees. There is even a sub-forum for the political subject of RV advocacy. I assume RV advocacy includes that political subject of voting. And veterans affairs will ripple over easily into politics. So can health care issues and finance.

Then again, I assume based on past experience, as well as my own "empty" warn bar, that a degree of latitude is present and if the discussion is respectful and doesn't denigrate into name calling, much will be tolerated by the benevolent providers of the forums.

There is no censorship on a private BBS. Freedom of Speech does not apply in this case. For example, you join a club with a "club house" which has a rule of no political discussions while in the club house. You violate the rule and engage in a heated discussion in the club and are asked to leave. When you refuse citing freedom of speech or censorship, you are forcibly removed and your membership revoked. You do not have freedom of speech in a privately owned place. This BBS is owned by Escapees and as such, has the right to kick, boot, ban, anyone they feel violates the TOS.

I cannot tell you how many times in the ten years I owned my BBS we had to send out letters explaining this to "bikers" wanting to flex mighty keyboard muscles and intimidate others.

A simple web search can give you many examples.

I don't envy the moderation of this BBS Greg at all and I have no bones with how he does it.

[RV]

Amen Dave!
Censorship only occurs when the government does it. I own a website and domain. I have no guestbook, no mechanisms to post a reply or comment there by choice. Others may choose differently. If the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech in the private sector I could be sued for denying that. For those who think that is ridiculous it is just as ridiculous to attempt to steal the rights of a property owner expecting that property owner to be as ignorant of protected speech in the public sector carrying over to the private sector. While I may tolerate some speech I consider borderline rude in my home, my business, or my website, were I to allow feedback there beyond emailing me, no one will be tolerated in or on my private property who spouts hateful or malicious speech against me, my family or my invited guests. It seems that lots of folks were asleep or missed the class on free speech in the fourth grade.

If one does not like the rules of a private club, a household, a website, or a person who insists that the seat belt be worn in their car or no ride, they can exercise their freedom by walking and getting their own private property to do with as they wish. There is no option for them to steal my rights unless I am as ignorant and allow it. Now if the government came in and said that SKPs must remove or allow some posts because the government does or does not like them, then that is the government which is chained by the 1st Amendment and they cannot force private property owners to allow or remove any speech. If they did that would be censorship and would require repealing the 1st Amendment first.

The right to free speech chains the government not the individual.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment as having the same power to alter private property rights, or provide any other protection against purely private action. When considering private authority figures (such as parents or an employer), the First Amendment provides no protection. A private authority figure may reserve the right to censor their subordinate's speech, or discriminate on the basis of speech, without any legal consequences. "All may dismiss their employees at will,...for good cause, for no cause, or even for a cause morally wrong, without thereby being guilty of a legal wrong."[72] With specific regard to employee free speech, a few court cases illuminate the limits of the First Amendment vis-a-vis private employment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There is much more there in the link above about the private sector.

Edited by RV, 03 June 2011 - 01:29 PM.

[RV]

PS. E-SIS I love the picture!

[etwo4788]

PS. E-SIS I love the picture!

Thanks Darlin! I love yours too! Mine was taken a few years ago!

Hugs..... Elizabeth/ E-Sis....

[RV]

Hugs backatcha Sis!(Mine is also a few years old and was taken while fulltiming . . . shhhhhhh!)

Edited by RV, 03 June 2011 - 06:59 PM.

[Mike]

There is no censorship on a private BBS. Freedom of Speech does not apply in this case. For example, you join a club with a "club house" which has a rule of no political discussions while in the club house. You violate the rule and engage in a heated discussion in the club and are asked to leave. When you refuse citing freedom of speech or censorship, you are forcibly removed and your membership revoked. You do not have freedom of speech in a privately owned place. This BBS is owned by Escapees and as such, has the right to kick, boot, ban, anyone they feel violates the TOS.

I cannot tell you how many times in the ten years I owned my BBS we had to send out letters explaining this to "bikers" wanting to flex mighty keyboard muscles and intimidate others.

A simple web search can give you many examples.

I don't envy the moderation of this BBS Greg at all and I have no bones with how he does it.

CyberDave, Perhaps you read into my post something I do not think is there. I fully agree that the owner of a forum such as this can pretty much do what they want with the forum. I feel their rights are even broader than your club house example. They can, for the most part, from a legal standpoint, kick people off, censor their posts, limit their access and do what ever they want. They can even do it on an illogical and inconsistent basis. They can include all of this in their TOS if they want to. I fully agree there is no first amendment right of free speech on such a forum. I am not sure where in my post I suggested there was any legal reason the Escapees couldn't do whatever they wanted.

For clarity I do NOT believe that the Escapees management is acting this way, rather pointing out that forum owners can do so if they wanted to. These forums are well run in my opinion and the Warn bar is an appropriate tool for them to use in managing the forums.

My comments were directed to the business and operational aspects of making such a decision where one of the forums; i.e. RV Advocacy, is seemingly at odds with one of the at least inferred restricted areas, i.e. political discussions. The slippery slope is not because it is not permitted, but rather because the exercise of those rights has additional impacts on other goals of the forum; e.g. a vibrant, open discussion and ease of management of the forums. Those needs have to be balanced, but again it is not because of anything legal. I believe the management of the forum is appropriately balancing and managing the situation, from what I can see.

I would however disagree with your opening comment that censorship does not exist on a private forum. But I think the disagreement I have on your comment is more one of semantics. Private censorship can and does exist. And what is more, it is lawful and permitted and quite often a good thing. Look at how comments on blogs are edited as merely one example of permitted censorship. Or as another example, if a private forum wants to use software to filter out (censor) posts that have certain vulgar words in them, they can do so. Again,this is censorship but of a permitted type, especially so permitted on a private board.

Hopefully this helps add clarity to my prior post.

Edited by Mike, 04 June 2011 - 03:00 AM.