Stormtrack Censorship

[Ben Holcomb]

I am actually quite against censorship and really don't think words hurt people if they don't let them. Anyone who knows me knows I'm quite outspoken and will say vile stuff quite a bit.

With that said, I ran across that thread which had been open a few days and in my opinion featured a few people making pot shots at someone. The thread title specifically was going after someone, which I am not really opposed to, but to me would have still been funny perhaps if it was just 'Tornado identification chart'. I even made a similar post such as this on my Facebook page a couple years ago. (Post here)

I think where it crossed the line was using Reed's name specifically, and then things not going in a positive or constructive direction. I can't help but think if the post had Warren Faidley's name on it instead that he wouldn't have been yelling at us to remove it. If there was constructive conversation in the thread, I would have let it go. Unfortunately it didn't seem quite constructive to me, and the best option was to leave the thread intact but go ahead and close it out/lock it to further replies.

I definitely welcome the satire, and really think in the future that these types of things will be allowed but they need to be constructive in nature and not just taking quick pot shots at someone.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

I saw the original post as more of a parody of a public figure than anything personal, found it a little humorous

 

[Ben Holcomb]

And in retrospect, I agree with Joey that it might have been easier just to lock and keep quiet or just let it fade away. This is the first time I've ever moderated a large discussion such as this, so I hope you guys cut me a little slack on this whole moderation thing. I've tried to be quite fair, and have not handed out any infractions thus far.

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

Smells like political correctness in here. Phew!

 

[rdale]

Smells like political correctness in here. Phew!

Because nothing screams "Ben Holcomb" to me more than the phrase "Political correctness"

 

[Steve Miller]

Because nothing screams "Ben Holcomb" to me more than the phrase "Political correctness"

rdale, the exact same thing crossed my mind when reading through this! If Ben thinks it might not be PC, that's saying something!
Sorry Benji, w love ya.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Smells like political correctness in here. Phew!

Not so much political correctness, but "protectionism."

Again, a slippery slope.

More so, the chasers who are poked always have the option to join and chime in, but they are of course, better than us and have no desire to confront a few burning questions.

And yes, I would not ask to have a funny cartoon removed about me..... I already went through that years ago when I was the poster boy. (lol). Fortunately, I have a wicked sense of humor and I don't give a #$#& anymore! -- Especially since I have not granted a major interview in over 7 years. However, I do ask that any cartoons or comments about my life saving research be banned / removed since my entire chase image depends on it.

Oh, and no more comments about farting, light bars, roadside parking and toy rockets.

W.

 

[Steve Miller]

Okay, this thread has come full circle now and everyone's input is appreciated. I will remind once again that myself or any staff member is highly accessible these days and I encourage everyone to use the fabulous PM features here on the board. Furthermore, you may always use the "Report" feature on threads you have concerns about.

Finally, here is #15 on the Stormtrack rules page located at https://stormtrack.org/help/rules - This rule has not changed in over 10 years:

15.) Stormtrack is a privately owned forum. Staff members have final say over what is and isn’t allowed. You must respect forum administrators and are bound to follow their direction. Failure to comply may result in disciplinary action. Publicly complaining about a specific administrative action is not allowed.

 

[Stan Rose]

I actually didn't know the last part of that rule--i think an open dialogue on how the forum is run is healthy.
At any rate, I was thinking of another thread that apparently vanished into oblivion, not this particular thread. Looking at it now for the first time, i think the chart was pretty funny, but Ben made the right call
closing it, cause any commentary was not going to be useful one way or the other.

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

Maybe political correctness was the wrong phrase...perhaps I should have gone with something like " internet - serious business"...in any case, this is all silly. Words like attack and censorship are so far over the top in this particular application it passed funny and went straight to absurd.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Steve is 100 percent right in noting this is a private forum and the moderators have complete control over the content.

We must respect this in order to maintain control and respect the rights of all individuals, good or bad, honest or false.

There are alternative forums that allow complete Freedom of Speech in regards to Storm Chasing Ethics, e.g., the Chasing Ethics page on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/chasingethics

Anything goes there as long as the comments are not libelous, which is a very high bar for public figures.

W.

 

[Greg Campbell]

I'm unsure of why anyone feels their freedom is in jeopardy. Don't post ignorant things on this board and there will not be an issue with your freedoms.

Urm....
Perhaps you'd care to offer a practical definition of 'ignorant things?'
As always, the problem with such sweeping generalizations is that those potentially being censored (in the real world, it can be something far worse) are NOT the ones who get to decide where that particular threshold lies.

Personally, I didn't see the 'Timmer Bashing' thread as being particularly 'ignorant.' Rather than nuking it, why not simply post a gentle reminder to 'play nice?'

 

[Steve Miller]

I will not be commenting further on this thread.

 

[Paul Hadfield]

 

[Shawn Gossman]

As a long time forum owner, over 15 years now, I figured I'd give my 2 cents about this.

I run forums. I paid for the domain costs and the big monthly bill for the dedicated server. I paid for the forum software. I paid for the advertising and SEO services. I paid for addons, theme design and extra custom coded features to ensure that you can enjoy the forum even more.

I didn't pay all this so the forum can become toxic with gossip, flame wars and debates going way out of hand. I spent all the money I have spent because I wanted to make a community where people can socially interact and connect with one and other, make new friends and enjoy the niche (or the topic) of the forum. So in order to do that, I made the forum rules. I didn't make them in alignment with the Constitution because my forum isn't a US state, it is more like a privately owned business and since I am covering the bills, I get to make those decisions on what the rules will be. My rules are much like Steve's and his rules are much like almost all the message forums online, at least the ones that continue to be stable enough to keep active.

I know Steve pays a lot for this forum. I know because I know I pay a lot for mine and they are not this active, so he probably pays a lot more than me for sure. With that, I completely respect his rules. I think everyone else should do the same or go out and spend the money and try to run a forum yourself on the "freedom of speech" tactic, I've done it folks, it never ends well.