EDIT: Whoops! Holy crow--looks like a ton of other responses cropped up between the time when I started writing this post and the time when I finished. Well, that's okay--the message still holds.
Member advocating that members censor other members generous contributions even if only as enthusiastic support? That's a real great contribution to the wx community. Labeling people with a genuine interest in wx/chasing, people who may have very well looked up to you at one point as an inspiration as "non-chasers, porch chasers, mooch chasers", you're right, there is no respect... Funny thing about noobs, EVERYONE INCLUDING YOU WAS ONE IN THE BEGINNING.
I don't think that's what Jason was advocating, Paul. I've looked for an "ignore" button and can't find one, so someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I gather that the "ignore" feature is a means of screening out select posts from one's personal display. It's not forum-wide censorship, just individual selection. Have I got that right? And by the way, where the heck is the "ignore" button, anyway?
On a different note, Lanny and a number of others have made some heated statements about member rights on this forum. Here are my thoughts:
* When you became a member here, you agreed, just as I did--by implication, whether you read them or not--to abide by a set of clearly stated rules of conduct. Your membership here is, in a sense, a declaration of your willingness to abide by those rules, whether you like them or not.
Remember, the administration has rights, too, including the right to set the rules for a private forum. Also, the moderators have the right and the responsibility to uphold those rules--a job which, as has been pointed out, is not always easy. No member has rights that outweigh the rights of the administrator or the moderators, nor do any members' rights outweigh the rights of other members like me who have no problem with people disagreeing and debating, but who don't care for mud-slinging, name-calling, character attacks, and overall mean-spiritedness that accomplishes nothing other than to undermine Stormtrack as a place for respectful and productive discussion.
* To enforce rules that have been explicitly stated up front is not socialism--it's common sense and it's necessary. There's never any question whether there will be rules, just a question of who will set them.
Case in point: Lanny has a storm chasing business, and from what I gather in visiting his website, it's a topnotch operation that he's got a right to feel proud of. Lanny, when your customers shell out their $2,900, does their money give them the right to do whatever they please on your tours? In your FAQ, for instance, you stipulate a no drugs/no alcohol policy. What would you say to a client who insisted that his money bought him the right to smoke pot in your tour vehicle?
You have rules of your own, don't you, and you strike me as the kind of guy who understands that you've got every right to enforce them. Not to do so would be to allow the rule-breaker to disrespect your personal boundaries, and the boundaries of at least some, if not all, of your other clients. My hunch is, that individual would wind up walking home with a black eye. Because when it comes down to a practical level, you and most of us here understand that there's a difference between personal rights and anarchy.
When I've gotten infractions on Stormtrack, I took them in good grace, and on at least one occasion I PM'd the moderator, acknowledged my mistake, and apologized. When I think I'm right, I'll stand up for myself, but when I'm wrong, I don't mind admitting it and paying the ticket. Because the rules have been there all along, and they're for me to obey, not insist on changing because I think my $5.00 gives me the right to do so. Rules govern just about every aspect of our culture, and it's no different here. In my opinion, the problem hasn't been with the rules, but with an inconsistency in enforcing them in areas regarding personal interactions. That lack creates false expectations of how things ought to be on this site. Then when some mod finally does step in and crack heads because a disagreement has escalated into a firefight, a group--just a segment of ST members that by no means speaks for everyone, anymore than I do--yells, "Unfair!" It's not unfair. It's the rules.
Okay, I've had my say.
Cigarette? No thanks, I don't smoke, but a good craft brew would be nice. Ah, a Sierra pale ale--excellent!
Blindfold? No need.
Gentlemen, fire away.
