Republican Gerrymandering in a Couple Graphics

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

If we were to crack down on folks who post for the purpose of provocation - even if it were limited to those who admit to such a practice - we would be several members short. If we were to police a political site by the same standards as AK is policed, we would again be several members short. If we were to abide by the AK standard that public commentary on moderation is not allowed, we would again be several members short. Simply put, 427 is not the only one who posts comments for a purpose other than political debate/discussion or other worthwhile social conversation. While the frequency of "attack posts" by 427 stands out, the nature of such posts is not unique. Consider the possibility that once we pop the censorship cherry, censorship would damage the forum greater than the annoyance of one with no sense of forum etiquette.

Regards,

D-Ray

He's not posting for the purpose of provocation. He's posting for the purpose of destruction. He will keep doing it every time his shredded ego starts to react to not receiving exactly the sort of feedback he wants. He's the only one doing it. He's the only one that would be lost.

It's one thing to be a provocateur...it's not like I'm not guilty of it on a fairly regular basis. It's utterly another thing to be a malignancy.

[piece-itpete]

Well said as usual D.

"Pop the censorship cherry"?

Pete

[donquixote99]

I will dissent.

I think that invoking a free speech defence for sabotage pictures is ridiculous. The 'speech' content of the pictures was zero.

You might as well say that if a guy went down the street shouting words into a super PA, physically harming people with 180 decibels at short range, he can't be arrested because that would violate his right of free speech.

You are harming a valuable principle by claiming there are no limits to it. There are limits to everything.

Are you sure you can't conceive of a rule against this that doesn't 'obligate' you to ban lots of other people? If not, 'rule of law' would seem to have severe drawbacks. Maybe it's not the great recipe for justice folks say it is.

Because I am asking for nothing less than justice. I think I am harmed by the conduct I have been objecting to, and I think it unfair, unjust, that I be required to put up with it.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I will dissent.

I think that invoking a free speech defence for sabotage pictures is ridiculous. The 'speech' content of the pictures was zero.

You might as well say that if a guy went down the street shouting words into a super PA, physically harming people with 180 decibels at short range, he can't be arrested because that would violate his right of free speech.

You are harming a valuable principle by claiming there are no limits to it. There are limits to everything.

Are you sure you can't conceive of a rule against this that doesn't 'obligate' you to ban lots of other people? If not, 'rule of law' would seem to have severe drawbacks. Maybe it's not the great recipe for justice folks say it is.

Because I am asking for nothing less than justice. I think I am harmed by the conduct I have been objecting to, and I think it unfair, unjust, that I be required to put up with it.

You don't "have to put up with it. You can sign out. I don't want you to leave, I think the site would be less if you did leave, but Don made a good case for things to remain as they are.

As far as I know 427's posts have not physically harmed anyone.

Skip over his posts if they bother you that much! How hard is that?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Let's not snipe at our volunteer admins who keep this site running for our benefit. These guys keep all the penis starch spammers and worse at bay behind the scenes and get little credit. First and foremost they are longtime members here who deserve our thanks.

Got a problem with moderation? Send a PM to D-Ray or Piece it Pete.

Things could be worse. You could have Tentoze or me as a mod...

Originally Posted by JJIII

You don't "have to put up with it. You can sign out. I don't want you to leave, I think the site would be less if you did leave, but Don made a good case for things to remain as they are.

As far as I know 427's posts have not physically harmed anyone.

Skip over his posts if they bother you that much! How hard is that?

[Previous version was one of those letters you shouldn't send. My back was up a bit much. Deleted by author.]

Suffice to say I certainly didn't intend (and don't think I expressed) any disrespect to our wise, good, and in every way admirable forum administrator.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I will dissent.

I think that invoking a free speech defence for sabotage pictures is ridiculous. The 'speech' content of the pictures was zero.

You might as well say that if a guy went down the street shouting words into a super PA, physically harming people with 180 decibels at short range, he can't be arrested because that would violate his right of free speech.

You are harming a valuable principle by claiming there are no limits to it. There are limits to everything.

Are you sure you can't conceive of a rule against this that doesn't 'obligate' you to ban lots of other people? If not, 'rule of law' would seem to have severe drawbacks. Maybe it's not the great recipe for justice folks say it is.

Because I am asking for nothing less than justice. I think I am harmed by the conduct I have been objecting to, and I think it unfair, unjust, that I be required to put up with it.

I just have to say you had me LMAO.

But truthfully sometimes a picture speaks a thousand words, take the jackass photo for instance. Did you not understand what I was saying in my way?

"There are limits to everything." Even Complaining?

[d-ray657]

I will agree that restrictions on oversize photos are content neutral, and will take action to address that issue. Generally, it will be the responsibility of the poster to make the photos fits and those that don't will be removed.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I will agree that restrictions on oversize photos are content neutral, and will take action to address that issue. Generally, it will be the responsibility of the poster to make the photos fits and those that don't will be removed.

Good.

[bobabode]

Let's not snipe at our volunteer admins who keep this site running for our benefit. These guys keep all the penis starch spammers and worse at bay behind the scenes and get little credit. First and foremost they are longtime members here who deserve our thanks.

Got a problem with moderation? Send a PM to D-Ray or Piece it Pete.

Things could be worse. You could have Tentoze or me as a mod...

[Pio1980]

Thot Tentoze retired from AK?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk