Quote:
|
Originally Posted by J Flex 188
Ultimately its up to whoever pays the bills, although it may not seem fair, it is their own right to dictate their policies.
|
I don't think that's completely correct; let's say that Lockheed-Martin was the prime sponsor of the United Way. In the absence of an agreement detailling the specific rights of each organization, if Lockheed didn't like some United Way policy, they could withdraw funding, but they wouldn't be in a position to change that policy themselves. Similarly, depending on the nature of the sponsorship agreement between Delphi and team 47, I surmise that funding and other support, but not editorial control could be in jeopardy if objectionable material were to present itself on the forums. (Of course, the easiest way to prolong support is to avoid offending the benefactor...which may have the same effect as granting them the right to make editorial decisions.)
Now, as for political advertisments, I can't say that I like them--the Bush/Kerry/etc. graphics here and in other forums were just as tasteless as election signs littering the cityscape. On the other hand, a thread devoted to the discussion of politics is perfectly acceptable; I'd say that by posting the thread with a link to the ACLU, Leon invited comment on the ACLU itself, even though his intention seemed to be the promotion of a particular petition. That's fair game in the Chit-Chat forum (and
nowhere else, I might add).
I don't think that closing the thread in question was necessary, largely because I feel that the pressure to avoid the
potential for offence is too strong on this forum. Far too often, we, as a community are ignorant of the (not-quite-clear-cut) distinction between a personal attack and a disputation of fact. A vigourous rebuttal of unsubstantiated, inconsistent contentions might seem harsh, but (at least in my case), I endeavour to argue the merits of the issue, rather than attack the person. For example, while I often insist that someone is grossly wrong, I rarely accuse them of being an imbecile.
Also, as it relates to that particular case, it might have been preferable for David to refer the thread to another moderator for closure, as it does create the unfortunate question of whether he was using moderator functions for personal advantage (namely to avoid the argument). I'll admit that this was my first thought when I saw that the thread had been locked (as I was making an edit to clarify my post there) "
because nothing good is going to come out from either side". Since he offers a reasonable explanation of his actions above, I disclaim any accusation and merely leave this as a point for moderators to consider in the future.
Vista is like Dave's game hints. They may look good but you really want nothing to do with them... - vivek16 [more] 
leadership it would likely invite a heightened (though not necessairly more civilized) level of discussion leading to more conflict. Thats one thing I acutally liked about chiefdelph in particular. Well I may feel stymied 5 minutes after an engaging thread is closed, I often come back a day or two later glad to see that it was nipped in the bud while it was in its relative infancy, but only when it was beginning to degenerate into something unrelated to the original topic or obviously below any sort of civilized discussion. 
Hybrid Mode
