Banned Topics

[Admin]

Effective immediately, certain topics are no longer permitted anywhere at Car-Seat.Org. Topics on abortion and circumcision are specifically banned. Most topics that come under the broad description of religion and politics will also no longer be permitted. Over the past year, threads on these topics have sparked numerous heated debates where various members were unable to avoid personal attacks or other mean/abusive behavior toward other members.

Any threads or hijacks involving these topics will generally be removed without notice. Infractions and [ultimately] bans will be given to anyone repeatedly posting on these topics and to anyone making hateful, mean or abusive posts or private messages directed at another member.

We do understand that in some cases these topics may legitimately crossover to other parenting questions, especially in the case of politics. At moderator discretion, such threads in the community member forums may be allowed as long as they remain completely peaceful. Others may be quickly locked/moved, but may not be removed so that others may contact the original poster by private message (if information was requested). Information on these topics that relate to parenting may be also found through the search options at Car-Seat.Org, through an internet search engine or at other forums that specifically encourage debate on these issues.

The user guidelines ( http://www.car-seat.org/announcement.php?f=6 ) have been updated to reflect this change. It is sad that these topics now have to be censored after years of allowing such discussions, but the staff felt that this was a better option than closing the SCM forum altogether or allowing the increasingly hateful comments to continue. If you have a need to stir the pot and upset members by posting other controversial topics, please keep your comments peaceful. It would be nice to allow discussions on other topics to continue without having to censor additional topics or issue any member bans. I know it was also becoming a time consuming and stressful drain on many of those responsible for moderating the Community Member forums.

I take most of the blame for letting the situation get out of control as election time approached. I hadn't given the staff adequate direction on when to issue infractions and negative feedback or on when to lock threads before they turned into personal attacks and outright hatred. In many cases, it would be arbitrary give one person a warning, rather than send them to all of the people who were involved in a heated exchange. It's not unlike having to send both my children to their rooms for a time-out. In my mind, both clearly deserve it, though in their minds it was obviously the other one who was completely at fault. Going forward, I intend to be a little quicker in issuing warnings to let members know when they cross the line and expect the usergroup leaders, moderators and other admins will also.

[stayinhomewithmy4]

I have a question directly related to posting about circumcision. I was just going to post it and happened to read this post first and now I don't know if I can post it. So, this is what it is about: < Personal Information Removed by Admin > Is that okay to ask in the SCM forum? I'm not looking for a debate, but was just needing some advice.

[CPSDarren]

If it's a purely medical question, you may ask for appropriate suggestions in the SCM forum. If it is hijacked, it will be removed. Offhand, it sounds fine, but one could easily see it spawning statements for or against the circumcision procedure itself. That is what will be removed without notice. Sadly, many threads not looking for a debate got one. It's not fair to the original poster looking for specific advice and that is very sad.

[stayinhomewithmy4]

If it's a purely medical question, you may ask for appropriate suggestions in the SCM forum. If it is hijacked, it will be removed. Offhand, it sounds fine, but one could easily see it spawning statements for or against the circumcision procedure itself. That is what will be removed without notice. Sadly, many threads not looking for a debate got one. It's not fair to the original poster looking for specific advice and that is very sad.

Thanks. I thought the same thing about the debate issue. It *shouldn't* become a debate, but you never know with the topic at hand if it will become one. It's so sad that it comes to that so often.

[Kat_Momof3]

most of us by now know who is pro-circ and anti-circ, so if you are looking for info alone, I'd pm them.

I think banning these topics (even though I really enjoyed Splash's recent thread, as it was a thought that hadn't been brought up before and really made a lot of us think) is a good idea simply because no matter how much the OP and posters intend to keep it civil, it really is difficult.

I also got tired very quickly of political threads and avoided them.

I think that a simple poll with no posting allowed is fine (there was one of those and I participated), but this is just not a debate site and it should be kept that way, so THANK YOU.

[scatterbunny]

Bump

ETA: Oops, when I opened my reply window to bump this thread, it was on the second page...but I got distracted, and by the time I submitted my bump, Kat had posted. :o

[LISmama810]

I'll admit that I'm disappointed to hear about this.

I understand that religious/political/etc. threads can get heated, people can get their feelings hurt, and they're a headache for the mods, but for the most part, I find them quite civil and interesting. This is an intelligent group of people, and I have enjoyed debates with them, just because most people I encounter IRL aren't worth debating with. :D

I'll abide by the decision, obviously, but I do wish it weren't the case. :twocents:

[Wineaux]

I have to agree with LISmama. I really didn't see a whole lot of personal attacking go on. The debate, while heated, was still civil, as well as inciteful and informative. I really enjoyed it. I've been very active on boards where the political forums were actually classified as flame forums and abided by those rules. Our debates were TAME. Let me assure you.

On the subject of personal attacks, and this holds true to any discussion and any topic, if you post something that is quoted by another poster who doesn't agree with you, it's not a personal attack. Really. It's not. If someone dissects your post in a rebuttal, that's also not a personal attack. They may be refuting your argument, but they are not attacking you personally. Now if I were to dissect your post AND say that anyone who believes what you do is a so-and-so, then THAT would be a personal attack. If I were to post something later that subject XYZ reminds me of Poster A because only dirt bags like XYZ, then THAT would be a personal attack.

If you are one of the only people responding as the opposition to a given topic, and then people reply to, and quote your post, it isn't a personal attack. You've just designated yourself as the opposition spokesperson until someone else comes along. Now if you post and walk away, you won't become the poster child for cause ABC, but it you keep coming back and replying, expect people to reply to and disagree with your posts. That's not a personal attack! If they start attacking you as a person, then it is, but if they're just disagreeing with your viewpoint, it's NOT a personal attack!

For example... If someone posted that the sky was mauve, and another poster replied that of course it wasn't. The sky is blue because of the 123 Scientific Principle, refraction, and other cool scientific stuff. Said post was just rebutted, but the OP was not personally attacked. Now if the reply also said that only an abject moron whose mother had dropped them on their head one too many times as a child would believe that the sky was mauve, then THAT would have been a personal attack.

Personal attacks? Really... I must have missed them. I just wasn't seeing any. Folks just need to work harder at not having such a thin skin when it comes to discussions, because trust me, someone on this board is going to disagree with something you say, and they're going to say so.
:twocents:

All that said, I am more than happy to abide by the new rules as I have no desire to miss out on all the fun and informative discussions on this board. I will however be a little sad that we won't be able to have spirited discussions about a wide range of topics any longer. And that makes me a sad panda... :(

[LuvBug03]

Personal attacks? Really... I must have missed them. I just wasn't seeing any. Folks just need to work harder at not having such a thin skin when it comes to discussions, because trust me, someone on this board is going to disagree with something you say, and they're going to say so.
:twocents:


just because you didn't see them, doesn't mean they weren't there. We mods have quick fingers sometimes ;)

BTW I do agree with your explanation of the difference in a personal attack and a rebuttal. Most posts that I can remember that have been reported as personal attacks truly have been PERSONAL attacks. Going beyond the issue and stating something negative about the person.

This ban has not been fueled by a handful of hurt feelings. This is something that has become an obvious issue. There are a lot of things you as regular posters do not see. It is well warranted if I may say so myself.

[BookMama]

I don't think I posted on any of the recent threads on these topics, but I did read most of the posts. I enjoyed the debate for the most part, but I wholeheartedly support the banning of these topics if for no other reason than the workload they must create for the all-volunteer usergroup leaders, moderators and admins. :twocents:

[skiersnowboarder3]

I'll admit that I'm disappointed to hear about this.

I understand that religious/political/etc. threads can get heated, people can get their feelings hurt, and they're a headache for the mods, but for the most part, I find them quite civil and interesting. This is an intelligent group of people, and I have enjoyed debates with them, just because most people I encounter IRL aren't worth debating with. :D

I'll abide by the decision, obviously, but I do wish it weren't the case. :twocents:

:yeahthat:

[murphydog77]

I have to agree with LISmama. I really didn't see a whole lot of personal attacking go on. The debate, while heated, was still civil, as well as inciteful and informative. I really enjoyed it. I've been very active on boards where the political forums were actually classified as flame forums and abided by those rules. Our debates were TAME. Let me assure you.


Inciteful (emphasis in your quote mine), yes, some posts were. I agree with Luv that you may not have seen some of the attacking because we were pretty quick with the deletions; others we were not unfortunately.

I do believe that the majority of users here know the difference between discussion and debate. That's not the issue, nor is the last "debate" thread. This topic ban is not a reaction to that thread, though the timing may make it seem like it is. We don't sit around behind closed doors watching hot topics then banning those topics. It's always after careful discussion amongst all admin and mods about what's best for our community--how to protect *every* member of the community to the best of our abilities, knowing that someone isn't going to like our decisions.

We've gotten many comments lately that the SCM isn't an enjoyable place any more because of the aggressive posts (debates or otherwise) and it's our intention to make it a more comfortable place. The original goal for SCM was to be a place where we could share more private things about our families and lives and we seem to have gotten away from that goal. Members don't feel comfortable there any more and it's our job to make it better.

[papooses]

I don't think I posted on any of the recent threads on these topics, but I did read most of the posts. I enjoyed the debate for the most part, but I wholeheartedly support the banning of these topics if for no other reason than the workload they must create for the all-volunteer usergroup leaders, moderators and admins. :twocents:

:thanx!: Yes, from my POV this is my most important reason for supporting the decision . . . because I did manage to disappear a few items by more than just a couple individuals during the last few weeks in the wee hours of the morning before anyone else noticed (whew) -- either sending a kind PM stating the reason or filling out the viewable explanation box -- but all at somewhat of an expense/distraction from my studies....

My suggestion for maintaining the ability to share important ideas/beliefs in such a way that does not foster a divisive community atomosphere is to create a free blog somewhere else (perhaps within your profile right here?) as well as a "[NAME]s THREAD" used merely to bump up a current topic via said link :thumbsup: The issues can be discussed quite freely at an accessable location beyond the immediate forum while Darren's territory is clean, healthy, happy & fun :D

[CPSDarren]

The issues can be discussed quite freely at an accessable location beyond the immediate forum while Darren's territory is clean, healthy, happy & fun :D

That's a bit too sterile for me. It's the hatred that was getting out of control. No call for it at all, and it always starts with reasonable discussions on legitimate topics.

There's always the chat room for such discussions, too. ( Chat Room discussion split off to new thread in SCM forum)

[CPSDarren]

but I wholeheartedly support the banning of these topics if for no other reason than the workload they must create for the all-volunteer usergroup leaders, moderators and admins. :twocents:

:thumbsup:

And now the workload will shift to reports about all the threads that will appear and stir the pot by pushing the limits lol.

[Wineaux]

/runs off to find his pot stirrin' spoon...










JK ;)

[papooses]

There's always the chat room for such discussions, too. (Chat Room discussion split off to new thread in SCM forum)

I mean in addition to chat :)

[Jeanum]

bumping back up to the first page :)

[Jeanum]

Bumpity bump. :)