Limit-pushing

[Bob Hartig]

We can argue and deplore and make our points till the cows come home, or at least find cheap lodging, and in the process miss a very important point, namely, Stormtrack is Tim's house, and he sets the rules. Someone has to, and it's always a hell of a lot easier to whine about them than it is to maintain them.

How about someone saying something good about this forum for a change, such as how great it is that it exists in the first place--a site devoted to severe weather, where people who love storms can connect, and learn, and grow. Wasn't that David Hoadley's original vision, which got this whole thing started decades ago? For everyone here who has a vision for what this forum ought to be, recognize that Tim has a vision for it, too, and that's what sets the tone. I suspect that it's truer to Hoadley's legacy than most of ours, and my hat is off to Tim and the mods for doing their best to carry it off when the thanks are few and the criticisms are many.

 

[Steve Miller]

Effective today, there are three topics that are categorically prohibited on Stormtrack: sex, religion, and politics. This is something we should have done from the very start since they're never discussed in polite company and we are very much a professional, quality-oriented forum.

We've fielded a pretty good pile of complaints about the "boobies" thread. We are not trying to make this a virtuous, Puritan sanctuary, but we do try to set a higher threshold of quality on this forum and things like "blow jobs" and indirect references to sexual acts really do not belong here and have no bearing on our primary reason for existing: meteorological discussion. Those threads are too controversial for mixed company and would be better left for Facebook and other social networking forums.

Tim

You said "blow jobs" and "sexual acts" in your post about all this BS. What do you want to bet that no one will report your post...
Why don't you just close the Bar and Grill and make this a weather-only forum then? It makes no sense to have an area for general discussion where general discussion is hardly possible. I'm not saying we can't have general discussion without talking about sex, religion & politics but no matter what the subject, people will complain. Hell, I'll bet there are 5 or more reports about the "ban game" just because it was a popular thread and annoyed some.
At what point do you stop regulating and start accommodating?

Do you guys plan to address any of the other topics discussed in this thread or just users making reference to blow jobs?

 

[Steve Miller]

We can argue and deplore and make our points till the cows come home, or at least find cheap lodging, and in the process miss a very important point, namely, Stormtrack is Tim's house, and he sets the rules. Someone has to, and it's always a hell of a lot easier to whine about them than it is to maintain them.

I disagree. Without the masses, this site is nothing. It's a forum. It is wholly made up of us users as contributors. We create the content and we keep it running. Therefore, a dictation is hardly welcomed by all.
The whole issue, affecting 1,851 active members of this forum is due to a handful of people who can't muster up the resistance to look in threads that are clearly not for them.
I will make my example again that I did in a now "missing" thread.
If I am flipping through my guide on the TV and see a program I think I would absolutely hate, I don't immediately start watching said program and then call the cable company to complain that I was subjected to it.

For a forum that restricts politics and religion, it sure is influenced by a lot of politics and religion...

 

[Dan Robinson]

Are you all kidding me? We're talking about two threads here that were farther over the top than anything that's been posted here for years! I can't believe how much drama that complaining about two of the more 'out there' threads in the history of this forum caused.

Everyone acts like all posts in the B&G section are threatened. Take a quick read of all the topics in there. Is this really a huge problem to have one or two threads a year get called out and deleted?

 

[Steve Miller]

Are you all kidding me? We're talking about two threads here that were farther over the top than anything that's been posted here for years! I can't believe how much drama that complaining about two of the more 'out there' threads in the history of this forum caused.

Everyone acts like all posts in the B&G section are threatened. Take a quick read of all the topics in there. Is this really a huge problem to have one or two threads a year get called out and deleted?

That's not the big deal, at least to me. the big deal to me is new rules and regs for the entire membership based on the complaints of a fraction of this group.
Dan, I agree with the vulgar threads being removed. The Boobies thread is funny. Once James K got PO'd, that's when the other threads started and that was his personal vendetta in order to mess with the mods. Those were removed and the world should have once again been right. But no, the "fraction" pushed for more rules, more regulations.
I guess I'm just sick of every aspect of everything we do being monitored to appease those who can't resist clicking on a link.
Time to be strong and resist the temptation...

 

[cdcollura]

Good day all,

I have taken a back-seat from storm track and will just watch.

Duke it out, figure it out, agree / dis-agree ... I'll wait until 2010 and when the smoke clears and we all will be chasing again.

 

[James Langford]

That's not the big deal, at least to me. the big deal to me is new rules and regs for the entire membership based on the complaints of a fraction of this group.
Dan, I agree with the vulgar threads being removed. The Boobies thread is funny. Once James K got PO'd, that's when the other threads started and that was his personal vendetta in order to mess with the mods. Those were removed and the world should have once again been right. But no, the "fraction" pushed for more rules, more regulations.
I guess I'm just sick of every aspect of everything we do being monitored to appease those who can't resist clicking on a link.
Time to be strong and resist the temptation...

My comments here were also related specifically to the 2 threads that were far over the top of anything else I've seen here in the last few years. Any of the pushing that I think Dan and I did were directly in response to those 2 threads, which were still here when this thread started.

 

[Robert Dewey]

I'm not offended either way... if the thread remained, good, people were enjoying it. If that type of discussion is banned, oh well, that's what I have facebook for

 

[Robert Dewey]

I guess I'm just sick of every aspect of everything we do being monitored to appease those who can't resist clicking on a link. Time to be strong and resist the temptation...

I agree, how hard is it to resist the temptation to click through? My feeling is that there is a very, very small minority of people who can't do that (and thus get offended because they don't have the personal power to look away). My guess? Probably 4-5 people, some / most of which you can probably guess.

 

[Chris Allington]

Do you guys plan to address any of the other topics discussed in this thread or just users making reference to blow jobs?

So much other stuff has been mentioned here... I also find it kinda of sad that it boils down to one thread were talking about now.

 

[Chad Berryhill]

My comments here were also related specifically to the 2 threads that were far over the top of anything else I've seen here in the last few years. Any of the pushing that I think Dan and I did were directly in response to those 2 threads, which were still here when this thread started.

If you referring to my post, why didn't you contact me in a pm ? I would of been more than happy to discuss my post and probably removed them, since you all took that much offense to them.

You know, I go into B & G to laugh and cut up with everyone else. A quick pm probably would have taken care of the problem; instead we have a huge drawn out drama thread, and new rules being posted.

Let's try communicating a little, before anybody runs straight to a mod.

 

[Bob Hartig]

Good day all,

I have taken a back-seat from storm track and will just watch.

Duke it out, figure it out, agree / dis-agree ... I'll wait until 2010 and when the smoke clears and we all will be chasing again.

I'm with you on that. I realize that at this point, I'm just feeding into a mess in which everyone is out to win and everyone in some way loses. To continue doing so just makes me part of the problem. See y'all elsewhere in a more positive context.

 

[Jason Bolt]

Are you all kidding me? We're talking about two threads here that were farther over the top than anything that's been posted here for years! I can't believe how much drama that complaining about two of the more 'out there' threads in the history of this forum caused.

Everyone acts like all posts in the B&G section are threatened. Take a quick read of all the topics in there. Is this really a huge problem to have one or two threads a year get called out and deleted?

IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING DON'T READ IT!!!

WHAT A HARD CONCEPT!!!

 

[David Wolfson]

There's a level of innuendo that spices up "polite conversation" all the time. That's not discussing sex, IMO, and it's pretty common even on the public airwaves. Examples are the original "Boobies" post and various posts portraying this or that meteorological chart resembling some body part or other.

Similarly, statements of personal political or religious beliefs providing some context for what someone says are common and quite useful in "polite conversation." Now, admittedly, I'm on the liberal side and consider myself pretty strongly pro-civil liberties. ...............................

There are posts where someone says they're a christian, or jew, or wiccan or whatever; and, therefore .... Statements like those also provide context in "polite conversation".

What I think we are being asked to avoid are discussions centered around the innuendo or debating statements of personal belief and ethic. This is a fact- and evidence-based forum.

 

[James Langford]

If you referring to my post, why didn't you contact me in a pm ? I would of been more than happy to discuss my post and probably removed them, since you all took that much offense to them.

You know, I go into B & G to laugh and cut up with everyone else. A quick pm probably would have taken care of the problem; instead we have a huge drawn out drama thread, and new rules being posted.

Let's try communicating a little, before anybody runs straight to a mod.

Hi Chad,

No, it wasn't directed at you or really any person it all. Just the overall impression of those 2 threads being out of control and over the top.

Anyway, like Bob said, it's time to bow out of this discussion. Maybe back to weather? Some good chances of storms headed to North Texas today, so I need to get ready.

 

[Dan Robinson]

The whole 'don't read it if you don't like it' mantra is flawed. That's like opening a strip club in a residential neighborhood and barking at the residents who complain to 'not look at it if you don't like it'. I use the 'view new posts' feature exclusively on every forum I read, as I'm sure most do. It gets old seeing that topic keep popping up at the top, and no one has an option to eliminate it from the list. It has nothing to do with 'temptation' to open the thread. I know what's in the thread, I just don't want the thing popping up on the new threads list. That's not what I come here to see.

And am I really that much of a minority? The mods said they recieved many complaints. I even PMed the mods and told them I didn't want them to impose policy changes just because a couple of us complained. The 'silent majority' always depends on someone else to take the heat and speak up for them, I guess that's us 4 or 5 this time.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Storm Track, serving all thread reporters. Hope all the happy go lucky reporters are happy. Just fun hated on a rather large number of people for your "moral" sake. After a while you will run yourselves out of things to get all morally wound up over and things to report. You'll have a forum of just like minded folks never posting out of their morally acceptable bubble.

But of course we are the ones overreacting now! How ironic.

You couldn't just ignore the ONE rare thread and move along...that was just so hard. And crazy how the thread was ok with ST mods/Tim until reports kicked in. Then it was unacceptable. THIS long now st has been around and only now is there a new rule for "sex". Huh, then this humor thread comes along and it's such a horrible issue. Bam report the thread, the anti-christ is probably in there laughing. Shows just how not frequent a thread like that is or how much it has never been an issue for YEARS.

Definitely needs to be a better alternative to ST at this rate. Of course any such site will wind up catering to any and all that can't tolerate whatever, rather than reporting it in hopes of a "better" world.

 

[Dan Robinson]

What's worse, some of us not ignoring the rare thread, or everyone else not ignoring that we didn't ignore the rare thread? Seems like we're at least even on any supposed intolerance/thin-skinnedness.

 

[Josh Morgerman]

I'm still surprised that that thread got anyone's panties in such a bunch. Man. It must be hard living on earth in 2009 if a silly joke thread on an already-strictly moderated weather forum is going to get you that upset.

One last thing: why does a forum for adult storm chasers need to be "family friendly"? Storm chasing is not a family activity. Children aren't invited here, so I don't understand why the content here would need to be "friendly" to them.

I'm not commenting on the moderation here or the new rules-- it doesn't matter to me because I never planned to discuss sex here. I'm more commenting on these extreme sensitivities. This situation sets an interesting precedent. If guns and hunting offend me and someone starts a thread about that, should I lobby to have that topic forbidden as well-- and threaten that my friends and I might leave this forum for a less violent discussion forum-- since such discussions offend my personal sensibilities? Or do I just simply ignore it, since I understand that we're all different and all have different sensibilities and need to coexist?

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

What's worse, some of us not ignoring the rare thread, or everyone else not ignoring that we didn't ignore the rare thread? Seems like we're at least even on any supposed intolerance/thin-skinnedness.

Since you are all about comparisons, that's like poking a dog with a stick and wondering why he bit you back. Dog didn't initiate it. Sure he may have been pissing in your yard....deal with it...just piss....sorry urine.

 

[Paul Hadfield]

Let's try communicating a little, before anybody runs straight to a mod.

EXACTLY... my brand of writing can at times be over the top so if I upset someone, pm me and i'll take the stupid post down. Are we that afraid of talking to one another that we have to tar and feather everyone just to get a point across? The only person I regret possibly offending is you Dan. Everyone else that went running to a mod like a little tattle tail, whatever. People having to fear that being themselves and just having some fun is going to bear consequence, ridiculous. I've seen many an objectionable post since coming aboard, so much so that recent events are no different or worse and to the contrary, I thought it was just part of the cornucopia (love that word) that is StormTrack.

 

[Robert Dewey]

What's worse, some of us not ignoring the rare thread, or everyone else not ignoring that we didn't ignore the rare thread? Seems like we're at least even on any supposed intolerance/thin-skinnedness.

We're not reporting your posts and asking mods to alter the rules. That's the difference.

 

[Dan Robinson]

LOL nice try buddy. Since you are all about comparisons, that's like poking a dog with a stick and wondering why he bit you back. Dog didn't initiate it. Sure he may have been pissing in your yard....deal with it...just piss....sorry urine.

I just don't get what big impact or travesty the new rule is going to have. It means the future twice-per-year 'over the top' threads will probably be shut down. Two threads a year. Getting upset over that doesn't seem any different than some like me getting upset at the fact that the two threads existed in the first place.

Since we're even in that respect, I'll just agree to disagree on it. That's all for me about it.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I just don't get what big impact or travesty the new rule is going to have. It means the future twice-per-year 'over the top' threads will probably be shut down. Two threads a year. Getting upset over that doesn't seem any different than some like me getting upset at the fact that the two threads existed in the first place.

Since we're even in that respect, I'll just agree to disagree on it. That's all for me about it.

See Rob's post above.

It's hardly even, I'd get that out of your head no matter how nice it sounds for your argument. I mean really, you report a thread you can move on from and then think those in it getting upset a new rule is now created over it, is the same as your actions? No.

 

[Brandon Goforth]

See Rob's post above.

It's hardly even, I'd get that out of your head no matter how nice it sounds for your argument. I mean really, you report a thread you can move on from and then think those in it getting upset a new rule is now created over it, is the same as your actions? No.

I'm very offended by those who reported that thread.